Donald Trump was acquitted of "Incitement of Insurrection" at the end of his second impeachment trial. Many seem to think this result was inevitable, but that wasn't the case. In this episode, by examining the evidence and how it was presented by the House Impeachment Managers, learn how the trial could have been structured to provide the possibility of a different outcome. Executive Producer: Scott Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes The 116th Lame Duck Impeachment: The Evidence Articles/Documents Article: , By Associated Press, US News, February 26, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, February 22, 2021 Article: , By Glenn Greenwald, February 16, 2021 Article: , By Weiyi Cai, The New York Times, February 13, 2021 Article: , By Katrina Neeper, WUSA, February 12, 2021 Article: , By Linda Qiu, The New York Times, February 12, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, February 11, 2021 Article: , By Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim, The New York Times, February 10, 2021 Article: , By Marisa Schultz, Fox News, February 9, 2021 Article: , By Adam Ciralsky, Vanity Fair, January 22, 2021 Article: , By Fiona Hill, Politico, January 11, 2021 Document: , U.S. House of Representatives 2021 Article: , By Reuters Staff, Reuters, November 23, 2020 Article: , By Robert Farley, FactCheck.org, November 20, 2020 , USLegal Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 9, 2021 Transcript: David Shoen: A review of the house record reveals that the speaker streamlined the impeachment process. House Resolution 24 to go straight to the floor for two hour debate and a vote without the ability for amendments. The house record reflects no committee hearing no witnesses, no presentation or cross examination of evidence, and no opportunity for the accused to respond or even have counsel present to object. House managers claim the need for impeachment was so urgent that they had to rush the proceedings, with no time to spare for a more thorough investigation, or really any investigation at all. But that claim is belied by what happened or didn't happen next. The House leadership unilaterally and by choice waited another 12 days to deliver the article to this Senate to begin the trial process. In other words, the House leadership spent more time holding the adopted article than it did on the whole process leading up to the adoption of the article. We say respectfully, that this intentional delay by Speaker Pelosi such that in the intervening period, President Trump became private citizen Mr. Trump constitutes a lapse or waiver of jurisdiction here for Mr. Trump no longer is the president described as subject to impeachment in Article One, Section three, clause six, and in Article two, Section four, and this body therefore has no jurisdiction as a function of that additional due process violation by Speaker Pelosi. Moreover, with all due respect, then President Trump suffered a tangible detriment from Speaker Pelosi has actions which violates not only his rights to due process of law, but also his expressed constitutional right to have the Chief Justice preside. The impeachment articles should be treated as a nullity and dismissed based on the total lack of due process in the house. David Shoen: For example, they contend, citing various law professors that quote any official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate's final conviction vote. This argument is a complete canard. The Constitution expressly provides in Article One, section three clause seven, that a convicted party following impeachment shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law after removal. Clearly, a former civil officer who's not impeached is subject to the same. We have a judicial process in this country we have exactly an investigative process in this country, to which no former office holder is immune. That's the process that should be running its course. Bruce Castor: I mean, let's let's understand why we are really here. We are really here, because the majority in the House of Representatives does not want to face Donald Trump as a political rival in the future. That's the real reason we're here. David Shoen: Presidents are impeachable because presidents are removable. Former presidents are not because they cannot be removed. The Constitution is clear, trial by the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment is reserved for the President of the United States, not a private citizen, or used to be President the United States. Just as clear, the judgment required upon conviction is removed from office and a former president can no longer be removed from office. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Indeed, the most famous of these impeachments occurred, while the famed framers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution. It was the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the former Governor General of the British colony of Bengal, and a corrupt guy. The framers knew all about it, and they strongly supported the impeachment. In fact, the Hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. It was the only specific impeachment case that they discussed at the convention. It played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. And even though everyone there surely knew that Hastings had left the office, two years before his impeachment trial began, not a single framer, not one raised a concern, when Virginia and George Mason held up the Hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our Constitution. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Senators, Mr. President, to close, I want to say something personal about the stakes of this decision whether President Trump can stand trial and be held to account for inciting insurrection against us. This trial is personal Indeed, for every senator, for remember the house, every manager, all of our staff, the Capitol Police, the Washington DC, Metropolitan Police, the National Guard, maintenance and custodial crews, the print journalists and TV people who were here, and all of our families and friends. I hope this trial reminds America how personal democracy is. And how personal is the loss of democracy to distinguished members of the Senate. My youngest daughter Tabitha, was there with me on Wednesday, January 6. It was the day after we buried her brother, our son Tommy, the saddest day of our lives. Also, there was my son in law, Hank, who's married to our oldest daughter, Hannah, and I consider him a son too, even though he eloped with my daughter and didn't tell us what they were gonna do. But it was in the middle of COVID-19. But the reason they came with me that Wednesday, January sixth, was because they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our family. And I told them, I had to go back to work, because we were counting electoral votes. That day, on January 6, it was our constitutional duty. And I invited them instead to come with me to witness this historic event, the peaceful transfer of power in America. And they said they heard that President Trump was calling on his followers to come to Washington to protest and they asked me directly, would it be safe? Would it be safe? And I told them, of course, it should be safe. This is the Capitol. Steny Hoyer, our majority leader had kindly offered me the use of his office on the House floor, because I was one of the managers that day and we were going through our grief. So Tabitha, and Hank were with me and Stephanie's office, as colleagues dropped by to console us about the loss of our middle child, Tommy, our beloved Tommy, Mr. Newsome, Mr. Cicilline, actually came to see me that day, dozens of members, lots of Republicans, lots of Democrats came to see me. And I felt a sense of being lifted up from the agony and I won't forget their tenderness. And through the tears, I was working on a speech for the floor, when we would all be together in joint session, and I wanted to focus on unity. When we met in the house, I quoted Abraham Lincoln's famous 1838 Lyceum speech, where he said that if division and destruction ever come to America, it won't come from abroad. It'll come from within, said Lincoln. And in that same speech, Lincoln passionately deplored mob violence. Right after the murder of Elijah Lovejoy, the abolitionist newspaper editor, and he did Lincoln deplored mob violence. And he deplored mob rule. And he said it would lead to tyranny and despotism in America. That was the speech I gave that day, after the house, very graciously and warmly welcomed me back. And Tabitha and Hank came with me to the floor, and they watched it from the gallery. And when it was over, they went back to that office, Steny's office, off of the House floor. They didn't know that the house had been breached yet, and that an insurrection or riot, or a coup had come to Congress. And by the time we learned about it, about what was going on, it was too late. I couldn't get out there to be with them in that office. And all around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands their loved ones to say goodbye. Members of Congress in the house anyway, we're removing their congressional pins, so they wouldn't be identified by the mob as they tried to escape the violence. Our new chaplain got up and said a prayer for us and we were told to put our gas masks on. And then there was a sound I will never forget the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram, to most haunting sound I ever heard and I will never forget it. My Chief of Staff truly taken was with Tabitha and Hank locked and barricaded in that office. The kids hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts, and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes, they thought they were gonna die. My son in law have never even been to the Capitol before. And when they were finally rescued over an hour later by Capitol officers, and we were together, I hugged them. And I apologized. And I told my daughter Tabitha, who's 24 and a brilliant algebra teacher in Teach for America. Now, I told her how sorry I was. And I promised her that it would not be like this again. The next time she came back to the Capitol with me. And you know what she said? She said, Dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol. Of all the terrible brutal things I saw and I heard on that day. And since then, that one hit me the hardest. That and watching someone use an American flag pole. The flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly mercilessly tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life. People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage, people's eyes were gouged. Officer a heart attack. Officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives. Senators, this cannot be our future. This cannot be the future of America. We cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions, because they refuse to accept the will of the people under the Constitution of the United States. Much less can we create a new January exception in our precious beloved constitution that prior generations have died for and fought for, so the corrupt presidents have several weeks to get away with whatever it is they want to do. History does not support a January exception in any way. So why would we invent one for the future? Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): And there can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to try this impeachment. We know this because Article One, Section Three gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments the Senate has the power, the sole power to try all impeachments all means all and they're no exceptions to the rule because the Senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments It most certainly has jurisdiction to try this one. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): The first point comes from English history, which matters because in Hamilton road, England provided the model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, and it would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their abuses while in office. Every single impeachment of a government official that occurred during the framers lifetime concerned a former official. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): Let's start with the precedent with what has happened in this very chamber. I'd like to focus on just two cases. I'll go through them quickly. One of them is the nation's very first impeachment case, which actually was of a former official. In 1797, about a decade after our country had ratified our Constitution, there was a senator from Tennessee by the name of William blunt, who was caught conspiring with the British to try to sell Florida and Louisiana. Ultimately, President Adams caught him. He turned over the evidence to Congress. Four days later, the House of Representatives impeached him. A day after that, this body the United States Senate, expelled him from office. So he was very much a former official. Despite that, the house went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again, holding federal office. And so the senate proceeded with the trial with none other than Thomas Jefferson presiding. Now, blood argue that the Senate couldn't proceed because he had already been expelled. But here's the interesting thing. He expressly disavowed any claim that former officials can't ever be impeached. I mean, unlike President Trump, he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even try to argue that ridiculous position. Even impeached, Senator Blunt, recognized the inherent absurdity of that view. Here's what he said. 'I certainly never shall contend that an officer may 1 commit an offense and afterwards avoid by resigning his office.' That's the point. And there was no doubt because the founders were around to confirm that that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the Constitution. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): William Belknap I'm not going to go into all the details, but just in short in 1876, the House discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. hours before the House committee that discovered this conduct released its report documenting the scheme. Belknap literally rushed to the White House to resign tender his resignation to President Ulysses Grant to avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct, and of course, to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future. Well, later that day, aware of the resignation, what did the house do? The House move forward and unanimously impeached him, making clear its power to impeach a former official and when his case reached the Senate, this body Belknap made the exact same argument that President Trump is making today. That you all lacked jurisdiction any power to try him because he's a former official. Now many senators. At that time when they heard that argument. Literally, they were sitting in the same chairs you all are sitting in today, they were outraged by that argument. outraged. You can read their comments in the record. They knew it was a dangerous, dangerous argument with dangerous implications. It would literally mean that a president could betray their country, leave office and avoid impeachment and disqualification entirely. And that's why, in the end, the United States Senate decisively voted that the constitution required them to proceed with the trial. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): And just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the Constitution. I mean, if, if President Trump were right about that language, then officials could commit the most extraordinary destructive offenses against the American people high crimes and misdemeanors, and they'd have total control over whether they can ever be impeached. And if they are, whether the Senate can try the case, if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct, or the risk of disqualification from future office, and it's pretty simple, they just could just resign one minute before the house impeaches or even one minute before the Senate trial or they could resign during the senate trial. It's not looking so well. That would effectively erase disqualification from the Constitution. It would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. Bruce Castor: The argument about the 14th amendment is absolutely ridiculous. The house managers tell you that the president should be impeached because he violated the 14th amendment. And here's what the 14th Amendment says. no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military under the United States, or any other state, who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial Officer of any state to support the Constitution, and shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may vote by two thirds of each house to remove such disability. Now, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to recognize that that's written for people who fought for the Confederacy, or previous military officers who were in the government and not the Confederacy. And it does take a constitutional scholar to require that they be convicted first. In a court with due process of law. So that question can never be right until those things have happened. Bruce Castor: If my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense, and let's understand a high crime is a felony, and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor, the words haven't changed that much over the time. After he's out of office, you go and arrest him. So there is no opportunity where the President of the United States can run rampant in January the end of his term and just go away scot free. The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people. And so far, I haven't seen any activity in that direction. And not only that, the people who stormed this building and breached it. We're not accused of conspiring with the President. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 10, 2021 Transcript: Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): He then contacted Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate, Mike Shirkey, and the Speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield to lobby them to overturn Michigan's results. Trump invited Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Shirkey to Washington to meet with him at the White House, where the President lobbied them further. Let's be clear, Donald Trump was calling officials, hosting them at the White House, urging them to defy the voters in their state and instead award votes to Trump. The officials held strong and so Trump moved on to a different state, my home state of Pennsylvania. I am certain my Senators, Casey and Senator Toomey remember what happened there in early December as he did in Michigan. He began calling election officials, including my former colleagues in the Pennsylvania legislature, Republicans, Majority Leader Kim Ward, and Speaker of the House, Brian Cutler. Majority Leader Ward said the president called her to, "declare there was a fraud in the voting," then on November 25, President Trump phoned into a Republican state senate policy hearing, trying to convince the Republican legislators, Senators and House members, there had been a fraud in the vote. He even had his lawyer hold a phone up to the microphone in that hearing room. So the committee could hear him. Here is what he said.Donald Trump: We can't let that happen. We can't let it happen for our country. And this election has to be turned around because we won Pennsylvania by a lot. And we won all of these swing states by a lot. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): This was a gathering. I've attended many I have to tell you, as a former state legislator, a lot of policy hearings, I have to say with some confidence that was likely the first time a President of the United States of America called into a state legislative policy hearing. And remember, here is the President saying he won Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania had been certified for that Biden had won by more than 80,000 votes. Less than a week after calling into that meeting, he invited multiple Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature to the White House, the same scheme he had used on the Michigan legislators. It didn't work with those public servants either. Think about it. The President of the United States was calling public officials from the White House, inviting them into the Oval Office, telling them to disenfranchise voters of their state, telling them to overturn the will of the American people. All so he could take the election for himself. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): And then in Georgia, a state Trump had counted on for victory, his conduct was perhaps the most egregious. On November 11, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger confirmed that he believed ballots were accurately counted for Biden. Trump went on a relentless attack. Here are just a few examples. In all Trump tweeted at Raffensperger 17 times in the coming week. Show us just a few calling him "a disaster, obstinate, not having a clue, being played for a fool" and being a "so-called Republican" all because Raffensperger was doing his job ensuring the integrity of our elections. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): In early December, Trump called Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia and pressured him to hold a special session of the state legislature to overturn the election results and to appoint electors who would vote for Trump. A few weeks later on December 23, Trump called the Chief Investigator for the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, who was conducting an audit. An audit of the signature matching procedures for absentee ballots. Trump urged him, "find the fraud" and claimed the official would be a national hero if he did. Let's call this what it is. He was asking the official to say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn't any. The official refused and the investigation was completed. And on December 29, Raffensperger announced that the audit found, quote, no fraudulent absentee ballots with a 99% confidence level. On January 3rd, Trump tweeted about a call he had with Georgia election officials the day before. He said, "I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling or unable to answer questions such as the ballots under the table scan, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters and more. He has no clue." On January the fifth, The Washington Post released a recording of that call, which had occurred on January 2nd, remember, just four days before the attack on the Capitol. Here is what President Trump said: Donald Trump: It's more illegal for you than it is for them. Because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's it. You know, that's a criminal offense. And as you know, you can't let that happen. That's that's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyers. That's a big risk. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): Let's be clear. This is the President of the United States telling a secretary of state that if he does not find votes, he will face criminal penalties. And not just any number of votes. Donald Trump was asking the Secretary of State to somehow find the exact number of votes Donald Trump lost the state by. Remember, President Biden won Georgia by 11,779 votes. In his own words, Trump said 'All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes.' He wanted the Secretary of State to somehow find the precise number plus one so that he could win. Here's what he said Donald Trump: Well, look, I want to do is this I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): He says it right there. The President of the United States, telling a public official to manufacture the exact votes needed so he can win. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): But when Rosen took over, President Trump put the same pressure on him that he had done with state officials, members of Congress, US senators and his former Attorney General. President Trump reportedly summoned acting Attorney General Rosen to the oval office the next day, and pressured Rosen to appoint special counsels to keep investigating their election, including unfounded accusations of widespread voter fraud, and also to investigate Dominion, the voting machines firm. According to reports, Mr. Rosen refused. To maintain that he will make decisions based on the facts in the law and reminded President Trump what he had already been told by Attorney General bill Barr, that the department had already investigated and quote found no evidence of widespread fraud. But President Trump refused to follow the facts in the law. So the President turned to someone he knew would do his bidding. He turned to Jeffrey Clark, another Justice Department lawyer, who had allegedly expressed support for using the Department of Justice to investigate the election results. Shortly after acting Attorney General Rosen followed his duty and the law to refuse to reopen investigations. President Trump intended to replace Mr. Rosen with Mr. Clark, who could then try to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college results. According to reports, White House Counsel Pat Cippollone advised President Trump, not to fire acting Attorney General Rosen. Department officials had also threatened to resign en mass if he had fired Rosen. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): Trump reportedly told almost anyone who called him to also call the Vice President. According to reports, when Mike Pence was in the Oval Office, President Trump would call people to try to get them to convince the Vice President to help him. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): You can either go down in history as a patriot, Mr. Trump told him, according to people briefed on the conversation or you can go down in history as a pussy. Del. Stacey Plaskett (VI): Pezzola has since been charged with eight federal crimes for his conduct related to January sixth. According to an FBI agents affidavit submitted to the court, the group that was with him during the sack of the capital confirm that they were out to murder 'anyone they got their hands on.' Here's what the FBI said. And I quote, 'other members of the group talked about things they had done that day. And they said that anyone they got their hands on, they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi,' and that, 'they would have killed Vice President Mike Pence. If given the chance.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Those around Donald Trump, as was later reported, were disgusted. His close aides, his advisors, those working for him former officials, even his family were begging him to do something. Kelly Anne Conway, the President's close advisor call to quote, add her name to the chorus of aides urging Donald Trump to take action. Ivanka Trump, the President's own daughter went to the Oval Office as soon as the writing escalated and was as confirmed by Senator Graham "trying to get Trump to speak out to tell everyone to leave." Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called Jared Kushner pleading with him to persuade Trump to issue a statement or to do something. And Kushner too, went down to the White House after that call. And it wasn't just the people at the White House. Members of Congress from both parties who were trapped here, calling the White House to ask for help. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): The President, as reported by sources, at the time was delighted to see watch the violence unfold on television. President Trump was reportedly and I quote 'borderline enthusiastic, because it meant the certification was being derailed.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Senator Ben Sasse related conversation with senior White House officials that President Trump was "walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren't as excited as he was." Rep. David Cicilline (RI): He attempted to call Senator Tuberville, dialed Senator Lee by accident. Senator Lee describes it, he had just ended a prayer with his colleagues here in the Senate chamber and phone rang. It was Donald Trump. And now Senator Lee explains that the phone call goes something like this. Hey Tommy, Trump asks, and Senator Lee says this isn't Tommy and he hands the phone to Senator Tuberville. Certainly then confirm that he's stood by as Senator Tuberville and President Trump spoke on the phone. And on that call, Donald Trump reportedly asked Senator Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification process. That's why he called. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): An aide to Mark Meadows, the President's Chief of Staff, urged his boss to go see the president saying, "they are going to kill people." Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): On January 6th, President Trump left everyone in this capital for dead. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 11, 2021 Transcript: Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Senators, simply put, this mob was trying to overthrow our government. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): According to charging documents, Riley Williams allegedly helped steal a laptop from Speaker Pelosi his office to, 'send the computer device to a friend in Russia, who then plan to sell the device to SVR Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service.' While we can't be certain if or how many foreign spies infiltrated the crowd, or at least coordinated with those who did, we can be sure that any enemy who wanted access to our secrets would have wanted to be part of that mob inside these holes. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 12, 2021 Transcript: Michael Van Der Veen: According to publicly available reporting, it is apparent that extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions, preplanned and premeditated an attack on the Capitol. One of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa. Sadly, he was also among the first to be released. From the beginning, the President has been clear. The criminals who infiltrated the Capitol must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They should be in prison for as long as the law allows. The fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated, as alleged by the house managers, demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the President. You can't incite what was already going to happen. Michael Van Der Veen: Law enforcement officers at the scene conducted themselves heroically and courageously and our country owes them an eternal debt. But there must be a discussion of the decision by political leadership regarding force posture and security in advance of the event. Michael Van Der Veen: Consider the language that the house impeachment article alleges to constitute incitement. If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. This is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. David Schoen: Speaker Pelosi herself on February 2nd, called for a 9-11 style commission to investigate the events of January 6th. Speaker Pelosi says that the Commission is needed to determine the causes of the events she says it herself. If an inquiry of that magnitude is needed to determine the causes of the riot, and it may very well be, then how can these same Democrats have the certainty needed to bring articles of impeachment and blame the riots on President Trump? They don't. David Schoen: As any trial lawyer will tell you reportedly is a euphemism for I have no real evidence. Michael Van Der Veen: Brandenburg versus Ohio is really the landmark case on the issue of incitement speech. After the case was mentioned yesterday, in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, another landmark, the court held that the government may only suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law. If such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action. The Brandenburg holding has been interpreted as having three basic prongs to determine if speech meets the definition of incitement. The Brandenburg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to a riot, unless, this: one, the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action. Two, the speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence or lawless action. And three, the imminent use of violence or lawless action is likely is the likely result of the speech. The house managers cannot get past the first prong of the Brandenburg test. They have not and cannot prove Mr. Trump explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action period. Bruce Castor: Did the 45th President engage in incitement? They continue to say insurrection? Clearly, there was no insurrection. Insurrection is a term defined in the law and involves taking over a country, a shadow government, taking the TV stations over and having some plan on what you're going to do when you finally take power. Clearly, this is not that. What our colleagues here across the aisle meant is incitement to violence. To riot. Bruce Castor: Several of my colleagues and the house managers got up and spoke about the proceeding in the House being like a Grand Jury proceeding. Well, I've been in Grand Jury proceedings. I have run grand juries, in Grand Jury proceedings you call witnesses. You hear evidence. You make transcripts. You take affidavits, you develop physical evidence. You hear reports from police officers, you hear forensic analysis from scientists. In fact, you invite the target of the grand jury to come in and testify if he or she pleases to be heard by the grand jury. Which one of those things happened in the house prior to the impeachment article? Bruce Castor: The House managers told you that the President demanded that the Georgia Secretary of State, "find just over 11,000 votes." The word find like so many others, the house managers highlighted is taken completely out of context. And the word "find" did not come out of thin air. Based on an analysis of publicly available voter data, that the ballot rejection rate in Georgia in 2016, was approximately 6.42%. And even though a tremendous amount of new first time mail in ballots were included in the 2020 count, the Georgia rejection rate in 2020, was a mere four tenths of 1%. A drop off from 6.42% to 0.04%. Bruce Castor: With that background, it is clear that President Trump's comments and the use of the word "find" were solely related to his concerns with the inexplicable dramatic drop in Georgia's ballot rejection rates. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): The problem was when the President went from his judicial combat, which was fine to intimidating and bullying, state election officials and state legislators. And then finally, as Representative Cheney said, summoning a mob, assembling a mob and then lighting the match for an insurrection against the union. When he crossed over from non violent means, no matter how ridiculous or absurd, that's fine, he's exercising his rights, to inciting violence. That's what this trial is about. Speaker: Exactly when did President Trump learn of the breach of the Capitol? What specific actions did he take to bring the writing to an end? And when did he take them? Please be as detailed as possible. Speaker: Exactly when did the President learn of the breach at the Capitol? And what steps did he take to address the violence? Please be as detailed as possible. Del. Stacey Plaskett: Mr. President, Senators, This attack was on live TV on all major networks in real time. The President as President has access to intelligence information, including reports from inside the Capitol. He knew the violence that was underway. He knew the severity of the threats. And most importantly, he knew the Capitol Police were overwhelmingly outnumbered in a fight for their lives against 1000s of insurgents with weapons. We know he knew that. We know that he did not send any individuals. We did not hear any tweets. We did not hear him tell those individuals stop. This is wrong. You must go back. We did not hear that. So what else do the president do? We are unclear. But we believe it was a dereliction of his duty. And that was because he was the one who had caused them to come to the Capitol. And they were doing what he asked them to do. So there was no need for him, to stop them from what they were engaged in. Michael Van Der Veen: This is an article of impeachment for incitement. This is not an article of impeachment for anything else. So one count, they could have charged anything they wanted. They chose to charge incitement. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): Senators, Donald Trump spent months inciting his base to believe that their election was stolen. And that was the point. That was the thing that would get people so angry. Think about that. What it would take to get a large group of 1000s of Americans so angry to storm the Capitol. That was the purpose behind Donald Trump saying that the election had been rigged, and that the election had been stolen. And to be clear, when he says the election is stolen, what he's saying is that the victory and he even says one time the election victory is being stolen from them. Think about how significant that is to Americans. Again, you're right over 70 million, I think 74 million people voted for Donald Trump. And this wasn't a one off comment. It wasn't one time it was over and over and over and over and over again with a purpose. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): We let the people decide the elections, except President Trump. He directed all of that rage that he had incited to January 6. The last chance. Again, this was his last chance this was certifying the election results. He needed to whip up that mob. Amp them up enough to get out there and try to stop the election results. The certification of the election. Sen. Ron Johnson: House managers assert that the January 6th attack was predictable and it was foreseeable. If so, why did it appear that law enforcement at the Capitol were caught off guard and unable to prevent the breach? Why did the house Sergeant at Arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the National Guard stating that he was not comfortable with the optics? Michael Van Der Veen: Holy cow. That is a really good question. And had the House Managers done their investigation, maybe somebody would have an answer to that. But they didn't. They did zero investigation. They did nothing. They looked into nothing. They read newspaper articles, they talked to their friends who know a TV reporter or something or someone or another. But Jimmy Crickets, there is no due process in this proceeding at all. And that question highlights the problem. When you have no due process. You have no clear cut answers. Del. Stacey Plaskett: He put together the group that would do what he wanted. And that was to stop the certification of the election so that he could retain power to be President of the United States, in contravention of an American election. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): He intended, wanted to, and tried to overturn the election by any means necessary. He tried everything else that he could to do to win. He started inciting the crowd, issuing tweet after tweet, issuing commands to stop the count, stop the steal, worked up the crowd, sent a save the date. So it wasn't just one speech or one thing he was trying everything. He was pressuring elected officials, he was riling up his base telling him the election had been stolen from them, that it had been stolen from him. It was a combination of things that only Donald Trump could have done. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 13, 2021 Transcript: Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): But last night, Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Butler of Washington State issued a statement confirming that in the middle of the insurrection, when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the president to beg for help, President Trump responded and I quote, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.' Needless to say this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence further confirming the charges before you, as well as the President's willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as Commander in Chief of the United States, his state of mind, and his further incitement of the insurrection on January 6th, for that reason, and because this is the proper time to do so under the resolution that the Senate adopted to set the rules for the trial. We would like the opportunity to subpoena Congresswoman Herrera regarding her communications with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and to subpoena her contemporaneous notes that she made regarding what President Trump told Kevin McCarthy in the middle of the insurrection, we would be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less, just as soon as Congresswoman Herrera Butler is available, and to then proceed to the next phase of the trial, including the introduction of that testimony shortly thereafter, Congresswoman Butler further stated that she hopes other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots as she put it, would come forward and if that happens, we would seek the opportunity to take their depositions via Zoom also for less than an hour, or to subpoena other relevant documents as well. Michael Van Der Veen: What you all need to know and the American people need to know is as of late yesterday afternoon, there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses. But after what happened here in this chamber yesterday, the house managers realize they did not investigate this case before bringing the impeachment. They did not give the proper consideration and work they didn't put the work in, that was necessary to impeach the former president. But if they want to have witnesses, I'm going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one, the real issue is incitement. They put into their case, over 100 witnesses, people who have been charged with crimes by the federal government. And each one of those they said that Mr. Trump was a co-conspirator with. That's not true. But I have the right to defend that. The only thing that I ask if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that I can have. I need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. Michael Van Der Veen: We should close this case out today. Michael Van Der Veen: It's about the incitement. It's not about what happened afterwards. That's actually the irrelevant stuff. That's the irrelevant stuff. It's not the things that were said from the election to January 6th. It's not relevant to the legal analysis of the issues that are before this body. It doesn't matter what happened after the insurgence into the Capitol Building, because that doesn't have to do with incitement. Incitement, it's a point in time, folks. It's a point in time when the words are spoken, and the words say, implicitly say, explicitly, say, commit acts of violence, or lawlessness. And we don't have that here. So for the house managers to say we need depositions about things that happened after it's just not true. Michael Van Der Veen: Nancy Pelosi's deposition needs to be taken comm Vice President Harris's deposition absolutely needs to be taken and not by zoom. None of these depositions should be done by Zoom. We didn't do this hearing by Zoom. These depositions should be done in person in my office in Philadelphia. That's where they should be done. Bruce Castor: Donald John Trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if the if representative Herrera Butler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on February 12 2021. And the former President's Council is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): I will now read this statement. This is the statement Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Butler February 12 2021. In my January 12 statement in support of the Article of Impeachment, I referenced a conversation House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy relayed to me that he'd had with President Trump, while the January 6th attack was ongoing. Here the details. When McCarthy finally reached the President on January 6, and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot. The President initially repeated the falsehood that it was Antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That's when according to McCarthy, the President said, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): There was a lot of discussion yesterday about what the President knew. And when he knew it. There are certain things that we do not know about what the President did that day. Because the President, that is former President Trump has remained silent. But what he was doing during one of the bloodiest attacks on our capital since 1812. Despite a full and fair opportunity to come forward, he's refused to come and tell his story. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): There can be no doubt. At the moment we most needed a president to preserve, protect and defend us, President Trump instead willfully betrayed us. He violated his oath. He left all of us in offices like Eugene Goodman, to our own devices against an attack he had incited and he alone could stop. Interviewer: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election to see Donald Trump: I have to see, oh, I'm not going to just say yes. And this election will be the most rigged election in history, this is going to be the greatest election disaster in history. And the only way they can take this election away from us, is if this is a rigged election, we're gonna win this election, which a rigged election, the only way we're gonna lose, do you commit to making sure that there's a nice little word for all of we want to have get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very transfer will have a very peaceful, they won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation, it's the only way we're gonna that's the only way we're gonna lose is if there's mischief, mischief, and it'll have to be on a big scale. So be careful. But this will be one of the greatest fraudulent and most fraudulent elections ever. We're not going to let this election be taken away from us. That's the only way they're gonna win. This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually. And then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret. And this is a case where they're trying to steal an election. They're trying to rig an election. And we can't let that happen. You can't let another person steal that election from you. all over the country. People are together, in holding up signs stop this deal. If we don't root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that's taken place in our 2020 election. We don't have a country anymore. We cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand. We're gonna fight like hell, I'll tell you, right. If you don't fight to save your country with everything you have, you're not gonna have a country left. We will not bend we will not break we will not yield. We will never give in. We will never give up we will never back down. We will never ever surrender. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. We will never give up. We will never concede it doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's steps. And you use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with. We will stop the steel. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you from me and from the country. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore. Michael Van Der Veen: Because their case is so weak that house managers have taken a kitchen sink approach to the supposedly single article of impeachment. They allege that Mr. Trump incited the January 6th violence. They alleged that he abused power by attempting to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Raffensburger to undermine the results of the 2020 election and they allege that he gravely and endangered the democratic system by interfering with a peaceful transition of power. At least three things there. Under the Senate rules, each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump is hereby acquitted the charge in said article. Sen. Mitch McConnell: Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were, and this is extremely important, still liable to be tried and punished and the ordinary tribunals of justice. Put another way, in the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. As an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did, while he's in office. Didn't get away with anything. Yet. Yet. Sen. Mitch McConnell: January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They use terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they'd been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth. Because he was angry he lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceded the riot or a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. The house accused the former president of "incitement." That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago. There's no question, none. That President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on January 6, it is not just his endorsement of remarks, in which an associate urged "trial by combat." It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe. The increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen. Some secret coup by our now president. Now I defended the President's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke the electoral college vote. As I stood up and said clearly at that time, the election was settled, over. That just really opened a new chapter of even wilder, wilder and more unfounded claims. The leader the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feigned surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors, we saw that, that unhinge listeners might take literally. But that was different. That's different from what we saw. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters decision or else torch our institutions on the way out. The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began. Whatever our ex president claims he thought might happen that day whatever right reaction he says he meant to produce by that afternoon. We know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily. Happily, as the chaos unfolded, pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying Trump banners, beating cops and breaching parameters. Their president sent a further tweet attacking his own vice president. Now predictably and foreseeably. Under the circumstances, members of the mob seem to interpret this as a further inspiration, lawlessness and violence, not surprisingly, later, even when the President did half heartedly began calling for peace. He didn't call right away for the right, good and who did not tell the mob to depart until even later. And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals. In recent weeks, our ex presidents associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to reelect him as a kind of human shield against criticism. Using the 74 million who voted for him is kind of a human shield against criticism. Anyone who describes his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That's an absurd deflection. 74 million Americans did not invade the capital. Hundreds of rioters did. 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did. Just one. I've made my view of this episode very plain. But our system of government gave the Senate a specific task. The Constitution gives us a particular role. This body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal. We're not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment. Justice Joseph Story, our notions first great constitutional scholar. As he explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool. A narrow tool for a narrow purpose. Story explained this limited tool exists to, "secure the state against gross official misdemeanors," That is to protect the country from government officers. If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the house managers prove their specific charge. By the strict criminal standard, the President's speech probably was not incitement. However, however, in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the ride. But in this case, the question is moot because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. Now, this is a closed question. No doubt. Donald Trump was the president when the House voted, though not when the House chose to deliver the papers. Brilliant scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who've reached either conclusion. But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that article two, Section Four exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached tried or convicted. It's the president. It's the Vice President and civil officers. We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

The 116th Congress finished their reign by passing every section of government funding into law with COVID relief attached. In this episode, learn about the new COVID relief law after you hear about a surprise dingleberry that promises to end surprise medical billing in the United States. That's right! Something good happened! Find out in this episode how the new provisions will positively affect you. Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes Oversights of CAREs CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law Surprise Medical Bills Coronabus Outline H.R.133: Congress.gov The Federal government will pay 100% of the cost of funeral expenses that the Governor of a state chooses to pay for expenses through 12/31/2020. : Provides $10 billion and expand eligibility by waiving eligibility restrictions tied to income. It specifically mentions health care sector employees, emergency responders, sanitation workers, farm workers, and other "workers deemed essential during the response to coronavirus by public officials". The money can be used to pay for co-payments and tuition payments for families. : Provides $22,945,000,000 for vaccines and $22,400,000,000 for testing and contract tracing. : Provides almost $82 billion available through September 2022 to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus domestically or internationally”. $2.75 billion will go to "non-public schools". Non-public schools can not also take PPP money if they apply for this money. : Provides $2 billion for airports, and requires them to retain at least 90 percent of their workforce as of March 27, 2020 (minus retirements and employees who quit) until February 15th TITLE I - HEALTHCARE Medicare fee schedules will be increased by 3.75% from January 1, 2021 through January 1, 2022. Prohibits judicial review of the fee schedules that determine payment amounts. Funds it with $3 billion plus "necessary" amounts from the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. TITLE II - ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, AND BUSINESSES Extends the eligibility period for COVID-19 unemployment payments through March 14, 2021. People who haven't used their benefit eligibility of 50 weeks can get payments through April 5, 2021. Gives individuals the right to appeal denials of their unemployment benefits, but any denials issued before the end of 2020 will stand. Adds $300 in federal tax money to the weekly unemployment benefits we receive from our states from December 26, 2020 through March 14, 2021. Requires people filing for COVID unemployment benefits who aren't usually eligible (such as self-employed people, people who can't work because they are sick with COVID or caring for a COVID, etc.) to provide documentation to prove they are employed or self employed. The law is not specific about what kind of documentation is required. Starting in February 2021, people in this category have to submit documents every week proving they are still, caring for someone who is sick, or can't work for another eligible reason. Requires the states to verify the identity of any approved to receive COVID unemployment payments. States need to start doing this by February 1. By February 1, states have to set up a snitching hotline or website for employers to use to rat on employees who refuse to return to work "without good cause." The definition of good cause is left up to the states. Individuals making up to $75,000 - based on 2019 taxes - will receive a $600 "tax credit", in addition to $600 per dependent A business that receives a PPP loan that is forgiven does not have to count that money as income and expenses paid with the PPP money can be deducted. Students who receive emergency financial aid grants don’t have to count the money as income Extended a tax credit for employers which would cover 100% of the costs of paid sick and family leave they offer to their employees and the tax credit for self-employed people for the days they can’t work because of COVID until March 31, 2021. TITLE III - CONTINUING THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM AND OTHER SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT Expands the list of expenses that can be paid using PPP funds to include operations expenditures, property damage caused by the BLM protests in summer 2020 that were not covered by insurance, supplier costs, and worker protection measures related to COVID safety. Exempts the banks that administer the PPP program from lawsuits related to loan origination or forgiveness for a second draw of PPP loans as long as they collect required paperwork "in good faith". Creates a simplified application process for PPP loan forgiveness for loans less than $150,000. Those loans "shall be forgiven" if the person submits a 1 page document describing how many employees were retained thanks to the loan, how much of the loan was spent on payroll, and the total loan amount. The recipient will have to retain employment records for 4 years after submitting the application. The banks are not allowed to require any other documents for loan forgiveness. This is effective from the signing of the CARES Act. Clarifies that "group life, disability, vision, or dental insurance" counts as payroll costs, which can be paid using PPP loan money. Allows people to get a second round of forgivable PPP loans with the amount based on their payroll expenses for the last year or 2019 with a maximum loan amount of $2 million. Limits the size of the business to one with fewer than 300 employees per location, instead of 500 employees per location. Allows PPP funds to be given to tax exempt business organizations, including organizations that engage in lobbying Congress. Prohibits PPP funds from being used on lobbying expenses. A business that is more than 20% owned or controlled by the President, Vice President, the head of an Executive department or a member of Congress or their spouses is not eligible to receive PPP loans. Live performance venues, except ones that "present live performances of a prurient sexual nature", that have taken in 30% or less of their 2019 revenues can get grants to help make up for 45% of their lost revenue during the pandemic. $2 billion is set aside for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Prohibits publicly traded companies from receiving PPP loans. TITLE IV - TRANSPORTATION Provides $15 billion to pay the salaries and benefits of passenger airlines and $1 billion for contractors. Conditions the money on the promise from the airlines and contractors that they won't lay anyone off or reduce their pay until March 31, 2021 and that the money won't be used to buy the companies stock or pay out dividends until March 31, 2022. Airlines or contractors that accept this money will have 72 hours from the time they accept the agreement with government to recall any employees they laid off. The employees who return will receive back pay from December 1, 2020 (minus any severance they received). Freezes the pay of anyone in the airlines accepting our tax money funded bailout who made more than $425,000/year in 2019 to their 2019 pay levels until October 1, 2022. No one in the company will be allowed to collect more than $3 million plus 50% of the amount over $3 million that they earned in 2019. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Pete Buttigeg) to require an airline to maintain service to any destination that airline served on March 20, 2020, if the airline accepts the COVID bailout money. This authority automatically expires on March 1, 2022. Provides $2 billion to transportation service companies that have lost at least 25% of their revenue due to COVID-19 that has fewer than 500 employees or a company with over 500 employees that hasn't received a bailout yet. The companies have to use at least 60% of the money to pay up to $100,000/yr per employee in salary as long as they don't furlough any more workers (they can spend the money on other things if all their workers are back and making their 2019 pay levels already). TITLE V - BANKING Provides $25 billion for rental assistance . The money will be given to the states and 90% of it needs to be used to pay rent, utilities, home energy costs, and other costs as determined by the Treasury Secretary. Under no circumstance can any household get payments for more than 15 months. The money will flow from the government directly to the landlord or utility provider (unless the landlord or utility provider refuses to accept the payment, which is the only circumstance during which the household will get the money). To be eligible you either have to have income below 50% of the area median income or one or more individuals in the home have been unemployed for at least 90 days. Landlords are allowed to apply on behalf of their tenants, with their permission and signature on the application. The funding expires December 31, 2021. Extends the eviction moratorium through January 31, 2021. Creates a new fund with $9 billion to give money to banks - by purchasing their stock - to lend out in low income and minority communities. The administration of these purchases can be outsourced to "any bank, savings association, trust company, security broker or dealer, asset manager, or investment advisor as a financial agent of the Federal Government." The law sets no limits on executive compensation, share buybacks, or dividend payments for the recipients of the bank's lending (the Secretary of the Treasury gets to make those rules). The authority for using this $9 billion is valid until 6 months after the emergency declared on March 13, 2020 is terminated. Extends the that exempted banks from relatively new reporting requirements on their credit losses until the end of the emergency or January 1, 2022, an extra year. Extends the that allows banks to avoid counting troubled loans as troubled on their balance sheets until 60 days after the emergency declared on March 13th ends or January 1, 2022, an extra year. This law also expands the eligibility to include insurance companies. TITLE VI - LABOR PROVISIONS Temporarily allows people who have already turned 25 to qualify for the Jobs Corps. TITLE VII - NUTRITION AND AGRICULTURE RELIEF From January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, food stamp beneficiaries will get 115% of the amount they received in June 2020. Money received from Federal unemployment payments - the money provided on top of state payments - will not be counted as income for the month the money was received or for the 9 months that follow for the purpose of determining food stamp eligibility. Provides over $11 billion for farmers and those that provide for local food systems such as farmers markers, restaurants, and schools. $1.5 billion will be used to purchase food for hungry Americans. $1 billion of this money can be used to pay up to 80% of the revenue losses of contract growers of livestock and poultry for the period beginning on January 1, 2020 (two months before COVID) through January 1, 2021. TITLE VIII - UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Allows the postal service to keep the money it was loaned by the CARES Act TITLE IX - BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE Creates the "Emergency Broadband Benefit Program" funded with $3.2 billion, which allows households that qualify for some other COVID relief benefits can also get a monthly $50 discount on their internet service, or $100 if they are renting equipment, but only if their internet service provide elects to participate in the program. The FCC will reimburse the internet companies directly for the discounts. Companies that accept the money are not allowed to require an early termination fee of new customers who get service due to this benefit who then decide to cancel later. This is valid until 6 months after the end of the emergency is declared. TITLE X - MISCELLANEOUS Rescinds $429 billion out of the $500 billion that was provided the CARES Act to provide loans and invest in corporate bonds by the Federal Reserve. Terminates the authority created by the CARES Act for the Federal Reserve to make loans or purchase securities using the Main Street Lending Program, or the authorities granted to loan money to state and local governments. They can still make loans using the Term Asset-Back Securities Loan Facility. They are allowed to restructure and extend existing loans. Clarifies that the Federal Reserve is not in any way restricted from using authorities it already had before enactment of the CARES Act. TITLE I - NO SURPRISES ACT Starting on January 1, 2022, any health insurance company that provides "any benefits" in an emergency department can not require pre-authorization of those services or deny coverage because the emergency department is out of their network. If emergency services are provided out-of-network, there can not be any limits on coverage any more restrictive than what would be covered by an in-network emergency department and the out-of-pocket costs can't be more than they would be in-network. Out-of-pocket payments at an out-of-network emergency room must count towards in-network deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. Emergency services include any care that happens in connection to the emergency visit, regardless of what department of the hospital provides the services. After the patient is stabilized, inpatient or outpatient stays in connection to that event are also covered. Loophole: Services are not covered if the patient is able to travel without medical transportation, is able to provide informed consent, and "other conditions" that will be determined by regulation. The prices to be paid by insurers will be based on the median price paid in the geographic area for similar services, and it will increase along with the consumer price index. In the case of a out-of-network doctor who works at an in-network hospital, if that doctor doesn't notify the patient that he/she is out-of-network, the health insurance company can't require the patient to pay any more out of pocket than they would pay if the doctor were in-network. Any cost-sharing payments must be applied to the in-network deductible and annual maximum out of pocket limits. This also applies to air ambulance providers. Health insurance companies are no longer allowed to require referrals for women to go to the gynecologist. Health insurance plans are still allowed to require gynecologists to notify the plan and/or the primary care doctor of their treatment decisions. To determine how much an insurance company will directly pay to an out-of-network provider, the provider has 30 days from receiving a payment or a denial of payment to start a negotiation process. If the negotiation fails, within four days, the provider or health insurance company can elect to start an independent dispute resolution. The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury have until the end of 2021 to create this process by regulation. The regulation process will determine who will be certified to act as the dispute resolution judge, but it is not allowed to be an affiliate, subsidiary or trade group that represents a health insurance company or health care provider. The independent disputer settler will have 30 days to make the payment determination. The payment amounts can consider the comparable rates in the geographic region, the market share that provider controls in the region, the complexity of the patients case, and if either side made any effort to be in each other's network. They payment amounts can not consider the amount the provider usually chooses to charge or the rates usually paid by Medicare and Medicaid. The decisions will be binding and not subject to judicial review, unless there is evidence of fraud. The insurance company will have 30 days from the decision date to pay the bill. A lot of information about who uses this process and its results will be made public. The emergency departments and doctors can't send patients bills for anything more than their co-pay amounts. Out-of-network doctors working at in-network facilities are also prohibited from sending bills that are greater than the co-pay amounts. Out of network doctors at in-network facilities that provide services such as anesthesiology, radiology, and lab services can send bills to patients if the the patient makes an appointment to see them 72 hours or more in advance of their treatment and if the patient signs a written notice or email. The notice has to inform the patient that getting treated by the out-of-network doctor is optional and that they have the option to get treated by an in-network doctor, along with a list of in-network doctors available to provide the service. The notice also has to inform the patient that the amount they pay may not apply to their out-of-pocket limits or in-network deductible. The notice has to be dated and signed by the patient before they receive the services. Loophole: The notice has to have a "good faith estimated amount" that the provider "may" charge, but that that amount is not a contractual obligation. The states are given the authority to enforce these laws. If the state refuses to enforce them, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the ability to enforce them, and issue fines to doctors (and specifically air ambulance operators) up to $10,000 per violation. There will be a process for submitting complaints to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the department has 60 days to respond. The doctor or air ambulance operator can avoid the fine by withdrawing the bill, reimbursing the patient for the difference between what they were charged and what they should have been charged, plus interest, within 30 days. Loophole: The law does give the Secretary of HHS the permission to create a "hardship exemption" to the fines. Establishes similar laws for air ambulance operators as are enacted for emergency rooms and out-of-network doctors working at in-network facilities. Patients with health insurance who receive air ambulance services can only be charged the in-network rate for a copay. Air ambulance companies are not allowed to bill patients with health insurance more than their co-pay amount. By January 1, 2022, health insurances have to issue new insurance identification cards which include "any deductible", "any out-of-pocket limit", and a telephone number and internet website that patients can use to find out who is in-network. Starting on January 1, 2022, before a patient receives a scheduled service, the health insurance company has to send them a physical notice or email - patient's choice - about whether they are schedule to see an in-network or out-of-network doctor. If they are scheduled for an in-network appointment, they have to tell the patients the contracted rate for the service. If they are scheduled for an out-of-network appointment, they have to tell the patient how to find an in-network doctor. The notice also has to include cost estimates, including an estimate submitted by the doctor, how much the health insurance company will probably pay, the cost of any co-pays, and how close the patient is to reaching any out-of-pocket limits. The notice must also include a disclaimer that these are only estimates. Starting on January 1, 2022, before a patient receives a scheduled service, the doctor needs to ask the patient if they have insurance, are covered bypass a government plan, or have no insurance. If the patient has insurance, they have to provide the health insurance company or the government with a "good faith estimate" of the expected charges with the billing codes for the expected services. If the person does not have insurance, the estimate has to be given directly to the patient. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will have to create a process by January 1, 2022 for uninsured patients who are charged more than their estimates to have their bill determined by an independent dispute resolution authority. If a health insurance plan ends its contract with a patient's doctor, the health insurance company has to notify the patient and give the patient the opportunity to request and be granted 90 days of keeping the co-payment structure they had while the doctor was in-network. Health insurance companies will have to offer patients - via telephone and internet - a tool that allows them to compare the co-pays they would be responsible for if they received a service from each of their in-network providers. Requires health insurance companies to accurately maintain their in-network provider database. If the patient gets information about a doctor from an outdated database, or if the patient's requests for information go unanswered, the insurance company must charge the patient in-network copays, but the deductible will be applied to the out-of-network maximum limit. TITLE II - TRANSPARENCY Health insurance companies will be prohibited from contractually preventing doctors from revealing their pricing agreements to referring doctors, the patient, the patient's employer, or people eligible to be a part of that health insurance plan. Restrictions can be placed upon what information is made public. Starting at the beginning of 2022, health insurance companies will annually submit a report to the government about the 50 most common prescription drugs they pay for, the 50 most expensive prescription drugs, and the 50 prescription drugs with the greatest increase in price. The report also has to break down the costs of other categories of care, such as hospital visits, provider costs, and drug costs. They will also have to report on the average amount monthly premiums they receive from employers and patients. TITLE XIV - COVID-19 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT For the duration of the public emergency, it will be illegal for "any person, partnership, or corporation" to deceive anyone in association with a COVID-19 treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis or a government benefit related to COVID-19. This will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and violators can be fined Articles/Documents Article: , By Anna Wilde Mathews, Tom McGinty and Melanie Evans, The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2021 Article: , By Richard Rubin, The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2021 Article: , By KFF.org, February 4, 2021 Article: , By Brandon Brockmyer and Ryan Summers, Pogo, February 3, 2021 Article: , By Katherine Khashimova Long, Seattle Times, February 2, 2021 Article: , By Ellie Kaverman and Andrew Stettner, The Century Foundation, February 2, 2021 Article: &firstPage=true), By Jody Godoy, Westlaw Today, January 20, 2021 Article: , By Liam Vaughan and Gavin Finch, The Guardian, January 18, 2021 Article: , By White & Case LLP, Lexology, January 7, 2021 News Release: , Department of Labor, December 30, 2020 Document: , By Congressional Budget Office, December 27, 2020 Article: , By Rachel Lilienthal Stark, National Law Review, December 22, 2020 Article: , By Julie Appleby, npr, December 22, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton, The Hill, December 19, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton, The Hill, December 17, 2020 Article: , By Steve Liesman, CNBC, December 8, 2020 Article: , By Robert Channick, Chicago Tribune, May 21, 2020 Article: , By Tim Ott, Biography, September 28, 2020 Sound Clip Sources News Clip: , Today, February 11, 2021 Hearing: , House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, February 4, 2021 Witnesses: Executive Director of Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law School Former Director of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission She served at the FTC for 26 years Transcript: 44:40 Bonnie Patten: The list of deceptively marketed products and services exploiting this pandemic is extensive. CBD products marketed to military veterans as a Coronavirus treatment, bleach advertised as a liquid cure all, Wellness Centers targeting first responders, with IV vitamin drips to protect against COVID-19. Amazon and eBay sellers falsely claiming that their PPE FDA approved. Hand sanitizer marketed is protecting for 24 hours against COVID-19. Alleged immune immunity boosting supplements targeting children. Colloidal Silver solutions advertised as having the ability to kill the virus from within. Toothpaste and teeth whitening products claiming to prevent COVID-19 and Sham wellness kits targeting seniors. Unfortunately, the deception does not stop with outrageous health claims. Many are exploiting the economic desperation wrought by this pandemic. Multi level marketing companies claiming people can earn full time pay working part time. Lending companies deceptively using the cares act to exploit college students. Investment scams claiming to have patented COVID cures and financial entities pretending to be SBA authorized lenders to lure in small businesses struggling to keep their workers employed. 46:15 Bonnie Patten: And to make matters worse, the agency primarily charged with policing these deceptive acts, the FTC, is now at risk of losing a mainstay of its enforcement authority and the ability to make victims whole under Section 13-b. Because 13-b does not specifically say anything about equitable relief when a permanent injunction is issued, the Supreme Court is now deciding the remedial scope, if any of 13-b in the case AMG vs FTC. AMG was a payday lending scheme that extracted money from people in desperate circumstances and in its appeal, the company does not dispute that it violated the law. Instead, it argues that the $1.3 billion it's stole should be it's to keep. AMG asserts that it was never Congress's intention for the FTC to return money to victims of fraud under 13-b. Quite to the contrary. AMG argues that this legislative body fully endorsed the notion that wrongdoers should pocket the money they've illegally taken when it drafted 13-b. If the Supreme Court rules in AMG's favor, and this Congress does not act to empower the FTC to seek restitution under 13-b, then the deceptive practices I have enumerated will only multiply. 1:17:40 Jessica Rich: The new law covers a huge amount of scams. It's very broad as to COVID scams. So if a company engages in any of that activity, the FTC can pursue civil penalties and so just as Miss Patton just said, it's very important for deterrence to make it painful for fraudsters to rip off consumers. 1:18:20 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): But now that the FTC has this authority to find companies who've committed fraud and scams related to the pandemic under this new law, why is it still important to ensure that the FTC 13 b authority is preserved? Why is that so important? Bonnie Patten: COVID scams are terrible, but they're one of many frauds that the FTC has to fight all year long in and out of a pandemic. So in many of those cases, the FTC doesn't have civil penalty authority, and its rigorous authority is under threat. So it's a much broader problem that goes beyond the COVID scams that are occurring here. And so it still needs to be fixed. 2:23:25 Rep. Darren Soto (FL): Is this being sufficiently used already by the FTC? Do you anticipate gaps in all this law realizing it just was passed? Bonnie Patten: To my knowledge, the FTC has not yet used that act. But that's the only information I know, that there's no public on their website. It does have gaps. It does. You cannot target work from home scams using this, because it's really focused primarily on government benefits, scams and healthcare scams. But what I would say is that, while it's absolutely critical to have an act like this, at this time, during the pandemic, I would warn you that it doesn't provide for coverage for the next disaster. For the next earthquake for the next fire, what have you, there are unfortunately will always be a segment of our population that is in devastating events. And so I think that legislation is necessary that covers all such events and not just focused on the pandemic. Hearing: , Congressional Oversight Commission, December 10, 2020 Witnesses: Eric Rosengren - President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Gwen Mills - Secretary Treasurer of Unite Here Lauren Anderson - Senior Vice President & Associate General Counsel of the Bank Policy Institute Transcript: 03:20 Bharat Ramamurti: Four months ago, Congress gave the Treasury Department half a trillion dollars to stabilize the economy. The Treasury quickly pledged 75 billion of those dollars to the Federal Reserve's Main Street lending program for small and mid sized companies. After taking three months to set up the program, the Fed has now been operating it for about a month. In that time, it has supported only 18 loans for a total of $104 million. That is 0.017% of the $600 billion lending capacity that the Fed touted for the program in April. 16:07 Eric Rosengren: This facility is very different than some of the other traditional kinds of facilities that central banks operate during a time of crisis. So most of our facilities operate through markets, market securities, you can purchase them very easily through the market. They clear usually in a couple days depending on the security. So it's relatively easy to quickly purchase a large number of securities and hold those securities over time. This facility is a facility we didn't have during the financial crisis, and really tries to get to a different segment of the population, which is those businesses that are bigger than the PPP program was designed for and smaller than what the corporate facilities are designed for. Session: , Senate, July 29, 2020 Session: , Senate, July 28, 2020 News Clip: , CBS News, July 28, 2020 Hearing: , Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Health, 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 Proiduct, 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: 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. Hearing: , 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: 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. 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. 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. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

We just lived through the craziest lame duck period - the time between when the President and members of Congress keep their power after being fired in an election - in United States history. In this episode, we look at everything that happened, from start to finish. That was literally one Hell of a ride. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes Kicking the Funding Can Bills H.R. 1520 (116th): Congress.gov H.J.Res. 110 (116th): Congress.gov H.J.Res. 107 (116th): Congress.gov H.R. 8900 (116th): Congress.gov Articles/Documents Article: , By Kevin Freking, AP, January 21, 2021 Article: , By Ted Mann, Dustin Volz, Lindsay Wise and Chad Day, The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, January 11, 2021 Article: , By Fiona Hill, Politico, January 11, 2021 Article: , WSFA News, January 11, 2021 Article: , By Jeremy Roebuck and Jonathan Lai, Inquirer, January 7, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, January 7, 2021 Article: , By Jenny Gross and Luke Broadwater, The New York Times, January 7, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, January 6, 2021 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, January 3, 2021 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, January 3, 2021 Article: , By Ethan Cohen, Liz Stark and Adam Levy, CNN, January 3, 2021 Article: , By Mike Lillis and Scott Wong, The Hill, January 3, 2021 Article: , By John Kruzel, The Hill, January 2, 2021 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, January 1, 2021 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, January 1, 2021 Article: , By Jim Acosta, Jamie Gangel and Paul LeBlanc, CNN, December 30, 2020 Article: , By Tal Axelrod, The Hill, December 30, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton, The Hill, December 29, 2020 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 29, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 29, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 28, 2020 Article: , By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, December 28, 2020 Article: , By Naomi Jagoda and Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 24, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton and Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 24, 2020 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 23, 2020 Article: , By Niv Elis, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 19, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton and Mike Lillis, The Hill, December 19, 2020 Article: , By Brett Samuels, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 17, 2020 Article: , By Scott Bomboy, Constitution Daily, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Harper Neidig, The Hill, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 15, 2020 Letter: , By William P. Barr, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke and Scott Wong, The Hill, December 10, 2020 Article: , By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, December 8, 2020 Article: , By John Kruzel, The Hill, December 8, 2020 Article: , By Harper Neidig, The Hill, December 8, 2020 Article: , By Edmund DeMarche, Morgan Phillips | Fox News, December 7, 2020 Article: , By Brett Samuels, The Hill, December 1, 2020 Article: , By Michael Balsamo, December 1, 2020 Article: , By Lily Hay Newman, Wired, November 27, 2020 Article: , By Pete Williams and Nicole Via y Rada, NBC News, November 23, 2020 Document: , Congressional Research Service, December 15, 2016 Article: , By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and James Dao, The New York Times, December 17, 2005 Additional Resources , U.S. House of Representatives , Clerk of U.S. House of Representatives, January 13, 2021 Sound Clip Sources Video: , Twitter, Newsmax January 12, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Transcript: , U.S. House of Representatives, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Video: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 News Address: , CNN, January 6, 2021 Footage: , Youtube.com, January 6, 2021 Debate: , The Washington Post, January 6, 2021 , The Hill, January 6, 2021 Video: , White House, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Video: , White House, rev.com, January 6, 2021 , The Washington Post, January 5, 2021 Document: , U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Texas, December 27, 2020 News Clip: , Youtube, Reuters, December 15, 2020 News Clip: , Youtube, Yahoo Finance, December 11, 2020 News Clip: , NBC News, December 11, 2020 News Clip: , Youtube, Senator Rand Paul, December 10, 2020 Ballot Count: , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2005 , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2005 , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2005 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

While the focus of the world has been on the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress has been busy preparing a war authorization for the incoming Joe Biden administration. In this episode, we examine the advice given to Congress in nine recent hearings to learn which countries are on the World Trade System naughty list, as Jen prepares to read the NDAA that's soon to become law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes The Brink of the Iran War Yemen The Democracies of Elliott Abrams A Coup for Capitalism National Endowment for Democracy Combating Russia NDAA Bombing Libya Bills H.R.526: Congress.gov H.Res.751: Congress.gov H.Res.1120: Congress.gov H.Res.1183: Congress.gov Articles/Documents Article: , By Gregory Feifer, Slate, December 18, 2020 Article: , U.S. Chamber of Commerce, December 17, 2020 Article: , By Jason Gutierrez, The New York Times, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Stephanie Saul, Kate Kelly and Michael LaForgia, The New York Times, December 2, 2020 Article: , By Ahmet Kavas, Daily Sabah, November 25, 2020 Article: , By Aly Verjee, United States Institute of Peace, November 24, 2020 Article: , Human Rights Watch, November 23, 2020 Article: , By Paul McLeary, DefenseNews, November 10, 2020 Article: , By Aaron Mehta, DefenseNews, November 10, 2020 Article: By Payce Madden, Brookings, November 7, 2020 Article: By Vijay Prashad, Asia Times, November 4, 2020 Article: By Addis Ababa, Reuters, October 30, 2020 Press Release: , By Alexis Arieff, Congressional Research Service, October 21, 2020 Article: By Jeff Abbott, Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, October 8, 2020 Article: By Simon Marks and Abdi Latif Dahir, The New York Times, September 10, 2020 Article: International Republican Institute, September 10, 2020 Article: , BBC News, September 3, 2020 Press Release: , By Cory Welt, Congressional Research Service, August 24, 2020 Press Release: , Ilhan Omar, August 13, 2020 Article: By Pauline Bax and Michael Kavanagh, Bloomberg Green, August 7, 2020 Article: By Magdi Abdelhadi, BBC News, July 29, 2020 Article: U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, July 21, 2020 Article: By Hamza Mohamed, Aljazeera, July 10, 2020 Article: By Eli Clifton, Responsible Statecraft, May 14, 2020 Article: By David A. Wemer, Atlantic Council, February 11, 2020 Article: By Lee Fang, The Intercept, July 22, 2018 Article: By Timothy J. Burger, Town & Country, August 10, 2017 Article: By Charles Kenny and John Norris, Foreign Policy, May 8, 2015 Document: By David Lunde, University of Denver, 2014 Article: By Maud Jullien, BBC News, November 15, 2013 Article: By Slobodan Lekic, Los Angeles Times, September 3, 2006 Article: By Jonathan Guyer, The American Prospect Article: By Bama Cham, Eden Newspaper Article: , Yoseph Badwaza and Jon Temin, Freedom House Article: , Financial Times Article: , Welcome to the Congo Reform Association Article: , By LOUIS EDGAR DETWILER, TIME, August 01, 1960 Additional Resources The Jamestown Foundation African Union Council on Foreign Relations National Democratic Institute International Center for Not-For-Profit Law , LinkedIn , Middle East Institute LinkedIn International Republican Institute , LinkedIn , The Marathon Initiative , Westexec Advisors Employment Timeline: OpenSecrets.org , LinkedIn Americas Society Council of the Americas African Union History: National Endowment for Democracy U.S. International Development Finance Corporation The German Marshall Fund of the United States U.S. Agency For Global Media , The Jamestown Foundation Freedom House , LinkedIn , LinkedIn , The Dialogue , Growth in the Americas International Capital Strategies McLarty Associates , LinkedIn Summary: OpenSecrets.org , United States Institute of Peace , The Beacon Project, October 2020 ALBRIGHT STONEBRIDGE GROUP , Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance , Freedom House Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs, December 8, 2020 Witnesses: Madeleine Albright Chairman of the National Democratic Institute Chairman of the Albright Stonebridge Group, a global strategy firm Chairman of Albright Capital Management , an investment advisory firm Member of the Council on Foreign Relations 2003-2005: Member of the Board of Directors of the NYSE 1997-2001: Secretary of State 1978-1981: National Security Council Staff Daniel Serwer Director of American Foreign Policy and Conflict Management at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University Former Vice President at the US Institute of Peace Former Minister Counselor at the State Department during the Clinton years Janusz Bugajski Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation Former Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) Hosts a tv show in the Balkans Transcript: 40:03 Rep. Eliot Engel (NY): Serbia has been importing Russian fighters and tanks and conducting military exercises with the Russian Army. A US Defense Department report told us that Belgrade's drift towards Moscow has mostly occurred since President Vučić took power. The same time democratic space in Serbia has shrunk in recent years. Freedom House describes Serbia as a, 'hybrid regime', not a democracy because of declining standards in governance, justice, elections and media freedom. If Serbia wants to become part of the European Union, and the North Atlantic family of nations, it needs to get off the fence and embrace a Western path. 56:17 Madeleine Albright: As you know, Mr. Chairman, the President Elect has been personally engaged in the Balkans since his time in the Senate. And he was one of the most outspoken leaders in Congress calling for the United States to help end the complex and I was honored to work closely with him throughout my time in office. And I know that he understands the region and its importance for the United States. The national security team that President Elect Biden is putting in place is deeply knowledgeable and committed to helping all the countries of the region move forward as part of a Europe that is whole free and at peace. And that's important, because today this vision is in peril. The nations of the Western Balkans are suffering deeply from the health and economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Corruption remains a serious problem, and nationalist leaders continue to stoke and exploit ethnic tensions. China and Russia are also exerting new influence in the region, with Serbia in particular the target of much anti Western propaganda. As the pandemic eases there will be an opportunity for the United States and Europe to help the region build back better, particularly as Western European countries seek to bring supply chains closer to home. And as new funds become available to invest in energy diversification and environmental protection. 59:36 Madeleine Albright: The answer is for the United States and the EU to work together to champion initiatives that help custom Bosnia and others build economic ties to Europe and the neighborhood while also pushing for needed political reforms. 1:00:00 Madeleine Albright: On Bosnia, the Dayton accords stopped a war and continue to keep the peace. But the governing arrangements are not captured by leaders among the three groups that negotiated the peace. They want to hold on to power even if it means holding their society back. While Bosnia is neighbors move toward EU membership, the United States and the European Union must focus their efforts in Bosnia on the abuse of government and state owned enterprises. Taking away the levers of power that keep the current system in place. 1:05:30 Daniel Serwer: Europe and the United States want a post state in Bosnia, they can qualify for EU membership. That Bosnia will be based not on ethnic power sharing, but rather on majorities of citizens electing their representatives. [?] entities as well as ethnic vetoes and restrictions we'll need to fade. the Americans and Europeans should welcome the prospect of a new Civic constitution. But no one outside Boston Herzegovina can reform its constitution, a popular movement is needed. The United States along with the Europeans needs to shield any popular movement from repression while starting the entities with funding and redirecting it to the central government and municipalities. 1:12:07 Janusz Bugajski: Moscow views Serbia in particular, and the Republic of Srpska in Bosnia as useful tools to subvert regional security and limit Western integration. 1:12:40 Janusz Bugajski: Western Balkan inclusion in the Three Seas Initiative and its North South transportation corridor will enhance economic performance and help provide alternatives to dependence on Russian energy and Chinese loans. 2:00:41: Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): Why do you think longer term in the Balkans its Chinese influence we need to be focused on? Janusz Bugajski:Thank you very much for that question. Let me begin with why Russia is not a longer term danger. Russia is a country in serious decline, economic decline. Its economies size of a medium sized European state. China has the second largest economy in the world. Russia has internal problems with its nationalities with its regions, with increasing public unrest with increasing opposition to put in them even be power struggles during the succession period over the next four years, Russia faces major internal problems. China, on the other hand, unless of course, there is opposition to the Chinese Communist Party from within, is in a different stage. It continues to be a very dynamic country in terms of its economic growth. It doesn't face the sort of internal contradictions and conflicts that Russia does. And it's increasingly.. China's always looked at the longer term. In other words, they don't even have to look at succession cycles, because of the dominance of the Communist Party. They are looking eventually to replace Russia as the major rival of the United States. And the best way to do that is to increase their influence not only militarily in East Asia, South Asia and other parts of the world, but economically, politically, diplomatically, culturally, and through the media and that's precisely what they're doing, not only in Europe, but in other continents. 2:18:38 Madeleine Albright: I think that democracy and economic development go together also. Because as I put it, people want to vote and eat. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, December 3, 2020 Witnesses: Yoseph Badwaza Senior Advisor for Africa at Freedom House Former Secretary General of Ethiopian Human Rights Council Susan Stigant Director of the Africa Program at the United States Institute of Peace Former program director at the National Democratic Institute, focused on South Sudan Tsedale Lemma Editor in Chief and Founder of Addis Standard Magazine Lauren Ploch Blanchard Specialist in African Affairs at the Congressional Research Service Former East Africa Program Manager at the International Republican Institute Transcript: 35:32 Yoseph Badwaza: The devastating developments of the past four weeks have brought inmeasurable human suffering and the destruction of livelihoods and appear to have returned to yet another protracted civil war and nearly 30 years after it emerged from its last. These tragic events have also dealt a deadly blow to what would have been one of the most consequential democratic transitions on the African continent. 37:09 Yoseph Badwaza: A series of missed opportunities in the last two and a half years led to the tragic derailment of a promising democratic experiment. A half hearted effort at implementing reforms by a ruling party establishment reluctant to shape its deeply authoritarian roots. Roots stands in the way of a genuine inclusive political process. Hearing: , Committee on Armed Services, September 30, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. James Anderson Former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense (resigned the day after Trump fired DoD Secretary Mark Esper) 2006-2009: Director of Middle East Policy for the Secretary of Defense 2001-2006 - Gap in LinkedIn resume 2000-2001: Associate at DFI International, a multinational consulting firm 1997-1999: Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Lt. Gen David Allen: Director for Strategy, Plans, and Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff Transcript: 17:14 Dr. James Anderson: As we continue to implement the NDS or efforts at enhancing our European posture beyond Eucom Combat Command Review, have shown recent successes, including the signing of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with Poland in August that will enable an increased enduring US rotational presence in that country of about 1000 US military personnel. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, September 30, 2020 Witnesses: Christopher Fomunyoh Senior Associate for Africa at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Has been at NDI since 1993 Has worked for the Cameroon Water Corporation and Cameroon Airlines Corporation Dorina A. Bekoe, PhD Research Staff Member at the Institute for Defense Analyses Jon Temin Director of the Africa Program at Freedom House Freedom House gets most of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy 2014-2017: U.S. Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff Director of the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Africa Program Member of the Council on Foreign Relations Non-resident Senior Associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Joshua Meservey Senior Policy Analyst for Africa and the Middle East at the Heritage Foundation since 2015 Former Associate Director of the Atlantic Council Former Field Team Manager for the Church World Service Resettlement Support Center Former Volunteer with the US Peace Corps Former intern for the US Army Special Operations Command Former Loss Prevention Coordinator for Dollar Financial Corporation Transcript: 7:13 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): I fear that 2020 may see an even greater decrease in democracy on the continent. Today's hearing is also timely, as elections are approaching next month in Tanzania and the Ivory Coast, both countries which appear to be on a downward trajectory in terms of governance and respect for civil and political rights. And I want to note that Chairwoman bass has introduced legislation with respect to Tanzania, and I'm very proud to be a co sponsor of it and I thank you for that leadership. 8:37 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): For example, was quite obvious to outside observers in the DRC that the declared winner of the latest presidential election held in late 2018. Felix Tshisekedi received less votes than Martin Fayulu low because of a corrupt bargain between the outgoing strongman Joseph Kabila Tshisekedi. The Constitutional Court packed by Kabila declared him to be the winner. What happened next was troubling, as our State Department issued a statement that said and I quote, 'the United States welcomes the Congolese Constitutional Court certification of Felix Tshisekedi as the next president of the DRC,' which was apparently driven by a handful of diplomats, including our ambassador. 9:26 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): Elections in Nigeria were first postponed by sitting President Buhari and marred by irregularities in advance of the election date, quitting arson attacks on the independent national Electoral Commission offices in opposition strongholds in Buhari's his removal of Supreme Court Justice Walter Onnoghen. 10:40 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): Before Sudan is delisted as a state sponsor of terrorism, I also believe there must be justice for all victims of its past bad acts including the victims of 911, many of whom live in my home state of New Jersey and in my district. 14:44 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): Most concerning is the situation in Tanzania, which I recently addressed in House Resolution 1120 where current leadership is repressing the opposition and basic freedoms of expression and assembly in a blatant attempt to retain power. 15:00 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): We see similar patterns in Cote d'Ivoire as the executive branch legalizes the deviation in democratic institutions to codify non democratic actions. We have similar concerns about Guinea and are going to be very watchful of upcoming elections there. And in Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Gabon, Ghana, Nigeria and Somalia. 15:57 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): What concerns me most is the democratic backsliding is not limited to Africa and we seem to be in a place of retreat from democracy that I only hope is an anomaly. In Europe, we see the egregious behavior of Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko, who claimed success in a disputed August 9 election and sought support from extra national resources such as Russia to justify his claim to power. 17:28 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): President Duterte of the Philippines is accused of lawfare, or weaponizing the law to deter or defeat freedoms, personalities and establishments that promote human rights, press freedoms and the rule of law while also cracking down on individual freedoms. 24:39 Christopher Fomunyoh: NDI has over three decades of technical assistance to and support for democratic institutions and processes in Africa and currently runs active programs in 20 countries. 26:09 Christopher Fomunyoh: Notably, West Africa, previously commanded as a trailblazer region has seen serious backsliding, as Mali experienced a military coup, and major controversies have arisen about candidacies of incumbent presidents in Guinea, Conakry and Cote d'Ivoire. The Central Africa region remains stocked with the three with the highest concentration of autocratic regimes with the three longest serving presidents in the world. In that sub region, notably Equatorial Guinea forty one years, Cameroon 38 years, and Congo Brazzaville 38 years. 26:50 Christopher Fomunyoh: In southern and East Africa, continued persecution of political opposition and civil society activists in Zimbabwe and similar worrying signs or patterns in Tanzania since 2016 seriously diminished citizen participation in politics and governance and also stand my prospects for much needed reforms. 31:31 Dorina A. Bekoe: Mali's 2012 coup took place even though there was a regularly scheduled election just one month away. And the coup in August of this year took place despite the fact that in 2018 there was a presidential election and last year there were legislative elections. 38:44 Jon Temin: The United States should consider changes to term and age limits that allow incumbent leaders to extend their time in office as essentially a coup against the constitution and respond accordingly. These moves by leaders who have already served two terms are an usurpation of power, that deny the country and its citizens the many benefits of leadership rotation. 40:07 Jon Temin: In Sudan the long overdue process of removing the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism may soon conclude, but that is not enough. The United States needs to support the civilian component of Sudan's transitional government at every step of the long road toward democracy and do all that it can to revive Sudan's economy. 40:25 Jon Temin: In Ethiopia, there are deeply concerning signs that the government is reaching for tools of repression that many hoped were relegated to history. Nonetheless, Ethiopia remains on a tentative path to democratic elections that can be transformative. In this context, the decision by the United States to withhold development assistance from Ethiopia in a quixotic and counterproductive effort to influence Ethiopia's negotiating position concerning the grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is bad policy that should be reversed. 41:00 Jon Temin: Nascent democratic transitions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Gambia and Angola also call for strong US support. 1:10:21 Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN): I want to start with Dr. Fomunyoh. In your testimony you discuss the massacres committed in the Anglophone region of Cameroon. Did the United States provide training funding or arms to the Cameroonian security forces who committed those massacres? 1:12:20 Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN): Did the Millennium military officers who led the recent coup [??] receive US military training? And if you can just say yes or no, because I have a few more questions and we have limited time. 1:29:23 Jon Temin: Freedom in the world, which we do every year rates every country in the world that includes the United States, the United States score was decreasing before this administration, we have seen a slow slippage of democracy in America for some time, rating based on our scores. That decrease has accelerated under this administration. 1:30:00 Jon Temin: I think part of it has to do with freedom for journalists. I believe there's been some concern there. Part of it has to do with corruption and some of the indications that we've seen of corrupt activity within government. I'll leave it there. We're happy to go dig into that and provide you more detail. And I'm sure that when we look at the scores again later this year, there will be a robust conversation on the United States. Hearing: , Committee on Armed Services, September 23, 2020 Witnesses: Christine Wormuth On Joe Biden's presidential transition team 2018- present: Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation 2017-2018: Founding Director of the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience at the Atlantic Council 2017-2018: Senior Advisor for the Center for Strategic and International Studies 2010-2014: Various DoD positions, rising to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 2004-2009: Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies 2002-2004: Principal at DFI Government Services, an international defense consulting firm Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges Center for European Policy Analysis Board of Advisors for the Spirit of America (not listed on hearing bio) Board of Directors is made up of CEOs of mulitnational corporations Board of Advisors is full of corporate titans and big names, including Michelle Flournoy, Jeh Johnson, Kimberly Kagan, Jack Keane, James Mattis, Stanley McChrystal, H.R. McMaster, & George Shultz 2014-2017: Commanding General of the US Army in Europe Elbridge Colby Principal and co-Founder of the Marathon Initiative Formed in May 2020 Senior Advisor to WestExec Advisors (not listed on hearing bio) Co-Founded by incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Michelle Flournoy, who told the Intercept in 2018, "we help tech firms who are trying to figure out how to sell in the public sector space, to navigate the DOD, the intel community, law enforcement." 2018-2019: Director of the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security Northrup Grumman is one of its biggest donors, also gets funding from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Boeing, and DynCorp. 2017-2018: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development Lead official in the creation of the 2018 National Defense Strategy 2010-2017: Center for a New American Security GWB administration (not listed on his LinkedIn) 2005-2006: worked with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 2004-2005: President GWB's WMD Commission 2003: worked with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq Transcript: 17:14 20:08 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: Second point of emphasis requires us to place importance on the greater Black Sea where. I believe the great power competition prevents great power conflict, failure to compete and to demonstrate interest and willingness to protect those interests in all domains, power vacuums and miscalculations which can lead to escalation and to actual conflict. This is particularly true in the greater Black Sea region, where Russia is attempting to maximize its sphere of influence. The Black Sea region should be the place where the United States and our NATO allies and partners hold the line. The Black Sea should matter to the west in part because it [was to the Kremlin.] taking the initiative away from the Kremlin denies the ability to support the Assad regime in Syria and then to live will reduce the flow of rich into Europe, or General Breedlove called the weaponization of refugee. Limit the Kremlin's ability to spread his thoughts of influence in the Balkans which is the Middle East and North Africa. 21:28 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: We must repair the relationship between Turkey and the United States. And see Turkey [?] as an exposed ally at the crossroads of several regions and challenges. Turkey is essential for deterrence of the Kremlin in the Black Sea region. And it is a critical both against ISIS and Iran we need to consider this relationship to be a priority, [but] condone or excuse several mistakes or bad choices about the Turkish Government. There are times are very quiet, but we think long term. The current Turkish administration will eventually change. But the strategically important geography of Turkey will never change. 23:31 Elbridge Colby: Allies and partners are absolutely essential for the United States in a world increasingly defined by great power competition, above all with China. Indeed, they lie at the very heart of the right US strategy for this era, which I believe the Department of Defense's 2018 National Defense Strategy lays out. The importance to the United States of allies and partners is not a platitude, but the contrary. For the first time since the 19th century, the United States is not far and away the world's largest economy. More than anything else, this is due to the rise of China. And that has become very evident. Beijing is increasingly using its growing power for coercive purposes. 24:08 Elbridge Colby: United States faces a range of other potential threats, including primarily from Russia against NATO, as well as from transnational terrorists, Iran and North Korea. In other words, there exists multiple challenges to US national security interests. Given their breadth and scope, America can no longer expect to take care of them essentially alone. Accordingly, we must address this widening shortfall between the threats we face and the resources we have to deal with them by a much greater role for allies and partners. 24:59 Elbridge Colby: Because of China's power and wealth, the United States simply must play a leading role in blocking Beijing's pursuit of hegemony in Asia. This means that the US defense establishment must prioritize dealing with China and Asia and particularly vulnerable allies and partners such as Taiwan and the Philippines. 25:24 Elbridge Colby: In particular, we will not be able to dedicate the level of resources and effort to the Middle East and Europe that we have in the past. We will therefore need allied partners to do their part not just to help defend our interests and enable a concentration on Asia but to defend themselves and their interests. 26:00 Elbridge Colby: The contemporary threats to us interest stem from China across Asia. Transnational terrorists largely in the Middle East, Russia and Eastern Europe, Persian Gulf area and North Korea in Asia. 26:11 Elbridge Colby: Yet the United States is traditional, closest and most significant allies are largely clustered in Western Europe in Northeast Asia. Many of these countries, especially Europe feel quite secure and are little motivated to contribute to more distant threats. This leaves wide areas such as South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East, for which long standing US alliances are of minimal help. The natural way to rectify this is for the United States to add partners and form necessary alliances to help address these gaps. 35:13 Elbridge Colby: In this effort, though, we should be very careful to distinguish between expanding our formal alliances or [?] alliances from expanding our partnerships, the former should be approached derivatively while the latter can be approached more liberally, when we extend an alliance commitment or something tantamount to it as in the case of Taiwan, we tie our credibility to that nation's fate. We should therefore be [cheery] about doings. In light of this, we should seek to expand our partnerships wherever possible. In particular, we should focus on increasing them in South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, where China otherwise might have an open field to [subordances] and add them to its pro hegemonium coalition. 27:41 Elbridge Colby: I do not see a near term need to add any allies to the US roster. But I do think we will increasingly need to consider this as the shadow of Chinese power darkens over the region. 27:53 Elbridge Colby: Our effort to expand our network of allies and partners should really be focused on states with shared threat perceptions. It has become something of a common place that shared values form the bedrock of our alliances. It is true that such values help allies, but the most useful alliances generally proceed from shared fears. The best motivator to fight is self defense. The states that have a shared interest in preventing Chinese or Russian or Iranian hegemony selves have a natural alignment with our own. This is true whether or not they are democracies. 29:00 Elbridge Colby: In Asia, given the scale proposed by Beijing, we should concentrate most of our allies like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan on readying to defend themselves alongside US Armed Forces and provide access to US forces in the event of a contingency. 29:16 Elbridge Colby: Meanwhile, we should assist partners like Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, with whatever means available to enable their defense against an ever more powerful China while concurrently seeking greater access and logistics support for US and other allied forces. 29:39 Elbridge Colby: Europe Finally, the overall us goal should be while preserving the fundamental us commitment to NATO's defense to have Europeans especially in northern and eastern Europe shoulder more of the burden of defending the Alliance from Russia assault. The reality is that given the stakes and consequences, the United States must prioritize Asia. United States must therefore economize in its second theater Europe. 35:13 Elbridge Colby: And move away from using these tools as leverage for key partners for domestic political reform or secondary geopolitical objectives. United States should always of course, stand proudly for free government that treats its people with dignity. We must keep our eye on the prize though China is the primary challenge to our interest in the world, including our government, both at home and abroad. Our top priority must therefore be to block its gaining predominance in Asia, which is a very real prospect. This means strengthening states in the region against Chinese power, whether or not they are model democracies. 35:15 Rep. Adam Smith (WA): When we should we just say, look, we're not going to worry about your domestic politics. We want to build the Alliance, however possible. How would we deal with extreme human rights abuses, as are alleged in the Philippines in terms of extra judicial killings, or in the case of India, and of course, we're dealing with this with Turkey and Europe as well, as you know, doing the arm sales with Russia, should we significantly back off on our sort of sanctions policy for those things? And if so, how do we signal that without without undermining our credibility? 40:55 Elbridge Colby: In a sense, what we're going to need to do to leverage this greater power of this network, you know, allies, partners, whatever their role is going to be interoperability, the ability to work to different standards to communicate with each other. That's partially a technical problem and an equipment problem, but a lot of it is human training and an organizational issue. And Taiwan, I think I'm very enthusiastic about the arms sales to Taiwan. And I know that one was recently reported, I hope it goes through because it's the kind of equipment that we want to see this kind of A2AD denial kind of capabilities to Taiwan, but actually, where I think would be really valuable to move forward with. And that's a sensitive issue, but I think this would be within the context of our trade policy would personally be on training, you know, and that's something we could think about with Vietnam as well. Obviously, the Indians have a very sophisticated military, but they're maybe we can offer there too. So I think that's a real sort of force multiplier. 42:00 Rep. Mac Thornberry (TX): Turkeys geography, history, critical role is always going to be important is certainly valid. And yet, not only are there human rights and governance issues, the current leader of Turkey has policies that contradict the, in many ways the best interests of the United States. So, take that specific example. We don't want to make enemies of Turkey forever. But yet, what do we do now? To to preserve that future when there's a different government, but yet make clear or in some way help guide them on a better policy path? 57:50 Christine Wormuth: We need to make adjustments to our posture in the region to be able to better deal with China. And so the announcement by Palau, for example, that it's willing to host US airfields and bases could be quite helpful to us. Even though they're relatively small. We do need to diversify our footprint. 1:24:52 Christine Wormuth: The challenge is that the many of the countries in the indo Pacific don't want to have to choose between the United States and China. They want to engage with China for very clear economic interests, while most of them lean towards the United States for security interests, and I think they're trying to sort of thread that needle. 1:32:07 Christine Wormuth: Turkey is a very challenging geostrategic problem. I was in the Obama administration when we were fighting ISIS, and we knew there was tension between the necessity to have partners on the ground and the Syrian Democratic Forces were what we had. We knew Turkey had issues with that. In my experience, however, the United States worked very hard and very closely with Turkey to try to assuage their concerns and nothing was ever enough for them. So we do have a challenge, they are very important in terms of where they are located, but the authoritarianism that Erdogan has turned to is concerning. So I think we have to keep the dialogue open and continue to try to keep turkey inside the fold, but at the same time, communicate that doing whatever they want is not acceptable. And the the S400 for example, is a key example of that. 1:34:07 Christine Wormuth: AFRICOM’s Zero Based review, I hope will shed light on which kinds of activities are helping us and helping our African partners. 1:35:36 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: The UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain all have extensive efforts going on in Africa. So this is an opportunity once again, where we can work with allies to achieve what our objectives are. 1:40:00 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: What for sure brings a lot of military capability air landed forces to the a lot and that if for some reason, you know that it would have to be filled by us or the state or other allied to then that's a problem right? Sorry. But more importantly is control the strokes that can help the blacks in the Mediterranean. And so having a NATO ally has control and sovereignty over the strait we have the mantra. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation, September 22, 2020 Witnesses: Derek Mitchell President of the National Democratic Institute Returned to NDI in September 2018 after leaving in 1997 2012-2016: Former US Ambassador to the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Burma) 2011-2012: U.S. Department of State’s first Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma 2009-2011: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs (APSA) 2001-2009: Senior Fellow and Director of the Asia Division of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 1997-2001: Special Assistant for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 1993-1997: Senior Program Officer for Asia and the former Soviet Union at the National Democratic Institute 1986-1988: Foreign policy assistant for Sen. Ted Kennedy Dr. Alyssa Ayres Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations Consultant for the Japan Bank for International Cooperation Senior Advisor for McLarty Associates A global consultant firm "at home in corporate board rooms & government cabinet rooms, anywhere in the world" Member of the United States Institute of Peace 2010-2013: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Southeast Asia 2008-2010: Founding director of the India and South Asia practice at McLarty Asssociates 2007-2008: Special Assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Daniel Twining President of the International Republican Institute since 2017 Picked by outgoing President, Sen. John McCain 2009-2016: Former director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund 2007-2009: GWB State Department Policy Planning staffer 2001-2004: Foreign Policy Advisor to Sen. John McCain Transcript: 16:12 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: Last year I introduced the bipartisan Cambodia democracy act which passed the House overwhelmingly, it would impose sanctions on those in Cambodia responsible for undermining democratic rule of law in the country. We must be especially cognizant of democracies in Asia in danger of backsliding into autocracy, with China's help with their alternative to Western democracies, and that is Chinese socialism with Chinese characteristics that is communism, regardless of how they paint it and try to rename it. 21:10 Derek Mitchell: For nearly four decades, my organization, the National Democratic Institute, working alongside our partners at the International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy has assisted the spread and institutionalization of democracy around the world. Let me say at the start that we can only do this work thanks to the sustained bipartisan support of Congress, including from this subcommittee. So for that we are truly grateful. 21:50 Derek Mitchell: Today NDI maintains nearly a dozen offices in the Indo-Pacific region. And last week we just received clearance from the Taiwan government to open an office in Taipei, which we will do soon. 30:07 Dr. Alyssa Ayres: Sri Lanka after a five year period of improvement is now moving in the other direction with the return of the Rajapaksa government. The new political configuration will not pursue progress on reconciliation and accountability for the end of the Civil War, and the newly elected parliament is already hard at work, the constitutional amendment to expand presidential powers. 34:21 Daniel Twining: Beyond China the past year has seen countries once viewed as bright spots for democracy like Malaysia and Sri Lanka, regress due to political infighting, personality politics and failure to deliver promised reforms. 1:48:50 Dr. Alyssa Ayres: I do believe that the creation of the DFC is important. It is my understanding that it is not quite up and running 100%. So we have yet to really see what it can do as a potential alternate to these kinds of infrastructure under writings. The other piece of the DFC is that is it in part designed to help crowd in private sector engagement and private sector investments. So that's another part of the story. I think we may need more time before we're able to see how effective this mechanism can be. 1:49:22 Dr. Alyssa Ayres: I would note that we also had another very effective source of US government assistance that depends on, his premise on good governance indicators. And that's the Millennium Challenge Corporation. And I would just caution that in the South Asia region, we have now seen two examples in Nepal and in Sri Lanka, were the long process of engaging toward a Millennium Challenge compact agreement, large investments, about 500 million in each case towards transportation and power infrastructure. These have actually been held up in both of those countries because of political concerns. The Nepali government doesn't want to be part of the US-Indo Pacific strategy or feel that it is somehow being brought into the Indo-Pacific strategy. The Rajapaksa government is suspicious of the US MCC. So I would just offer those two examples of cases where we've got a terrific tool, but it's run into some challenges for political reasons and the countries of concern. 1:50:29 Daniel Twining: Thank you, Congressman, you've been such a leader, including with your Cambodia democracy act. And you know, that's a reminder that we do have the tools and, and leverage. The Europeans in Cambodia have suspended trading privileges that they had offered to Cambodia. Cambodia is very reliant on our GSP still. So some of these economic instruments matter in both a negative sense, but also in a positive sense. When countries do well, we should be working with them on new trade and financial arrangements, the Chinese do come in and do this in their own way. And we should get back to that as a country. Sir, you mentioned, do we withdraw support when a country backslides, on democracy? You know, I would argue that most of our support for country should not go directly to their governments, should go to independent civil society, free media, independent institutions and not just go into a central coffer that disappears. In the past, we've gotten a lot smarter about this as a country, but in the past, a lot of us development assistance disappeared because we were giving it to friendly autocracies in some cases, who did not have any means of accounting for it. So let's make sure that we invest in these democracy and governance instruments because we want to make sure that US taxpayer money is being used well. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Relations, September 17, 2017 Witnesses: Julie Chung Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department Philip T. Reeker 2019 to present: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs 2017-2019: Civilian Deputy to the Commander of the US European Command 2014-2017:Principal Officer and Consul General at the US Consulate General in Milan, Italy 2011-2014: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State fo rEuropean and Eurasian Affairs 2008-2011: US Ambassador to Macedonia 2007-2008: Counselor of Public Affairs at the US Embassy in Iraq 2004-2007: Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Hungary 1999-2004: Spokesman for the US State Dept David R. Stilwell Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the State Department Transcript: 17:44 David R. Stilwell: For years, we in the international community credited Beijing's commitments that facilitating China's entry into the rules based international order would lead to increasing domestic reform and opening. Beijing's persistent flouting of these commitments has shattered those illusions. It is now clear to us and to more and more countries around the world that PRC foreign and security policy seeks to reshape the international environment around the narrow interests and authoritarian values of a single beneficiary. That is the Chinese Communist Party. 22:19 David R. Stilwell: We sincerely appreciate congressional leadership in establishing the new counter China influence fund in fiscal year 2020 Appropriations Bill. This very important provision provides the department with a flexible mechanism that will bolster our efforts to strengthen our partners resiliency to Chinese malign influence worldwide. The initial round of CCIF funding solicitation resulted in over 400 project submissions from around the globe, with demand far outstripping the appropriate funding. 29:57 Philip T. Reeker: By using platforms like the One Belt One Road initiative, the Chinese Communist Party endeavors to create dependencies and cultivate client state relationships through the 17 Plus One initiative which involves 12 countries that are both NATO and EU members primarily in Central and Eastern Europe, China aims to achieve access and ownership over valuable transportation hubs, critical infrastructure, ports and industries. 31:09 Philip T. Reeker: Using authorities granted by legislation members of this committee introduced, as mentioned the bipartisan Build Act and the European Energy Security and Diversification Act, we've been able to begin leveraging the New Development Finance Corporation to try to catalyze key investments in strategic projects. Most notable I'd point to Secretary Pompeo. His pledge at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year of $1 billion, a commitment to the Three Seas Initiative in the Czech Republic which Secretary Pompeo visited just last month, they have transformed from a target of Chinese influence to a leader in the European awakening. 33:29 Philip T. Reeker: Although China's GDP is about eight times the size of Russia's, Russia remains the primary military threat to Europe and the strategic priority for most of our allies and partners, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe. Russia and China are more closely aligned strategically than at any point since the 1950s. And we see growing cooperation across a range of diplomatic, military, economic and information activities. 46:15 Julie Chung: In terms of [cepheus], and investment screening, we have extensive engagements in the region. We have been sending technical delegations to countries in the region to explain how public procurement processes and transparent processes work. We have helped governments build that capacity through the America Crece initiative. We have 10 mo use now signed with countries throughout the region. And that's part of the the tool to use in addressing the corruption issues that China is bringing to the region. How do we ensure the countries have the right tools in place, the practices in place, the procurement practices and regulatory framework to the private sector companies want to come and invest in those countries and ensure they have a level playing field to be working through the America Crece initiative. 47:17 Julie Chung: DFC has been a wonderful tool and resource that we've been able to now utilize more than ever, in from the former OPEX utilities, not expanding that broader base in Latin America and the Caribbean. So DFC in our region has already invested and has pledged to invest $12 billion in just the Western Hemisphere alone, and in Central America, $3 billion. So it's already invested in Central America, in El Salvador, for instance, on an LNG project, and other projects that are forthcoming. 1:17:16 Philip T. Reeker: Three Seas Initiative was developed by countries dozen countries in the Central and Eastern European region to provide alternatives particularly in a north-south direction for trade and infrastructure, and we have stepped in to support the Three Seas not as a member, but as an interested partner. And Secretary Pompeo outlined, as I mentioned, that the development Finance Corporation is offering up to a billion dollars in matching investment funds for opportunities throughout that region. 1:35:00 Julie Chung: Taiwan and the United States are working together in Latin America. So they announced financing to provide SME loan support for Latin American Central American region through the kabe. The Central American Bank of Government Integration. So that's one example of where we're providing that funding into the region. There's also a $26 million loan that DFCS provided to provide telecom towers in Peru and Ecuador 500 telecom towers, and this addresses both our strategic interest as well as a 5G telecommunications interest that where China is trying to take over and really control that that sector. 1:50:29 Julie Chung: In terms of DFC and working on digital authoritarianism, there's no better example in the region then in Maduro's regime, the authoritarian regime of Maduro and working in close concert with China, and China's ZTE has long had a relationship with the Maduro regime and providing the carnet de patria which spies on civil society and opposition leaders and determines how who gets what food allocations within that country. And so right now, of course, we are not engaging in DFC in Venezuela. But in a democratic future. When we have a democratic transition in that country. We would love to bring DFC into it and help rebuild. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, September 15, 2020 Witnesses: Monica de Bolle, PhD Professor of Latin American Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics Senior Advisor with International Capital Strategies (not listed on her hearing bio) Former professor of macroeconomics at the Pontifical Catholic Universtiy of Rio de Janeiro Managing partner of Galanto MBB Consultants, a macroeconomic consultancy firm based in Brazil Former economist at the International Monetary Fund Michael Camilleri Director of the Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program for Inter-American Dialogue Senior Advisor at WestExec Advisors since February 2018 (not listed on his hearing bio) The firm founded by the incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken Former Western Hemisphere adviser on Obama's Secretary of State's Policy Planning Staff and Director for Andean Affairs at the National Security Council from 2012-2017 Former human rights specialist at the Organization of American States Former senior staff attorney at the Center for Justice and International Law Member of the Council on Foreign Relations Eric Farnsworth Vice President of the Council of the Americas since 2003 Former Managing Director of ManattJones Global Strategies, a consulting firm from 1998-2005 Former member of the global public policy division of Bristol-Meyers Squibb, a multinational pharmaceutical company Former Senior Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton from 1995-1998 Former Foreign Affairs Officer at the State Department from 1990-1995 Former Services and Investment Industry Analyst at the Office of the US Trade Representatives in 1992 Transcript: 25:10 Rep. Francis Rooney (FL): US international development Finance Corporation will play a crucial role in investments in the region, which I believe can help the recovery and also as long term economic well being 2:08:13 Eric Farnsworth: Notably, Washington is taking actions to build a forward looking economic recovery agenda. Among them the Americas Crece, a program announced at the end of 2019 and enhanced financing facilities through the newly minted Development Finance Corporation. 2:09:21 Eric Farnsworth: Economic Recovery must be at the forefront of the pending summit of the Americas. Latin America already suffers from one of the lowest levels of intra regional trade worldwide, for example. The gains from expanded intra regional trade would establish sounder economic footing while helping to moderate the cyclical nature of commodities markets, as well. Nations across Latin America and the Caribbean can focus more attention on improving their respective investment climates. Mr. Rooney, the ranking minority member has made this case effectively many, many times. For its part, the United States should come to the 2021 summit with a robust economic expansion initiative. Absent a massive economic financial package of debt relief and new lending, renewal of a hemispheric trade and investment agenda will be the best way to promote regional recovery, support US and regional economic interests and renew a regional strategic posture that China has begun to challenge. 2:11:03 Julie Chung: So how does the United States continue to advocate democracy in Venezuela? I say sham of legislative election and the end of Guaido's mandate are rapidly approaching. How do we do that? Well, I don't if know if [inaudible] wanted this question. 2:13:03 Eric Farnsworth: There are huge amounts of illicit money being made and moved in Venezuela through illegal activities, illegal gold mining, drug trafficking and the like. And one of the best ways I think to get at the regime is to stanch the flow of those financial resources. And frankly, to identify and to freeze those funds and then also to begin to seize them and take them back at once the economic incentives for illegal behavior are removed or at least reduced, perhaps the political dynamic in Venezuela will change that people will begin to see that they really have to find a way out from this mess frankly, that Nicolas Maduro has created. 2:14:14 Monica de Bolle, PhD: It will be very hard to get other Latin American countries to focus on the issues in Venezuela given that they have runaway epidemics in their own countries. And we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that amongst the 10 countries that have the largest or the highest per capita death rate in the world right now are all in Latin America. 2:16:00 Michael Camilleri: Unfortunately, the Guaido interim government, the the National Assembly, the G4 are not in the same position they were in a year or your half ago, the balance of forces on the ground in Venezuela has tilted in favor of the Maduro regime. And so that will that will require us to calibrate our own efforts and invite view we need to be realistic about the fact that some sort of negotiated pathway to free and fair elections ultimately is the most realistic and the most peaceful, frankly, path out of the the awful situation that the country finds itself in. 2:23:21 Monica de Bolle, PhD: Apart from corruption, which is certainly a problem in the oil sector as well as in other parts of the Venezuelan economy, there's also been dramatic underinvestment in the oil industry, which has now led the country to this situation where, rather than being a very big net oil exporter, as they used to be in the 1980s in the 1990s, they've now become a net oil importer, which shows exactly how much you can squander your country's resources and just basically run an economy to the ground. 2:33:58 Eric Farnsworth: And what we're seeing is some concern in the investor community about actions that have been taken perhaps on the backtracking on the reform agenda around energy in particular, but in other sectors as well, canceling contracts that have been previously agreed, and some other actions like that and the investment community is very cautious. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the Environment, September 10, 2020 Witnesses: Douglas Rutzen President and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law Professor at Georgetown University Law Center Advisory Board member of the United Nations Democracy Fund Therese Pearce Laanela Head of Electoral Processes at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Joanna Rohozinska Resident Program Director for Europe at the Beacon Project at the International Republican Institute Senior program officer for Europe at the National Endowment for Democracy at least as of 2019. She has worked there for about a decade Jamie Fly Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and Co-Director of the Alliance for Security Democracy Senior Advisor to WestExec Advisors Co-founded by incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken Former President and CEO of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2019 & 2020 Former counselor for foreign and national security affairs for Sen. Marco Rubio from 2013-2017 Former Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative from 2009-2013 Former member of GWB's National Security Council from 2008-2009 Former member of GWB's Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-2008 Transcript: 53:30 Joanna Rohozinska: Lukshenko must be held responsible for his choices and actions. Word mating strategies with transatlantic allies should be priority and to call for dialogue, immediate release of political prisoners and support for the political opposition's demands for holding elections under international supervision and beginning negotiations on a Lukshenko transition. 53:56 Joanna Rohozinska: Support for democracy requires patience as well as long term commitment and vision. This has been made possible with the support of Congress to IRI and the family. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 1:03:05 Therese Pearce Laanela: Institutions that are as strong...What we are seeing... those that are able to safeguard and against disinformation for example, they are working in innovative ways because this isn't a challenge that existed really as much before social media and one of the things that we're seeing is a kind of interagency cooperation, a partnership between private and public. That's really hasn't been seen before. Let me just take Australia as a case, but the working together with social media companies and government agencies and security agencies and election officials for rapid reaction to anything that comes in and that kind of seamless communication between agencies, that is one of the ways in which we can protect. 1:04:15 Jamie Fly: We have tools. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty has a Bella Russian language service Radio Svoboda which has significant of followers inside Belarus. The problem is that Lukashenko like many other authoritarians have realized that when they face significant pressure, they should take the country offline. And Belarusian authorities have done that on a regular basis, which makes it much more difficult to communicate and allow information to spread freely. So what they really need outlets like Svoboda and other independent media are access to internet circumvention tools, which are also funded by the State Department and the US Agency for Global Media. 1:09:57 Douglas Rutzen: China is providing surveillance technology to countries including Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Serbia. They also provided a $2 billion dollar loan to Hungry to construct a railway which Hungry then classified as a state secret in terms of the construction. 1:19:28 Brian Fitzpatrick: In 2013, in 2000, and he saw large scale protests in Ukraine, following what many believed to be a falsification of elections by their federal officials. So my first question for the entire panel, do you believe that Belarus protests could lead to a revolution similar to the one we saw in Ukraine and secondarily, on Tuesday, President Lukashenko, refused to rule out the idea of holding new elections, and acknowledge that he may have overstayed his time at office, whether or not you see revolutions similar to Ukraine, do you think that these protests could lead to an actual change in leadership? Joanna Rohozinska: So I take it as a question to me. I mean, I think that things have been building up and I would say that with this similarity to Ukraine was that there was also a deep seated frustration with corruption. Here, it's less about corruption. But it's still meets, where you have the accountability and transparency aspect of it that I was mentioning in my testimony. And I think that the frustration with the lack of responsive government and being treated like animals, frankly, is what they say, is what finally boiled over, but there's been, there's been an uptick in protests in Belarus, if you watch these kinds of things over the past two years, over the parasite tax, for example, which was also was a special tax that was put on unemployment, and on to penalize people who are unemployed, is trying to target civic activists, but it ended up reaching far farther than that. So you can see things percolating below the surface for quite a long time. Now. You never know when it's going to blow. Here, I think that there was just the COVID, underlay everything and it mobilized such a broad swath of society, that the trigger event was finally the elections, which again, demonstrating a degree of hubris they decided not to put off right, they figured that holding the elections at the beginning of August was the best thing to do, because there is always a low torque turnout and all this, frankly, because people tend to go out to the countryside. So they simply miscalculated. They did not understand how the people were feeling. And here, you do have a similarity with Ukraine, I think. And in terms of in terms of the other questions to going forward? No, you have to appreciate that this is a country that's never experienced democracy ever. Which means that even the democratic opposition leaders basically know it from textbooks, they don't know what from firsthand practice. And, Lukashenko himself, ironically, has been supporting the notion of sovereignty and independence in the face of the Russian state for the past couple of years. And he only changed his tune a couple of weeks ago, when he started getting backed into a corner. And in terms of, you know, his promises and calling new elections, I would be wary. He does not have a particularly good track record of following through on promises. And so I would probably take that as a lesson learned and be extremely cautious. I personally think he's just buying time. Because he also said that he would consider holding the elections after introducing constitutional changes and the constitutional changes that he's proposing is to introduce term limits. So I mean, he's still looking at the succession. He understands that this is the end of his time in office. I don't know if he wants to do that right, exactly now, however, understanding that this would have been his last term anyways, you're probably preparing for an exit strategy. 1:23:00 Joanna Rohozinska: I would certainly invest in looking at quality early parliamentary elections as being much more significant. Because once you turn the house, once you turn the parliament and then at least you start building up a degree of political capital that can start carrying forward into into the governance. 1:52:37 Therese Pearce Laanela: Your people are excellent. I really want to say that I'm calling in from Sweden. I'm not American myself. But I have worked in this business for 28 years working in different countries in really tough situations. And some of the best experts out there are from organizations that are very close to those of you when you're normally working in Washington. So the United Nations as well based in New York, but also organizations like IFIS, NDI, our colleagues from IRI they are doing excellent work supported by USA ID. So and they've kind of got it figured out how to support institutions for the long term, so you can trust the people that you are supporting. Hearing: , House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, July 1, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Tanvi Madan – Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, The Brookings Institution Dr. Evan Medeiros – Penner Family Chair in Asian Studies and Cling Family Distinguished Fellow, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University Mr. Orville Schell – Arthur Ross Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society Ms. Meredith Sumpter 2020 October: Hired as the CEO of the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican 2017-2020: Head of Research Strategy and Operations, Eurasia Group 2014-2016: Director at multinational consulting firm BowerGroup Asia Transcript: 55:45 Ms. Meredith Sumpter: Beijing decision makers believe that their state directed economic system is the foundation of the livelihood of their political system. In other words, we have been spending our energies trying to force China to change and China is not willing to change an economic model that it believes underpins its political longevity. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

Everyone who uses Facebook, Google, and Twitter has probably noticed the disappearance of posts and the appearance of labels, especially during the 2020 election season. In this episode, hear the highlights from six recent House and Senate hearings where executives from the social media giants and experts on social media testified about the recent changes. The incoming 117th Congress is promising to make new laws that will affect our social media experiences; these conversations are where the new laws are being conceived.  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes The Mueller Report National Endowment for Democracy Articles/Documents Article: WTMJ-TV Milwaukee, November 24, 2020 Article: By Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 16, 2020 Article: By Glenn Greenwald, November 12, 2020 Article: Facebook, November 3, 2020 Article: By Kaelyn Forde and Patricia Sabga, Aljazeera, October 30, 2020 Article: By Elliot Harmon and Joe Mullin, Electronic Frontier Foundation, October 29, 2020 Article: , by Matt Taibbi, TK News, October 24, 2020 Article: The Washington Post, October 20, 2020 Article: , by Kevin Johnson, USA Today, October 19, 2020 Article: By Natasha Lomas, Tech Crunch, October 16, 2020 Article: By Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, New York Post, October 14, 2020 Article: By Sophia Bernazzani, HubSpot, May 3, 2020 Article: By Josh Constine, TechCrunch, March 28, 2019 Article: SFS, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, June 21, 2016 Article: By Brian Boland, Facebook for Business, June 5, 2014 Article: The Washington Post, October 4, 2013 Additional Resources General Guidelines and policies: , Twitter, October 2020 Facebook Business Facebook Business , IFCN Code of Principles , Electronic Frontier Foundation Mission Statement: Open Markets News Media Alliance News Corp Foreign Policy Research Institute Foreign Policy Research Institute Wicszipedia Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, November 17, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: 30:50 Jack Dorsey: We were called here today because of an enforcement decision we made against New York Post, based on a policy we created in 2018. To prevent Twitter from being used to spread hacked materials. This resulted in us blocking people from sharing a New York Post article, publicly or privately. We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread. Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours. We informed the New York Post of our air and policy update and how to unlock their account by deleting the original violating tweet, which freed them to tweet the exact same content and news article again. They chose not to, instead insisting we reverse our enforcement action. We do not have a practice around retro actively overturning prior enforcement's, since then it demonstrated that we needed one and so we created one we believe is fair and appropriate. 35:13 Mark Zuckerberg: At Facebook, we took our responsibility to protect the integrity of this election very seriously. In 2016, we began to face new kinds of threats and after years of preparation, we were ready to defend against them. We built sophisticated systems to protect against election interference, that combined artificial intelligence, significant human review, and partnerships with the intelligence community, law enforcement and other tech platforms. We've taken down more than 100 networks of bad actors, we're trying to coordinate and interfere globally, we established a network of independent fact checkers that covers more than 60 languages. We made political advertising more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else, and including TV, radio and email. And we introduced new policies to combat voter suppression and misinformation. Still, the pandemic created new challenges, how to handle misinformation about COVID and voting by mail, how to prepare people for the reality, the results would take time, and how to handle if someone prematurely declared victory or refused to accept the result. So in September, we updated our policies again to reflect these realities of voting in 2020. And make sure that we were taking precautions given these unique circumstances. We worked with local election officials to remove false claims about polling conditions that might lead to voter suppression. We partnered with Reuters and the national election pool to provide reliable information about results. We attach voting information to posts by candidates on both sides and additional contexts to posts trying to de legitimize the outcome. We lock down new political ads and the week before the election to prevent misleading claims from spreading when they couldn't be rebutted. We strengthened our enforcement against militias and conspiracy networks like QAnon to prevent them from using our platforms to organize violence or civil unrest altogether. I believe this was the largest election integrity effort by any private company in recent times. 40:50 Jack Dorsey: We have transparency around our policies, we do not have transparency around how we operate content moderation, the rationale behind it, the reasoning. And as we look forward, we have more and more of our decisions of our operations moving to algorithms, which are, have a difficult time explaining why they make decisions, bringing transparency around those decisions. And that is why we believe that we should have more choice in how these algorithms are applied to our content, whether we use them at all so we can turn them on or off and have clarity around the outcomes that they're projecting and how they affect our experience. 45:39 Mark Zuckerberg: We work with a number of independent organizations that are accredited by the Poynter Institute. And they include Reuters, the Associated Press. AJans France presse, United States, USA Today, factcheck.org, Science Feedback, PolitiFact, Check Your Fact, Leadstories and the Dispatch in the United States. 48:54 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do both of you support change to 230? Reform of Section 230? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator I do. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Thank you. 54:10 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): How many times is Steve Bannon allowed to call for the murder of government officials before Facebook suspends his account? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as you say, the content in question did violate our policies and we took it down. Having a content violation does not automatically mean your account gets taken down. And the number of strikes varies depending on the amount and type of offense. So if people are posting terrorist content or child exploitation content, then the first time they do it, then we will take down their account. For other things. It's multiple, I'd be happy to follow up afterwards. We try not to disclose these... Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Will you commit to taking down that account? Steve Bannon? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, that's not what our policies would suggest that we should do in this case. 1:07:05 Jack Dorsey: What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it. So our intention is to create clear policy, clear enforcement that enables people to feel that they can express themselves on our service, and ultimately trust it. Sen. John Cornyn (TX): So it was a business decision. Jack Dorsey: It was a business decision. 2:56:34 Mark Zuckerberg: We do coordinate on and share signals on security related topics. So for example, if there is signal around a terrorist attack or around child exploitation imagery or around a foreign government, creating an influence operation, that is an area where the companies do share signals about what they see. But I think it's important to be very clear that that is distinct from the content moderation policies that we or the other companies have, where once we share intelligence or signals between the companies, each company makes its own assessment of the right way to address and deal with that information. 3:59:10 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): I don't know what it what are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump's use of your platforms after he stops being president it? Will he still be deemed newsworthy? And will he still get to use your platform to spread this misinformation? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, let me clarify my last answer. We are also having academic study, the effective of all of our election measures and they'll be publishing those results publicly. In terms of President Trump and moving forward. There are a small number of policies where we have exceptions for politicians under the principle that people should be able to hear what their elected officials are saying and candidates for office. But by and large, the vast majority of our policies have no newsworthiness or political exception. So if the President or anyone else is spreading hate speech, or inciting violence, or posting content, that delegitimizes the election or valid forms of voting, those will receive the same treatment is anyone else saying those things, and that will continue to be the case Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): Remains to be seen. Jack Dorsey: So we do have a policy around public interest, where for global leaders, we do make exceptions in terms of whether if a tweet violates our terms of service, we leave it up behind an interstitial, and people are not allowed to share that more broadly. So a lot of the sharing is disabled with the exception of quoting it so that you can add your own conversation on top of it. So if an account suddenly becomes, is not a world leader anymore, that particular policy goes away. 4:29:35 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (TN): Do you believe it's Facebook's duty to comply with state sponsored censorship so it can keep operating doing business and selling ads in that country? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator in general, we try to comply with the laws in every country where we operate and do business. Hearing: , Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, October 28, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Sundar Pichai, Alphabet Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: 10:10 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): In policing, conservative sites, then its own YouTube platform or the same types of offensive and outrageous claims. 45:50 Jack Dorsey: The goal of our labeling is to provide more context to connect the dots so that people can have more information so they can make decisions for themselves. 46:20 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): I have a tweet here from Mr. Ajit Pai. Mr. Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. And he recounts some four tweets by the Iranian dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which Twitter did not place a public label on. They all four of them glorify violence. The first tweet says this and I quote each time 'the Zionist regime is a deadly cancerous growth and a detriment to the region, it will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.' That's the first tweet. The second tweet 'The only remedy until the removal of the Zionist regime is firm armed resistance,' again, left up without comment by Twitter. The third 'the struggle to free Palestine is jihad in the way of God.' I quote that in part for the sake of time, and number four, 'we will support and assist any nation or any group anywhere who opposes and fights the Zionist regime.' I would simply point out that these tweets are still up, Mr. Dorsey. And how is it that they are acceptable to be to be there? Alan, I'll ask unanimous consent to enter this tweet from Ajit Pai in the record at this point that'll be done. Without objection. How Mr. Dorsey, is that acceptable based on your policies at Twitter? Jack Dorsey: We believe it's important for everyone to hear from global leaders and we have policies around world leaders. We want to make sure that we are respecting their right to speak and to publish what they need. But if there's a violation of our terms of service, we want to label it and... Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): They're still up, did they violate your terms of service? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We did not find those two violate our terms of service because we consider them saber rattling, which is, is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries. Speech against our own people, or a country's own citizens we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm. 59:20 Jack Dorsey: We don't have a policy against misinformation. We have a policy against misinformation in three categories, which are manipulated media, public health, specifically COVID and civic integrity, election interference and voter suppression. 1:39:05 Sen. Brian Schatz (HI): What we are seeing today is an attempt to bully the CEOs of private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential candidate, by making sure that they push out foreign and domestic misinformation meant to influence the election. To our witnesses today, you and other tech leaders need to stand up to this immoral behavior. The truth is that because some of my colleagues accuse you, your companies and your employees of being biased or liberal, you have institutionally bent over backwards and over compensated, you've hired republican operatives, hosted private dinners with Republican leaders, and in contravention of your Terms of Service, given special dispensation to right wing voices, and even throttled progressive journalism. Simply put, the republicans have been successful in this play. 1:47:15 Jack Dorsey: This one is a tough one to actually bring transparency to. Explainability in AI is a field of research but is far out. And I think a better opportunity is giving people more choice around the algorithms they use, including to turn off the algorithms completely which is what we're attempting to do. 2:15:00 Sen. Jerry Moran (KS): Whatever the numbers are you indicate that they are significant. It's a enormous amount of money and an enormous amount of employee time, contract labor time in dealing with modification of content. These efforts are expensive. And I would highlight for my colleagues on the committee that they will not be any less expensive, perhaps less than scale, but not less in cost for startups and small businesses. And as we develop our policies in regard to this topic, I want to make certain that entrepreneurship, startup businesses and small business are considered in what it would cost in their efforts to meet the kind of standards to operate in a sphere. 2:20:40 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they're leaving too many dangerous posts up. In fact, they're amplifying harmful content so that it spreads like wildfire and torches our democracy. 3:04:00 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Between the censorship of conservative and liberal points of view, and it's an enormous disparity. Now you have the right, I want to be very clear about this, you have every single right to set your own terms of service and to interpret them and to make decisions about violations. But given the disparate impact of who gets censored on your platforms, it seems that you're either one not enforcing your Terms of Service equally, or alternatively, to that you're writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints. 3:15:30 Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Okay for both Mr. Zuckerberg and Dorsey who censored New York Post stories, or throttled them back, did either one of you have any evidence that the New York Post story is part of Russian disinformation? Or that those emails aren't authentic? Did anybody have any information whatsoever? They're not authentic more than they are Russian disinformation? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We don't. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): So why would you censor it? Why did you prevent that from being disseminated on your platform that is supposed to be for the free expression of ideas, and particularly true ideas... Jack Dorsey: we believe to fell afoul of our hacking materials policy, we judged... Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): They weren't hacked. Jack Dorsey: We we judge them moment that it looked like it was hacked material. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): You were wrong. Jack Dorsey: And we updated our policy and our enforcement within 24 hours. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Mr. Zuckerberg? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as I testified before, we relied heavily on the FBI, his intelligence and alert status both through their public testimony and private briefings. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Did the FBI contact you, sir, than your co star? It was false. Mark Zuckerberg: Senator not about that story specifically. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Why did you throttle it back. Mark Zuckerberg: They alerted us to be on heightened alert around a risk of hack and leak operations around a release and probe of information. And to be clear on this, we didn't censor the content. We flagged it for fact checkers to review. And pending that review, we temporarily constrained its distribution to make sure that it didn't spread wildly while it was being reviewed. But it's not up to us either to determine whether it's Russian interference, nor whether it's true. We rely on the fact checkers to do that. 3:29:30 Sen. Rick Scott (FL): That's becoming obvious that your that your companies are unfairly targeting conservatives. That's clearly the perception today, Facebook is actively targeting as by conservative groups ahead of the election, either removing the ads completely or adding their own disclosure if they claim that didn't pass their fact check system. 3:32:40 Sen. Rick Scott (FL): You can't just pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed on your platform an expect to keep immunity granted by Section 230. News Clip: , CNN, Twitter, October 16, 2020 Hearing: , Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, October 15, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Joan Donovan: Research Director at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School Nina Jankowicz: Disinformation Fellow at the Wilson Center Cindy Otis: Vice President of the Althea Group Melanie Smith: Head of Analysis, Graphika Inc Transcript: 41:30 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): And I should acknowledge that we're pretty careful. We understand that we shouldn't be in the business of fighting misinformation that's probably inconsistent with the First Amendment. So what do we do? We ask that it be outsourced to people that we otherwise are pretty critical of like Mark Zuckerberg, and Jack Dorsey, we say you do it, which strikes me as a pretty lame way to address what may or may not be a problem. 42:00 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Miss Jankowicz said that misinformation is dismantling democracy. I'm skeptical of that. And that will be my question. What evidence is that is out there that this is dismantling democracy, I don't mean that millions of people see QAnon I actually want to see the evidence that people are seeing this information, and are in a meaningful way, in a material way, dismantling our democracy through violence or through political organizations, because if we're going to go down that path, I need something more than eyeballs. So I need some evidence for how this is dismantling our democracy. And secondly, if you persuade me that we're dismantling our democracy, how do we get in the business of figuring out who should define what misinformation or disinformation is? Nina Jankowicz: To address your first question related to evidence of the dismantling of democracy. There's two news stories that I think point to this from the last couple of weeks alone. The first is related to the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And the social media platforms played a huge role in allowing that group to organize. It allowed, that group to, it ceded the information that led them to organize and frankly, as a woman online who has been getting harassed a lot lately, lately, with sexualized and gender disinformation, I am very acutely aware of how those threats that are online can transfer on to real world violence. And that make no mistake is meant to keep women and minorities from not only participating in the democratic process by exercising our votes, but also keeping us from public life. So that's one big example. But there was another example just recently from a channel for in the UK documentary that looked at how the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica data to selectively target black voters with voter suppression ads during the 2016 election. Again, this is it's affecting people's participation. It's not just about fake news, stories on the internet. In fact, a lot of the best disinformation is grounded in a kernel of truth. And in my written testimony, I go through a couple of other examples of how online action has led to real world action. And this isn't something that is just staying on the internet, it is increasingly in real life. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I don't have a lot of time. Do you think that both examples that you offered up Gov the plot to kidnap governor, the governor of Michigan, and your other example passed the but for test? I mean, this country probably got into the Spanish American War over 130 years ago because of the good works of William Randolph Hearst. So how do we, we've had misinformation and yellow journalism and terrible media and voter suppression forever. And I understand that these media platforms have scale that William Randolph Hearst didn't have. But are you sure that both of those examples pass the buck for they wouldn't have happened without the social media misinformation? Nina Jankowicz: I believe they do, because they allow the organization of these groups without any oversight, and they allow the targeting the targeting of these messages to the groups and people that are going to find the most vulnerable and are most likely to take action against them. And that's what our foreign adversaries do. And increasingly, it's what people within our own country are using to organize violence against the democratic participation of many of our fellow citizens. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Okay, well, I'm out of time I would love to continue this conversation and pursue what you mean by groups being formed quote, without oversight, that's language I'd like to better understand but I'm out of time, but I would like to continue this conversation into, well, if this is the problem that you say it is, what do we actually do about it? Hearing: , Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, July 16, 2020 Witnesses: Adam Cohen: Director of Economic Policy at Google Matt Perault: Head of Global Policy Development at Facebook Nate Sutton: Associate General Counsel for Competition at Amazon Kyle Andeer: Vice President for Corporate Law at Apple Timothy Wu: Julius Silver Professor of Law at Columbia Law School Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at Yale School of Management Stacy Mitchell: Co-Director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance Maureen Ohlhausen: Partner at Baker Botts LLP Carl Szabo: Vice President and Gneral Counsel at NetChoice Morgan Reed: Executive Director at the App Association Transcript: 55:15 Adam Cohen: Congresswoman we use a combination of automated tools, we can recognize copyrighted material that creators upload and instantaneously discover it and keep it from being seen on our platforms. 1:16:00 Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Do you use consumer data to favor Amazon products? Because before you answer that, analysts estimate that between 80 and 90% of sales go to the Amazon buy box. So you collect all this data about the most popular products where they're selling. And you're saying you don't use that in any way to change an algorithm to support the sale of Amazon branded products? Nate Sutton: Our algorithms such as the buy box is aimed to predict what customers want to buy, apply the same criteria whether you're a third party seller, or Amazon to that because we want customers to make the right purchase, regardless of whether it's a seller or Amazon. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): But the best purchase to you as an Amazon product. Nate Sutton: No, that's not true. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): So you're telling us you're under oath, Amazon does not use any of that data collected with respect to what is selling, where it's on what products to inform the decisions you make, or to change algorithms to direct people to Amazon products and prioritize Amazon and D prioritize competitors. Nate Sutton: The algorithms are optimized to predict what customers want to buy regardless of the seller. We provide this same criteria and with respect to popularity, that's public data on each product page. We provide the ranking of each product. 3:22:50 Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: As is detailed in the report that I submitted as my testimony, there are a number of characteristics of platforms that tend to drive them toward concentrated markets, very large economies of scale, consumers exacerbate this with their behavioral biases, we don't scroll down to the second page, we don't. We accept default, we follow the framing the platform gives us and instead of searching independently, and what that does is it makes it very hard for small companies to grow and for new ones to get traction against the dominant platform. And without the threat of entry from entrepreneurs and growth from existing competitors, the dominant platform doesn't have to compete as hard. If it's not competing as hard, then there are several harms that follow from that. One is higher prices for advertisers, many of these platforms are advertising supported, then there's higher prices to consumers who may think that they're getting a good deal by paying a price of zero. But the competitive price might well be negative, the consumers might well be able to be paid for using these platforms in a competitive market. Other harms include low quality in the form of less privacy, more advertising and more exploitative content that consumers can't avoid. Because, as Tim just said, there isn't anywhere else to go. And lastly, without competitive pressure, innovation is lessened. And in particular, it's channeled in the direction the dominant firm prefers, rather than being creatively spread across directions chosen by entrance. And this is what we learned both from at&t and IBM and Microsoft, is that when the dominant firm ceases to control innovation, there's a flowering and it's very creative and market driven. So the solution to this problem of insufficient competition is complimentary steps forward in both antitrust and regulation. Antitrust must recalibrate the balance it strikes between the risk of over enforcement and under enforcement. The evidence now shows we've been under enforcing for years and consumers have been harmed. 3:22:50 Stacy Mitchell: I hope the committee will consider several policy tools as part of this investigation. In particular, we very much endorse the approach that Congress took with regard to the railroads, that if you operate essential infrastructure, you can't also compete with the businesses that rely on that infrastructure. 3:45:00 Morgan Reed: Here on the table, I have a copy of Omni page Pro. This was a software you bought, if you needed to scan documents. If you wanted to turn it into a processor and you could look at it in a word processor. I've also got this great review from PC World, they loved it back in 2005. But the important fact here in this review is that it says the street price of this software in 2005 was $450. Now, right here, I've got an app from a company called Readdle, that is nearly the same product level has a bunch of features that this one doesn't, it's $6. Basically now consumers pay less than 1% of what they used to pay for some of the same capability. And what's even better about that, even though I love the product from Readdle, there are dozens of competitors in the app space. So when you look at it from that perspective, consumers are getting a huge win. How have platforms made this radical drop in price possible? Simply put, they've provided three things a trusted space, reduced overhead, and given my developers nearly instant access to a global marketplace with billions of customers, before the platforms to get your software onto a retail store shelf. companies had to spend years and thousands of dollars to get to the point where a distributor would handle their product, then you'd agree agree to a cut of sales revenue, write a check for upfront marketing, agree to refund the distributor the cost of any unsold boxes and then spend 10s of thousands of dollars to buy an end cap. Digging a little bit on this, I don't know how many of you know or aware that the products you see on your store shelf or in the Sunday flyer aren't there because the manager thought it was a cool product. Those products are displayed at the end of an aisle or end cap because the software developer or consumer goods company literally pays for the shelf space. In fact, for many retailers the sale of floor the sale of floor space and flyers makes a huge chunk of their profitability for their store. And none of this takes into consideration printing boxes, manuals, CDs, dealing with credit cards if you go direct translation services, customs authorities if you want to sell abroad in the 1990s it cost a million dollars to start up a software company. Now it's $100,000 in sweat equity. And thanks to these changes, the average cost for consumer software has dropped from $50 to three. For developers. Our cost to market has dropped enormously and the size of our market has expanded globally. 3:48:55 Stacy Mitchell: I've spent a lot of time interviewing and talking with independent retailers, manufacturers of all sizes. Many of them are very much afraid of speaking out publicly because they fear retaliation. But what we consistently hear is that Amazon is the biggest threat to their businesses. We just did a survey of about 550 independent retailers nationally, Amazon ranked number one in terms of being what they said was the biggest threat to their business above, rising healthcare costs, access to capital, government, red tape, anything else you can name. Among those who are actually selling on the platform, only 7% reported that it was actually helping their bottom line. Amazon has a kind of godlike view of a growing share of our commerce and it uses the data that it gathers to advantage its own business and its own business interests in lots of ways. A lot of this, as I said, comes from the kind of leverage its ability to sort of leverage the interplay between these different business lines to maximize its advantage, whether it's promoting its own product because that's lucrative or whether it's using the manufacturer of a product to actually squeeze a seller or vendor into giving it bigger discounts. [3:53:15] Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND): When we recognize, I come from very rural area, the closest, what you would consider a big box store is Minneapolis or Denver. So and so when we're talking about competition, all of this I also think we've got to remember, at no point in time from my house in Dickinson, North Dakota have I had more access to more diverse and cheap consumer products. I mean, things that often would require a plane ticket or a nine hour car ride to buy can now be brought to our house. So I think when we're talking about consumers, we need to remember that side of it, too. Hearing: , Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 18, 2020 Witnesses: Nathaniel Gleicher: Head of Security Policy at Facebook Nick Pickles: Director of Global Public Policy Strategy and Development at Twitter Richard Salgado: Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security at Google Transcript: 19:16 Nathaniel Gleicher: Facebook has made significant investments to help protect the integrity of elections. We now have more than 35,000 people working on safety and security across the company, with nearly 40 teams focused specifically on elections and election integrity. We're also partnering with federal and state governments, other tech companies, researchers and civil society groups to share information and stop malicious actors. Over the past three years, we've worked to protect more than 200 elections around the world. We've learned lessons from each of these, and we're applying these lessons to protect the 2020 election in November. 21:58 Nathaniel Gleicher: We've also been proactively hunting for bad actors trying to interfere with the important discussions about injustice and inequality happening around our nation. As part of this effort, we've removed isolated accounts seeking to impersonate activists, and two networks of accounts tied to organize hate groups that we've previously banned from our platforms. 26:05 Nick Pickles: Firstly, Twitter shouldn't determine the truthfulness of tweets. And secondly, Twitter should provide context to help people make up their own minds in cases where the substance of a tweet is disputed. 26:15 Nick Pickles: We prioritize interventions regarding misinformation based on the highest potential for harm. And the currently focused on three main areas of content, synthetic & manipulated media, elections and civic integrity and COVID-19. 26:30 Nick Pickles: Where content does not break our rules and warrant removal. In these three areas, we may label tweets to help people come to their own views by providing additional context. These labels may link to a curated set of tweets posted by people on Twitter. This include factual statements, counterpoint opinions and perspectives, and ongoing public conversation around the issue. To date, we've applied these labels to thousands of tweets around the world across these three policy areas. 31:10 Richard Salgado: In search, ranking algorithms are an important tool in our fight against disinformation. Ranking elevates information that our algorithms determine is the most authoritative, above information that may be less reliable. Similarly, our work on YouTube focuses on identifying and removing content that violates our policies and elevating authoritative content when users search for breaking news. At the same time, we find and limit the spread of borderline content that comes close but just stops short of violating our policies. 53:28 Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. Gliecher, you may or may not know that Facebook is headquartered in my congressional district. I've had many conversations with Sheryl Sandberg. And I'm still puzzled by the fact that Facebook does not consider itself a media platform. Are you still espousing that kind of position? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, we're first and foremost a technology company. We may be a technology company, but it's your technology company is being used as a media platform. Do you not recognize that? Congresswoman, we're a place for ideas across the spectrum. We know that there are people who use our platforms to engage and in fact that is the goal of the platform's to encourage and enable people to discuss the key issues of the day and to talk to family and friends. 54:30 Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): How long or or maybe I should ask this when there was a video of Speaker Pelosi that had been tampered with - slowed down to make her look like she was drunk. YouTube took it down almost immediately. What did Facebook do and what went into your thinking to keep it up? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman for a piece of content like that, we work with a network of third party fact checkers, more than 60 3rd party fact checkers around the world. If one of them determines that a piece of content like that is false, and we will down rank it, and we will put an interstitial on it so that anyone who would look at it would first see a label over it saying that there's additional information and that it's false. That's what we did in this context. When we down rank, something like that, we see the shares of that video, radically drop. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But you won't take it down when you know it's false. Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, you're highlighting a really difficult balance. And we've talked about this amongst ourselves quite a bit. And what I would say is, if we simply take a piece of content like this down, it doesn't go away. It will exist elsewhere on the internet. People who weren't looking for it will still find it. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But it you know, there will always be bad actors in the world. That doesn't mean that you don't do your level best to show the greatest deal of credibility. I mean, if YouTube took it down, I don't understand how you couldn't have taken down but I'll leave that where it lays. 1:40:10 Nathaniel Gleicher: Congressman, the collaboration within industry and with government is much, much better than it was in 2016. I think we have found the FBI, for example, to be forward leaning and ready to share information with us when they see it. We share information with them whenever we see indications of foreign interference targeting our election. The best case study for this was the 2018 midterms, where you saw industry, government and civil society all come together, sharing information to tackle these threats. We had a case on literally the eve of the vote, where the FBI gave us a tip about a network of accounts where they identified subtle links to Russian actors. Were able to investigate those and take action on them within a matter of hours. 1:43:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I tend to be kind of a First Amendment absolutist. I really don't want Facebook telling me what's true and what's not true mainly because most statements are some combination of both. 1:44:20 Nathaniel Gleicher: Certainly people are drawn to clickbait. They're drawn to explosive content. I mean, it is the nature of clickbait, to make people want to click on it, but what we found is that if you separate it out from the particular content, people don't want a platform or experience, just clickbait, they will click it, if they see it, they don't want it prioritized, they don't want their time to be drawn into that and all emotional frailty. And so we are trying to build an environment where that isn't the focus, where they have the conversations they want to have, but I agree with you. A core piece of this challenge is people seek out that type of content wherever it is. I should note that as we're thinking about how we prioritize this, one of the key factors is who your friends are the pages and accounts that you follow and the assets that you engage with. That's the most important factor in sort of what you see. And so people have direct control over that because they are choosing the people they want to engage. Hearing: , Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, June 11, 2020 Witnesses: David Chavern: President of the News Media Alliance Gene Kimmelman: President of Public Knowledge Sally Hubbard: Director of Enforcement Strategy at the Open Markets Institute Matthew Schrurers: Vice President of Law and Policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association David Pitofsky: General Counsel at News Corp Kevin Riley: Editor at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Transcript: 55:30 David Chavern: Platforms and news organizations mutual reliance would not be a problem, if not for the fact that the concentration among the platforms means a small number of companies now exercise an extreme level of control over the news. And in fact, a couple of dominant firms act as regulators of the news industry. Only these regulators are not constrained by legislative or democratic oversight. The result has been to siphon revenue away from news publishers. This trend is clear if you compare the growth in Google's total advertising revenue to the decline in the news industry's ad revenue. In 2000, Google's US revenue was 2.1 billion, while the newspaper industry accounted for 48 billion in advertising revenue. In 2017, in contrast, Google's US revenue had increased over 25 times to 52.4 billion, the newspaper industry's ad revenue had fallen 65% to 16.4 billion. 56:26 David Chavern: The effect of this revenue decline in publishers has been terrible, and they've been forced to cut back on their investments in journalism. That is a reason why newsroom employment has fallen nearly a quarter over the last decade. One question might be asked is if the platforms are unbalanced, having such a negative impact on the news media, then why don't publishers do something about it? The answer is they cannot, at least under the existing antitrust laws, news publishers face a collective action problem. No publisher on its own can stand up to the tech giants. The risk of demotion or exclusion from the platform is simply too great. And the antitrust laws prevent news organizations from acting collectively. So the result is that publishers are forced to accept whatever terms or restrictions are imposed on them. 1:06:20 Sally Hubbard: Facebook has repeatedly acquired rivals, including Instagram and WhatsApp. And Google's acquisition cemented its market power throughout the ad ecosystem as it bought up the digital ad market spoke by spoke, including applied semantics AdMob and Double Click. Together Facebook and Google have bought 150 companies in just the last six years. Google alone has bought nearly 250 companies. 1:14:17 David Pitofsky: Unfortunately, in the news business, free riding by dominant online platforms, which aggregate and then reserve our content has led to the lion's share of online advertising dollars generated off the back of news going to the platforms. Many in Silicon Valley dismissed the press as old media failing to evolve in the face of online competition. But this is wrong. We're not losing business to an innovator who has found a better or more efficient way to report and investigate the news. We're losing business because the dominant platforms deploy our news content, to target our audiences to then turn around and sell that audience to the same advertisers we're trying to serve. 1:15:04 David Pitofsky: The erosion of advertising revenue undercuts our ability to invest in high quality journalism. Meanwhile, the platforms have little if any commitment to accuracy or reliability. For them, a news article is valuable if viral, not if verified. 1:16:12 David Pitofsky: News publishers have no good options to respond to these challenges. Any publisher that tried to withhold its content from a platform as part of a negotiating strategy would starve itself of reader traffic. In contrast, losing one publisher would not harm the platform's at all since they would have ample alternative sources for news content. 1:36:56 Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): So Miss Hubbard, let me start with you. You were an Assistant Attorney General for New York State's antitrust division. You've also worked as a journalist, which online platforms would you say are most impacting the public's access to trustworthy sources of journalism? And why? Sally Hubbard: Thank you for the question. Congresswoman, I think in terms of disinformation, the platforms that are having the most impact are Facebook and YouTube. And that's because of their business models, which are to prioritize engagement, engaging content because of the human nature that you know survival instinct, we tend to tune into things that make us fearful or angry. And so by prioritizing engagement, these platforms are actually prioritizing disinformation as well. It serves their profit motives to keep people on the platforms as long as possible to show them ads and collect their data. And because they don't have any competition, they're free to pursue these destructive business models without having any competitive constraint. They've also lacked regulation. Normally, corporations are not permitted to just pursue profits without regard to the consequences. 1:38:10 Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly declined to interfere, as Facebook and Google have acquired would be competitors. Since 2007, Google has acquired Applied Semantics, Double Click and AdMob. And since 2011, Facebook has acquired Instagram and WhatsApp. What do these acquisitions mean for consumers of news and information? I think sometimes antitrust is seen and regulation is seen as something that's out there. But this has very direct impact for consumers. Can you explain what that means as these companies have acquired more and more? Sally Hubbard: Sure, so in my view, those, of all of the acquisitions that you just mentioned, were illegal under the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers that may lessen competition. Looking back, it's clear that all of those mergers did lessen competition. And when you lessen competition, the harms to consumers are not just high prices, which was which are harder to see when in the digital age. But its loss of innovation is loss of choice, and loss of control. So when we approve anti competitive mergers, consumers are harmed. 1:55:48 Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL): Section 230, as I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected by others, would say that if a technology platform is a neutral public platform, that they enjoy certain liability protections that newspapers don't enjoy, that Newscorp doesn't enjoy with its assets. And so does it make the anti competitive posture of technology platforms more pronounced, that they have access to this special liability protection that the people you represent don't have access to? David Chavern: Oh, absolutely. There's a huge disparity. Frankly, when our contents delivered through these platforms, we get the liability and they get the money. So that's a good deal from that end. We are responsible for what we publish, we publishers can and do get sued. On the other hand, the platforms are allowed to deliver and monetize this content with complete lack of responsibility. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, June 12, 2018 Witnesses: Adam Hickey - Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Kenneth Wainstein - Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP Prof. Ryan Goodman - New York University School of Law Nina Jankowicz - Global Fellow at the Wilson Center Transcript: 9:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): We know that Russia orchestrated a sustained and coordinated attack that interfered in our last presidential election. And we also know that there’s a serious threat of more attacks in our future elections, including this November. As the United States Intelligence Community unanimously concluded, the Russian government’s interference in our election—and I quote—“blended covert intelligence operations, such as cyber activity, with overt efforts by the Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social-media users or trolls.” Over the course of the past year and a half, we’ve come to better understand how pernicious these attacks were. Particularly unsettling is that we were so unaware. We were unaware that Russia was sowing division through mass propaganda, cyber warfare, and working with malicious actors to tip scales of the election. Thirteen Russian nationals and three organizations, including the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency, have now been indicted for their role in Russia’s vast conspiracy to defraud the United States. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, October 31, 2017 Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow Transcript: 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

The election is... Actually not quite over but we have to record this episode sometime. In this episode, a breakdown of the notable winners and losers. Did we fire them all? Or... Any of them?  Executive Producer: Ronda Kisner Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes The Impeachment of John Koskinen Articles/Documents Article: By Muri Assuncao, Daily News, November 13, 2020 Article: By Barbara Starr, Zachary Cohen and Ryan Browne, CNN, November 13, 2020 Report: By FEDweek, November 12, 2020 Article: By Nathaniel Weixel, The Hill, November 12, 2020 Article: By James Brooks, Anchorage Daily News, November 12, 2020 Article: By Christopher Bing, Reuters, November 12, 2020 Article: By Natalie Andrews, The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2020 Article: By Andres L. Cordova, The Hill, November 11, 2020 Article: By Heather Caygle and Sarah Ferris, Politico, November 11, 2020 Article: By Gus Burns, Governing, November 11, 2020 Article: By Meghann Myers, Military Times, November 10, 2020 Article: By NADJA POPOVICH, LIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA and KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS, The New York Times, November 10, 2020 Article: By Jennifer Shutt, Roll Call, November 10, 2020 Article: By Dan Lamothe, Ellen Nakashima, Alex Horton, The Washington Post, November 9, 2020 Article: By Elliot Ramos, NBC News, November 9, 2020 Article: By Jake Davis, Bryce Oats, The American Prospect, November 9, 2020 Article: By Virginia Chamlee, People, November 9, 2020 Article: By Eleanor Eagen, The American Prospect, November 9, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, November 9, 2020 Article: By Scott Shafer, npr, November 9, 2020 Article: By Bridget Bowman, Roll Call, November 7, 2020 Article: By Chiara Eisner, Governing, November 6, 2020 Article: By Alan Greeblatt, Governing, November 6, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Akin, Roll Call, November 6, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Saul, The New York Times, November 6, 2020 Article: By David Sirota and Andrew Perez, The Daily Poster, November 5, 2020 Article: By David A. Lieb, Associated Press, November 5, 2020 Article: By Chris Cioffi, Roll Call, November 4, 2020 Article: By Jeremy Turley, Grand Forks Herald, November 4, 2020 Article: By Hannah Miao, CNBC, November 4, 2020 Article: By Carl Smith, Tod Newcombe, Governing, November 4, 2020 Article: By Alan Ehrenhalt, Governing, November 4, 2020 Article: By Glenn Greenwald, November 4, 2020 Article: By David Moore, Sludge, November 4, 2020 Article: By Donald Shaw, Sludge, November 4, 2020 Article: By Nik DeCosta-Klipa, Boston.com, November 4, 2020 Article: By Matthew Rosenberg, The New York Times, November 3, 2020 Article: By Carl Smith, Governing, November 3, 2020 Article: By Michael Oder and Fallon Appleton, KBTX-TV, November 3, 2020 Article: By Donald Shaw, Sludge, November 2, 2020 Article: By Alan Greenblatt, Governing, November 2, 2020 Article: By Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, November 1, 2020 Article: By Donald Shaw, Sludge, October 28, 2020 Article: By Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Network, October 26, 2020 Article: By Lisa Rein, Josh Dawsey, and Toluse Olorunnipa, The Washington Post, October 23, 2020 The White House, October 21, 2020 Article: By Erich Wagner, Government Executive, October 22, 2020 Article: By Megan Sauer, USA Today, September 26, 2020 Article: By Teresa Ghilarducci, Forbes, August 31, 2020 Article: By Revere Journal, July 8, 2020 Article: By Paige Minemyer, Fierce Healthcare, February 24, 2020 Article: By Todd Ruger, Roll Call, June 27, 2019 Article: By Aaron Bycoffe, Ella Koeze, David Wasserman and Julia Wolfe, FiveThirtyEight, January 25, 2018 Additional Resources , CNN , Fox News OpenSecrets.org Sound Clip Sources Video: , Politico, October 22, 2020 Facebook Live Video: , Independent, June 18, 2020 Facebook Live Video: , Politico, June 17, 2020 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

In the last episode before the 2020 election, let's take a comprehensive look at what went on in the 116th Congress, a divided Congress during which the House of Representatives was controlled for the first time since Congressional Dish began by the Democratic Party. It was a chaotic two years, with a series of unprecedented events. Did our Congress serve us well in these crazy times? Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes Kicking the Funding Can Dingleberries Against Police Brutality CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law The COVID-19 Response Laws Coronavirus (COVID-19) USMCA with Lori Wallach The Brink of the Iran War State of Corporatism Impeachment: The Evidence Democracy Upgrade Stalled Welcome to the 116th Congress Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE Bombing Libya Ukraine Aid Bill What Do We Want In Ukraine? Articles/Documents Article: By Greenwald, October 29, 2020 Article: By Kiran Stacey in Washington and Hannah Murphy, Financial Times, October 27, 2020 Article: By Alexander Sammon, The American Prospect, October 26, 2020 Article: By Matt Taibbi, Reporting by Matt Taibbi, October 24, 2020 Article: By Jan Murphy, PennLive, October 21, 2020 Article: By Intercepted, The Intercept, October 20, 2020 Article: By ABC7 Staff, WWSB September 28, 2020 Article: By Bryce Covert, The Intercept, July 14, 2020 Transcript: Rev, May 20, 2020 Article: By Paul Sonne and Rosalind S. Helderman, May 19, 2020 Article: By Thomas Franck, CNBC, April 24, 2020 Article: By Scott Smith, AP News, December 23, 2019 Article: By Priscilla Alvarez and Caroline Kelly, CNN, December 10, 2019 Article: By Gerald F. Seib, The Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2019 Document: by the Executive Office of the President, National Archives, February 15, 2019 Article: By Noah Feldman, Bloomberg Opinion, January 8, 2019 Article: By Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal, Mint Press News, January 19, 2019 Article: By Indra Ekmanis, The World, January 11, 2019 Article: By Renee Parsons, Common Dreams, March 5, 2014 Article: By Will Englund, The Washington Post, December 15, 2013 Additional Resources Confirmation Listing: , United States Courts, October 30, 2020 , By National Conference of State Legislatures, October 22, 2020 , Wikipedia Images Tweet: , Twitter Tweet: , Twitter Tweet: Sound Clip Sources News Clip: , CNN, October 25, 2020 News Clip: , CBS News, September 9, 2020 Hearing: , May 20, 2020 Transcript: 13:00 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Joe Biden. How are you? Petro Poroshenko: Very well indeed, as is usual when I hear your voice. What we’re doing now, I think within the last three weeks, we have demonstrated a real, real great progress in the reforms. We voted in the Parliament 100% tariffs, despite the fact that the IMF expected only 75%. We are launching real reform of the state owned enterprises. We are launching reform for the prices for medicine, removing all the obstacles. VP Joe Biden: I agree, I agree. 14:45 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Joe Biden. How are you? Petro Poroshenko: Very well indeed, as is usual when I hear your voice. VP Joe Biden: You are doing very well. Congratulations on getting the new Prosecutor General. I know that there’s a lot more that has to be done but I really think that’s good and I understand your working with the Rada in the coming days on a number of additional laws to secure the IMF, but congratulations on installing the new prosecutor general. It’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin did, and I’m a man of my word, and now that the new prosecutor general is in place we’re ready to move forward in signing that new one billion dollar loan guarantee. I don’t know how you want to go about that? I’m not going to be able to get to Kiev anytime soon, I mean, in the next month or so, and I don’t know whether you could either sign it with our ambassador… 26:20 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Petro Poroshenko: Very good to hear you. VP Joe Biden: Good to hear you. By the way, you know I’ve talked about this a lot before. I guess Monday is the second anniversary. Remember, I’m counting on you to be the founding father of the modern Ukraine. Petro Poroshenko: Thank you, Joe. And I… I just want to be a little bit proactive. So we have no doubt that we should… implement the reforms but we should implement the reforms in a way that the people trust because if people do not trust the reforms, the reforms will be impossible to implement. Hearing: , House Oversight and Government Reform, March 12, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Anthony Fauci: Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health Dr. Robert Redfield: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Robert Kadlec: Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services Transcript: 36:30 Anthony Fauci: In the spirit of staying ahead of the game, right now, we should be doing things that separate us as best as possible from people who might be infected. And there are ways to do that. You know, we use the word social distancing, but most people don't know what that means, for example, crowds. We just heard that they're going to limit access to the capital. That's a really, really good idea to do. I know you like to meet and press the flesh with your constituencies. I think not now, I think you need I need I think you need to really cool it for a while because we should we should be practicing mitigation, even in areas that don't have a dramatic increase. I mean, everyone looks to Washington State. They look to California, they're having an obvious serious problem. But their problem now may be our problem tomorrow. News Clip: , White House, PBS NewsHour, February 4, 2020 Hearing: , House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Witness , Owner of Providence Hotels Transcript: 54:00 Gordon Sondland: As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 Election DNC server, and Burisma. 54:30 Gordon Sondland: Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. 55:10 Gordon Sondland: I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. Still haven't to this day. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. 1:01:15 Gordon Sondland: Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to quote, "talk with Rudy." We understood that talk with Rudy meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then as I do now, that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters. Nonetheless, based on the president's direction we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a white house visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest, or we could do as president Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. 1:14:10 Gordon Sondland: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the right white house meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. 1:43:00 Gordon Sondland: Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. 2:06:25 Gordon Sondland: President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the white house meeting. The aide was my own personal guess based again, on your analogy, two plus two equals four. 3:44:10 Daniel Goldman: It wasn't really a presumption, you heard from Mr. Giuliani? Gordon Sondland: Well, I didn't hear from Mr. Giuliani about the aid. I heard about the Burisma and 2016. Daniel Goldman: And you understood at that point, as we discussed, two plus two equals four, that the aid was there as well. Gordon Sondland: That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. 5:02:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): What did mr Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the president United States? Gordon Sondland: Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before I was in touch with mr Giuliani directly. So this all came through Mr. Volcker and others. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): So Mr. Volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States. Gordon Sondland: Correct. Hearing: [Impeachment Inquiry, House Hearings Ambassador Kurt Volker and National Security Aide Tim Morrison](), House Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Witnesses: Transcript: 57:35 Kurt Volker: President Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak approached me several days later to ask to be connected to Mayor Giuliani. I agreed to make that connection. I did so because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like Mayor Giuliani, who believes such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of us support. Ukrainians believed that if they could get their own narrative across in a way that convinced mayor Giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, Mayor Giuliani would convey that assessment to president Trump, thus correcting the previous negative narrative. That made sense to me and I tried to be helpful. I made clear to the Ukrainians, the mayor Giuliani was a private citizen, the president's personal lawyer, and not representing the US government. Likewise, in my conversations with mayor Giuliani, I never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions, rather, the information flow was the other way. From Ukraine to mayor Giuliani in the hopes that this would clear up the information reaching President Trump. 1:00:15 Kurt Volker: I connected Mary Giuliani and Andriy Yermak by text and later by phone they met in person on August 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which I did not attend, Mr Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of Ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past, and Mr. Yermak stressed that he told Mr. Giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms, and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. 1:00:45 Kurt Volker: Mr. Giuliani said he believed that Ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with Mr. Yermak. I said, I did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position. Anyway, I followed up with Mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. 1:02:10 Kurt Volker: On August 16th, Mr. Yermak shared a draft with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. Ambassador Sondland I had a further conversation with Mr. Giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in Ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to Burisma and 2016 and again, there was no mention of vice president Biden in these conversations. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 13, 2019 Witnesses: William Taylor George Kent Transcript: 45:30 George Kent: In mid August, it became clear to me that Giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. Engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. Video: , The Week, November 4, 2019 Press Video: , The Washington Post, March 7, 2019 , White House, U.S. Senate, February 5, 2019 Transcript: 1:05:28 President Donald Trump - Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido. We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom -- and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair. Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence --- not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. News Clip: , Fox Business Network, December 18, 2018 News Clip: , Jennifer Haberkorn, Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2018 Remarks by Secretary of State: , U.S. Department of State, January 17, 2018. Discussion: ; Council on Foreign Affairs; January 23, 2018. Speakers: Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden, former Vice President of the United States Transcript: 00:24:15 Haass: In the piece, the two of you say that there’s no truth that the United States—unlike what Putin seems to believe or say, that the U.S. is seeking regime change in Russia. So the question I have is, should we be? And if not, if we shouldn’t be seeking regime change, what should we be seeking in the way of political change inside Russia? What’s an appropriate agenda for the United States vis-à-vis Russia, internally? Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

Surprise, surprise! Congress failed to fund the government on time again. In this episode, discover the hidden secrets in the bill that temporarily funds the government and the politics behind the dingleberries that hitched a ride into law. Executive Producer: Brooks Rogers Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes Politics Politics Politics CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law, Nuclear Desperation, Bills : September 22, 359-17-1 : September 30, 84-10 Outline Extends government funding from 2020 at the same levels until December 11, 2021 Gives permission to the Secretary of the Navy to spend over $1.6 billion to enter into a contract for who Columbia class submarines Amends the CARES Act to extend the expiration date of , which allows any government agency to to change their contracts to allow the government to pay for up to 40 Horus per week of paid leave that contractors pay for their employees. This only applies to contractors who can’t work because their facilities are closed and can’t do their work remotely. The expiration is shifted from September 30 to December 11. Extends the authority from the CARES Act, which , for the Library of Congress to reimburse the Little Scholars Child Development Center and Tiny Findings Development Center for salaries for employees who can’t work due to COVID-19 closures in the capitol. It also extends the authority for the government to pay the salaries of contractors that work on the capitol until the end of the public emergency. The authorities are extended until the end of the public emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Adds $728 billion to the $550 billion for loan guarantees for mortgage backed securities Extends the borrowing limit for the Commodity Credit Corporation to reimburse it for net realized losses as of September 17, 2020. Allows Federal funds to be used to cover operating losses for food and beverage service on Amtrak Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish fees ranging between $1,500 and $2,500 for applications for employment based immigration. Permanently reauthorizes antitrust provisions that encourages corporations to cooperate in antirust civil cases by limiting the fines that can be imposed upon cooperating companies. Expands eligibility for food stamps for children who usually get meals provided at school to include children in hybrid model schools and day cares. Extends the states’ authority to apply for waivers for school meal requirements in order to provide meals in a COVID-safe way until September 30, 2021 Gives the states the ability to extend certification periods for households receiving food assistance to December 31, 2021, and to adjust interview requirements through June 30, 2021, if they want to, without getting permission from the Secretary of Agriculture Prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from using funding, facilities, or authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide payments to refiners or importers of fossil fuels unless the payments are for biofuels and prohibits the Commodity Credit Corporation from exchanging fossil fuel products for agricultural products until the end of March 2021. Articles/Documents Article: By Manu Raju and Ted Barrett, CNN, October 8, 2020 Article: By Jacob Knutson, Axios, October 8, 2020 Article: By Patricia Murphy and Greg Bluestein, AJC, October 8, 2020 Article: By O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa, October 5, 2020 Article: By Tim Alberta, Politico, October 4, 2020 Article: By IVN, Imperial Valley News, October 4, 2020 Article: , Eyewitness 11 News, October 3, 2020 Article: By Scott MacFarlane and Sophia Barnes, 4 Washington, October 2, 2020 Article: By Phil Hall, DSNews, October 2, 2020 Article: By Daniel Gonzalez, Arizona Republic, azcentral., September 30, 2020 Article: By Eric Katz, Government Executive, September 30, 2020 Article: By Caitlin Emma, Politico, September 30, 2020 Article: By Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, September 30, 2020 Article: By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, September 21, 2020 Article: By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, September 21, 2020 Article: By Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, September 21, 2020 Article: By Alan Rappeport, The New York Times, September 18, 2020 Article: By Orla McCaffrey, The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Kelly, Jarrett Renshaw, Reuters, September 16, 2020 Article: By Alan Rappeport, The New York Times, September 14, 2020 Report: By Congressional Research Service, USNI News, September 11, 2020 Article: By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, September 8, 2020 Document: By Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2020 Article: By David B. Larter and Joe Gould, Defense News, September 3, 2020 Article: By Megan Eckstein, USNI News, September 1, 2020 Article: By Mike Lillis and Scott Wong, The Hill, August 31, 2020 Article: By Steve Morris , Government Accountability Office, August 21, 2020 Article: , By Darla Mercado, CNBC, June 11, 2020 Article: , Up to Us, June 3, 2020 Article: By Megan Eckstein, USNI News, June 2, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Kelly, Reuters, March 25, 2020 Article: By Megan Stubbs, Congressional Research Service, September 4, 2019 Article: By Jonathan Chait, New York Intelligencer, September 18, 2018 Additional Resources , Congressional Research Service Book: , By David Dayen, July, 2020 Bill: , govtrack, July 27, 2020 Blog: , CLASP: The Center for Law and Social Policy, 2020 Homepage: , Tiny Findings, 2020 Report: , House Committee on the Budget, Chairman John Yarmuth, December 3, 2019 2017 Summary Statement and Initiatives: , HUD, 2017 , Library of Congress, 2015 , General Dynamics , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org Appropriations: , OpenSecrets.org Appropriations: , OpenSecrets.org Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House , History, Art & Archives, United States House of Representatives Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , U.S. House of Representatives, House Appropriations Committee, September 22, 2020 Transcript: 9:00 Steny Hoyer: Briefly want to say to the Appropriations Committee, congratulations for doing your work. I know there was controversy, everybody didn't support it. But we passed 10 of the 12 appropriation bills almost two months ago. Clearly sufficient time to reach agreement and pass the appropriation bills, not a CR. CR is a recognition of failure. Failure of to get our work done in a timely fashion. And I regret that I take some credit for passing 10 bills last year, in June, and 10 bills this year in July. I pushed the Appropriations Committee pretty hard. Staff worked hard, members worked hard. And we got our bills done.The Senate has not introduced - has not marked up - a single bill in committee. There's no bill out of committee, there's no bills on the floor, which means that the Senate has essentially abandoned the appropriations process. Madam Speaker, that's not the way the Congress the United States ought to work. 11:00 Steny Hoyer: From now, until hopefully before December 11, that's a Friday - we're scheduled to break for Christmas and the holidays - I'm hopeful that everyone will put their heads together to get the appropriation process done. And we'll probably do it in an omnibus, not single appropriation bills, which is not a good way to do it either. When I joined the Appropriations Committee, and we passed one bill at a time, the Senate passed one bill at a time, and we came to conference and sat down together, the members of the Defense Committee, the members of the Treasury, postal committee and labor health committees, we came together individually, and we worked out agreements between the two bodies. That is the way it ought to work. It's not working that way. And a world of alternatives, this is the best we have. So we need to take it. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

The mail has been slow this summer, no doubt about it, but did the Trump administration slow the mail down on purpose in order to interfere with mail-in voting? In this episode, listen to highlights of recent emergency Congressional hearings in order to learn what's really going on at USPS. The sabotage is real, but the situation is different from what you probably think. Special guest: Alexis Claypool Glaser  Executive Producer: Jose Huerta Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes Save the Post Office! National Endowment for Democracy, Bills Signed into law on December 20, 2006 Votes: Passed the House by voice vote. Passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent. Four people have their names on the law: 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats Articles/Documents Article: by Luke Broadwater and Catie Edmondson, New York Times, September 2, 2020.  Article: By Kim Lyons, The Verge, August 25, 2020 Article: By Khaleda Rahman, Newsweek, August 25, 2020 Article: By Daniel Villarreal, Newsweek, August 24, 2020 Article: By Ben Hall, Kevin Wisniewski, News Channel 5 Nashville, August 24, 2020 Article:  by Katelyn Caralle, The Daily Mail, August 23, 2020.  Article: By Kenneth P. Vogel, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Alan Rappeport and Hailey Fuchs, The New York Times, August 22, 2020 Article: By Lisa Rein, Michael Scherer, Jacob Bogage and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, August 22, 2020 Article: By Jenna Grande, CREW, August 21, 2020 Article: By Paul P. Murphy, CNN, August 21, 2020 Document: By Department of the Treasury, August 21, 2020 Article: By Aaron Gordon, Vice, August 20, 2020 Article: By Lucien Bruggeman, ABC News, August 20, 2020 Article: By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams, August 20, 2020 Article: By Jacob Bogage and Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, August 20, 2020 Article: By LAURA J. NELSON, MAYA LAU, The Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 20, 2020 Article: By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, August 19, 2020 Article: By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, August 19, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 18, 2020 Article: By Roger Sollenberger, salon, August 18, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 17, 2020 Article: The Washington Post, August 17, 2020 Article: By Erin Cox, Elise Viebeck, Jacob Bogage, and Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, August 14, 2020 Article: By Kim Lyons, The Verge, August 13, 2020 Article: By Marshall Cohen, CNN, August 12, 2020 Article: By Aaron Rupar, Vox, August 11, 2020 Article: By Jeremy Herb and Jessica Dean, CNN, August 10, 2020 Article: By Jessica Dean, Jessica Schneider and Caroline Kelly, CNN, August 3, 2020 Article: By Jacob Bogage, The Washington Post, July 29, 2020 Letter: From Steven Mnuchin, Federal News Network, July 28, 2020 Article: By Damian Paletta and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, May 18, 2020 Document: By Department of the Treasury, December 4, 2018 Article: By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and NATALIE KITROEFF, The New York Times, October 21, 2018 Order: White House, April 12, 2018 Article: By Brian Murphy, The News & Observer, October 3, 2017 Article: By Joe Davidson, The Washington Post, January 5, 2017 Article: By Lisa Rein, The Washington Post, January 16, 2015 Article: By Joe Davidson, The Washington Post, January 16, 2014 Article: By David Dayen, The New Republic, February 10, 2014 Article: By Damian Paletta and Josh Dawsey, United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, October 24, 2011 Document: By UNITED STATES POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Document: By Kevin R. Kosar, Congressional Research Service, December 14, 2009 ______ Additional Resources Bill: Tweet: , Twitter, August 22, 2020 Profile: , LinkedIn Collection: , Postal Regulatory Commission Postal leadership: Leadership: Images Source: Source: , Twitter Source: , Twitter Sound Clip Sources News: , Twitter, August 28, 2020 Hearing: , House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, August 24, 2020 Witnesses: Louis DeJoy: Postmaster General Robert Duncan: Chairman of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors Transcript: Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Mr. DeJoy, as a megadonor for the Trump campaign, you were picked along with Michael Cohen and Elliot Broiding, two man who have already pled guilty to felonies, to be the three deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Did you pay back several of your top executives for contributing to Trump's campaign by bonusing, or rewarding them? Louis DeJoy: That's an outrageous claim, sir, and I resent it. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) I'm just asking a question. Louis DeJoy:* The answer is no. **Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) So you did not bonus or reward any of your executives. Louis DeJoy: No. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Anyone that you solicited for contribution to the Trump campaign? Louis DeJoy: No, sir. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Not in whole or in part? Louis DeJoy: Actually, during the Trump campaign. I wasn't even working at my company anymore. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Well, we want to make sure that... campaign contributions are illegal. So all your campaign are legal. Louis DeJoy: I'm fully aware of legal campaign contributions. And I resent the assertion? So what are you accusing me of? Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Well, I'm asking a question. Do your mail delays fit Trump's campaign goal of hurting the post office, as stated in his tweets? Are your mail delays implicit campaign contributions? Louis DeJoy: I'm not going to answer these types of questions. I'm here to represent the Postal Service, it has nothing to do with... All my actions have to do with improvements in postal service. Am I the only one in this room that understands that we have a $10 billion a year loss. Right. Am I the only one in this room that has looked at the OIG reports that have stacked up? Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Will you give this committee your communications with Mark Meadows, with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, with the President. Louis DeJoy: Go ahead and do that. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Mr. DeJoy, is your backup plan to be pardoned like Roger Stone? You have two seconds to answer the question. Louis DeJoy: I have no comment on that. Rep. Greg Stube (FL): I as a veteran who served in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom to compare postal workers to our military service members in Iraq or Afghanistan, quite frankly, to me is offensive. Last time I checked Postal Service drivers weren't getting their vehicles blown up by IEDs are being shot out as they drove around and delivered mail. So to try to compare our military service members who sacrifice on the battlefields across this world to our postal service members, that is frankly offensive as a person that had served. Louis DeJoy: It was the summertime, mail volume was down significantly, so it was not...we're getting ready for the peak season and an election is three months away. It was a good time to start to try and roll this out that we are getting the request was just run your trucks on time, put a plan to run your trucks on time. Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): Do you not tell the Board of Governors this month, in August, that in fact you have had contact with a Trump campaign to ask them to stop their attacks on the Postal Service and voting by mail? Louis DeJoy: I have put words around to different people that this is not helpful to... Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): You did have contact with the Trump campaign, for a good purpose? Louis DeJoy: I'm trying to think...when you say the Trump campaign, I've not spoken to Trump campaign leadership in that regard. I've spoken to people that have filled that out that are friends of mine that are associated with the campaign. Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): One of them was Steve Mnuchin. Louis DeJoy: Steve Mnuchin is Secretary of Treasury. Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): I know. Louis DeJoy: Yeah, I never spoke to Steve about telling the President to not do something. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): What do you make of the former Chairman of the Board of Governors, Mr. Fineman calling Treasury Secretary Mnuchin involvement's in the selection process 'absolutely unprecedented.' Louis DeJoy: Stephen Mnuchin had nothing to do with my selection. Okay. I was called by Russell... Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): Did you talk to Secretary Mnuchin about taking the job? There was report that you had lunch together to discuss it? Louis DeJoy: Totally inaccurate and outrageous. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): You've never talked to him about it, before taking job you never talked to him about taking the job? Louis DeJoy: I talked to him about the job after I received the offer. I did not accept the offer immediately. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): Okay, but you never spoke to him before about his soliciting your interest in the job or... Louis DeJoy: He did not solicit any interest. I kept my interest, which as you identified, he did not know that I had an interest. I had a perfectly good life prior to this, but I was interested in helping and I was called by Russell Reynolds out of the blue. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Thank you, Mr. DeJoy for being here. I want to see if we can find some common ground to resolve some of the differences. Can you begin by sharing with the American people in this committee, the unofficial motto of the postal service? Louis DeJoy: No rain or snow, sleet nor hail will make our delivery? Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Yes. It's about service. Correct, not about profit. Do you know how many veterans served in the postal service? About? Louis DeJoy: 100,000? Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Correct. Do you know what percentage of veterans about rely on the postal service for their prescription medicine? Louis DeJoy: I don't know. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): It's a high number. It's about 80% of veterans. So I guess my beginning I want to ask you this, you know, our defense department. We don't tell them you have to go sell weapons to make revenue to serve the American people. We don't say that about our health service, or the National Institute of Health. Why should we have a different standard for the postal service? Why do you have to go and make a profit instead of just serving the American people, sir, it's interesting and good question. And it's not that we need to make a profit. It's to be self sustaining, which means at least cover your costs. But why it's such a small. I'm not a legislator, I'm the Postmaster General Do you know? I mean, do you know the history? Do you remember the time in the Postal Service history where that wasn't a requirement? Louis DeJoy: I do in the 70s. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Actually, it was from 1840 to 1970. We funded the Postal Service, we didn't require them to make a profit because we thought people should in rural America and other places and our veterans should serve and one of the reasons people serve in the Postal Service who've served in our military is they view it as public service. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Your perspective is that these mail sorting machines aren't required, because packages need to be delivered and open up floor space. It's your testimony that you didn't direct it, correct? Who directed it? Louis DeJoy: I didn't, have not done and investigation. It came probably through our operations. It's been a long term and you don't know who directed it. You don't know who implemented it. Louis DeJoy: Well, there's hundreds of them around the country in different places. It was an initiative within the organization that preceded me. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): So if it costs less than a billion dollars, regardless of whether it's efficient or not, what is the harm in just putting those machines back until Election Day, just for the peace of mind for the confidence of the American people? Louis DeJoy: Well, first of all, sir, we've heard all statistics about the mail and the votes and so forth. Right. And we don't need the machines to process it. But you make a statement about for a billion dollars, if we just gave you a billion dollars, you're not going to give us a billion dollars. We're going to make a request. You have no way of getting us a billion dollars. We haven't been funded in 10 years. You can't pass any legislation that helps the Postal Service. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): If I can just finish this point. We give you the money. Do you see my point? Louis DeJoy: It's a hypothetical, I'm not willing to...you haven't given us any money, you haven't given us any legislation and you're sitting here accusing me with regard to the machines as the committee. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): But what is the harm? I think most Americans are trying to understand what is the harm in putting these machines even if the machines in your perspective don't do anything, what is the harm to do until Election Day. Louis DeJoy: In Washington, it makes plenty of sense, to me it makes none. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): You haven't explained why and then final question. Louis DeJoy: Because they're not needed that's why. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): But if it will restore people's faith in a democracy and avoid a polarized electorate, I would think it... Louis DeJoy: Okay, get me the billion and I'll put the machines in. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Okay, well, that's a commitment. We'll find a way to get you the money. Rep. Glen Grothman (WI): You right now have I'm told about $14 billion in the bank. Do you anticipate the election causing that to be rundown at all? Or do you anticipate it going up, would have any dent on it? Louis DeJoy: I don't think it will have too much of an impact in either way. Rep. Glen Grothman (WI): Okay, so if you had 14 billion in the bank, now, you're still going to have 14 billion on as you know, on December first. Louis DeJoy: That it this point we lose, we will probably lose 10 or $11 billion this year. So depending on how package volume stays, we could have less cash. And if I may, having $14 billion, we also have, I have $12 billion worth of liabilities that need to be paid at some time over the next six months. We have $135 billion of liabilities, we wanting a 633,000 person organization that does not get funding even though the federal government ends in September, they have an expectation of getting funding. We don't have an expectation of getting funding so we have to drive cost out and increase revenue. And that's the big difference that we have than any other agency. So for $14 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, it's not a lot of money for what we do. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): I want to take this opportunity to enter into the record Madam Chair, on August 18 2020 emailed from USPS Director of Maintenance Operations Kevin Couch. Madam Chair. The email reads "please message out to your respective maintenance managers tonight they are not to reconnect, reinstall machines that have been previously just been disconnected without approval from headquarters maintenance no matter what direction they are getting from their plant manager." Mr. DeJoy, yes or no. And you've indicated in this committee hearing that it's not your job to decide about whether sorting machines are on or offline. But at the same time you told Mr. Khanna that you won't bring them online because they're not needed. So yes or no, have any plant managers requested mail sorting machines be reconnected? Louis DeJoy: First of all, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): Yes or no. Louis DeJoy: I disagree with the premise. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): I'm not asking you anything other than, reclaiming my time Madam Chair. Yes or no? Madam Chair Reclaiming her time, yes or no answer. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): Yes or No. Have any plant managers across the country in the USPS requested mail sorting machines be reconnected. Louis DeJoy: How would I know that? Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): You're in charge? You don't know whether there are there are plant managers that have requested. Louis DeJoy: No I don't know that. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): But let me let me just assure you that there are plant managers that was reported in the in the press in both Washington. There are plant managers in Texas and Washington. And I have articles that I can show you that have asked to have sorting machines reconnected and brought back online. And they've been too scared to come forward to say so. So you've you've indicated that it's local leadership in this hearing, I heard you say it's not your job to decide whether the sorting machines are brought online or not. Someone needs to mute Madam Chair. Madam Chair, please, please mute. Madam Chair People that are listening, please mute. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): I probably I need probably about additional 30 seconds from the interruptions added back onto my time, please. You have said in this hearing, it's both not your job to make decisions about sorting machines, and at the same time, you've said that you're not going to bring them back online because they're not needed. It can't be both. Louis DeJoy: Across the country, our employee availability is down three, 3 to 4% on average across the country, but the issue is in some of the hot spots in the country areas like Philadelphia, Detroit is probably 20, the averages cover that and that could be down 20% and that's given us this, contributing to the delivery problem that we're having. Louis DeJoy: I had nothing to do with the with the collection boxes, the sorting machines, the postal post office hours or limiting overtime, the change I made was asked the team to run the trucks transportation on time and mitigate extra trips based on a review of an OIG audit that was absolutely astonishing in the amount of money we were spending and the number of late trips and extra trips we were running. It was a plan that was rolled out with operations in is very, very important aspect of the network. It's a very people ask why do trucks matter? Why did on time trucks matter? They do matter. It's a fundamental premise of how the whole mail network is put together. If the if the trucks don't run on time, the mail carriers can't leave on time they're out there at night. They have to come back and get more mail collection processes or late, plant processes distorted. I see several billion dollars in potential savings in getting the system to connect properly. And that's why we ran out and put a plan together to really get this fundamental basic principle. Run your trucks on time. I find it really... I would not I would not know how to reverse that. Now, what am I to say? Don't run the trucks on time. Is that the answer that we're looking to get me to say here today? Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. Duncan, you've also been active in President Trump's campaign. And as a director of American Crossroads superpac. Is that correct? Robert Duncan: I'm the director of American Crossroads Super PAC. Yes. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): And you've contributed over $1.9 million to President Trump's campaign. Robert Duncan: That's not correct. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Not you personally but the PAC. Robert Duncan: I don't know the answer to that. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Well, the records show that. Louis DeJoy: Before I went into... In the Postal Service, you file your forms the day you arrive at work, I filed my forms. I was going to a meeting on Amazon, I owned stock someplace in a call at Morgan Stanley, and I was...that they told me I had to either recuse myself from reviewing a number of contracts or sell the stock. I called our broker to sell the stock. We actually had calls. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. DeJoy, I'm gonna have to Louis DeJoy: but I did not buy options. I actually bought call calls that Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): It's on your statement. Louis DeJoy: I bought covered calls back and at a loss. That's what I did to get completely out of stock. I had to unwind covered calls. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): You still have those calls, do you not? Louis DeJoy: No, I had to pay more money for the calls than I sold them for. I think you should get an understanding of what a covered call is before you accuse me of any improprieties. Louis DeJoy: We got to this specific change. The production schedules within the plants were not aligned with the transportation schedules going between the plants. About 10% of the mail was not aligned. The production plants were getting done late and the trucks were leaving. And this was not a mandate that every truck leaves on time, we still have a significant amount of trucks that run delayed and a significant amount of extra trips. Judgments were made at each individual plant that provided for transitional issues and doing it. We will get this back. We're working very hard and it will be a successful endeavor for the United States Postal Service. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): Mr. DeJoy when, when your announcement in your new position as Postmaster General was announced, you know, there was some folks that were flagging concerns that you would be the first Postmaster General in two decades without previous experience or service directly in the USPS. But to be fair, and as you mentioned, you do have extensive career experience in supply chain logistics, correct? Louis DeJoy: I do. And in fact, you serve the CEO of your own supply chain company new breed logistics for 30 years, correct? Louis DeJoy: I did. And that was up until about 2014 when you merged new breed logistics with another company XPO logistics were you also served as CEO for a year and then served on its board of directors until about 2018 when you submitted your resignation. Correct? Louis DeJoy: Yeah. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): On June 24th 2020, you bought between 50,000 and 100,000, in what you refer to as, quote covered calls in the Amazon Corporation. But let's be very clear, Mr. DeJoy, no matter what financial maneuvering you performed to try to hide it. The fact is that you have financial interest in Amazon. So Mr. DeJoy, yes or no? Are you aware that Amazon uses the US Postal Service for 40% of its shipping? Louis DeJoy: I disagree with the premise that I bought stock and... Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): Do you know that 40% of its shipping? Louis DeJoy: I know there's a lot of shipping with us. Yes. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): Okay. And I understand it. Your Amazon covered calls expires in about October of this year. So you'll have to make a decision regarding this financial interest and may potentially have sensitive information about Amazon's business with the US Postal Service which may influence that decision. This appears to be a classic example of conflict of interest, insider trading. Yes or no, will you commit right now. divest any and all financial interest in Amazon to avoid illegal insider trading. Louis DeJoy: Ma'am that was a lot of time on an issue that doesn't matter. I don't own any Amazon stock. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): You have financial interest. You can call it whatever you want. Louis DeJoy: I don't own anything with Amazon. You can continue to... Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): Until you do that. Your financial interest in Amazon will continue to be problematic and illegal and a conflict of interest. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Did you actually read and independently analyze the major overhaul plans before you ordered them to take effect? Louis DeJoy: Again, I will repeat that I did not order a major overhaul plans, the items you identify were not directed by me. I did. And we don't need much analysis to get to run your trucks to a schedule. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Reclaiming my time. Mr. DeJoy, could you please tell me who did order these changes if he U.S. Postmaster General did not because these changes have resulted in and you have set yourself in this hearing. Louis DeJoy: The Postal Service has been around for 250 years. There were plans there were many, many executives, almost 30,000 executives within the organization, and there are plans that existed prior to my arrival that were implemented. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Mr. DeJoy If you did not order these actions to be taken. Please tell the committee the name of who did. Louis DeJoy: I do not know. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Mr. Joy Did you analyze these plans before they went into effect? US Postmaster General supervise whoever did apparently... Louis DeJoy: As I've stated numerous times the plans were in effect and being implemented before I arrived. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Mr. DeJoy, do you take responsibility for these changes? Louis DeJoy: I take responsibility from the day I sat in a seat for any service deterioration that has occurred. You're asking about operational changes that go on throughout the whole organization around the around the country. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): I'm reclaiming my time sir. Mr. DeJoy, will you commit to reversing these changes. Louis DeJoy: No. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Do you own any financial interest, whether options or stocks covered calls, bought or sold? Do you own today any financial interest in Amazon? Louis DeJoy: I do not. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): You've accepted the responsibility for the delays. But we're still not clear what exactly what changes took place and what were yours. Under Miss Lawrence's questioning. You said you stopped the pilot program. When you stopped everything else. Let me ask you, what in your mind, were you stopping besides the pilot program? Louis DeJoy: I stopped the removal of collection boxes around the country. I stopped the process of reducing hours at postal retail centers and I stopped the removal of the flat and mail sortation boxes, machines. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): So, your argument for doing that is that you saw... that it wasn't working or? Louis DeJoy: No they... I met with with with the speaker and Senator Schumer and we just collectively thought about the heightened discussion that was going on around the nation. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And respectfully, Sir, why that and not the overtime issues and not the sorting machines? Why did you pick those and not the others which seem to have pretty dramatic impacts? Given the fact that things didn't go well, wouldn't you want to look back coming from the private sector and say, gee, maybe that is impacting us negatively. Was there some other reason you're thinking, well, no, I'm not going to change those. Louis DeJoy: Not changed their truck schedule and the... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): The overtime, the sorting machine over time. Louis DeJoy: I've spent $700 million and, we have spent 700. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): You recognize that there are many including in my district, post office locations which are cutting back on overtime. They're following somebody's order in and you won't mention who that is. So back to accountability, you got to admit your own it right. Louis DeJoy: How do you know that they're cutting back on overtime? Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Imagine or let me put it another way. Are you certain that they're not cutting back on overtime? Louis DeJoy: The direction was given to stop cutting back on overtime in postal retail centers. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): When was that done? Louis DeJoy: I haven't done an audit yet. But I would believe they're pretty compliant. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Wait, when was that order given? Was that part of the order you just talked about? Louis DeJoy: I don't know what you're asking. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Are you saying when you stopped everything else, it included the overtime issue as well. Louis DeJoy: There was no directive to reduce overtime anywhere within the organization. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And are you certain that no one was cutting back on overtime. Louis DeJoy: No, I'm not certain that's part of the problem at the Postal Service, sir. That's what I'm trying to get my hands around there was a lot of... And that's why I did the reorganization. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Respectfully, you can imagine, though, that... Louis DeJoy: There's a lot of judgment made in local areas that is not a normal... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): You're being selective on what you're taking credit for and not and a cynical person could say, you're just trying to avoid going before the regulatory body, because these aren't changes. But when your own, as you say, you're Republican, when your own party says, did you stop these changes? You said yes. And in your documents, you talk about the fact that there were changes. You can't have it both ways. There were changes. You seem to have a line there that you don't want to have, because it means you have to go before the regulatory board and you don't want to do that. Louis DeJoy: It sounds like... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): It sounds like what happened. Louis DeJoy: It sounds like a weak theory to me. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Have you communicated with anyone in the administration? Since you were considered for this spot about how to operate? USPS? Louis DeJoy: No. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): No one has communicated with you who works in any way with the Trump administration. And you haven't communicated in any way with anyone who works in the Trump administration or the Trump campaign about how to operate post office. Louis DeJoy: The only time I communicated with someone in the Trump administration was Secretary Mnuchin, when we were negotiating, negotiating the terms of the $10 billion note and my discussion in general, it was early on in my arrival in generalities were that I think that we have some opportunities here, looking to try and grow revenue, improve service and get some cost out. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And what was the direction the other way? Louis DeJoy: There was no direction. My Postal Service's mind to run there was no direction. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): My time has expired. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, August 21, 2020 Witnesses: Louis DeJoy: Postmaster General Transcript: Louis DeJoy: Our business model established by the Congress requires us to pay our bills through our own efforts. I view it as my personal obligation to put the organization in a position to fulfill that mandate. With action from the Congress and our regulator, and significant effort by the Postal Service, we can achieve this goal. This year, the Postal Service will likely be ported loss of more than $9 billion. Without change, our losses will only increase in the years to come. It is vital that Congress enact reform legislation that addresses our unaffordable retirement payments. Most importantly, Congress must allow the postal service to integrate our retiree health benefits program with Medicare. Louis DeJoy: We deliver to 433 million pieces of mail a day. So 150 million ballots 160 million ballots over a course of a week is a very, very small amount adequate capacity plus mail volume is down as you said 13-14% this year. Louis DeJoy: Today there is about 140,000 collection boxes out in the United States. Over the last 10 years, about 30... averages about 3500. So 35,000 of them have been removed and it's a data driven method I have I haven't reviewed it but every year they look at utilization of post boxes, they look at where they place new post boxes, they look at where communities grow. So 35,000 over 10 years. Since my arrival, we moved 700 post collection boxes, of which I had no idea that that was a process. When we found out, when I found out about it, we socialized it here by some of the leadership team and looked at the excitement it was creating, so I decided to stop it, and we'll pick it up after the election. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Are you limiting overtime or is that being suspended right now and people will work overtime if necessary to move the mail out efficiently every single day. Louis DeJoy: Senator, we've never eliminated overtime. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): It's been curtailed significantly is what I understand. Louis DeJoy: It's not been curtailed by me or the leadership team here. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): It's been curtailed significantly. It's gone down. It's been limited. Will you commit to... Louis DeJoy: Since I've been here we've spent $700 million on overtime. Overtime runs 13% rate before I got here and it runs at a 13% rate now. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Will you be bringing back any mail sorting machines that have been removed since you become Postmaster General, will any of those come back? Louis DeJoy: There is no intention to do that. They're not needed, sir. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): So you will not bring back any processors. Louis DeJoy: They're not needed, sir. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Did you discuss those changes or their potential impact on the November election with the president or anyone at the White House and remind you you're under oath? Louis DeJoy: I have never spoken to the President about the Postal Service other than to congratulate me when I accepted the position. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Did you speak or discuss any of these changes with Secretary Mnuchin? Louis DeJoy: During the during the discussion in negotiating the note, I told him I'm working on a plan. But I never discussed the changes that I may, to set up, working on a plan for to the to improve service and gain cost efficiencies. But no grave detail other than that, that was about it. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): You have your word that you're not going to mandate that states send out any ballots using either the more expensive first class mail, and will you continue the processes and procedures to allow election mail to move as expeditiously as possible and treated like first class? Louis DeJoy: Yes, sir. We we will deploy processes and procedures that advance any election mail in some cases ahead of first class mail. Louis DeJoy: Like take the Alaska bypass plan discussion that's an item on a table, that's an unfunded mandate. It costs us like $500 million a year. And what I asked for was all the unfunded mandates, right? That's a way for us to get healthy. Pay something for the unfunded mandates. If we just throw 25 billion at us this year, and we don't do anything, we'll be back in two years. If then maybe we should change the legislation and not make us be self sustaining. Louis DeJoy: They're inside the plants. There's a production schedule for mail that would meet, that's set up to meet a dispatch schedule for trucks that gets tied to a destination center for, let's just say keep it simple go right to the delivery units where carriers go out in the morning and carriers then could come back at night. This whole thing is in a lined schedule in theory on paper, and there's lots of imbalances that we were finding as we went through this process, but the big thing to try and get everything aligned around is that transportation schedule. And now we have taken that up and all that mail that was going left well that was on that truck was also late mail. Right now we have advanced the mail we just some of the mail that coming off the processing lines. We found these imbalances and we did not as great a job as we shouldn't recovering for it, but we will. I'm seeing improvements right now. Once that comes together now we'll be moving around the country at 97% on time and I'm very, very excited and committed to trying to do that. And that, again, enables us to balance the front end and the back end, the delivery end of the system and saves us all that money that you saw in the in the audit report and it's it's in billions, not millions. Louis DeJoy: This this is very doable, FedEx and UPS do it. Hearing: , Congressional Progressive Caucus, August 20, 2020 Witnesses: David Williams: Former Inspector General of the USPS and former Vice Chairman of the USPS Board of Governors Mark Dimondstein: President of the American Postal Workers Union Tammy Patrick: Senior Advisor at the Democracy Fund Voice Transcript: David Williams: I recently resigned as the vice chairman of the postal Board of Governors when it became clear to me that the administration was politicizing the postal service with the Treasury Secretary as the lead figure for the White House in that effort. by statute, the Treasury was made responsible for providing the postal service with the line of credit. The Treasury was using our responsibility to make demands that I believe would turn the Postal Service into a political tool in its long history, as an apolitical public infrastructure. David Williams: Clearly the President was determined that the postal service should inflict harm on Amazon delivery by sharply raising parcel shipping prices on everyone by 400% or more. David Williams: The President eventually admitted that he was withholding COVID-19 relief funds from the Postal Service so that it could not reliably enable voting in his upcoming elections. David Williams: The Treasury Secretary also insisted that all republican appointees on the board of governors and the Postal Regulatory Commission come to his office and kiss the ring and receive his blessing before confirmation. This continued context with him away from the full board continued issuing orders and expressing his approval and disappointment in their performance. David Williams: The Secretary was keenly interested in labor agreements, postal pricing increases, and especially volume discounts being given to Postal Service's largest customers Amazon and UPS and FedEx. The Postal Service replied to the early demands from the Secretary, explaining the two provisions he was asking for were illegal, but the concerns were ignored. David Williams: Ironically, the actual fiscal concern was not whether the Postal Service could zero out its $15 billion line of credit. The Postal Service keeps a huge cash on hand account. They could always pay off all our most of that loan. The real concern was that the Treasury had borrowed and spent our $300 billion pension and retiree health Fund. The interest rate set by Treasury for itself was so low that the funds were dying. As the funds been invested in a retirement fund, the liability would be fully covered by now. David Williams: Additionally, post offices should be allowed into related business lines and become a single neighborhood point of access for government services that cannot be put online. Postal carriers going to every door can provide personalized services to challenged and elderly Americans that would enable citizens to live in their own homes independently. Post offices and carriers can also support and resupply the new army of workers that are officeless, are working at home, while providing work opportunities to those living in rural areas. David Williams: I recently resigned as the Vice Chairman of the Postal Board of Governors when it became clear to me that the administration was politicizing the postal service with the Treasury Secretary as the lead figure for the White House in that effort. By statute, the Treasury was made responsible for providing the postal service with the line of credit. The Treasury was using our responsibility to make demands that I believe would turn the Postal Service into a political tool in its long history, as an apolitical public infrastructure. Mark Dimondstein: But our ability to reliably continue to serve the people and serve the country is under threat in several ways. First and most urgently is the effect of the pandemic on a Postal Service's finances. The sharp economic contraction that began in March also affected the mail. Letter mail is contracted over 30%. And even with a surge in package volumes, the postal service projects because that won't list the postal service projects it will suffer $50 billion of lost revenue over the next 10 years directly due to COVID and will likely face a cash shortfall as soon as March of next year. Simply put, because the United States Postal Service normally runs its operations with zero tax dollars, that pandemic related lost revenue places the continuity of a central Postal Service is at serious risk and that's why we've worked so hard along with so many others to secure a minimum of 25 billion in emergency COVID relief and it's backing the bipartisan unanimous request to the postal Board of Governors. Mark Dimondstein: June 2018. The White House Office of Management budget report openly called for the privatization of the Postal Service. White House task force that followed later that year did suggest slowing down the mail cutting delivery services restricting union rights for workers and drastically raising packages. David Williams: After my arrival I had asked and others expressed interest in gaining assurance that the postal service would be able to respond to normal levels and enhanced levels of voting by mail. And actually, if an entire state wanted to vote primarily by mail, we received a formal ???, that the confidence level could not be higher that the Postal Service could perform this task and deliver this volume of of mail transactions. They were in the process and nearly completed, briefing each of the states and the voting, the Secretary of State, explaining to them how the flow would work. If they needed a postmark, helping them understand how to get a postmark on their letters. We were told the capacity was always good, but it was especially good now because during the COVID crisis, the degree of advertising mail and other mail had fallen. And so this would give us plenty of capacity. And they said their experience was great. They'd been handling overseas military mail, a more complicated process for years, and that had gone well. Several states were already voting by mail that had gone well. And they felt they were had forever provided absentee voting process. And so we felt we felt very good about it at that time, and that was quite recent. David Williams: The board interviewed several firms that managed and handled talent. We selected Russell Reynolds, and they began developing a number of candidates. We heard their names and rather late in the process I heard for the first time. Mr. DeJoy's name. It came through one of the governors and he had somehow, Mr. DeJoy come to his attention. They had lunch together and he wanted to move his name forward. It wasn't clear how the governor had met Mr. DeJoy to me and I don't think anyone was clear on it from the presentations. Rep. Mark Pocan (WI): And who was the member of the board of governors who proposed Mr. DeJoy's name? David Williams: Governor John Barger, he was leading the search, his committee was leading the search. David Williams: Actually, it predates the latest $10 billion expansion, goes back to our routine original $15 billion line of credit. Secretary Mnuchin indicated that he wanted to have some say in how the Postal Service ran as sort of being in charge of providing that that account. I don't think that had been done before. It was normally if Congress assigned you that responsibility, you perform the responsibility. He indicated he would like to impose this through the use of terms and conditions on the $15 billion line of credit. We then received shortly after he announced this verbally, we then received the draft terms of agreement. They were very interesting and I hadn't seen anything like it before. He wanted to approve price changes. labor agreements. And perhaps most disturbingly, the very sensitive negotiated service agreements with our largest customers, Amazon, UPS, FedEx and some others. He also was urging that we adopt a pricing methodology called fully allocated cost methodology. That was something that the United Parcel Service had been advocating for a very long time. I think all of us felt that perhaps UPS that influenced him in advocating for that, and it would be really in a ruinous to the postal service to adopt. No one would adopt it, certainly not not UPS themselves, FedEx or Amazon. It would prevent competition in the market where the Postal Service has been gaining market share. David Williams: Also General Counsel sent a letter saying that the transfer of our duties and decision making authority to him was illegal. The Treasury went forward not withstanding that. My position was that when they arrived, we should simply refuse that another department cannot impose its will on another department and the federal government. In addition to that, we're an independent entity, and so it was especially egregious. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): Let me ask you about Postmaster General DeJoy's independence to run an agency when he has significant financial conflicts of interest. He holds at least $30 million in stock and a postal service contractor FBO, and he owns stock and Postal Service competitors, Amazon and ups. So he stands to make enormous profit. If use of the Postal Service goes down and privatization increases, and he is now responsible for slowing mail delivery right now. Can you provide insight into how that happened and whether a normal background check was was instituted in this situation. David Williams: When it became clear that he was a serious candidate and then obvious that he was the person about to be selected, we did discuss conducting a background investigation of him. None was conducted as of the time I left and I believe that was the night before his selection or two nights before selection. Raskin: Do you know why he was selected? David Williams: I don't. David Williams: It looked like there were concerns about whether his company was building correctly and performing fully. Those are often wrong, but I think they they sometimes are correct. That contract file needs to be examined, we need to go through whether the Postal Service demanded that he returned any money or any concerns they had with a performance, that's a very normal kind of examination. And I don't mean to say there were there were valid problems, but this would suggest that an examination should be done. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): With respect to your resignation, you resigned because it was your determination that what the Postal Service was being asked to do, as a condition of a line of credit, which we included in the CARES Act, those conditions were included, those were developed by Mr. Mnuchin in an effort to control the Postal Service, is that right? David Williams: Yes, I was concerned that the Board of Governors was running an independent organization and instead it had become politicized and the decision making was largely transferred to the Secretary of Treasury. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): You were the Inspector General and you were the Vice Chair of the Board of Governors. Have you ever seen or heard in the history of the post office this effort by the President or the executive branch to intrude and take over the operation of the US Postal Service? David Williams: No, sir. I've never seen anything like that. Mark Dimondstein: Overtime was running between 15 and 20%. Some of that just the ebbs and flows of mail. Some of its that were generally short staffed and they need to hire. And some of it's the pandemic. We've had almost 3,000 people who have tested positive for COVID. We've had 40,000 people quarantined since March, when that happens. And of course, we've had all the childcare challenges with schools closing. So leave usages up and the overtime is partly used to make up for that and to just arbitrarily come in and say 15 to 20% of the hours of work. However, they're going to work at higher overtime, some combination of the two, but eliminate 15 to 20% of the hours of work, but the work is still there simply means that the work won't get done, backing up, and we've had evidence, we have pictures of parcels sitting there for over a week, they were just never sorted. And that's the mail that belongs to people this country. David Williams: I was a appointee for both Republican and Democratic administrations. Rep. Mark Takano (CA): Which administrations, if you don't mind. David Williams: Bush, Clinton, as you said, the current president, and then then I also continued service during several other administrations. Rep. Mark Takano (CA): So President Trump did appoint you to the Board of Governors, is that correct? David Williams: He did. David Williams: The removal of the 25 billion happened at the 11th hour after everyone was on board. Secretary Mnuchin removed it personally at the very 11th hour. Rep. Mark Takano (CA): So let's be clear. The Board of Governors appointed by the president requested $25 billion to get through a pandemic, a decline in revenues. That was what was the Board of Governors best estimate of what you would need. Is that correct? David Williams: Yes, sir. Tammy Patrick: Do we know that the majority of voters who vote by mail return their ballots by dropping them in an official Dropbox for the elections office? Tammy Patrick: Let's go out at two different rates, first class and marketing mail and marketing mail used to be called standard and the delivery timeframes didn't used to be that far apart. It used to be first class mail was one to three days, standard mail or marketing mail was more like three to five days. So that was really a question of one or two days difference. But because ballots were going out with the logo, they were getting the first class service for a discounted rate, which I will say many election officials felt was their right under the National Voter Registration Act, which talks about discounted rates for election materials that are used for voter registration. And any ballot that gets returned undeliverable, as addressed gets used to update the voter rolls. So we do know that that the states that traditionally use that marketing mail rate are the western states that have high volumes of vote by mail. And they have just as recently as this last week for the primaries that have happened in Washington, Arizona. Millions of ballots went out at marketing mail rates, they did not see a decrease in delivery. They did not see delays. The local Postal Services are telling election officials whether it's the secretaries of state or county recorders or registrar's or auditors, that they will get that mail through on time. So I'm not as worried about that part of it. The part I'm concerned about is the message that it gets to the voter. And whether or not the voter is going to still believe local officials all across the country have told me in the last week, the number one thing they're doing is answering the phone with concerns from voters who have put in an application to get a ballot by mail, and now are worried that they shouldn't have done that. David Williams: There are a couple of very odd aspects to this pullback. One is you don't save money by breaking down machines and putting them away and storing them you spend money. So that was a very odd action normally the reason to keep those machines and plants in place or in the event of a Katrina or a 9-11, or the election or the COVID crisis, removing those is thinning out the Postal Service's ability to redirect mail in the event of an act of an incident like that. The blue boxes were maybe the most interesting of all, though, those were not part of ongoing claims. To my knowledge. As a matter of fact, Secretary Mnuchin wanted that done. His study of the Postal Service asked that it be done. I asked the Postal Service about it and they said it wouldn't save anything and there would be no reason to remove those. David Williams: The service scores are probably the best objective measure and those are significantly off. Where even though there's less mail, it's moving more slowly. Much more slowly. That's strange and disturbing. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) I also want to follow up on your comment today about Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Is the Postal Service under the Treasury Department. David Williams: I know that, I certainly know that the terms and conditions that originally came over moved all the important decision making from the board to him. I don't know the present case. I don't know presently if that was successful or unsuccessful. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): Did you participate in any interviews of other candidates for Postmaster General at this time round? David Williams: I did. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): How many candidates were interviewed, do you know? David Williams: I'm gonna have to estimate but I believe it was in the low teens. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): Were any of the other candidates qualified for the job as far as you could tell, did they all need to be assisted in their answers? The way you describe it where a member of the Board of Governors like helped them complete their answers as with Mr. DeJoy. David Williams: There was nothing like that. There were good candidates. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): And so Mr. DeJoy was really the only candidate who stood out to you as someone who was not qualified or capable, or in any event, he stood out. David Williams: I would say that, I would say that's correct. News Conference: , U.S. Capitol, August 18, 2020 News Conference: , White House, The Washington Post, August 12, 2020 Virtual Summit: , The Hill, May 21, 2020 Hearing: , House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Feb 7, 2017 Witnesses: Megan J. Brennan: Postmaster General Robert Taub: Chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission Lori Rectanus: Direction or Physical Infrastructure issues at the US Gov’t Accountability Office Arthur Sackler: Manager at the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service Fredric Rolando: President of the Transcript: Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD): Taking all these requirements and trends together, the Postal Service reported a net loss of $5.3 billion for fiscal year 2016, which represents a 10th consecutive year of net losses. We have repeatedly discussed the deteriorating financial condition at the Postal Service in this committee, but the situation is now worsened by unprecedented lack of any Senate-confirmed members on the Postal Service’s Board of Governors. Because many key management decisions are reserved by statute to the Senate-confirmed board members, there are many actions, such as establishing rates, class, and fees for products, that the Postal Service simply cannot take now. Fredric Rolando: Over the past decade, postal employees have worked diligently to restructure operations, cut costs, and sharply increase productivity, in response to technological change and the Great Recession. Despite the loss of more than 200,000 jobs, we’ve managed to preserve our networks and to maintain our capacity to serve the nation. But only Congress can address our biggest financial challenge: the unique and unsustainable burden to pre-fund future retiree health benefits decades in advance. No other enterprise in the country faces such a burden, which was imposed by legislation in 2006. The expense of this mandate has accounted for nearly 90% of the Postal Service’s reported losses since 2007. Without a change in the law, the mandate will cost $6 billion this year alone. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, September 26, 2013 Witnesses: John Hegarty: National President of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union Dean Baker: Co-Director Center for Economic & Policy Research Transcript: Sen. Tom Carper: Much as the auto industry is right sized itself over the last half dozen or so years, what the Postal Service is attempting to do is to right size the enterprise, and we're trying to not be an impediment. But actually to help you do that. If you go back a dozen or so years ago, your workforce i think is Postmaster General said is about 800,000 people today, it's just under 500,000. If you go back about a half dozen years ago, my recollection is the number of postal processing plants in our country was about 600. We're now down to roughly three, three and a quarter. Sen. Tom Coburn: If you look at the private sector. The benefits per employee, average $10,589. At the state and local government level, it's $16,857. At the federal level, it's $41,791. And that's a significant fact we need to bear in mind as we ask the postal service to be competitive. John Hegarty: 300 processing plants have been eliminated in the past five years, and the employee compliment has been reduced by more than 300,000. Postal employees have already contributed to and sacrificed for the financial turnaround of the Postal Service. My members have had their wages frozen for the past two years, and employee contributions have increased for both health insurance and retirement. About 20% of postal employees including more than 5000 members of my union are working in non career part time jobs at reduced pay rates. And thousands of employees have been involuntarily excessed or transferred to other work locations often hundreds of miles away and have had to uproot their homes and their families because of the closings and consolidations of the postal network. Last week, the Postmaster General testified that the Postal Service has reduced cost by $16 billion during the past few years. As a labor intensive service industry, it should be clear that most of those savings have come from postal employees. Dean Baker: Just think it is striking I had occasion to be in on one of the mediation hearings back in 2011. I looked at the Postal Service's projection at that time, they're projecting revenue falling to just 63 billion as of 2013. And continuing to decline over the rest of the decade. So it'd be about 59 billion by the end of the decade, we're now looking at revenue of 66 billion. So in fact, there's been really a quite remarkable turnaround. We're looking at a system that does look as though it's quite viable, apart from these retiree obligations. So it's not as though we have an ailing system on its last legs. It looks very much as though we have a system that in principle is viable. That's suffering very much from I would say at least, an excessive burden in requiring it to pre fund at a very rapid rate. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, August 6, 2009 Speaker: John Potter - Postmaster General David Williams - Inspector General the US Postal Service Transcript: David Williams: The Postal accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the postal service to make 10 annual payments of $5 billion each in addition to the $20 billion already set aside for pre funding its retiree health benefits, the size of the $5 billion payments has little foundation and the current payment method is damaging to the financial viability of the Postal Service even in profitable times. The payment amounts were not actuarially based instead, the required payments were built to ensure that the Postal Act did not affect the federal budget deficit. This seems inexplicable since the Postal Service is not part of the federal budget, does not receive an appropriation for operations and makes its money from the sale of postal services. The payment amounts are fixed through 2016 and do not reflect the funds earnings. Estimates of the Postal Service liability as a result of changing economic circumstances, declining staff size or developments in health Care and pharmaceutical industries. The payments do not take into account the Postal Service's ability to pay and are too challenging even in normal times. John Potter: We hit our maximum number of career employees in late 1999. We had 803,000 career employees. We have been addressing the diversion of mail to electronics and have been managing our workforce very aggressively. Today we have 630,000 career employees. So we've managed to reduce that working with unions and within the contracts reduced by over 170,000 people, the number of employees we have. John Potter: And when I look around the world and see what other posts are, if you're in Australia and you want to update your driver's license, renew it, you go to the post office. If you're in Italy and you go into a bank, more than likely going to the post office, if you're in Japan and you want to buy insurance, more than likely you're going to the post office. And if you're in France and you have a cell phone issue, more than likely, again, you're going to the post office. Hearing: , Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, May 13, 2002 Speaker: John Potter - Postmaster General Transcript: John Potter: Today, we're experiencing extraordinary declines in mail volume, and resulting losses and revenues. Our projected volume declined for this year, we'll be more than 6 billion pieces of mail below last year. That's the largest volume decline ever experienced in a single year. Despite this decline, we are working to reduce our net loss below our earlier projections. To achieve this, we will reduce the number of career employees through attrition by 20,000 people this year. In addition, we will cut over 60 million work hours compared to last year and we are postponing program expenditures and delaying capital investments. The net effect of these actions will reduce current planned expenses by $2 billion. Those savings combined with a $1 billion dollar infusion of revenue from the early implementation of the rate case means our projected net loss for the year will be in the range of $1.5 billion, instead of what easily could have been a loss of $4.5 billion. John Potter: Essentially, the Postal Service could become profit driven, generate returns to finance capital projects, instead of increasing our debt load, introduced flexible pricing based on market demand, and develop better relationships with our employees. These and other long term changes to transform the postal service can only come with legislative reforms. John Potter: Today we have the same number of people in the postal service as we had in 1991. But since 1991, the number of possible deliveries we have, the number of households and businesses that we've served, has gone up 15.4 million. So every day, six days a week, we're at 15.4 million additional doors than we were in 1991. And we have some 33 billion more pieces of mail. John Potter: There is a process today to pay down our debt, but there's some $12 billion that we may have by the end of this fiscal year. It's built into the rate process. It's prior year loss recovery. Today, there is no vehicle to consider the health benefit liabilities, or the retirement obligations as part of the rate setting process. So, the vehicles that are available to us today are basically to cut our costs. Hearing: , CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, April 5, 2002 Speaker: John Potter - Postmaster General Transcript: John Potter: For some people, the preferred model is privatization. But this group, the notion of equitable service is not relevant. The simple straightforward answer goes back to what our stakeholders, the people, we reached out to told us. Overwhelmingly, they told us, there was no support for privatizing the nation's mail service. A privatized model would focus on profit. The results might be delivery standards and prices dictated by where a person lives, or where a business is located. Metropolitan areas where volume is greater, would receive better or cheaper service than a rural community. The privilege might stand to benefit from privatization, but not everyday people. It might be fine for a lawyer in Los Angeles, but not for the sales clerk in Omaha. Let me be very clear on this point. Do not, do not intend to recommend that the Postal Service be privatized. I do not believe that the American people want a privatized mail delivery system in this country today. People speak of digital divide, we don't need a delivery divide. John Potter: Commercial government enterprise. This is our recommended model, the one we believe would put the postal service on a more businesslike footing, while keeping it dedicated to its mission of universal service. But it's also a model that is markedly different from what we have today. For example, instead of breaking even, our financial goal would be to generate reasonable returns. Earnings would finance capital projects, instead of having to resort to increasing our debt load. Retained earnings would carry us through tough economic times, instead of always resorting to rate increases. In addition, this model will allow us to leverage our vast retail and delivery assets to develop new revenue streams. Our 38,000 retail offices, and our national door to door delivery networks could be made available to private enterprise as a joint profit making venture. As a commercialized government enterprise, we could introduce flexible pricing. Prices for postal products would still be subject to regulatory review. But we would have the flexibility to adjust prices based on market demand. Next, as a labor intensive organization, with 75% of our operating expenses going to labor, this business model will allow us to explore a more progressive way to make collective bargaining work for all parties. Finally, this model will give us the needed flexibility to increase access and convenience to our customers. We will be able to add more locations with long arounds management without the flexibility to close a number of non performing retail outlets and we will be able to invest in new facilities and services. And enter into alliances and ventures with related private sector companies after due diligence was completed. Essentially, this commercialized Postal Service will give us the management tools that are available to private corporations to improve service to our customers manage costs more efficiently, and leverage our assets to generate new revenue opportunities. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

COVID still rages, CARES Act provisions have expired, and Congress is on another vacation. In this episode, by piecing together information discovered in six CARES Act oversight hearings, find out what problems weren’t solved by the CARES Act, what happened to the CARES Act money, and get an idea of what is possible in the next COVID relief bill... If there is one. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) 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 Episodes CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law, WTF is the Federal Reserve?, Bills Signed April 24, 2020. Doubled the Paycheck Protection Program Books By Aaron Glantz, October 15, 2019 Articles/Documents Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 13, 2020 Article: By Cezary Podkul, The Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 10, 2020 Article: By Taryn Luna, Los Angeles Times, August 7, 2020 Article: By Julia Kagan, Investopedia, July 31, 2020 Article: By Pien Huang and Selena Simmons-Duffin, npr, July 31, 2020 Article: By Peter Whoriskey, The Washington Post, July 27, 2020 Article: By Joe Garofoli, San Francisco Chronicle, July 14, 2020 Article: By Emily Stewart, recode, July 13, 2020 Article: By Jim Saksa, Roll Call, June 26, 2020 Article: By Jessica Camille Aguirre, Vanity Fair, June 26, 2020 Article: By Monica Nickelsburg, Geek Wire, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, May 20, 2020 Article: By Isaac Scher, Business Insider, May 20, 2020 Article: By Jeanna Smialek, The New York Times, May 12, 2020 Article: By Charisse Jones, USA Today, April 29, 2020 Article: By Thomas Franck, CNBC, April 3, 2020 Article: By Lee Fang, The Intercept, March 4, 2020 Article: By Jonathan Jacobs, Jennifer Press, John Schrader, Accounting Today, November 12, 2019 Article: by Yves Smith, naked capitalism, July 18, 2019 Article: by Judy Maltz, Haaretz, June 19, 2019 Article: by Bess Levin, Vanity Fair, May 23, 2019 Article: by Victoria Guida, Politico, April 18, 2019 Article: by Lillian Rizzo, The Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2017 Article: by Peter Byrne, Bohemian, February 8, 2017 Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, January 19, 2017 Article: by Bess Levin, Vanity Fair, January 18, 2017 Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, January 3, 2017 Article: by Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, September 25, 2015 Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, May 5, 2015 Article: by DEBRA CASSENS WEISS, ABA Journal, November 30, 2009 Additional Resources Report: , Small Business Administration, 2020 Homepage: , 2020 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, August 7, 2020 Witnesess: Eric Rosengren - President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Gwen Mills - Secretary Treasurer of Unite Here Lauren Anderson - Senior Vice President & Associate General Counsel of the Bank Policy Institute Transcript: Bharat Ramamurti: Four months ago, Congress gave the Treasury Department half a trillion dollars to stabilize the economy. The Treasury quickly pledged 75 billion of those dollars to the Federal Reserve's Main Street lending program for small and mid sized companies. After taking three months to set up the program, the Fed has now been operating it for about a month. In that time, it has supported only 18 loans for a total of $104 million. That is 0.017% of the $600 billion lending capacity that the Fed touted for the program in April. Eric Rosengren: Main Street program is designed to facilitate lending to small and medium sized businesses and nonprofits that have suffered disruptions and provides credit support for entities that have temporary cash flow problems due to the pandemic, and that given the uncertain outlook may have difficulty obtaining credit. It can provide a bridge as loans have no interest or principal payments in the first year and no principal payments until year three. Eric Rosengren: Mainstreet relies on lenders to underwrite loans and keep skin in the game by banks retaining 5% of the loan. Eric Rosengren: This facility is very different than some of the other traditional kinds of facilities that central banks operate during a time of crisis. So most of our facilities operate through markets, market securities, you can purchase them very easily through the market. They clear usually in a couple days depending on the security. So it's relatively easy to quickly purchase a large number of securities and hold those securities over time. This facility is a facility we didn't have during the financial crisis, and really tries to get to a different segment of the population, which is those businesses that are bigger than the PPP program was designed for and smaller than what the corporate facilities are designed for. Bharat Ramamurti: This program has been a failure, and the basic reason for that is that the Fed can only offer loans. The data show that companies, even distressed companies aren't looking for loans. Bharat Ramamurti: By law, the Fed can only support loans and more loans are not the answer here for most companies. And this is a giant hole in our economic response to the crisis. Congress helps small businesses through the PPP, Congress help large companies that are big enough to issue bonds by empowering the Fed to purchase corporate bonds and reduce the cost of borrowing. But the only thing that the government has offered all these companies in between is the Main Street program and it's just not working. And these mid sized companies employ 45 million people and represent a third of private sector GDP. So look, I don't think continuing to tweak this program is going to work. I think Congress needs to act to provide direct support to mid sized firms and for that money to come with real strings attached to the money that benefits working people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bharat Ramamurti: The first version of the Mainstreet program required companies to say in writing that they needed the loan quote, due to the exigent circumstances presented by the covid 19 pandemic. Advocates for the oil and gas industry pushed to eliminate that requirement, presumably because many oil and gas firms were struggling before COVID and couldn't satisfy the requirement. And again in the final version, the Fed eliminated that requirement. President Rosengren again, out of the more than 2000 public comments that the Fed received, are you aware of a single one outside the oil and gas industry that requested that the Fed remove this important requirement? Eric Rosengren: In the discussions I've been involved in, we do not discuss specific industries, we discuss how we can provide a broad based financing scheme. Bharat Ramamurti: Okay. Again, I appreciate that. But again, I reviewed the public comments and there wasn't a single one that requested this change, only the oil and gas lobby had requested. Bharat Ramamurti: It's not supposed to be changing the rules of these programs so that the President's favorite companies can get access to billions of dollars in public money. In fact, it is illegal for the Fed to structure these lending programs to help specific companies avoid bankruptcy. I urge this commission to further investigate this issue, including by requesting all communications on this topic between the Fed and the Energy Secretary, the Treasury Secretary and any representatives of the oil and gas industry. Gwen Mills: My name is Gwen Mills. I'm Secretary Treasurer of the hospitality union, Unite Here. Well, I will focus on our members experiences. The recommendations I make are supported by the AFLCIO representing 55 National unions and 12 million workers. Our 300,000 members work primarily in hotel, casino, food service and airline catering industries, all sectors that are heavily dependent upon travel and tourism, before the cares act became law 90% of our members were laid off. Today, 85% remain unemployed. Gwen Mills: At the heart is the question of requiring employers to maintain employment as a condition of federal assistance. The Main Street lending program requires only commercially reasonable efforts to maintain employees in spite of clear congressional intent. Treasury and the Federal Reserve said they will not enforce even that. Gwen Mills: We've seen how powerful lobbyists transform the paycheck protection and payroll support programs into subsidies for real estate investors. We've identified 200 outlets where we have members that received PPP loans, and they haven't protected paychecks or healthcare. One company, Omni hotels, received 34 PPP loans worth at least $53 million. Meanwhile, Omni hotels in Boston, Providence and New Haven were shut down in March and is unclear when they will reopen. In Providence, the company then cut off medical benefits in violation of their union agreement. There are many similar stories, what they reveal is how a powerful industry turned to program designed to keep workers on payroll into one that could keep hotel owners current on their mortgages. Gwen Mills: Lobbyists claim if the Fed doesn't rescue CMBS borrowers hotels will default and workers won't have jobs to come back to. But that is not our experience. And this isn't the first time hotel owners got themselves in trouble using these inflexible loans. After the financial crisis, there were scores of defaults across the country. But defaults and foreclosures didn't lead to closed hotels. Hotel workers who were used to seeing absentee owners come and go understand that jobs are driven by occupancy and only ending the pandemic can fix that. Gwen Mills: Program designers at the Fed take the CARES Act mandate to heart. What if credit terms were loosened, so long as, and here's the important part, so long as there were airtight requirements, not incentives, not recommendations, but requirements that recipients keep workers on payroll, and is what the PPP could have done if it hadn't been hijacked by the real estate industry. Bharat Ramamurti: In your experience and the experience of your members, does providing financial support to businesses help workers without express and enforceable requirements, that businesses actually use that aid to support workers. Gwen Mills: No. Time and again, in many different programs, without enforceable requirements, support to businesses doesn't help workers. Bharat Ramamurti: So of the $500 billion that Congress gave to the Treasury, in the CARES Act in March, there's currently more than $200 billion sitting unused and uncommitted. If you were to use that money to develop a program that would be most helpful to your members, what would you do with it? Gwen Mills: The two things that matter are healthcare and wages. So we would fund Cobra payments so that we could continue health care and then give direct support to workers. Bharat Ramamurti: And thank you. And one final question about this. Did the Treasury Department ever reach out to your union as it was designing this lending program that was ostensibly about helping workers? Gwen Mills: No. Gwen Mills: Our great concern about the Main Street lending program is that the hotel industry is seeking changes so that they can use the program to pay their CMBS mortgages. Rep. Donna Shalala (FL): The main street lending program, banks employ their own underwriting standards to loan applications. Does that mean that banks are making loans under the program that they would have made any way absent the Fed program? And if so, is the mainstream lending program providing any benefit to borrowers at all? Lauren Anderson: Thank you for your question. In terms of the loans that are being made, I think they're quite specific in terms of the circumstances because you're absolutely right, a borrower who can meet a bank's basic underwriting standards is typically finding out that there is a product that is more suited to them, given their credit needs, so for example, maybe a term loan really is not what they need, and they really need something more like a flexible working capital facility. So our banks are actually, many times finding better solutions for these borrowers when they inquire about the program. Rep. French Hill (AR): Owners of CMBS securities are mostly pension funds and people's retirement accounts. And so they're all benefited by trying to get capital into the industry and get people hired back and reopened. Bharat Ramamurti: I think just to sum up quickly, I think we've actually seen a remarkable consensus emerge at this hearing, which is that the main street program as is currently designed is failing. And the representative of the banking industry told us that we aren't seeing meaningful demand for loans right now from their clients. The representative of small and mid sized businesses told us that the program wouldn't help his members as is currently designed, and Miss Mills representing hundreds of thousands of workers told us that the main street program hasn't helped a single worker and isn't likely to. I don't question the hard work of President Rosengren and the Fed staff, but more loans are not going to solve this crisis. Struggling small and mid sized companies can't take on more debt right now. So the only tool in the Feds belt is the wrong one. This program was given $75 billion and months to succeed. It didn't and it can't. It's time to stop tinkering around the edges with adjustments to loan eligibility and loan terms when the fundamental problem is with the nature of the loans themselves. It's time for Congress to step back in so that we can actually save small and mid sized businesses and when it does needs to tie the assistance to meaningful enforceable protections for workers and not just hand money to executives and trust them to take care of workers interests. Thank you Mr. Chair. Gwen Mills: The extension of the the wages that the congressman mentioned has been appreciated, although it is now ending. That is problematic. But there has not been an extension of healthcare, so and even in a case where we have some healthcare negotiated companies like the fountain blue gun, are not abiding by that. Interview: , Axios, HBO, August 4, 2020 Hearing: , House Committee on Small Business, July 17, 2020 Witnesess: Steven Mnuchin - Treasury Secretary Transcript: Steven Mnuchin: I think this time we need to have a revenue test and make sure that money is going to businesses that have significant revenue declines. Steven Mnuchin: If there were financial conditions that states had coming into this, it's not the federal government's role to bail them out of that. Now we have through Main Street, excuse me through the Fed facilities, we have provided lending facilities to the states and municipalities. But the issue of taxing authority... The federal government has taxing authority and the states have taxing authority. So where there are lost revenues, I think there is a fairness issue of how those get allocated across the country. Hearing: , House Committee on Financial Services: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 16, 2020 Witnesess: Marcia Griffin - Founder and President of Homefree-USA Donnell Williams - President, National Association of Real Estate Brokers Alys Cohen - Staff Attorney, National Consumer Law Center Transcript: Marcia Griffin: Tons of counselors assist homeowners who are improperly denied a forbearance. We have. We have seen a troubling concentration of this issue with veteran loans. We're also seeing homeowners who may have recently completed a loan application they've also been denied a borrowers who have just missed a payment in March or February, they've also been denied. Marcia Griffin: There is a frustratingly large number of homeowners who are unemployed but are still being told that lump sum payments are due at the end of the forbearance. Donnell Williams: You also need to have data collection. Services need to supply this information, this data to the CFPB and to Congress. I just had a borrower in Irvington, New Jersey, another one in Orange Township, New Jersey, tell me that their servicemen, like Congressman Green, say that they only gave them three months and that the whole balance will be due in 90 days. Marcia Griffin: Well, let me stop you, do you think we should have penalties for some servicers who violate the law that we have in the Heroes Act and would require a lump sum payments like that? Donnell Williams: I do believe so. Because they're roadblocking, they're stopping, clogging it up so that we can have progress. Alys Cohen: Well, in terms of the complaints that you're hearing, we do have some good protections in the cares Act and the federal regulators really need to step up their game and do much greater oversight of the servicers. In terms of the CFPB, they appear to spend most of their time relaxing regulations for servicers and providing advice for homeowners. So homeowners need our protection. Alys Cohen: What we've saw in the last crisis and what we continue to see is that as you said, Mr. Lynch, servicers on private mortgages are beholden to the guidelines from the investors. And so what we'd like to see is a safe harbor for mortgage servicers from investor liability, so that they can provide loan modifications along the lines that the GSCs and FHA and the other government agencies can provide. Hearing: , House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets, July 14, 2020 Witnesess: Dr. William Spriggs - Chief Economist at the AFL-CIO and Professor of Economics at Howard University Neil Bradley - Executive Vice President and Chief of Policy Officer at the US Chamber of Commerce Transcript: Dr. William Spriggs: Workers do not have the sense that they have sick leave or the assurance that their employers will support them if they are sick. We see a very frightening share of women who show up to work and report that they have symptoms because they fear losing their job. Dr. William Spriggs: It is vital for Congress to monitor money given to corporations under COVID, to make sure that workers are safe, that they will not face retaliation if they complain about safety, that they have sick leave so that they can report illness and stay home and not infect other workers. This is vital for the economy. It's vital to be prudent about the money that we are sending to these companies. We're not going to win this economic war until we win the war against the disease. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA): I do want to comment about the importance of sick leave. We should be providing sick leave so people can stay home if they're sick, kids are sick. That's critical to getting this disease under control. We cannot limit that requirement only to those employers who feel generous. We can't limit it to only to those employers who are between 50 employees and 500 employees, as presently as now. And while we should require it of those who get money pursuant to these facilities, it auto glide all employers even those that are not borrowing from the federal government. Neil Bradley: With respect to individuals, the $600 was implemented because of the need for speed. We know as a general principle, you should not pay more for someone to not work and you pay them to work that creates distortions in the labor market. President Obama's head of the Council of Economic Advisers is former NSC director has joined on a bipartisan basis with officials from the Bush administration suggesting a much better approach, one we endorse it the US Chamber to target unemployment benefits much more closely to what an individual earned when they were working. It shouldn't be true that you earn more but you also shouldn't earn substantially less. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: As an investor when you invest in a riskier venture, would it be fair to say that an investor investing in that risky venture would be compensated with a higher return of risk? Because of the risk associated with that financial instrument correctly? Dr. Camille Bussett: Generally, that is that is correct. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: And now, is that same kind of compensation true for workers, in that are workers that are risking their lives, in meatpacking grocery stores, are there are they being paid? What is their compensation look like? Or do you see hazard pay, which is supposed to be a form of compensation for risk, a norm in your view. Dr. Camille Bussett: So low wage workers particularly they said work in the US industries that you mentioned and thank you for the question. Congress, woman Ocasio-Cortez are consistently paid very low wages for these kinds of essential jobs that put meat, poultry and vegetables on our table. That has not changed during the pandemic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: And so in your assessment, hazard pay is not the norm. Dr. Camille Bussett: Hazard pay is not the norm. There have been some corporations which have added some hazard pay and then have since the economy has started to reopen, and various states have rescinded that. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: So, really compensation for risk. It's not that all people in our economy are compensated for risk just that a certain narrow class is compensated for risk of capital but not necessarily risk of life. Hearing: , House Committee on Financial Services, June 30, 2020 Witnesess: Steven Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Transcript: Steven Mnuchin: The cares act also granted Treasury the authority to provide 454 billion to support Federal Reserve lending facilities under Section 13-3. Since March 17, using funds available, I have approved a number of Federal Reserve programs. The commercial paper program, primary dealer program, the money market mutual program, the primary market corporate credit facility, the secondary facility, the main street facility, municipal facility and the PPP lending facility. We've committed approximately 200 billion and to support these the announcements of these programs have helped unlock markets and promote much needed access to liquidity. We have over 250 billion remaining to create or expand programs as needed. Jerome Powell: After lowering the federal funds rate to essentially zero. Our actions so far fall into four categories, stabilizing Treasury and agency MBS markets, money market and liquidity, liquidity and funding measures, direct efforts to support the flow of credit in the economy and targeted regulatory measures to support those efforts. Jerome Powell: Without access to credit, families could be forced to cut back on necessities or even lose their homes. Businesses could be forced to downsize or close resulting in further losses of jobs and incomes and worsening the downturn. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY): Secretary Mnuchin, I'd like to ask you about a very troubling oversight issue. As you know, I'm the Chair now of the Oversight Committee and I take these matters very seriously, and I hope that you do too. In the CARES Act, we created the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, or PRAC, which is a committee of independent inspectors general that is charged with overseeing all of the money spent in the CARES Act, and identifying waste, fraud and abuse. Last month, the General Counsel's Office in Treasury issued a legal opinion that questioned PRAC's authority to oversee trillions of dollars of CARES Act spending. To put it bluntly, this legal analysis is so bad that it borders on bad faith. The opinion claimed that no evidence that Congress did not intend for the PRAC to have oversight authority over anything and the first half of the CARES Act, including the PPP program, and any of the fed's lending facilities are the 150 billion in funding for state and local governments. So I would say Secretary Mnuchin, that this interpretation is wrong, that it is just plain wrong. Senator Gary Peters and I proposed and authored this section of the law, the PRAC Act, and I was heavily involved in negotiating those provisions in the CARES Act. And I'm telling you that Congress's intent was for the PRAC to oversee all of the spending in the CARES Act, not just one half of the CARES Act, but all of it. That was our intent. And that was what the bill said explicitly. The interpretation from your general counsel's office is already causing problems, because it's hindering the practability to monitor how the states are spending their cares act money. So now Secretary Mnuchin, I would say that we have worked very productively together and in good faith negotiations on the Beneficial Ownership bill and, and other bills before Congress. So I hope that you'll take my concerns about this erroneous legal opinion seriously. And so this is what I would like to ask today. I'd like you to commit to interpreting this section of the CARES Act as Congress intended, with the PRAC's oversight authorities applying to all of the cares act spending. I think this is a small step, but a very important one that you can take to show that you're serious about the oversight of the trillions of dollars in the CARES Act. Steven Mnuchin: Well, thank you. And I appreciate your comments. And I assure you, we are very much committed to working with the Oversight Committees on transparency. Now, as it relates to this, I can assure you it was not in bad faith. I'm happy to have our office follow up with you. It has to do with a technical issue of recipients reporting as it relates to the issue of monitoring state spending, I'm more than happy to put the PRAC in touch with our Inspector General, who has primary oversight and make sure that whatever information specifically the PRAC wants on the states that we accommodate. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY): Well, I would say that that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is will you commit to interpreting the PRAC's oversight authorities as applying to all of the Cares Act spending? That was our intent, I wrote that section of the law, that was what Congress wanted. There's no problem with the interpretation it's very clear and explicit, will you commit to allowing the oversight that was in the bill. Steven Mnuchin: I appreciate you wrote that portion. I would also say I appreciate I had very direct discussions with people in the Senate about various different oversight. That's why we agreed to a new Oversight Committee. With full transparency, we agreed to provide information that was not required under 13-3. So we have full transparency. And again, I'm happy to follow up with you on the specific concerns as to which different entities should receive what information. I think it's important that there is not bureaucratic overlap. But again, let me emphasize if the PRAC needs certain information, we will try to do what we can to accommodate it. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY): Well, I'm very disappointed with that answer, and I guess we'll have to pursue a legislative solution. It was very clear the intent of Congress is that PRAC would have oversight of all of the cares spending. I yield back. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA): Chairman Powell, back on March 12, I sent you a letter urging that you prohibit stock buybacks by the banks you have done so. Thank you very much. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA): One issue, Chairman Powell, for the main street lending program that is particularly relevant to commercial real estate, is that if they get a loan from you, they violate the loan covenants that they have in their existing mortgage. I look forward to working with you on that. One possible solution is the bill that I submitted. And we've had hearings on in this committee, the Business Borrowers Protection Act. Certainly getting a loan on a program that we've offered authorized because of the COVID crisis should not trigger the and make it a pre-existing mortgage immediately due and payable. Jerome Powell: We are not looking for additional authority under 13-3. Our authority is of course to lend to solvent institutions and in programs of broad applicability and any company in any sector that meets those tests can can borrow one of our facilities. Rep. Bill Posey (FL): Some of our businesses, including again the hotels, are warning that their inability to make payments is threatening the servicing of commercial backed securities. And I just wonder if you can bring us up to date on the status of the CMBS market? Steven Mnuchin: Well, as I just mentioned, one of the problems of the CMBS market is that there are very strict contractual obligations. And that's why one of the things I do think we need to look at in the next CARES Act is additional funding for these industries that are the hardest hit. Steven Mnuchin: We have had inquiries about the issue of garnishment. And we agree from a policy standpoint that there should have been no garnishment. Unfortunately, that's something we need to address in the next CARES Act if we do additional direct payments, because there are certain state laws that were not overridden in the existing CARES Act. My understanding that's a state issue and not a federal issue. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO): But think about, think about the cruelty of the policy. Wouldn't you want to? Steven Mnuchin: As I said, I agree with you on the level. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO): Couldn't you all issue a blanket... Steven Mnuchin: We've asked our legal department to unfortunately we can't and that's one of the things we would want to fix in the next CARES Act. So we agree with you from the policy standpoint. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO): Now under the main street lending program, you reduced the minimum loan threshold from 1 million to 250,000. And then by expanding the program to nonprofits with more than 50 employees, however many small businesses may not need 250,000. Mr. Chairman, has the Fed considered eliminating the minimum loan threshold all together? Jerome Powell: We have not considered eliminating it yet. Of course, we're just now getting rolling with loans, as you know, so we can once we get up and running, look at lowering it again, but you get into a very different kind of lending when you're down, lower. These are really personal loans rather than business loans. They're generally guaranteed by the business operator, and we could look at that but that would be something we'd look at once we get up and running. Jerome Powell: The objective of everything we're doing everything. Every single thing we're doing is to take the 25 million people whose working lives have been disrupted and create a situation in which they have the best chance to go back to their old job or to get a new job. That includes all the facilities that we're doing. That's the overriding goal of what we're doing. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): As you know, it's hard for me to let a hearing go without talking about CECL, so we're gonna try it one more time. In March of this year, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC and LCC issued an interim rule to delay for two years the estimated impact on regulatory capital CECL, followed by a three year phase in. In addition, the CARES Act included an option delay in CECL implementation until end 2020, or the end of the pandemic, which 25% of typical entities actually opted for. Part of the Treasury is also conducting study - What's the impact of CECL I hope? We were directed to do that. And most recently, my colleagues and I sent a bipartisan letter F stock urging for delay in CECL implementation for all entities until 2022. So that every entity, both banks and non banks, which were not included through the cares act on the same footing and Treasury can conduct this study with the input of a real life scenario that we have ongoing today. Given the actions by Congress and the potential regulators should we delay CECL as I and my colleagues have called for and should the Treasury examine the real life scenario we've gone through when conducting their study? Mr. Mnuchin? Steven Mnuchin: I think that should be seriously considered. And yes, we are working on the study. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): The President issued an executive order with regards to each agency going through and looking at all the rules, regulations, that were either waive declined, change, whatever, if they don't work now, should we continue them down the road when we get out of this mess. And so I assume everybody is doing that. And this would, this particular accounting principle would seem to fall in that area of we need to be looking at this as something down the road we need to get rid of in it's entirety, Mr. Chairman Powell, would you like to comment on this as well? Jerome Powell: I would agree. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Because I think there's a time and place for rules, regulations or time in place that if nonfunctioning, we need to get rid of them and start over. Rep. Bill Huizenga (MI): But what we do know is from looking at history, is we need to get the economy moving again. Now the question is, is how, whether it's getting kids back to school, as some have suggested, because if you can't get kids into school, that's not going to then free up those parents to be available to work. Anecdotally in my area, I know that manufacturers and service companies are having a very difficult time getting enough workers to come in to complete a full contingent, a line workers for example, or to get a full shift filled. There's various reasons some have debated about the $600 additional per week kicker as being a bit of a disincentive. But nonetheless, we know that we have to address those folks who really truly are not able to get a job and how do we distinguish from those that are just deciding not to take that job? One of the things that I have proposed is something called the Patriot bonus patriot bonus would be a 50% tax credit to any company that would give a per hour bump to their employees or a weekly bonus to their employees or even a one time bonus to their employees to incentivize them to come off of that unemployment insurance system and get back engaged in the workforce. And I think it's critical that we that we do that. Rep. Bill Huizenga (MI): What do you want to tell them and the rest of Joe and Jane 401k that have their small investments in the markets that are there, frankly, to help them as they approach retirement? What assurances can we give them about the economy? Steven Mnuchin: Well, I want to tell them and all the other people that we are going to work with Congress to make sure we can do whatever we can do to get everybody back to work, who lost their job to COVID. And I'm also extremely optimistic about the research that is being done on vaccines and virals. And us combating this terrible disease. Thank you. Steven Mnuchin: In many of these cases, these companies don't need more debt. They need support. So one of the things we will want to look at in the next CARES Act, as I said, is additional support for these hardest hit industries. As the Chair has said, there's a difference between lending and spending. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO): And we also know that at the end of July, the pandemic unemployment insurance payments cease, as it's currently written. We know that a number of the moratorium on evictions and foreclosures begin to cease. And the eight weeks provided under the PPP, certainly for those initial takers of the loans start to run out. So I see a brick wall at the end of July. Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Reform: Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, June 26, 2020 Witnesess: Gene Dodaro - Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office Transcript: Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Tell me, how did it happen, that these hotels and these restaurants, were able to identify each of their installations under 500 people that they could get paid, get a loan for all of them. How did that happen? Gene Dodaro: My understanding of that is that that was a change that was made in the legislation at the last minute to allow them to be able to do that. That was part of the original legislation. My understanding...If I'm wrong, I'll provide a correction of the answer for the record, but that allowed that industry that applied if they had 500 people or less employees per location. Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Did the SBA sign off on that? Gene Dodaro: Pardon me? Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Did SBA sign off on that? Gene Dodaro: I don't know their involvement in the legislation. I'm sure the administration did if the President signed the bill. Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Do you think that basically undermined what the PPP was supposed to be about?Gene Dodaro: Well, I wouldn't second guess the Congress and what it did and what, in the legislation that it passed. So, I mean, I was assuming it was part of congressional intent if it's in the legislation. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): With the issue with regards to the stimulus checks going to people who shouldn't get them. You made a comment while ago about the social security's death master file. And it's something that you recommended, apparently for a number of years that we Congress have never done. In fact, the Trump administration has proposed in every single budget to give Treasury access to this, and we Congress have not done that. Is that roughly correct? Gene Dodaro: That's correct. And I know Treasury I've talked to Secretary Mnuchin about this and they... Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): So this problem could have been eliminated, and alleviated if we Congress had done our job and allowed this to happen in previous years. Gene Dodaro: That's a reasonable hypothesis. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): Okay. Thank you very much for that. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Gene Dodaro: Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): GAO also reported the Treasury and IRS sent nearly $1.4 billion in payments to 1.1 million dissidents, that is Americans who'd already died. And I'd also heard from some honest constituents who called up and said, we got this check for my wife or my husband who's no longer with us. IRS apparently was aware this was happening back in March, but didn't begin to correct it until months later. What's up with that? That's just shocking. How'd that happen? Gene Dodaro: Well, IRS is original determination was that the law required them to send a check to everybody who filed the return in 2018 or 19. And so they figured it would include those people. So they did it with foresight, that that's what they were supposed to do. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Wow. Okay. Just let me pause you there, because that seems to contradict common sense. In other words, because we said that it should go to everyone who filed taxes, they thought you'd go to people who had died right who had filed taxes. All right. What is the law? Because some people were saying, should we cash this check? Why would the government sending it to us? Gene Dodaro: Right. Yeah, no, no, I agree. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Well, what is the correct legal interpretation? Gene Dodaro: We believe Treasury's interpretation after that was that the intent was to help people who are affected by the situation which wouldn't include people who were deceased. So they stopped it at that point in time after IRS had made the first three payments. So we believe the correct interpretation now is they should not have been sent and our recommendation is to try to get as much of the money back as possible. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Ok. And they've changed that policy of sending checks to people who have died? Gene Dodaro: That's correct. Video: , Vic Dibitetto, April 16, 2020 Executive Producer Recommendations Article: By Yuta Kikuchi and Shinichi Takata, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Article: , Phys.Org, October 3, 2018 Article: By Andrew Glester, Physics World, June 11, 2018 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)