Podcasts about homeland security act

 Herrow v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 22-1854 (3d Cir. Feb. 13, 2024) repatriated Somalis; particularity and distinction; Westernized Somalis; CAT protection; acquiesce; Georgetown Report; Reer Hamar Bendiri; Al Shabaab; Somalia  Guzman-Maldonado v. Garland, No. 23-9 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2024) aggravated felony theft offense; INA § 101(a)(43)(G); Arizona robbery; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1904(A); consensual theft; intent and force  Alejos-Perez v. Garland, No. 22-60555 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024)Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.1161 (possession of a substance in Penalty Group 2-A); Carter; realistic probability test; exhaustion; Santos Zacaria; failure to cite case lawMestanek v. Jaddou, No. 22-2285 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024) INA § 204(c); FDNS; marriage fraud; Florida divorce; APA; Homeland Security Act of 2002; reweighing evidence; presumption of regulatory; 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16); exceptions to review of A-File; Matter of Singh Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Driftwood Capital"A vertically integrated powerhouse in commercial real estate, developing hospitalityprojects for families seeking a secure EB-5 residency path."Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

The Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) President Scott Paul joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast and discussed the resurgence of American manufacturing, with the recent news that construction of new manufacturing facilities has soared by 116 percent over the past year. He also talked about the Invent Here, Make Here for Homeland Security Act and the “Buy Clean policy” of the Biden Administration.     Central Iowa Building and Construction Trades Council Executive Director Samantha Groark  appeared on the AWF Union Podcast and spoke about how the Inflation Reduction Act provides some of the strongest labor protections and incentives ever attached to clean energy tax credit programs. She also discussed employee misclassification in the construction industry and how it impacts workers. 

Other than indigenous people, everyone in the US has immigrant blood. Yet immigration policy has been a heated political issue for decades. Hosts rose and Ruhani investigate the various aspects of immigration. Rose discusses how immigrants have limited access to healthy produce and how immigration has influenced the production of healthy foods. Ruhani shares the history of immigration in the United States. Immigrants come to the United States in the hope of finding a better life for themselves and their families, however, upon arrival, they lack essential services, healthcare, and resources. In California, immigrants make up more than 80 percent of the state's agricultural workforce. Other states like Washington State (72.6%), Florida (65.4%), and Oregon (60.7%), also have higher than average shares of immigrants in their agricultural workforce. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which took over many immigration service and enforcement functions formerly performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Immigrants contribute to life in America and we need to embrace, support, and appreciate the positive impact immigrants bring to our country. • Follow us: https://www.starstyleradio.com/expressyourselfteenradio • https://www.facebook.com/ExpressYourselfTeenRadio/ • https://www.facebook.com/BTSYAcharity/ • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/expressyourselfradio/

Other than indigenous people, everyone in the US has immigrant blood. Yet immigration policy has been a heated political issue for decades. Hosts rose and Ruhani investigate the various aspects of immigration. Rose discusses how immigrants have limited access to healthy produce and how immigration has influenced the production of healthy foods. Ruhani shares the history of immigration in the United States. Immigrants come to the United States in the hope of finding a better life for themselves and their families, however, upon arrival, they lack essential services, healthcare, and resources. In California, immigrants make up more than 80 percent of the state's agricultural workforce. Other states like Washington State (72.6%), Florida (65.4%), and Oregon (60.7%), also have higher than average shares of immigrants in their agricultural workforce. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which took over many immigration service and enforcement functions formerly performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Immigrants contribute to life in America and we need to embrace, support, and appreciate the positive impact immigrants bring to our country. • Follow us: https://www.starstyleradio.com/expressyourselfteenradio • https://www.facebook.com/ExpressYourselfTeenRadio/ • https://www.facebook.com/BTSYAcharity/ • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/expressyourselfradio/

The Left is having a hissy fit over federal agents protecting the federal courthouse in Portland. Feds shouldn't meddle in state and local stuff, they say. But remember the 2010 Arizona immigration law? The Obama Administration sued Arizona to keep them from enforcing federal law. They argued that local police weren't authorized to enforce federal law. And the 2002 Homeland Security Act gives federal officers statutory authority to protect federal property.As a closing thought, Trump should come out in support of puppies, since the Left will then have to oppose puppies. Trump in a landslide!

What's going on in America's cities?The Trump administration says that gangs and violent anarchists are out of control, and that governors and mayors aren't doing enough to stop them. Accordingly, they're sending in the feds, and we are witnessing Robert Higgs's “Ratchet Effect” in real time. Federal Government is using the latest crisis to justify new incursions on our liberties.Patrick Eddington, a research fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, says that the recent DHS action in Portland is an experiment on unwitting human test subjects. The preliminary results seem to have emboldened the administrative state to push forward with “Operation Legend” – an aggressive federal law enforcement action in cities across the country. President Trump says that an alphabet soup of agencies - led by the DOJ - has “no choice but to get involved.”“The FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service and Homeland Security will together be sending hundreds of skilled law enforcement officers to Chicago to help drive down violent crime,” said Trump on Wednesday, before Attorney General William Barr took to the podium to justify his deployment of anti-gang task forces engaged in everything from a ramped-up War on Drugs to counter-protests against Black Lives Matter and related groups. Eddington positions this rhetoric squarely within the “American authoritarian tradition” – running through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, Wilson's Espionage Act, FDR's Japanese internment, the HUAC… the list goes on.Most disturbingly, we have seen the past two administrations suspend the Posse Comitatus Act - the 1878 Law preventing government from using soldiers to enforce ordinary law - in progressive increments. First, President Bush's 2002 Homeland Security Act allowed the DHS to deploy federal agents to protect federal buildings. Next, Obama's 2012 authorization of the National Defense Authorization Act redefined U.S. territory as a battlefield and legalized indefinite detainment of American citizens without access to a trial or attorney.We now have DHS officials in military uniform taking American citizens into unmarked vans by without clear probable cause.Leftist mayors and governors who now complain about the use of unconstitutional force against protestors in Portland were silent during the Obama years. Are the chickens coming home to roost? Regardless, libertarians must be vigilant in standing against unconstitutional violations of due process and the separation of powers.

In response to the horrific murder of George Floyd and the worldwide protests against police brutality that followed, the House Democrats wrote the Justice in Policing Act. The provisions in this bill are our best chance for real change in the 116th Congress. In this episode, we see how the bill would limit military equipment being transferred to cops, create a nationwide public database for information about cops and police departments, and limit the qualified immunity that allows cops to use violence with impunity. We also look at The Dingleberry Method, which is the best play for Democrats to use if they want any of this to become law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD192: Democracy Upgrade Stalled CD200: How to End Legal Bribes Bill Outline Justice in Policing Act of 2020 TITLE I: POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY Subtitle A - Holding Police Accountable in the Courts Sec. 101: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Makes it a crime for someone enforcing a law to “knowingly or with reckless disregard” deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitutions, instead of “willingly” deprive a person their rights. Sec. 102: Qualified Immunity Reform Local law enforcement officers and prison guards will not be given immunity if they say they were acting in “good faith” or that they believed their conduct was lawful. Sec. 103: Pattern and Practice Investigations Gives the Attorney General optional subpoena authority and authorizes (but does not appropriate) $300,000 for grants to help states conduct investigations for the next three years Sec. 104: Independent Investigations The attorney general to give grants to states to help them conduct independent investigations of law enforcement. Authorizes (but does not appropriate) $2.25 billion Subtitle B - Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act Sec. 113: Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies Orders the Attorney General to do a review and recommend additional standards that are supposed to result in greater accountability of law-enforcement agencies. Sec. 114: Law Enforcement Grants Gives the Attorney General the option to provide grants to Community organizations to study law-enforcement standards. Sec. 115: Attorney General to Conduct Study Orders the attorney general to do a study on the ability of law-enforcement officers to dodge investigative questions. Sec. 116: Authorization of Appropriations Authorizes (but does not appropriate) about $28 million. Sec. 117: National Task Force on Law Enforcement Oversight Creates a task force staffed by the Attorney General to process complaints of law enforcement misconduct. Authorizes (but does not appropriate) $5 million per year Sec. 118: Federal Data Collection on Law Enforcement Practices Each federal, state, and local law enforcement agency would have to report a breakdown of the numbers of traffic stops, pedestrian stops, , And uses of deadly force by race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the officers and the the members of the public to the Attorney General. States that do not submit the reports would not be given money from the Department of Justice. TITLE II: POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA Subtitle A - National Police Misconduct Registry Sec. 201: Establishment of National Police Misconduct Registry Six months after enactment, the Atty. Gen. would have to create a database containing each complaint filed against the law enforcement officer, termination records, certifications, in records of lawsuits and settlements made against the officer. The registry would be available to the public Sec. 202: Certification Requirements for Hiring of Law Enforcement Officers Withholds money from a state or jurisdiction if all officers have not completed certification requirements. Subtitle B - PRIDE Act Sec. 223: Use of Force Reporting Requires states to report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis, information about law enforcement officers who shoot civilians, civilians who shoot law-enforcement officers, any incident involving the death or arrest of a law-enforcement officer, deaths in custody, and arrests and bookings. The reports must contain information about the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency, and housing status of each civilian against whom a local law enforcement officer used force. Reports must also include the location of the incident, whether the civilian was armed and with what kind of weapon, the type of force used, the reason force was used, a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident, the number of officers involved, the number of civilians involved, a description of the circumstances, efforts by local law-enforcement to de-escalate the situation, or the reason why efforts to de-escalate were not attempted. The Attorney General would have to make this information public once per year in a report. TITLE III: IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES Subtitle A - End Racial and Religious Profiling Act Sec. 311: Prohibition “No law-enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in racial profiling." Racial profiling is defined as relying, to any degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities. Sec. 312: Enforcement Allows victims of racial profiling to sue in civil courts, either in the state for in a district court of the United States. Subtitle B - Additional Reforms Sec. 361: Training on Racial Bias and Duty to Intervene The attorney general has to establish a training program to cover racial profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice. The training program must exhibit a clear duty for federal law-enforcement officers to intervene in cases where another law-enforcement officer is using excessive force against a civilian. Sec. 362: Ban on No-Knock Warrants in Drug Cases Search warrants authorized for drug cases would have to require that the law-enforcement officer provide notice of his or her authority and purpose. Sec. 363: Incentivizing Banning of Chokeholds and Carotid Holds States will not receive funding from the Department of Justice unless the state has enacted a law prohibiting officers in the State or jurisdiction from using a chokehold or carotid hold. Chokeholds would be classified as civil rights violations Sec. 364: PEACE Act “Less lethal” force can be used if it’s “necessary and proportional” in order to arrest a person “who the officer has probably cause to believe has committed a criminal offense” and if “reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of less lethal force have been exhausted” Deadly force can only be used “as a last resort” to “prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another person”, and if the use of deadly force creates no “substantial risk of injury to a third person”, and if “reasonable alternatives tot he use of the form of deadly fore have been exhausted” Officers have to give people a verbal warning that they are a law enforcement officer and that they “will use force against the person if the person resists arrest or flees” Sec. 365: Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act Prohibits the 1033 Program from transferring military equipment to domestic law enforcement for “counter drug” and “border security activities” but they can continue to get equipment for “counterterrorism” Would require the police departments to submit to the Defense Department a description of how they intend to use the military equipment, the department would have to publish a notice on their website and “at several prominent locations in the jurisdiction" that they are requesting the military equipment, and have the notices available for 30 days, and that the department has approval to receive the equipment by the city council. Reports on where the equipment goes must be submitted to Congress Prohibits the transfer of controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers, grenades (including flash bangs), explosives, controlled vehicles, MRAPs, trucks, drones, combat aircraft, silencers, and long range acoustic devices. The department would be required to return the equipment if they are investigated by the Justice Department or found to have engaged in widespread civil rights abuses Police departments “may never take ownership” of controlled property Applies only to equipment transferred in the future. Subtitle C - Law Enforcement Body Cameras Sec. 372: Requirements for Federal Uniformed Officers Regarding the Use of Body Cameras Requires uniformed officers with the authority to conduce searches and make arrests to wear a body camera. The body camera - vide and audio - must be activated whenever a uniformed officer is responding to a call for service or during any other law enforcement encounter with a member of the public, except if an immediate threat to the officer’s life or safety makes turning the camera on impossible. Officers must notify members of the public that they are wearing a body camera When entering someone’s home or speaking to a victim, the officer must ask if the resident or victim wants the camera turned off and turn it off if requested, if they are not executing a search warrant. Body cameras can not be equipped with real time facial recognition technology Facial recognition technology can be used with the footage with a warrant Body cameras can’t be used to gather intelligence on protected speech, associations, or relations. Body cameras are not required when the officer is speaking to a confidential informant or when recording poses a risk to national security. Body cameras are not allowed to be turned on when an officer is on a school campus unless he/she is responding to an imminent threat of life or health Footage must be retained for 6 months and then permanently deleted Citizens and their lawyers and the families of deceased citizens have the right to inspect body camera footage related to their cases Body camera footage related to a use of force or a civilian complaint must be kept for at least 3 years Redactions can be used Body camera footage retained longer than 6 months is inadmissible in court If an officer interferes or turns off a recording, “appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken” and the interference can be used as evidence in court. Sec. 373: Patrol Vehicles with In-Car Video Recording Cameras In car video camera recording equipment must record whenever an officer is on patrol duty, conducting an enforcement stop, patrol lights are activated, if the officer thinks the recording could help with a prosecution, and when an arrestee is being transported. Recordings must be retained for 90 days. Sec. 374: Facial Recognition Technology In car video cameras can not be equipped with facial recognition technology TITLE IV - JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING ACT Sec. 403: Lynching Co-conspirators to a lynching can be sentenced to 10 years in prison Articles/Documents Article: READ: Democrats Release Legislation To Overhaul Policing By Barbara Sprunt, npr, June 8, 2020 Article: Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis By Mandeep R Mehra, Frank Ruschitzka, and Amit N Patel, The Lancelet, June 5, 2020 Article: Verizon and AT&T Partner With Pro-Police Militarization Lobbying Group By Donald Shaw, Sludge, June 4, 2020 Article: The no-knock warrant for Breonna Taylor was illegal By Radley Balko, The Washington Post, June 3, 2020 Article: 10 Things Dems Could Do Right Now -- If They Actually Wanted To Stop Trump’s Power Grab By David Sirota, Substack, June 2, 2020 Article: De-escalation Keeps Protesters And Police Safer. Departments Respond With Force Anyway. By Maggie Koerth and Jamiles Lartey, FiveThirtyEight, June 1, 2020 Article: U.S. lawmaker prepares bill aiming to end court protection for police By David Morgan, Reuters, June 1, 2020 Statement: The Posse Comitatus Act, U.S. Northern Command, September 23, 2019 Article: Slavery and the Origins of the American Police State By Ben Fountain, Medium, September 17, 2018 Document: An Evaluation of the Department of Defense's Excess Property Program: Law Enforcement Agency Equipment Acquisition Policies, Findings, and Options by Aaron C. Davenport, Jonathan William Welburn, Andrew Lauland, Annelise Pietenpol, Marc Robbins, Erin Rebhan, Patricia Boren, K. Jack Riley, Rand Corporation, 2018 Article: Trump Reverses Obama Policy on Surplus Military Gear for Police By Pete Williams and Julia Ainsley, NBC News, August 28, 2017 Article: New Ferguson Video Adds Wrinkle to Michael Brown Case By Mitch Smith, The New York Times, March 11, 2017 Article: L.A. schools police will return grenade launchers but keep rifles, armored vehicle By Stephen Ceasar, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2014 Article: Michael Brown Robbed Convenience Store, Stole Cigarillos Before Darren Wilson Shooting, Dorian Johnson Says By Thomas Barrabi, International Business Times, November 25, 2014 Article: The “1033 Program,” Department of Defense Support to Law Enforcement By Daniel H. Else, Congressional Research Service, Specialist in National Defense, August 28, 2014 Additional Resources About: Vanita Gupta, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Oversight Hearing on Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability, House Judiciary Committee, June 10, 2020 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Art Acevedo: President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association Paul Butler: Professor of Law at Georgetown Law School Vanita Gupta: President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Sherrilyn Ifill: President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Marc Morial: President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Urban League Ben Crump: President and Founder of Ben Crump Trial Lawyer for Justice (lawyer for the family of George Floyd) Transcript: C-SPAN: Part 1 34:15 Vanita Gupta: My tenure as head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division began two months after 18 year old Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson. The Justice Department was hardly perfect, but we understood our mandate: to promote accountability and constitutional policing in order to build community trust. During the Obama administration, we opened 25 pattern-or-practice investigations to help realize greater structural and community centered change, often at the request of police chiefs and mayor's who needed federal leadership. After making findings, we negotiated consent decrees with extensive engagement and input from community advocates, who not only identified unjust and unlawful policing practices, but also helped develop sustainable mechanisms for accountability and systemic change. That is not the Justice Department that we have today. Under both Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, the department has abdicated its responsibility and abandoned the use of tools like pattern-or-practice investigations and consent decrees. Instead it is focused on dismantling police accountability efforts and halting any new investigations. The disruption of crucial work in the Civil Rights Division and throughout the Department of Justice to bring forth accountability and transparency in policing is deeply concerning. In the absence of federal leadership, the Leadership Conference Education Fund launched the new era of public safety initiative, a comprehensive guide and toolkit outlining proposals to build trust between communities and police departments, restore confidence and imagine a new paradigm of public safety. While much of these changes must happen at the state and local level, success is going to require the leadership support and commitment of the federal government including Congress. Last week, the leadership conference and more than 400 civil rights organizations sent a letter to Congress to move us forward on a path of true accountability. The recommendations included the following: One, create a national necessary standard on the use of force. Two, prohibit racial profiling, including robust data collection. Three, ban the use of chokeholds and other restraint maneuvers. Four, end the militarization of policing. Five, prohibit the use of no knock warrants, especially in drug cases. Six, strengthen federal accountability systems and increase the Justice Department's authority to prosecute officers that engage in misconduct. Seven create a national police misconduct registry. And eight, end qualified immunity. The Leadership Conference was pleased to learn that the Justice in Policing Act introduced Monday by both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate reflects much of this accountability framework. This is Congress's most comprehensive effort in decades to substantially address police misconduct by taking on issues critical issues affecting black and brown communities. 1:02:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: One of the key parts of the system of impunity has been qualified immunity defense that shields officials from the unforeseeable consequences of their act but has been interpreted by courts so ***extensively that it now provides near immunity for police officers who engage and unconstitutional acts of violence. 1:02:45 Sherrilyn Ifill: The Justice and policing act seeks to address qualified immunity by amending the civil rights statute used most in police excessive use of force cases. 42 USC section 1983 and we welcome this amendment. We want it to apply to all civil suits that are pending or filed after enactment of the Act. And we'll continue to work towards the elimination of qualified immunity. 1:24:10 Ben Crump: The only reason we know what happened to George Floyd is because it was captured on video. The advent of video evidence is bringing into the light what long was hidden. It's revealing what black Americans have known for a long, long time - that it is dangerous for a black person to have an encounter with a police officer. Given the incidents that have led to this moment in time, it should be mandatory for police officers to wear body cams and should be considered obstruction of justice to turn them off. Like a black box data recorded in an airplane body cams replace competing narratives with a single narrative, the truth with what we see with our own eyes. C-SPAN: Part 2 3:00 Vanita Gupta: I will tell you there's actually significant law enforcement support for this kind of registry. And prosecutors around the country have asked for this kind of registry. But chiefs in particular have said that this is a real problem when they don't have this kind of information when they're making hiring decisions. 14:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: The principal problems that we have found in this long standing systemic issue of police violence against unarmed African Americans is the inability to hold officers who engage in misconduct accountable. Now, this is not just about the individual officer who some refer to as a bad apple. This is about a system of accountability that must exist if police officers are to understand that they cannot engage in certain kinds of conduct without impunity. And unfortunately, all of the legal tools that are available to us to hold officers accountable, have been weakened or lacked the sufficient strength and language to allow us to do so. So strengthening the language of the federal criminal statute that will not hold us to such a high standard and proving intent of the officers conduct is critical. And so adding a recklessness provision into that language that will allow us to get at some of this officer misconduct is vitally important. 45:00 Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): Mayor Morial, throughout recent times, we've seen repeated instances where black people often unarmed have been killed by a police officer. And if the death results in a use of force investigation, that investigation most often is conducted by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer who used the deadly force. Isn't that correct? Marc Morial: That's traditionally the way it works. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): And Professor Butler we've also witnessed these use of force investigations being overseen by the local district attorney who works hand in hand, day after day, year after year, with the same officer and with the agency that employs the officer who used the deadly force in the case that's under investigation. Isn't that correct? And attorney Crump we've seen time and time again that the investigation becomes long and drawn out. And at some point, months or even years later, the local Prosecutor takes that case before a secret grand jury. And out of that grand jury usually comes what's called a no bill, which is a refusal to indict the officer who committed the homicide. Isn't that correct? Ben Crump: Yes, sir congressman Johnson. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): And Professor Butler because grand jury proceeding's a secret, the public never learns exactly what the prosecutor presented to the grand jury. Isn't that correct? Paul Butler: Just like the grand jury proceeding in Staten Island with Eric Garner, who was placed in an illegal chokehold. We have no idea why that grand jury didn't indict that officer for murder. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): It becomes just another justified killing of a black person by the police in America. Wouldn't it be fairer if the homicide investigation were undertaken by an Independent Police Agency, Attorney Gupta? Vanita Gupta: I think it would. It would also give the community members are much more faith in their legal system if there was an independent investigator in these kinds of cases. 1:41:30 Rep. Tom McClintock (CA): I think there are many proposals that have been raised in the house that merit support. And first is the doctrine of qualified immunity as it's currently applied. It has no place in a nation ruled by laws. For every right, there must be a remedy. And qualified immunity prevents a remedy for those whose rights have been violated by officials holding a public trust. And this reform should apply as much to a rogue cop who targets people because of their race, as it does to IRS or Justice Department officials and target people on the basis of their politics. 1:42:15 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): Police records must be open to the public. It is a well established principle that public servants work for the public. And the public has a right to know what they're doing with the authority the public has loaned them. And police departments should be able to dismiss bad officers without interference from the unions. 1:42:45 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): Turning police departments into paramilitary organizations is antithetical to the sixth principle laid down by Peel. Quote, "To use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective." Weapons that are unique to a battlefield need to be limited to a battlefield. 1:43:15 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): No knock warrants have been proven to be lethal to citizens and to police officials for obvious reasons. The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers the government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes. And that means that the authority as a police must be announced before that intrusion takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril. 2:00:45 Vanita Gupta: I think right now there is a hunger in the streets and in communities around the country to recognize that people want other options in their communities other than to call 911 and have a police officer come at the door when people are in mental health crisis, for homelessness issues and school discipline issues. And they want to - and I've heard this from police chiefs. The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a very powerful statement two days ago, recognizing the systematic decades of underinvestment in the kinds of social systems in housing and homelessness and education, and how that's all been placed at the feet of police officers. This needs to be a holistic evaluation of what spending priorities have been in communities that have been saturated with a criminal justice response, but under invested with resources for education and jobs, and the like. 2:39:00 Rep. Greg Stube (FL): But there are proposals in this bill that are extremely dangerous for those who protect our communities. Removing qualified immunity is only... Qualified immunity is only a protection if officers follow their training and protocols. If they don't follow the training and protocols, they don't get to use the immunity because it's qualified. If officers don't have qualified immunity to follow the training and protocols. I don't know a single person who would want to become a law enforcement officer in today's world, knowing that they may or may not be able to use the training and protocols that they were used to be able to apprehend a suspect who is not complying with them. But maybe that's the goal of the majority to get less and less people to join our law enforcement offices. 2:59:00 Vanita Gupta: Justice Department currently only has one law that they can use to prosecute police misconduct. And as you said, it has the highest mens rea requirement there is in criminal law requiring not only that prosecutors prove that the officer used unreasonable force, but actually also that the officer knew that what he or she was doing was in violation of the law and did it anyway, that is actually a very high burden. And so for years, there have been case after case that the Justice Department has been unable to reach it because of how high this burden is. There are many criminal civil rights prosecutors that for years have also wanted the change that is being proposed in the Justice in Policing Act, because I think it would enhance the Justice Department's credibility in these matters to be able to hold officers who violate federal civil rights laws accountable. And so this Justice in Policing Act asks it change the mens rea standard to knowingly or with reckless disregard, to slightly lower standards so more cases will be charged. It also really importantly broadens the language of the federal civil rights statute by including in its definition of a death resulting from an officers action, any act that was a substantial factor contributing to death. And I know many, many former US Attorneys that are eager to see this change as well. 3:07:00 Vanita Gupta: It is a real shame that in 2020, we still do not have adequate data collection on use of force in this country. We've had to rely for several years on journalists to putting this stuff together at the Washington Post and at The Guardian. The FBI has started to try to more systematically collected it, but this bill, the justice in policing act actually includes a requirement for states to report use of force data to the Justice Department, including the reason that force was used. Technical Assistance Grants are established in this bill to assist agencies that have fewer than 100 employees with compliance. That was often the reason that that police agencies were not reporting on this, but it also requires the Attorney Generals to collect data on traffic stops, searches, uses of deadly force by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, and to disaggregate that data by race, ethnicity and gender. 3:26:00 Vanita Gupta: This national registry would have misconduct complaints. It would have discipline termination records, it would have records of certification. It contains conditioning for money for funds from so that agencies actually have to put in inputs before they can access federal money, but it is high time for this to happen. 3:39:20 Vanita Gupta: The Trump DOJ has essentially abandoned and abdicated a mandate that was given by Congress in 1994 to investigate patterns and practices of unconscious, systemic, unconstitutional policing and police departments around the country. Since the administration began, there has been the opening only of one on a very tiny issue at the police department out of Springfield, Massachusetts, compared to 25 in the Obama administration, and many others in Republican and Democratic administrations prior to that. And so what that has meant is that the tool of these investigations, the tool of the consent decrees has just been lying dormant. Typically, when I oversaw the Civil Rights Division, we had mayors and police chiefs that really, in numerous instances, were actually asking the Justice Department to come in because they needed federal help in very bad situations. And so, jurisdictions have not been able to rely anymore on the Justice Department to support these kinds of efforts. And I think this bill, Justice in Policing does a lot to strengthen the Civil Rights Division's authority, giving it subpoena power, giving it resources. It also gives State Attorneys General the ability to do these patterns and practices where they have already state laws that allow them to do it as well. And that's, of course in this moment, with a justice department that is very disengaged from these issues. An important... Hearing: Oversight of Federal Programs for Equipping State and Local Law Enforcement, United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, September 9, 2014 Watch on C-SPAN Witnesses: Alan Estevez - Principal Deputy Defense Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Brian Kamoie - FEMA Grant Programs Assistant Administrator Peter Kraska - Professor at the School of Justice at University of Eastern Kentucky Mark Lomax - National Tactical Officers Association Executive Directior Transcript: 26:00 Alan Estevez: More than 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies actively participate in the program across 49 states in three US territories. More than $5.1 billion of property has been provided since 1990. 26:15 Alan Estevez: A key element in both the structure and execution of the program is the state coordinator, who is appointed by the respective state governor. State coordinators approve law enforcement agencies within their state to participate in the program, review all requests for property submitted by those agencies along with the statement of intended use. Working through state coordinators. Law enforcement agencies determine their need for different types of equipment and they determine how it's used. The Department of Defense does not have the expertise and police force functions and cannot assess how equipment is used in the mission of individual law enforcement agencies. 27:14 Alan Estevez: Law enforcement agencies currently possess approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property that they have received over time. 27:20 Alan Estevez: Examples of control property include over 92,000 small alarms 44,000 night vision devices 5200 High Mobility Multi Purpose wheeled vehicles or Humvees and 617 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles or MRAPs. The department does not provide tanks, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, crew served weapons or uniforms. 28:20 Alan Estevez: During the height of Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey, police drove cargo trucks and three Humvees through water too deep for commercial vehicles to save 64 people. In Wisconsin, Green Bay police used donated computers for forensic investigations. During a 2013 flood in Louisiana, Livingston parish police used six Humvees to rescue 137 people. In Texas armored vehicles received through program protected police officers during a standoff and shootout with gang members. 30:35 Brian Kamoie: The department's preparedness grant programs assist communities across the nation to build and sustain critical capabilities to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. 33:00 Brian Kamoie: Grant recipients must purchase equipment listed on the department's authorized equipment list, which outlines 21 categories of allowable equipment. The department prohibits the use of grant funds for the purchase of lethal or non lethal weapons and ammunition. These equipment categories are not on the authorized equipment list. Homeland Security grant funds may be used to purchase equipment that can be classified as personal protective equipment, such as ballistics protection equipment, helmets, body armor, and ear and eye protection. Response vehicles such as BearCats are also allowed. The Homeland Security Act allows equipment purchased with grant funds, including personal protective equipment to be used for purposes unrelated to terrorism. So long as one purpose of the equipment is to build and sustain terrorism based capabilities. 33:46 Brian Kamoie: The authorized equipment list also notes that ballistic personal protective equipment purchased with grant funds is not for riot suppression. 40:10 Alan Estevez: When it's no longer needed, we make it available not just cross levels across the Department of Defense first, and law enforcement by congressional authorization as dibs early in that process before it goes out to state agencies. And not all the equipment that's provided to law enforcement is available to everyone else. 40:45 Alan Estevez: Again, it's not for the department to really judge how law enforcement's...that's not our expertise. We rely on the state coordinators, appointed by the governor of each of those states who vet incoming requests from their local law enforcement agencies. 48:00 Coburn: How do you all determine what Federal Supply classes are available to be transferred? Alan Estevez: That is done basically by our item managers who... Coburn: I know, but tell me how do they decide MRAPs appropriate for community of my hometown, 35,000 people. Alan Estevez: that is done by the state coordinate... Coburn: I understand that but how did you ever decide that an MRAP is an appropriate vehicle for for local police forces? Alan Estevez: We know an MRAP is a truck senator with Coburn: No it is not a truck. It's a 48,000...offensive weapon. Alan Estevez: It's a very, very, very heavy...it is not an offensive weapon, Senator. Coburn: It can be used as an offensive weapon. Alan Estevez: When we give an MRAP, it is stripped of all its electronic warfare capability. It does not have a 50 caliber weapon on it. It is not an offensive weapon, is a protective vehicle. 49:15 Coburn: How do we ever get to the point where we think states need MRAPs. How did that process come about? Alan Estevez: Now this is one of the areas that we're obviously going to look at senator. How we decided what equipment is available. I mean, obviously we've made some big decisions, fighter aircraft tanks, strikers, those type of things are not available. Sniper Rifles - not available. Grenade launchers - not available. Coburn: Drones are available. Alan Estevez: No. Coburn: Airplanes are available. Alan Estevez: Airplanes are available. Cargo helicopters. Helicopters, not Apaches. Okay. Coburn: But but really you you can't tell us today how we make those decisions of what goes on the list and off the list. Alan Estevez: It's basically a common sense decision inside the department and then we do as I keep saying go back to the states. 50:15 Coburn: When something is removed from the list, and I don't know if you have any recent experience with this, are agencies are required to return the restricted equipment. Alan Estevez: That's why we retain title for what we call controlled equipment so that we can pull that equipment. 57:00 Alan Estevez: So as force structural changes, as our budget changes, things that we thought we would need, were are no longer needed. Or things that we bought for the war. And I'm not not talking about tactical rifles and like I'm talking about basic medical kits, that type of stuff may no longer be needed as we draw down force structure based on changing environment on the ground. PCA changes our force structure, things that we required will no longer be needed as that force structure changes. That's the basic reason. 58:30 Senator McCaskill: The Lake Angeles Police Department in Michigan, you gave them 13 military assault weapons since 2011. They have one full time sworn officer. So one officer now has 13 military grade assault weapons in their police department. How in the world can anyone say that this program has a one lick of oversight if those two things are in existence? Alan Estevez: I'll have to look into the details on each of those. The rule of thumb is one MRAP validated by the state coordinator for a police department that requests an MRAP no more than one. So I'd have to look at the incident in Senator Coburn's state. And same thing with rifles...weapons. Senator McCaskill: I will make part of the record the list we have a long list of law enforcement agencies that received three times as many 5.56 and 7.62 military grade weapons per for full time officer and this is a long list. 1:05:00 Senator Johnson: This program, which has apparently provided about $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997. It's all been free, correct? Alan Estevez: Yes. It's not free to the taxpayer. We bought it used it on... Senator Johnson: Free to local governments, correct? Alan Estevez: That's correct. Senator Johnson: Free local to police departments. Alan Estevez: Yes, sir, Senator. Senator Johnson: Do you know if too many police farms return free things down? Alan Estevez:Again, I'm not in the position of a local police department, but if something was available, and they thought they needed it, because they have to sustain this equipment, if they thought they needed it, and it was useful to them. Why not? 1:23:15 Rand Paul: In FEMAs authorized equipment lists, there's actually written descriptions for how the equipment should be used. And it says it's specifically not supposed to be used for riot suppression. Mr. Kamoie? Is that true that it's not supposed to be used for Riot suppression? And how do you plan in policing that since the images show us clearly, large pieces of equipment that were bought with your grants being used in that Riot suppression? Protest suppression, rather. Brian Kamoie: Senator Paul, that is accurate. The categories of personal protective equipment that include helmets, ear and eye protection, ballistics personal protective equipment, is a prohibition in the authorized equipment list that is not to be used for riot suppression. Rand Paul: And what will you do about it? Brian Kamoie: We're going to follow the lead of the Department of Justice's investigation about the facts. We're going to work for the state of Missouri to determine what pieces of equipment were grant funded, and then we have a range of remedies available to us. Should there be any finding of non compliance with those requirements. Those include everything from corrective action plans to ensure it doesn't happen again. recoupment of funds. So we'll look very closely at the facts. But we're going to allow the investigation to run its course and determine what the appropriate remedy is. 1:25:20 Rand Paul: Mr. Estavez in the NPR investigation of the 1033 program, they list that 12,000 bayonets have been given out. What purpose are bayonets being given out for? Alan Estevez: Senator, bayonets are available under the program. I can't answer what a local police force would need a bayonet for. Rand Paul: I can give you an answer. None. So what's the what's President Obama's administration's position on handing out bayonets to the police force? It's on your list. You guys create the list. You're going to take it off the list. We're going to keep doing it. Alan Estevez: We are going to look at what we are providing under the administration's review of all these programs. Rand Paul: So it's unclear at this point whether President Obama approves of 12,000 bayonets being given out. I would think you can make that decision last week. Alan Estevez: I think we need to review all the equipment that we're providing Senator. And as I said, we the Department of Defense do not push any of this equipment on any police force. The states decide what they need. 1:26:00 Rand Paul: My understanding is that you have the ability to decide what equipment is given out and what equipments not given out. If you decided tomorrow, if President Obama decided tomorrow that mine resistant ambush protection 20 ton vehicles are not appropriate for cities in the United States. He could decide tomorrow to take it off the list. You could decide this tomorrow. My question is, what is the administration's opinion on giving out mine resistant ambush protection 20 ton vehicles to towns across America? Are you for it or against it? Alan Estevez: Obviously we do it senator we're going to look at that. I will also say that I can give you anecdotes for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles that protected police forces in shootouts. Rand Paul: But we've already been told they're only supposed to be used for terrorism, right? Isn't that what the rule is? Alan Estevez: Our rule is for counter-drug, which could have been the shootout I'd have to look at the incident. Counter-narcotics counter-terrorism. 1:28:00 Rand Paul: The militarization of police is something that has gotten so far out of control and we've allowed it to descend along with a not a great protection of our civil liberties as well. So we say we're going to do this, it's okay if it's for drugs. Well look at the instances of what have happened in recent times. The instance in Georgia just a couple of months ago, of an infant in a crib getting a percussion grenade thrown in through a window in a no knock raid. Turns out the infant obviously wasn't involved in the drug trade, but neither was even the infant's family - happened to have been the wrong place the wrong time. No one's even been indicted on this. So really, this is crazy out of control and giving military equipment and with a breakdown of the whole idea of due process of no knock raids and not having judges issue warrants anymore. You can see how this gets out of control and people are very, very concerned with what is going on here. And I see the response so far to be lackluster, and I hope you will do a more complete job in trying to fix this. Thank you. 1:32:20 Ayotte: Is there any coordination between the grants that homeland is giving in light of what the departments are receiving on the 1033 front? Brian Kamoie: We don't coordinate in the decision making about local law enforcement requests. The process that Mr. Estevez has laid out, we don't coordinate that at all. 1:51:40 Peter Kraska: The clear distinction between our civilian police and military is blurring in significant and consequential ways. The research I've been conducting since 1989 has documented quantitatively and qualitatively the steady and certain marks of U.S. civilian policing down the militarization continuum. Culturally, materially, operationally, and organizationally, despite massive efforts at democratizing police, under the guise of community policing reforms, the growth in militarized policing has been steep and deep. In the mid 1980s, a mere 30% of police agencies had a SWAT team. Today well over 80% of departments, large and small, have one. In the early 1980s, these these agencies conducted approximately 3,000 deployments a year nationwide. Today, I estimate a very conservative figure of 60,000 per year. And it is critical to recognize that these 60,000 deployments are mostly for conducting drug searches on people's private residences. This is not to imply that all police, nearly 20,000 unique departments across our great land, are heading in this direction. But the research evidence along with militarized tragedies in Modesto, Georgia, Ferguson and tens of thousands of other locations, demonstrates a troubling and highly consequential overall trend. What we saw played out in the Ferguson protests was the application of a very common mindset, style of uniform and appearance and weaponry used every day in the homes of private residences during SWAT raids. Some departments conduct as many as 500 SWAT team raids a year. And just as in the two examples above, and in the Ferguson situation, it is the poor and communities of color that are most impacted. 1:54:00 Peter Kraska: I mentioned that police militarization predates 911 this is not just an interesting historical fact it is critical because it illuminates the most important reason or causal factor in this unfortunate turn in American policing and American democracy. It is the following: our long running an intensely punitive self proclaimed war on crime and drugs. It is no coincidence that the skyrocketing number of police paramilitary deployments on American citizens since the early 1980s, coincides perfectly with the skyrocketing imprisonment numbers. We now have 2.4 million people incarcerated in this country, and almost 4% of the American public is now under direct correctional supervision. These wars have been devastating to minority communities and the marginalized and have resulted in a self perpetuating growth complex. Cutting off the supply of military weaponry to to our civilian public is the least we could do to begin the process of reining in police militarization and attempting to make clear the increasingly blurred distinction between the military and police. Please do not underestimate the gravity of this development. This is highly disturbing to most Americans on the left and the right. 1:57:30 Mark Lomax: The threat that firearms pose to law enforcement officers and the public during violent critical incidents has proven that armored rescue vehicles have become an essential as individually worn body armor or helmets in saving lives. 2:11:30 Peter Kraska: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 had been in place untouched for quite a long time until the 1980s drug war. And it wasn't until the 1980s drug war it was actually the Reagan administration that wanted to completely repealed Posse Comitatus. But what instead happened is they just amended it significantly, to allow for cross training and weapons transference. And just as an aside, I don't want to make too much of an aside, but we also have to remember that the Department of Defense has been very actively involved in training local police departments as well, not just providing them equipment, but providing them training. I've got a great quote that if you, I'm not going to read it now, but if you asked me to read it, I will. that talks about even having navy seals and Army Rangers come to a local police department and teach them things. So it's not just weapons transference. The federal government has increasingly since 911 played a significant role in accelerating these trends towards militarization. And, you know, the extent to which the 1033 program, Department of Homeland Security funds, etc, have contributed to it. I would certainly call it significant. But I think we have to remember that the that the militarized culture have a component of policing, and it's just a component of policing. This isn't a unified phenomenon at all of police in the United States of America. Hell, we have a police department right next to us, Lexington PD, very smart, very wise. They don't do this kind of thing at all, and they would never do it. So the police in communities a bit split over this. And I don't want anybody to get the impression because of the experts we've heard that policing is all for this stuff, because it's just not true. There are lots of folks that aren't. Anyway, back to federalisation. So, I think the federal government's played a significant role in probably the last 10 to 14 years. 2:14:10 Peter Kraska: This had everything to do with prosecuting the drug war. And that's when we saw the precipitous rise in not only the number of SWAT units but the amount of activity. That's when we saw departments doing 750 to 1000 drug raids per year on people's private residences. That's when we saw police departments all over the country in small little localities sending off two or three officers to a for profit training camp, like Smith and Wesson or Heckler and Koch getting training and coming back to the department and starting a 15 officer, police paramilitary unit with no clue what they were doing whatsoever. That all happened as a part of the drug war. 2:26:50 Peter Kraska: Oftentimes, these kind of conversations devolve into an either or type of argument. And it's really critical to recognize that there are absolutely lots of situations. Columbine, for example, where you have to have a competent professional response, a use of force specialist, military, Special Operations folks, police special, whatever you want to call them, you have to have that, no doubt. What I was talking about was 60,000 deployments, as I was not talking about 60,000 deployments. For those situations. Those situations are incredibly rare. Thank goodness, they're incredibly rare. Those situations absolutely require a competent response, active shooter, terrorist, whatever kind of situation. Our research demonstrated conclusively that 85% of SWAT team operations today are proactive, choice driven raids on people's private residences 85%. What that means is that the original function of SWAT in the 1970s was the idea that SWAT teams were to save lives, they were to respond in a laudable way to very dangerous circumstances and handle the circumstances well. What happened during the 1980s and early 1990s drug war is that function flipped on its head. We went from these teams predominantly doing reactive deployments, maybe one to two of these in an entire municipality, one to two a year. Smaller jurisdictions, probably something like that wouldn't happen in 100 years, but they were there to handle it. This has devolved now into what I'm talking about widespread misapplication of the paramilitary model. 2:29:00 Peter Kraska: 50% of these small police departments... 50% of them are receiving less than 50 hours of training per year for their SWAT team. The recommended amount from the MTOA used to be 250. I think they've reduced it to 200. 250 hours versus 50 hours. These are not well trained teams. These are a localized 18,000 police departments all doing their own thing with no oversight and no accountability. And that's why we're seeing and we have seen hundreds of these kinds of tragedies that I've mentioned, but also lots of terrorized families that have been caught up in these drug operations and drug raids. Thank you. 2:35:30 Peter Kraska: Military gear and garb changes and reinforces a war fighting mentality amongst civilian police, where marginalized populations become the enemy and the police perceive of themselves as a thin blue line between order and chaos that can only be controlled through military model power. 2:47:50 Peter Kraska: Most police departments that handle civil protests correctly know that the last thing you want to do is instigate. It was just a wonderful article written in the Washington Post, it interviewed a whole bunch of Chiefs of Police that understand this and how you sit back and you don't antagonize and you certainly don't display this level of weaponry. Hearing: Police Brutality, United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, March 20, 1991 Witnesses: John Dunne: Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division Transcript: 6:00 Rep. Howard Coble (NC): It would be my hope that this matter could be resolved internally in Los Angeles. The fear I have about what occurred on the coast is that many people are probably going to try to bash every law enforcement officer in the country. That's what bothers me. And I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of law enforcement in this country. 30:15 Rep. Henry Hyde (IL): I know civil rights prosecutions nationwide by year, compiled from annual Department of Justice Statistics, and in 1990, there was 7,960 complaints received and 3,050 investigations. I take it, a great number of the complaints were found to be without merit or beyond investigation, but cases presented to the grand jury or grand juries were only 46. So out of 3,050 investigations there were only 46 that you felt worth taking to a grand jury was that right. Mr. Dunn? John Dunne: Mr. Hyde in light of all of the circumstances, specifically, the key being whether or not the federal state interest had been vindicated. Yes, about one and a half percent, usually runs about 2% a year, of the complaints we receive actually go to prosecution. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The House agreed to H.R. 3 –Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019.  On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 230 - 192 (Roll no. 682).  H.R. 5038 – Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019 (Rep. Lofgren – Judiciary) (Subject to a Rule)  This bill contains provisions related to alien farmworkers, including provisions establishing a certified agricultural worker (CAW) status and changing the H-2A temporary worker program. On passage Passed by recorded vote: 260 - 165, 1 Present (Roll no. 674). H.R. 5035 – Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 (Rep. Doyle – Energy and Commerce) to extend expiring provisions relating to the retransmission of signals of television broadcast stations Agreed to by voice vote.  H.R. 4372 – MSI STEM Achievement Act (Rep. Bernice Johnson – Science, Space, and Technology)  This bill supports efforts to increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at minority-serving institutions of higher education   Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 4373 – Engineering Biology Research and Development Act of 2019, as amended (Rep. Bernice Johnson – Science, Space, and Technology)  To provide for a coordinated Federal research initiative to ensure continued United States leadership in engineering biology. Agreed to by voice vote.  H.R. 2051 – Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2019, as amended (Rep. Lipinski – Science, Space, and Technology)  To provide for Federal coordination of activities supporting sustainable chemistry  Agreed to by voice vote H.R. 5213 – NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension Act of 2019, as amended (Rep. Horn – Science, Space, and Technology)  extends the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of non-excess property of the Administration. Agreed to by voice vote S. 737 – Building Blocks of STEM Act (Sen. Rosen – Science, Space, and Technology) directs the National Science Foundation to support STEM education research focused on early childhood. Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. Passed/agreed to in House: Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 4355 – IOGAN Act (Rep. Gonzalez (OH) – Science, Space, and Technology)  To direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on the outputs that may be generated by generative adversarial networks, otherwise known as deepfakes, Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 4566 – Virginia Beach Strong Act (Rep. Luria – Ways and Means) To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of the families of victims of the mass shooting in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on May 31, 2019. Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 3669 – Weatherizing Infrastructure in the North and Terrorism Emergency Readiness Act of 2019 (Rep. Slotkin – Homeland Security)  To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a collective response to a terrorism exercise that includes the management of cascading effects on critical infrastructure during times of extreme cold weather  Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 4761 – DHS Opioid Detection Resilience Act of 2019 (Rep. Higgins (LA) – Homeland Security)  To ensure U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, agents, and other personnel have adequate synthetic opioid detection equipment, that the Department of Homeland Security has a process to update synthetic opioid detection capability  Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 393 – 1 (Roll no. 655). H.R. 4739 – Synthetic Opioid Exposure Prevention and Training Act (Rep. Clarke – Homeland Security)  to protect U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, agents, other personnel, and canines against potential synthetic opioid exposure, Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 393 – 0 (Roll no. 656). H.R. 4727 – Department of Homeland Security Mentor-Protégé Program Act of 2019 (Rep. McEachin – Homeland Security)  To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish a mentor-protégé program, Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 3318 – Emerging Transportation Security Threats Act of 2019 (Rep. Joyce (PA) – Homeland Security)  o establish a task force to conduct an analysis of emerging and potential future threats to transportation security  including threats posed by the release of chemical or biological agents in aviation or surface transportation systems. Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 4713 – Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Authorization Act (Rep. Green (TX) – Homeland Security)  to make certain improvements in the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 4402 – Inland Waters Security Review Act (Rep. Lesko – Homeland Security) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct an inland waters threat analysis, Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 3469 – Covert Testing and Risk Mitigation Improvement Act of 2019 (Rep. Cummings – Homeland Security)  This bill establishes standards for the covert testing process that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses to evaluate its aviation security operations. Agreed to by voice vote. S. 256 – Esther Martinez Native Languages Programs Reauthorization Act (Sen. Udall – Education and Labor)  This bill revises a grant program administered by the Administration for Native Americans at the Department of Health and Human Services to preserve Native American languages.  Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.// Passed/agreed to in House:  Agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 729 – Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act (Rep. Kilmer – Natural Resources) (Subject to a Rule)  To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to authorize grants to Indian Tribes to further achievement of Tribal coastal zone objectives On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 262 – 151 (Roll no. 667). Support the show.

In an experimental follow-up episode, listen along with Jen and Joe to the highlights of a Senate hearing examining the progress that has been made towards caring for the immigrant children who have been either taken from their immigrant parents or who arrived in the U.S. alone. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD177: Immigrant Family Separations CD176: Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress Additional Reading Article: Tom Carper's 40-year record of defending banks is being challenged by Kerri Harris in a Democratic primary by David Dayen, The Intercept, August 22, 2018. Report: More than 500 children are still separated. Here's what comes next. by Amrit Cheng, ACLU, August 21, 2018. Staff Report: Oversight of the care of unaccompanied alien children by Rob Portman and Tom Carper, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, August 15, 2018. Article: 'I want to die': Was a 5-year-old drugged after being separated from his dad at the border? by Michael E. Miller, The Washington Post, August 9, 2018. Report: Trump administration must stop giving psychotropic drugs to migrant children without consent, judge rules by Samantha Schmidt, The Washington Post, July 31, 2018. Report: Grassley, Feinstein seek investigation into alleged abuse at immigrant detention facilities, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 30, 2018. Article: Investigation sought into sexual abuse allegations at Texas immigrant detention center by Dianne Solis and James Barragan, Dallas News, June 25, 2018. Report: Police reports tell of sexual abuse, harassment at Arizona facilities for migrant children by Agnel Philip, AZCentral, July 25, 2018. Article: Sexual assault inside ICE detention: 2 survivors tell their stories by Emily Kassie, The New York Times, July 17, 2018. Article: Young immigrants detained in Virginia center allege abuse by Michael Biesecker, Jake Pearson, and Garance Burke, USA Today, June 21, 2018. Article: Alliance for prosperity plan: Hope for curbing Northern Triangle emigration? by Kausha Luna, Center for Immigration Studies, June 21, 2017. Article: US coaxes Mexico into Trump plan to overhaul Central America, CNBC, May 4, 2017. Article: The alliance for prosperity will intensify the Central American refugee crisis by Dawn Paley, The Nation, December 21, 2016. Report: CBP appointes two new officers to senior leadership by Alex Murtha, Homeland Preparedeness News, September 23, 2016. Article: The Alliance for Prosperity Plan: A failed effort for stemming migration by Laura Iesue, COHA, August 1, 2016. Resources Court Settlement Agreement: Jenny Lisette Flores v. Janet Reno, August 15, 2018. Organization Overview: IADB.org Regional Plan: Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle: A Road Map White House Fact Sheet: Support for the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle, March 3, 2015. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Unaccompanied Immigrant Children, Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee, August 16, 2018. Hearing: Oversight of Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human Trafficking and Abuse, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, August 16, 2018. Witnesses: Richard Hudson: Acting Chief of Law Enforcement Operations, US Border Patrol, US Department of Homeland Security Robert Guadian: Acting Deputy Assistant Diretor for Field Operations West, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Dept of Homeland Security Commander Jonathan D. White: U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Federal Health Coordinating Official for the 2018 Reunification Effort, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services James McHenry: Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, US Dept of Justice Hearing: Prescription Drug Supply and Cost, Senate Finance Committee, C-SPAN, June 26, 2018. Witness: Alex Azar - Health and Human Services Secretary Sound Clips: 27:50 Senator Ron Wyden (OR): How many kids who were in your custody because of the zero-tolerance policy have been reunified with a parent or a relative? Alex Azar: So, I believe we have had a high of over 2,300 children that were separated from their parents as a result of the enforcement policy. We now have 2,047. Hearing: Stopping the Daily Border Caravan: Time to Build a Policy Wall, Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, May 22, 2018. Witnesses: Ronald Vitiello - Acting Depury Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection Lee Francis Cissna - Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Thomas Homan - Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Sound Clips: 41:33 Thomas Homan: They’re separating families for two reasons. Number one, they can’t prove the relationship—and we’ve had many cases where children had been trafficked by people that weren’t their parents, and we’re concerned about the child. The other issues are when they’re prosecuted, then they’re separated. 37:40 Representative Filemon Vela (TX): So, with this new policy in place, at the point that you’re in a situation where you decide to separate the families, where do the minors go? Vitiello: The decision is to prosecute 100%. If that happens to be a family member, then HHS would then take care of the minor as an unaccompanied child. 39:58 Thomas Homan: As far as the question on HHS, under the Homeland Security Act 2002, we’re required, both the Border Patrol and ICE, to release unaccompanied children to HHS within 72 hours. So, we simply—once they identify within that 72 hours a bed someplace in the country, our job is to get that child to that bed. Then HHS, their responsibility is to reunite that child sometime with a parent and make sure that child gets released to a sponsor that’s being vetted. Speech: Sessions Says 'Zero Tolerance' for Illegal Border Crossings, CBS SF BayArea, May 7, 2018. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Today we are here to send a message to the world: we are not going to let this country be overwhelmed. People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border. We need legality and integrity in the system. That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is now referring 100 percent of illegal Southwest Border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution. And the Department of Justice will take up those cases. I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. Hearing: Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human Trafficking and Abuse, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, C-SPAN, April 26, 2018. Witnesses: James McCament - Deputy Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Dept. of Homeland Security Steven Wagner - Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration for Children and Facilities at the Dept. of Health and Human Services Kathryn Larin - Director for Education, Workforce, and Income Security Team at the U.S. Government Accountability Office Sound Clips: 45:05 Kathryn Larin: In 2015, we reported that the interagency process to refer unaccompanied children from DHS to ORR shelters was inefficient and vulnerable to error. We recommended that DHS and HHS develop a joint collaborative process for the referral and placement of unaccompanied children. In response, the agencies recently developed a memorandum of agreement that provides a framework for coordinating responsibilities. However, it is still under review and has not yet been implemented. 1:51:28 Sen. Portman: Mr. Wagner, give me a timeframe. Wagner: Sir, we have to incorporate the new MOA in the draft JCO. Honestly, we are months away, but I promise to work diligently to bring it to a conclusion. 1:57:15 Senator Rob Portman (OH): Okay, we learned this morning that about half, maybe up to 58%, of these kids who are being placed with sponsors don’t show up at the immigration hearings. I mean, they just aren’t showing up. So when a sponsor signs the sponsorship agreement, my understanding is they commit to getting these children to their court proceedings. Is that accurate, Mr. Wagner? Steven Wagner: That is accurate. And in addition, they go through the orientation on responsibilities of custodians. Sen. Portman: So, when a child does not show up, HHS has an agreement with the sponsor that has been violated, and HHS, my understanding, is not even notified if the child fails to show up to the proceedings. Is that accurate? Wagner: That is accurate, Senator. Sen. Portman: So you have an agreement with the sponsor. They have to provide this agreement with you, HHS. The child doesn’t show up, and you’re not even notified. So I would ask you, how could you possibly enforce the commitment that you have, the agreement that you have, with the sponsor if you don’t have that information? Wagner: I think you’re right. We have no mechanism for enforcing the agreement if they fail to show up for the hearing. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

A new policy change by the Trump administration on May 7th has resulted in thousands of children being separated from their want-to-be-immigrant parents who crossed the U.S. southern border in the wrong location. In this episode, hear from officials in every branch of government involved to learn why this is happening, why it's proving to be so difficult to return the children to their parents, and what we can do to help this situation. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Letter to Representative/Senators Jen's letter that she sent to her members of Congress. You are welcome to use this as you wish!  Additional Reading Report: Trump administration: Migrant families can be detained for more than 20 days by Tanya Ballard Brown, NPR, June 29, 2018. Article: Federal judge enjoins separation of migrant children, orders family reunification by Devlin Barrett, Mike DeBonis, Nick Miroff and Isaac Stanley-Becker, The Washington Post, June 27, 2018. Article: Trump aims to dismantle protections for immigrant kids and radically expand the family detention system by Ryan Devereaux, The Intercept, June 26, 2018. Article: With prosecutions of parents suspended the status quo returns at the border, The Washington Post, June 25, 2018. Article: Separated immigrant children are all over the U.S. now, far from parents who don't know where they are by Maria Sacchetti, Kevin Sieff and Marc Fisher, The Washington Post, June 24, 2018. Article: U.S. officials separated him from his child then he was deported to El Salvador, The Washington Post, June 23, 2018. Article: Yes, Obama separated families at the border, too by Franco Ordonez and Anita Kumar, McClatchy, Jue 21, 2018. Report: Governor orders probe of abuse claims by immigrant children by Michael Bisecker, Jake Pearson and Garance Burke, AP News, June 21, 2018. Report: Migrant children at the border - the facts by Graham Kates, CBS News, June 20, 2018. Report: The facilities that are housing children separated from their parents by Andy Uhler and David Brancaccio, Marketplace, June 20, 2018. Article: How private contractors enable Trump's cruelties at the border by David Dayen, The Nation, June 20, 2018. Article: Separating migrant families is barbaric. It's also what the U.S. has been doing to people of color for hundreds of years. by Shaun King, The Intercept, June 20, 2018. Report: Trump's executive order on family separation: What it does and doesn't do by Richard Gonzales, NPR, June 20, 2018. Report: U.S. announces its withdrawal from U.N. Human Rights Council by Colin Dwyer, NPR, June 19, 2018. Article: Detainees in Oregon say they followed asylum process and were arrested by Conrad Wilson, OPB, June 19, 2018. Report: Fact-checking family separation by Amrit Cheng, ACLU, June 19, 2018. Article: The U.S. has taken more than 3,700 children from their parents - and has no plan for returning them by Ryan Devereaux, The Intercept, June 19, 2018. Article: Exclusive: US officials lost track of nearly 6,000 unaccompanied migrant kids by Franco Ordonez and Anita Kumar, McClatchy, June 19, 2018. Article: The government has no plan for reuniting the immigrant families it is tearing apart by Jonathan Blitzer, The New Yorker, June 18, 2018. Report: U.N. rights chief tells U.S. to stop taking migrant children from parents by Nick Cumming-Bruce, The New York Times, June 18, 2018. Article: Taking migrant children from parents is illegal, U.N. tells U.S. by Nick Cumming-Bruce, The New York Times, June 5, 2018. Article: Parents, children ensnared in 'zero-tolerance' border prosecutions by Curt Prendergast and Perla Trevizo, Arizona Daily Star, May 28, 2018. Statement: By HHS Deputy Secretary on unaccompanied alien children program, HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan, HHS, May 28, 2018. Report: Trump administration using contractors accused of abuse to detain undocumented children by TYT Investigates, TYT Network, May 28, 2018. Testimony: Ronald D. Vitiello on Stopping the daily border caravan: Time to build a policy wall, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, May 22, 2018. Report: ICE has already missed two detention reporting deadlines set by Congress in March, National Immigrant Justice Center, May 17, 2018. Article: As Gaza death toll rises, Israeli tactics face scrutiny by Josef Federman, The Seattle Times, May 15, 2018. News Report: Attorney General Sessions delivers remarks discussing the immigration enforcement actions of the Trump administration, Department of Justice, May 7, 2018. Statement: Steven Wagner of Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 26, 2018. Article: Hundreds of immigrant children have been taken from parents at U.S. border by Caitlin Dickerson, The New York Times, April 20, 2018. Article: Trump's first year has been the private prison industry's best by Lauren-Brooke "L.B" Eisen, Brennan Center for Justice, January 15, 2018. Article: Private-prison giant, resurgent in Trump era, gathers at president's resort by Amy Brittain and Drew Harwell, The Washington Post, October 25, 2017. Report: Trump administration warns that U.S. may pull out of U.N. Human Rights Council by Merrit Kennedy, NPR, June 6, 2017. Article: Private prisons were thriving even before Trump was elected by Alice Speri, The Intercept, November 28, 2016. Article: Mexican migrant kids swiftly sent back by Sandra Dibble, San Diego Union Tribune, July 12, 2014. Article: Immigrant surge rooted in law to curb child trafficking by Carl Hulse, The New York Times, July 7, 2014. Resources Agency Details: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services GovTrack: H.R. 4760: Securing America's Future Act of 2018 GovTrack: H.R. 7311 (110th): William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 Human Rights First: The Flores Settlement Publication: Betraying Family Values: How Immigration Policy at the United States Border is Separating Families Snopes.com: Did the U.S. government lose track of 1,475 migrant children? U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Organizational Chart U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Border Migration FY2018 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Prescription Drug Supply and Cost, Senate Finance Committee, C-SPAN, June 26, 2018. Witness: - Alex Azar - Health and Human Services Secretary 27:50 Senator Ron Wyden (OR): How many kids who were in your custody because of the zero-tolerance policy have been reunified with a parent or a relative? Alex Azar: So, I believe we have had a high of over 2,300 children that were separated from their parents as a result of the enforcement policy. We now have 2,047. Sen. Wyden: How many have been reunified? Azar: So, they would be unified with either parents or other relatives under our policy, so, of course if the parent remains in detention, unfortunately under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can’t be reunified while they’re in detention. Sen. Wyden: So is the answer zero? I mean, you have— Azar: No, no. No, we’ve had hundreds of children who had been separated who are now with—for instance, if there was a parent— Sen. Wyden: I want an— Azar: —parent who’s here in the country, they’d be with that parent. Sen. Wyden: I want to know about the children in your department’s custody. Azar: Yeah. Sen. Wyden: How many of them have been reunified? Azar: Well, that’s exactly what I’m saying. They had been placed with a parent or other relative who’s— Sen. Wyden: How many? Azar: —here in the United States. Sen. Wyden: How many? Azar: Several hundred. Sen. Wyden: Of the 2— Azar: Of the 2,300-plus that— Sen. Wyden: Okay. Azar: —came into our care. Sen. Wyden: How many— Azar: Probably of 2,047. 49:20 Senator Ben Nelson (FL): So, what is the plan to reunite 2,300 children? Alex Azar: Absolutely. So, the first thing we need to do is, for any of the parents, we have to confirm parentage. So that’s part of the process. With any child in our care, we have to ensure—there are traffickers; there are smugglers; there’re, frankly, just some bad people occasionally—we have to ensure that the parentage is confirmed. We have to vet those parents to ensure there’s no criminality or violent history on them. That’s part of the regular process for any placement with an individual. At that point, they’ll be ready to be reconnected to their parents. This is where our very broken immigration laws come into play. We’re not allowed to have a child be with the parent who is in custody of the Department of Homeland Security for more than 20 days, and so until we can get Congress to change that law to—the forcible separation there of the family units—we’ll hold them or place them with another family relative in the United States. But we are working to get all these kids ready to be placed back with their parents, get that all cleared up, as soon as—if Congress passes a change or if those parents complete their immigration proceedings, we can then reunify. 1:11:52 Alex Azar: If Congress doesn’t change the 20-day limit on family unification, then it depends on—the process for any individual parent going through their immigration proceedings, as long as they’re in detention, they can’t be together for more than 20 days—absurdly, but it is the case. 2:03:31 Senator Ron Wyden (OR): You told me a little bit ago that the Department has 2,047 kids in its custody, so— Alex Azar: That are separated. We’ve got about 12,000 unaccompanied minors in our program. Hearing: EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program, C-SPAN, June 19, 2018. Witnesses: Lee Francis Cissna - Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security   17:17 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): Citizenship should not be for sale like a commodity on the stock exchange. There are millions—in fact, 4 million—of individuals who are waiting in line to immigrate lawfully to the United States. They have paid their required fees, they are in line, they wait patiently for a day that a visa becomes available, so they can be reunited with their families here in this country. However, because they don’t have a half a million dollars to buy their way in, they will continue to wait, some as long as 24 years. Yet, under the EB-5 system, the wealthy can cut to the front of the line. 49:45 Lee Francis Cissna: I did not play any role in deciding whether there was going to be a zero-tolerance initiative. What I recommended was, since there is one, what we need to do is decide which cases to refer in fulfillment of the zero-tolerance initiative directed by the attorney general, and I suggested that—I and the other officials who were involved in these discussions suggested that we refer all cases. Senator Dick Durbin: All cases. Cissna: Yes. Anybody who violates 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) will be prosecuted. Sen. Durbin: Which is—simply presenting themselves illegally at the border, without legal authorization at our border. Is that what you’re saying? Cissna: Between ports of entry, yes. Sen. Durbin: And you’re not just limiting this to those who may have committed some other crime, involved in some activity dangerous to the United States, but merely presenting themselves at these places is enough for you to believe this administration should treat them as criminals and remove their children. Cissna: I believe anyone crossing the border illegally who is apprehended doing so, whether they’re presenting themselves or not presenting themselves or trying to evade capture, if they are apprehended, they’re violating the law and should be prosecuted. Sen. Durbin: But if a person came to this border, seeking asylum— Cissna: Mm-hmm. Sen. Durbin: —is that person per se a criminal? Cissna: If they cross illegally, yes. Sen. Durbin: The premise was they presented themselves. Cissna: If they present themselves at the port of entry, no. 57:58 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): So there are two ways that 1325 violations can proceed: either as a civil matter, which is what was happening with the Obama administration, that did not require separating children from their parents; or you can go the criminal route, and this administration have chosen the criminal route. Isn’t that correct? Lee Francis Cissna: Well, I would have to defer to DOJ on the appropriate interpretation of 1325, but as I read it, it looks like a misdemeanor to me, and, therefore, would be a criminal— Sen. Hirono: Well, I’m reading the statute right here, and it says that it can be considered as a civil penalty’s provision; under civil, not criminal. That’s what the plain meaning of that section says to me that I’m reading right now. So, this administration has chosen to follow the criminal route, and that is the excuse, or that is the rationale, being given for why children have to be separated at the border. Now, you did not have to go that route, and in fact, from your testimony, you sound really proud that this administration has a zero-tolerance policy that is resulting in children being separated from their parents. Am I reading you wrong? You think that this is a perfectly—humane route to go to implement Section 1325? Cissna: It’s the law. I’m proud of it, yeah. Sen. Hirono: No, the law, this law allows for a civil process, and you are attributing _____(01:27). Cissna: I’m not sure that interpretation is correct, and I would, again, defer to DOJ for the final answer. 1:10:30 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: So, asylum seekers. They’re often refugees, correct? Lee Francis Cissna: Asylum seekers fall into the same definition of refugee at 101(a) (42), yeah. Sen. Whitehouse: Yep. And they often have very little in the way of resources, they’re often frightened, correct? Cissna: Yes. Sen. Whitehouse: Very few have legal degrees or are familiar with the United States’ immigration law, correct? Cissna: Yes. Sen. Whitehouse: And so if you’re a lost and frightened refugee and you see the U.S. border and you think, ah, this is my chance to get across to safety—which has long been something that our country’s been associated with—there could be a perfectly innocent reason for crossing the border in that location. And in that circumstance, would it not be perfectly reasonable for immigration officials who intercept them to say, “Ah, you seem to be a legitimate asylum seeker; you’re just in the wrong place. We’ll take you to the port of entry, and you can join the other asylum seekers at the port of entry”? But to arrest them and separate them from their children is a different choice, correct? Cissna: Well, I think if the person is already at that point where they’re apprehended and making their asylum case known, they’ve already crossed into the country illegally. If they’ve already crossed the border and made their asylum claim, they’ve already violated the law. They violated 1325. They’re here illegally. Sen. Whitehouse: Because they crossed in the wrong place. Cissna: Correct. Sen. Whitehouse: And they may not know that it’s illegal to cross in the wrong place, correct? They may simply be coming here because they’re poor and frightened and seeking safety, and for a long time, that’s what the United States has been a symbol of, has it not? Cissna: I cannot get into the minds of the people that are crossing the border illegally, but it seems to be— Sen. Whitehouse: But it is a clear possibility that there could be an innocent explanation for crossing the border as an asylum seeker at a place other than an established port of entry. Cissna: There might be. *Sen. Whitehouse: Okay. There you go. Cissna: Maybe. 1:36:13 Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): Do you think the administration would support repeal of Flores? Lee Francis Cissna: That is indeed one of the things that Secretary Nielsen spoke about yesterday, repeal Flores, but also you need to give ICE enough funds to be able to hold the family units once you’ve repealed Flores. Briefing: White House Daily Briefing, Immigration Official on Border Security and Migrant Family Separation, C-SPAN, June 18, 2018. Hearing: Central American Immigrants and Border Security, House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, C-SPAN, May 22, 2018. Witnesses: Ronald Vitiello - Acting Deputy Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection Lee Francis Cissna - Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services Thomas Homan - Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement   15:10 Ronald Vitiello: In accordance with the Department of Justice zero-tolerance policy, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen has directed CBP to refer all illegal border crossers for criminal prosecution. CBP will enforce immigration laws set forth by Congress. No classes or categories of aliens are exempt from enforcement. 15:48 Ronald Vitiello: The effort and hours used to detain, process, care for, hold UACs and family units distracts our law-enforcement-officer deployments, shrinks our capability to control the border, and make the arrest of smugglers and drug traffickers and criminals much more difficult. 37:40 Ronald Vitiello: Between the ports, we’re now referring anybody that crosses the border illegally—so, Border Patrol’s referring 100% of the people that cross the border illegally—to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. At the ports, that’s not an illegal act if they come under the same conditions, but the verification of family relationships is essentially the same in both instances. Representative Filemon Vela (TX): So, with this new policy in place, at the point that you’re in a situation where you decide to separate the families, where do the minors go? Vitiello: The decision is to prosecute 100%. If that happens to be a family member, then HHS would then take care of the minor as an unaccompanied child. 39:58 Thomas Homan: As far as the detention capacity, we’re well aware of that. We’re working with U.S. marshals and DOJ on identifying available detention space. I got my staff working on that, along with the department and DOJ, so I think it’ll be addressed. We want to make sure we don’t get back to catch and release, so we’re identifying available beds throughout the country that we can use. As far as the question on HHS, under the Homeland Security Act 2002, we’re required, both the Border Patrol and ICE, to release unaccompanied children to HHS within 72 hours. So, we simply—once they identify within that 72 hours a bed someplace in the country, our job is to get that child to that bed. Then HHS, their responsibility is to reunite that child sometime with a parent and make sure that child gets released to a sponsor that’s being vetted. 41:33 Thomas Homan: If they show up at a port of entry made through asylum claims, they won’t be prosecuted, and they won’t be separated. The department has no policy just to separate families for a deterrence issue. I mean, they’re separating families for two reasons. Number one, they can’t prove the relationship—and we’ve had many cases where children had been trafficked by people that weren’t their parents, and we’re concerned about the child. The other issues are when they’re prosecuted, then they’re separated. 1:39:44 Representative Martha McSally (AZ): To summarize, some of those loopholes that we have been working together with you to close, the first is to raise the standard of the initial asylum interview that happens at the border, which is so low that nearly everybody can make it through. The second is to hold individuals as long as it takes for them to have due process in order to process their claim. The third is to make it inadmissible in our country if you are a serious criminal or gang or a gang member or a terrorist, which I cannot believe isn’t a part of the law, but we actually have to change that law. The fourth is to have a swift removal of you if you are denied in your claim. The fifth is to terminate your asylum, if you were to get it, if you return back to your country without any material change in the conditions there. Clearly, if you’re afraid for your life but you go back to visit, then something’s not right there, so your asylum should be considered for termination. The sixth is that there could be an expeditious return of unaccompanied minors to non-contiguous countries so that we can swiftly return them just like we can to Mexico. And the last is to increase the penalties for false asylum claims in order to deter and hold people accountable if they file for those. Is that a good summary of many of the loopholes we’re talking about today? Ronald Vitiello: Agree. Yes. Rep. McSally: Thank you. These all are in our bill, the Secure America’s Future Act. These are common-sense reforms that will keep our country safe and keep our communities safe, and I just want to encourage—don’t have any members left here—all members on both sides of the aisle, look at our bill, read our bill, study our bill. Hearing: Stopping the Daily Border Caravan: Time to Build a Policy Wall, Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, Homeland Security Committee, May 22, 2018. Hearing: Homeland Security and Immigration, C-SPAN, May 15, 2018. Witness: Kirstjen Nielsen - Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security   14:00 Kirstjen Nielsen: If you try to enter our country without authorization, you’ve broken the law. The attorney general has declared that we will have zero tolerance for all illegal border crossings, and I stand by that. Anyone crossing the border illegally or filing a fraudulent asylum claim will be detained, referred for criminal prosecution, and removed from the United States, as appropriate. 36:45 Senator John Hoeven (ND): You know, when you do detain, apprehend, unaccompanied children coming across the border, as well as others, what are you doing to try to address the adjudication process, which is such a bottleneck in terms of trying to address this issue? You know, I know you’re short there. What can you do and what are you doing to try to adjudicate these individuals? Kirstjen Nielsen: So, as I continue to find out every day, our immigration process is very complex, as you well know, and involves many, many departments. What we’ve tried to do is look at it from an end-to-end approach. So in the example you just gave, there’s actually about three or four different processes that those groups would undertake. So in some cases we need additional immigration judges—DOJ’s working on that. In some cases we need additional processes and agreements with other parts of the interagency family—we’ve done that, for example, with HHS to make sure that we’re appropriately taking care of UACs in their custody. And then there’s other parts who, depending on if they’re referred for prosecution, we hand them over to the marshals—we want to make sure that that’s a process that works. And then in some cases we use alternates to detention. As you know, rather than detaining them, we will have check-ins; in some cases, ankle bracelets; but other ways to make sure that we have them detained while they’re awaiting their removal proceedings. Sen. Hoeven: Is that working? Nielsen: It does work. It does work. It’s a good combination. We do it on a case-by-case basis. There’s lots of criteria that we look at to determine when that’s appropriate and when that’s not appropriate. But, again, I think it’s some of the opening remarks perhaps the chairman made, if you look at UACs, 66% of those who receive final orders, receive the final orders purely because they never showed up for court. And we find that we’re only able to remove 3.5% of those who should be removed, who a judge has said has a final. So, if we can track them, it’s a much more efficient process while we wait for the final adjudication. 55:58 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): I also asked that I be provided with what training and procedures are being given to CBP officers as it relates to how they are instructed to carry out family separation. I’ve not received that information. Do you have that today? Kirstjen Nielsen: No. You have not asked me for it, so I do not have it, but— Sen. Harris: No, I asked you for it. Nielsen: —I’m happy to give it to you. Sen. Harris: Okay. So, again, by the end of next week, please. Nielsen: Can you explain a little more what you’re looking for? Sen. Harris: Sure. So, your agency will be separating children from their parents, and I would assume— Nielsen: No. What we’ll be doing is prosecuting parents who’ve broken the law, just as we do every day in the United States of America. Sen. Harris: I can appreciate that, but if that parent has a four-year-old child, what do you plan on doing with that child? Nielsen: The child, under law, goes to HHS for care and custody. Sen. Harris: They will be separated from their parent. Answer my question. Nielsen: Just like we do in the United States every day. Sen. Harris: So, they will be separated from their parent. And my question, then, is, when you are separating children from their parents, do you have a protocol in place about how that should be done? And are you training the people who will actually remove a child from their parent on how to do that in the least-traumatic way? I would hope you do train on how to do that. And so the question is, and the request has been, to give us the information about how you are training and what the protocols are for separating a child from their parent. Nielsen: I’m happy to provide you with the training information. Sen. Harris: Thank you. 57:25 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): And what steps are being taken, if you can tell me, to ensure that once separated, parent and child, that there will be an opportunity to at least sustain communication between the parent and their child? Kirstjen Nielsen: The children are at HHS, but I’m happy to work with HHS to get you an answer for that. 1:57:50 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Regarding detention conditions. Secretary, are you aware that multiple federal oversight bodies, such as the OIG and the GAO, have documented medical negligence of immigrants in the detention system, in particular that ICE has reported 170 deaths in their custody since 2003? Are you familiar with that? Kirstjen Nielsen: No, ma’am. Sen. Harris: Are you aware that they also found that pregnant women in particular receive insufficient medical attention while in custody, resulting in dehydration and even miscarriages? Nielsen: I do not believe that is a current assessment of our detention facilities. Sen. Harris: Okay. Can you please submit to this committee a current assessment? Nielsen: Yeah, I’m happy to. Sen. Harris: On that point? Nielsen: So, we provide neonatal care. We do pregnancy screening from ages 15 to 56. We provide outside specialists should you seek it. We do not detain any women past their third trimester. Once they enter their third trimester, we provide them separate housing. So, yes, we’re happy to detail all of the things we do to take good care of them. Sen. Harris: And did you submit that to the OIG in response to their findings? Nielsen: We have been in—yes, of course—working in conjunction with the OIG. I’m not sure exactly what the date is of the OIG report that you’re referencing, but I will look into it after this. Sen. Harris: Okay. And then also, between fiscal year ’12 and March of 2018, it’s our understanding—before I go on—the OIG report is from December of this past year, 2017. So it’s very recent. Five months ago? Also between FY ’12 and March 2018, ICE received, according to these reports, 1,448 allegations of sexual abuse in detention facilities, and only a small percent of these claims have been investigated by DHS, OIG. Are you familiar with that? Nielsen: I’m not familiar with that number, no. News Report: Raw Video: Sessions Says 'Zero Tolerance' for Illegal Border Crossings, CBS Local San Francisco, May 7, 2018. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Today we are here to send a message to the world: we are not going to let this country be overwhelmed. People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border. We need legality and integrity in the system. That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is now referring 100 percent of illegal Southwest Border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution. And the Department of Justice will take up those cases. I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. Attorney General Jeff Sessions - In order to carry out these important new enforcement policies, I have sent 35 prosecutors to the Southwest and moved 18 immigration judges to the border. These are supervisory judges that don’t have existing caseloads and will be able to function full time on moving these cases. That will be about a 50 percent increase in the number of immigration judges who will be handling the asylum claims." Hearing: Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human Trafficking and Abuse, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, April 26, 2018. Witnesses:  James McCament - Deputy Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Dept. of Homeland Security Steven Wagner - Acting Assistant Secratary for Administration for Children and Facilities at the Dept. of Health and Human Services Kathryn Larin - Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Team at the U.S. Government Accountability Office   15:47 Senator Rob Portman (OH): In 2015, I learned the story of eight unaccompanied minors from Guatemala who crossed our southern border. A ring of human traffickers had lured them to the United States. They’d actually gone to Guatemala and told their parents that they would provide them education in America and to pay for the children’s smuggling debt. The parents actually gave the traffickers the deeds to their homes. And the traffickers retained those until the children could work off that debt, because they weren’t interested in giving them education, it turned out; they were interested in trafficking them. When the children crossed our border, their status, as defined by federal immigration law, was that of an unaccompanied alien child, or a UAC, so you hear the term UAC used today. The Department of Homeland Security picked them up, and following protocol, transferred them to Department of Health and Human Services. HHS was then supposed to place these children with sponsors who would keep them safe until they could go through the appropriate immigration legal proceedings. That’s practice. That didn’t happen. What did happen is that HHS released these children back into the custody of those human traffickers without vetting them. Let me repeat. HHS actually placed these children back in the hands the traffickers. The traffickers then took them to an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where these children lived in squalid conditions and were forced to work 12 hours a day, six, seven days a week, for more than a year. The traffickers threatened the children and their families with physical harm and even death if the children didn’t perform these long hours. This subcommittee investigated. We found HHS didn’t do background checks on the sponsors. HHS didn’t respond to red flags that should have alerted them to problems with the sponsors. For example, HHS missed that a group of sponsors were collecting multiple UACs, not just one child but multiple children. HHS didn’t do anything when a social worker provided help for one of those children, or tried to at least, and the sponsor turned the social worker away. During the investigation, we held a hearing in January 2016—so this goes back a couple years—where HHS committed to do better, understanding that this was a major problem. 2016, of course that was during the Obama administration, so this has gone on through two administrations now. HHS committed to clarifying the Department of Homeland Security and HHS responsibilities for protecting these children. HHS and DHS entered into a three-page memorandum of agreement, which said that the agencies recognized they should ensure that these unaccompanied alien children weren’t abused or trafficked. The agreement said the agencies would enter into a detailed joint concept of operations—so an agreement that’d actually lay out their responsibilities—that would spell out what the agencies would do to fix the problems. HHS and DHS gave themselves a deadline of February 2017 to have this joint concept of operations pulled together. That seemed like plenty of time to do it, but it wasn’t done, and that was over a year ago, February 2017. It’s now April 2018. We don’t have that joint concept of operations—so-called JCO—and despite repeated questions from Senator Carper and from me as well as our staffs over the past year, we don’t have any answers about why we don’t have the joint concept of operations. In fact, at a recent meeting a DHS official asked our investigators why we even cared about a JCO, why. And let me be clear: we care about the JCO because we care that we have a plan in place to protect these kids when they are in government custody. We care because the Government Accountability Office has said that DHS has sent children to the wrong facility because of miscommunications with HHS, and because of other concerns. We care because the agencies themselves thought it was important enough to set a deadline for the JCO but then blew past that date. We care because these kids, regardless of immigration status, deserve to be properly treated, not abused or trafficked. We learned at 4 p.m. yesterday that 13 days ago there was an additional memorandum of agreement reached between the two agencies. We requested and finally received a copy of that new agreement at midnight last night. It’s not the JCO that we’ve been waiting for, but it is a more general statement of how information will be shared between the two agencies. Frankly, we had assumed this information was already being shared and maybe it was, and it’s positive that we have this additional memorandum—that’s great. It’s nice that this hearing motivated that to happen, but it’s not the JCO we’ve all been waiting for. 45:05 Kathryn Larin: In 2015, we reported that the interagency process to refer unaccompanied children from DHS to ORR shelters was inefficient and vulnerable to error. We recommended that DHS and HHS develop a joint collaborative process for the referral and placement of unaccompanied children. In response, the agencies recently developed a memorandum of agreement that provides a framework for coordinating responsibilities. However, it is still under review and has not yet been implemented. 1:27:34 Senator Heidi Heitkamp (ND): It’s HHS. This is not a new problem. We’ve been at this a long time. Where are these kids, why don’t we know where they are, and how come after months of investigation by this committee we don’t seem to be getting any better answers, Mr. Wagner? Steven Wagner: The answer to your question depends on what sort of timeframe you’re talking about. If you’re talking about the 30 days after release to a sponsor that we have determined to be qualified to provide for the care and safety and wellbeing of the kid, I think in the vast majority, I think we’re getting pretty close to 100% of those cases we know where they are. When you’re talking about as time goes on, things change. Yes, kids run away. No, we do not have a capacity for tracking down runaway UACs who leave their sponsors. Sen. Heitkamp: What do you think would happen in the IV-E program—the IV-E program is a federally sponsored funding for foster care that the states access to pay for foster-care kids. That’s IV-E. In order to get that money, you have to be a responsible state and know. What would happen, do you think, with IV-E dollars in a state that said, you know, we know where they are. We turned them over to a foster parent. We didn’t do any—I mean, as we know, not a lot of home visits, not a lot of followup. And if they ran away, we don’t know. What do you think you guys would do with the IV-E program in a state that had that kind of response? Wagner: Senator, you’re constructing an additional legal responsibility, which, in our view, does not currently exist with the UAC program. Our legal responsibility is to place these children in suitable households. In the IV-E program— Sen. Heitkamp: And then forget about. Wagner: —it would be a crisis. And there is—every state has a child-protective service agency to deal with those situations. We don’t have that apparatus. Sen. Heitkamp: And so if they—and you have no intention of creating that apparatus. You have no intention of having a database—I do need to understand where you think your lines of jurisdiction are. So you have no intention of ever trying to solve the problem of, here we gave the kid to the guy who said he was her uncle. We gave them to the uncle, and we found that was okay. And now we told the state maybe, or we didn’t tell the state, and good luck to that 15-year-old who went to her uncle. Wagner: I don’t agree with your characterization of the decision-making process. However, you know, this is an expensive program. Our duty is to execute the will of Congress and the president, which we will do faithfully. Sen. Heitkamp: Well, I think our duty is— Wagner: If you tell us you want us to track down— Sen. Heitkamp: I think our duty is a little more humanitarian than that, but can you tell me that in every case you notify the state agency that you have placed a minor in the custody of a suitable sponsor? Wagner: No, Senator. Sen. Heitkamp: Yeah. Wagner: It’s not our procedure to place state— Sen. Heitkamp: But you’re telling me that the backdrop—you’re telling me that the backdrop, the protection for that kid now falls on the state, even though you don’t even give the state the courtesy of telling them where they are. 1:51:28 Senator Rob Portman (OH): Let me back up for a second if I could and talk about what I said at the outset which is this hearing is an opportunity for us to try to get more accountability in the system and to tighten up the loose ends, and we’ve heard so many today, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. And, of course, the focus has been on this joint concept of operations. Because of that, we’ve been working on this with you all for 26 months, over two years. And, again, you promised in your own memorandum of agreement that you would have that completed over a year ago, and still, as of today, it’s not completed. I appreciate that Mr. Wagner said that—and true, at midnight last night we received this additional memorandum of agreement, and I do think information sharing is a good thing, but what we’re looking for is what I thought you were looking for, which is an understanding of how this is actually going to operate and who’s accountable. Because we don’t know who’s responsible and accountable and what the plans are, it’s impossible for us to do our oversight and for us in the end of the day to be sure that this system is working properly for the kids but also for immigration system. So I would ask you today, it’s been 14 months since you promised it, do you have it with you today? Yes or no. Mr. McCament? James McCament: I do not have it with me, ______(01:11). Sen. Portman: Mr. Wagner. Steven Wagner: No, sir. Sen. Portman: Okay. What’s your commitment to getting this done now? So we’re 26 months into it. We’ve over a year past your previous commitment. What’s your commitment you’re going to make to us today as to when this joint concept of operations agreement will be completed? Mr. McCament. McCament: Mr. Chairman, when—being apprised and learning about the significant amount of time, we will be ready as partnership with HHS. As soon as we look at, receive the draft back, we’ll work as expeditiously as possible. I know that that is not to the extent of a time line, but I will tell you that we are ready, and we want to partner actively. You are correct that the MOA is part of that commitment—it is not all. The JCO memorializes our procedures that we already do, but it does not have them collated in one place. Work as expeditiously as possible _____(02:07). Sen. Portman: You make it sound so simple, and you’re also pointing the finger at your colleague here, which has been our problem. McCament: _____(02:15) Sen. Portman: Mr. Wagner, give me a timeframe. Wagner: Sir, we have to incorporate the new MOA in the draft JCO. Honestly, we are months away, but I promise to work diligently to bring it to a conclusion. 1:57:15 Senator Rob Portman (OH): Okay, we learned this morning that about half, maybe up to 58%, of these kids who are being placed with sponsors don’t show up at the immigration hearings. I mean, they just aren’t showing up. So when a sponsor signs the sponsorship agreement, my understanding is they commit to getting these children to their court proceedings. Is that accurate, Mr. Wagner? Steven Wagner: That is accurate. And in addition, they go through the orientation on responsibilities of custodians. Sen. Portman: So, when a child does not show up, HHS has an agreement with the sponsor that has been violated, and HHS, my understanding, is not even notified if the child fails to show up to the proceedings. Is that accurate? Wagner: That is accurate, Senator. Sen. Portman: So you have an agreement with the sponsor. They have to provide this agreement with you, HHS. The child doesn’t show up, and you’re not even notified. So I would ask you, how could you possibly enforce the commitment that you have, the agreement that you have, with the sponsor if you don’t have that information? Wagner: I think you’re right. We have no mechanism for enforcing the agreement if they fail to show up for the hearing. Hearing: Immigration Court System, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security, C-SPAN, April 18, 2018. Hearing: Strengthening and Reforming America's Immigration Court System, Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, April 18, 2018. Witnesses: James McHenry - Director of the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review   2:42 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Earlier administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have struggled with how to reduce the case backlogs in the immigration courts. And, unfortunately, Congress has never provided the full extent of immigration judges and support staff truly needed to eliminate the backlogs. As a result, backlogs continue to grow, from 129,000 cases in fiscal 1998 to a staggering 684,000 as of February 2018. 3:27 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Aliens in removal proceedings sometimes wait for years before they ever appear before an immigration judge. For example, as of February 2018 courts in Colorado have the longest time for cases sitting on their docket more than 1,000 days—almost three years. In my home state of Texas, the current wait is 884 days—almost two and a half years. 7:06 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains the Constitution’s due-process clause. Let me quote it. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This language about due process actually dates its lineage to the Magna Carta. Please note: the due-process clause extends these critical protections to a “person,” not to a citizen. And the Supreme Court has consistently held that its protection—due-process protection—extends to all persons in the United States. The Court said expressly in Plyler v. Doe, “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” 9:23 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): Today, 334 immigration judges face 680,000 pending cases. This backlog has grown by 145,000 cases just since President Trump was sworn into office. 28:45 James McHenry: A typical immigration court proceeding has two stages, or two parts. The first is the determination of removability. The Department of Homeland Security brings charges and allegations that an alien has violated the immigration laws. The judge—the immigration judge—first has to determine whether that charge is sustained, and that will be based on the factual allegations that are brought, so the judge will make determinations on that. If there is a finding that the alien is removable, then the case proceeds to a second phase. If the judge finds the alien is not removable, then the case is terminated. At the second phase, the immigration judge gives the alien an opportunity to apply for any protection or relief from removal that he or she may be eligible for under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This will involve the setting of a separate hearing at which the respondent may present evidence, they may present witnesses, they have the right to cross-examine witnesses brought by the department, and they will bring up whatever factual bases there is for their claim of relief or protection. At the end of that hearing, the immigration judge will assess the evidence, will asses the testimony, will look at the law, and will render a decision. The judge may either grant the application, in which case the respondent will get to remain in the United States. The judge may deny the application but give the respondent an opportunity to voluntarily depart at their own expense and sometimes after paying a bond, or the immigration judge may order the alien removed. 41:50 Senator Mike Lee (UT): I believe you recently testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee that it would take about 700 immigration judges in order to be able to address the backlog and address the current case load. Is that correct? James McHenry: Yeah, last fall the president proposed adding additional immigration judges, up to a number of 700. If we can get 700 on board, especially with our performance measures, we could complete over 450,000 cases a year. That would eviscerate the backlog. Sen. Lee: So, 700 would do it. McHenry: Based on the current numbers, it would certainly go a very long way toward eliminating it, yes. Sen. Lee: How many do you have right now? McHenry: We have 334 on board. Currently, we’re authorized, based on the recent omnibus spending bill, for up to 484. Even getting to that number would allow us to begin completing more cases than new receipts that we have in. Sen. Lee: How long does that normally take? My understanding is that between 2011 and 2016 it was taking about two years to hire a typical immigration judge. Is that still the case? McHenry: No. We have reduced that average. The attorney general issued a new hiring process memo to streamline the process last April. In using that process, we’ve put out five advertisements since the end of June for up to 84 positions in total. The first of those advertisements closed at the end of June last year. We expect to bring on the first judges from that advertisement in May, which will be right at approximately 10 months, and we anticipate bringing on the rest of them in July, which will be right at one year. And we think we can get to a stage where we are bringing on judges in eight months, 10 months, 12 months—a year at the most. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

HARD News: Presented by the one and only Terri Lynn. The Government has lied, and continues to lie, to the American People regarding the connection between vaccines and autism. And guess who is exposing the lie? A KENNEDY. Robert F Kennedy, Jr is the "tip of the spear" taking on congress and pharmaceutical companies and the CDC to be honest about the connection! How deep does the coverup go? Well, the HOMELAND SECURITY ACT contains a rider in it that parents whose children acquired Autism after their vaccines, CANNOT SUE THE MAKER OF THE VACCINE? The reason why will infuriate you! Homeland Security Act and ANTI VACCINE LAWSUIT CLAUSE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/12/09/new-vaccine-clause-angers-parents-of-autistic/6efdcb80-a9c9-466f-ac67-3328c20255ae/*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/12/09/new-vaccine-clause-angers-parents-of-autistic/6efdcb80-a9c9-466f-ac67-3328c20255ae/***

Cybersecurity or surveillance? What does the language attached at the last minute to the 2,009 page omnibus government funding bill actually authorize? In this episode, we take a close look at what just became law.   Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Cybersecurity Act of 2015 The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 was attached at the last minute to the "omnibus" government funding bill, which was 2,009 pages long and available to read for less than three days before it became law. This is and outline of what became law: TITLE I: Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 Section 102: Definitions "Agency": "Any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of Government" Does NOT include the Government Accountability Office, Federal Election Commission, or Government-owned contractor-operated facilities "Cybersecurity threat": An action that "may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system". "Cyber threat indicator": "Information that is necessary to describe or identify"... Spying, including strange patterns of communications that appear to be collecting technical information Security breaches Security vulnerabilities A legitimate user being used to defeat a security system Malicious cyber command and control "The actual or potential harm caused by an incident, including a description of the information exfiltrated as a result of a particular cybersecurity threat" "Any other attribute of a cybersecurity threat, if disclosure of such attribute is not otherwise prohibited by law" "Non-Federal entity": "Any private entity, non-Federal government agency or department, or State, tribal, or local government (including a political subdivision, department, or component thereof)" Does not include a foreign power, as defined in the FISA law Section 103: Sharing of Information by the Federal Government Procedures for sharing information both within and outside the Federal government will be created by: Director of National Intelligence Secretary of Homeland Security Secretary of Defense Attorney General The procedures developed must... Allow real time sharing of information Include requirements for the government to protect the information from unauthorized access Require Federal entities to review cyber threat indicators for information not directly related to the threat that contains information that identifies a specific individual and remove the information Include procedures for notifying "any United States person" whose information has been shared by the Federal government Section 104: Authorizations for Preventing, Detecting, Analyzing, and Mitigating Cybersecurity Threats "A non-Federal entity may... share with, or receive from, any other non-Federal entity or the Federal Government a cyber threat indicator or defensive measure" Non-Federal entities sharing information mush "review" the information for "personal information of a specific individual" and "remove such information" OR have a technical way of removing the information it "knows at the time of sharing" to be personal information. Use of Cyber Threat Indicators by Government State, tribal, or local governments and the Federal Government can use the information they receive for... Cybersecurity Preventing a specific threat of death, serious bodily harm, or specific threat of serious economic harm Investigating, prosecuting, and preventing serious threats to minors, including sexual exploitation and threats to physical safety Preventing, investigating, disrupting, or prosecuting... Identity theft, transfers of stolen identification, possession of false identification, Unauthorized use of any card, plate, code, account number, or any equipment that can be used to transfer funds (fraud), Use of a "telecommunication instrument" that's been altered to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications services", Hacking and releasing government or banking information, Extortion Harboring a criminal, Collection and/or communication of information about United States defense activities and infrastructure, or failure to report a defense data breach Disclosure of classified information Violations, or attempted violations, of NASA regulations Unauthorized use of trade secrets Information shared will be "exempt from disclosure under any provision of State, tribal, or local freedom of Information law, open government law, sunshine law, or similar law requiring disclosure of information or records" Information shared between private entities can not be considered violations of "any provision of antitrust laws" Section 105: Sharing of Cyber Threat Indicators and Defensive Measures with the Federal Government" Policies will be written by... Attorney General Secretary of Homeland Security Policies must create a way to share information "in an automated manner with all of the appropriate Federal entities" "Appropriate Federal entities" Dept. of Commerce Dept. of Defense Dept. of Energy Dept. of Homeland Security Dept. of Justice Dept. of Treasury Office of the Director of National Intelligence Information may be provided to other Federal agencies Privacy and civil liberties guidelines will be written by... Attorney General Secretary of Homeland Security In consultation with the Privacy and Civil Liberties oversight board "Private entities with industry expertise as the Attorney General and the Secretary consider relevant" Guidelines will be reviewed at least every two years Information shared with the Federal Government will go to the Department of Homeland Security Information shared with the Federal government can not be used to regulate the lawful activities of any non-Federal entity Section 106: Protection from Liability The courts must dismiss any lawsuits against "any private entity" for monitoring information systems or sharing/receiving "cyber threat indicators" Section 107: Oversight of Government Activities Heads of "appropriate Federal entities" will submit a report Inspectors General of the "appropriate Federal entities" will submit reports every two years The Comptroller General of the United States will submit a report on actions taken by the Federal Government to remove personal information. Report will be due in three years. Unclassified portions of the reports will be available to the public. Section 108: Construction and Preemption Lists what this bill is not intended to do Section 109: Report on Cybersecurity Threats Report will be submitted by the Director of National Intelligence NEW Section 110: Exception to Limitation on Authority of Secretary of Defense to Disseminate Certain Information Specifically allows the Secretary of Defense to share information Section 111: Effective Period These provisions expire on September 30, 2015. TITLE II: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015 Section 203: Information Sharing Structure and Processes The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center will implement the procedures for sharing information that are created by Title I (view this mark-up of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to see changes made by this provision) Adds functions to the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center including... "Engaging with international partners... to collaborate on cyber threat indicators, defensive measures, and information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents" "Sharing cyber threat indicators, defensive measures, and other information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents with Federal and non-Federal entities... and with State and major urban area fusion centers" Participating in national exercises run by DHS Evaluating cyber threats to public safety communication systems Adds tribal governments and private entities to the list of entities that will have representatives in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center Adds protection from information "disclosure" to list of the Center's principles Orders the Center to work with the "Privacy Officer" to make sure the Center follows the policies and procedures created by the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security. The Center will be in charge of creating the automated system for information sharing. The Center may partner directly with any "consenting non-Federal entity" for the purpose of sharing "cyber threat indicators" Orders the Center to publicly publish information on how to share information with the Center within 60 days of enactment Sections 206-209: Reports that will expire after 7 years Subtitle B: Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 Section 223: Improved Federal Network Security Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to develop a plan to proactively detect, identify, and remove intruders in agency information systems. The plan will not apply to the Department of Defense, a "national security system" or an element of the intelligence community In implementing the plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security can get access to the information transiting or traveling to or from an agency information system The operation of the technology needed to implement the plan can be privatized The actions taken need to be "reasonably necessary" It is illegal for the private entity operating the system to use the information for anything other than protecting the system but the private entity can not be sued in court for their role in assisting the DHS Section 225: Federal Cybersecurity Requirements The Secretary of Homeland Security will issue binding operational directives for agencies to secure their networks within a year. Agencies will have to... Identify sensitive and mission critical data stored by the agency Assess the need to store that data and determine which individuals need access to it Encrypt the data Implement a single sign-on platform for people using the agency website that requires user authentication Require multi-factor authentication for remote access Agencies will not have to comply if they say it's "overly burdensome to implement" or that it's not necessary. These binding operational directives will not apply to the Defense Department, a "national security system", or the intelligence community. Section 227: Termination The directives and reports on them will expire in 7 years, December 2022. Section 229: Direction to Agencies The Secretary of Homeland Security can order the head of other agencies to take "lawful actions" in response to security threats. TITLE III: Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act Section 303: National Cybersecurity Workforce Measurement Initiative Requires an assessment of all Federal positions that have cyber-related functions TITLE IV- Other Cyber Matters Section 401: Study on Mobile Device Security Orders a study on the security of mobile devices of the Federal Government Section 402: Department of State International Cyberspace Policy Strategy Orders a State Department report on threats from foreign sources and cooperation strategies within 90 days. Section 403: Apprehension and Prosecution of International Cyber Criminals The Secretary of State must consult with government officials in countries where we don't have an extradition treaty to determine what actions they've taken to catch "cyber criminals" with arrest warrant issued by US judges or Interpol. Section 404: Enhancement of Emergency Services Orders the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to create a process for information sharing with Statewide Interoperability Coordinators Section 405: Improving Cybersecurity in the Health Care Industry Requires a report that will include a plan so that "the Federal Government and health care industry stakeholders may in real time, share actionable cyber threat indicators and defensive measures" Additional Reading Article: Meet the Lobbyists and Big Money Interests Pushing to End the Oil Exports Ban by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, December 16, 2015. Article: 9 Heinous Items Sneaked Into the Budget Bill Congress Doesn't Want You to See by Tom Cahill, U.S. Uncut, December 19, 2015. Article: Hospitality and Gambling Interests Delay Closing of Billion-Dollar Tax Loophole by Eric Lipton and Liz Moyer, New York Times, December 20, 2015. Article: The CISA Secret to Cybersecurity that No One Seems to Get by Mike Gault, Wired, December 20, 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

CISA - the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act - has officially passed the Senate. While Congress is busy merging CISA with two other so-called cybersecurity bills that passed the House of Representatives, in this episode, by taking an in-depth look at the contents of all three bills, we discover that these bills are not what you're being lead to believe. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! S. 754: Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 Passed the Senate 74-21 on October 27, 2015. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina 118 pages Outline of the Bill Definitions: "Agency" = "Any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency, but does not include — The Government Accountability Office Federal Election Commission The governments of the District of Columbia and of the territories and possessions of the United States, and their various subdivisions Government-owned contractor-operated facilities, including laboratories engaged in national defense research and production activities "Cybersecurity threat" = An action "not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution" that "may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system." A "cybersecurity threat" does not include "any action that soley involves a violation of a consumer term of service or a consumer licensing agreement. "Cyber threat indicator" = Information that is needed to identify - Spying, including strange patterns of communications that appear to be collecting technical information Security breaches Security vulnerabilities A legitimate user being used to defeat a security system Malicious cyber command and control The harm caused by a cybersecurity incident, including the information taken as a result "Any other attribute of a cybersecurity threat, if disclosure of such attribute is not otherwise prohibited by law" "Entity" = "Any private entity, non-Federal government agency or department, or State, tribal, or local government (including a political subdivision, department, or component thereof) Does not include "a "foreign power", which means a foreign government or a foreign based political organization. Sharing of Information by the Federal Government Executive branch officials will write procedures for sharing classified and unclassified "cyber threat indicators" and Federal government information that would help the "entities" to prevent cybersecurity threats. The officials writing the rules will be the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General. The rules they write have to: Ensure "cyber threat indicators" can be shared in real time Include notification procedures for false alarms Include requirements for the Federal government agencies to protect against unauthorized access to the information Requires a Federal entity sharing information to remove personal information Include notification procedures for people whose personal information is shared by the government. Their procedures will be due 60 days after CISA becomes law. Monitoring Authorizations Private companies can monitor their own information systems, other private information systems or Federal information systems with permission, and monitor "information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting these information systems" Entities can share with and receive information from any other entity or the Federal government. Before sharing information, it must be reviewed and information known to be personal information "at the time of the sharing" must be removed. With the written consent of the sharing entity, information shared with a State, tribal, or local government may be used for "preventing, investigating, or prosecuting"...* An "imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or serious economic harm" Identity theft, transfers of stolen identification, possession of false identification, Unauthorized use of any card, plate, code, account number, or any equipment that can be used to transfer funds (fraud), Use of a "telecommunication instrument" that's been altered to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications services", Hacking and releasing government or banking information, Extortion Harboring a criminal, Collection and/or communication of information about United States defense activities and infrastructure, or failure to report a defense data breach Disclosure of classified information Violations, or attempted violations, of NASA regulations Unauthorized use of trade secrets The information shared with the government as a "cyber threat indicator" will be except from public disclosure under any State, tribal or local law. Companies will not be punished under antitrust laws for sharing information with each other "for cybersecurity purposes" Sharing of Information by "Entities" with the Federal Government The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security will write the policies and procedures governing receipt of information from private entities and local governments. The policies must include... An automated system for sharing information with "all of the appropriate Federal entities" as quickly as possible Rules governing "the retention, use, and dissemination" of the information received by the Federal Government. Audit capabilities "Sanctions" for Federal employees who break the law The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland will publicly publish guidelines explaining what qualifies as a cyber threat indicator The Attorney General, with help from "private entities", will have 180 days to create guidelines for privacy and civil liberties that will govern how the Federal Government uses the information it receives The privacy guidelines will be reviewed every two years The Attorney General will determine how long the information will be kept by the government The Department of Homeland Security will receive and distribute all of the cyber threat indicators shared with the government. Information shared will be withheld from the public under the Freedom of Information Act and all State, tribal, and local laws. In addition to the items of the list of allowed uses of information by State, tribal, and local governments (see Monitoring Authorizations section), the Federal Government can also use the information to... "Prevent or mitigate a serious threat to a minor, including sexual exploitation and threats to their physical safety" Protection from Liability No private entity can be successfully sued in court for sharing information with the government under CISA regulations. The only way a private entity can be sued is in the cast of "gross negligence or willful misconduct" Oversight of Government Activities Federal Inspectors General will complete a report every two years. The report may include recommendations for improvement Other Rules This bill does not permit price-fixing, attempting to monopolize a market, boycotting, or exchanges of price or cost information, customer lists, or information regarding future competitive planning. Intrusion Assessment Plan The Secretary of Homeland Security will create a plan to identify and remove intruders on agency information systems. The plan will not apply to the Department of Defense, a national security system or an element of the intelligence community. The deployment and operation of the new monitoring system can be privatized The private contractor would not be allowed to disclose any of the information they access without permission from the government The private contractor will have immunity from prosecution Internet service providers can not use their immunity to break a user agreement with a customer without their customer's consent The activities carried out in this new monitoring plan need to be "reasonably necessary" to protect agency information systems from cybersecurity risks Federal Cybersecurity Requirements Agencies will have to encrypt or render indecipherable information that is stored or transmitted by their information systems, create a single sign-in method for individuals accessing their websites, and implement identity management systems for remote access for each user account. This will not apply to the Department of Defense, a national security system, or elements of the intelligence community. Emergencies The Secretary of Homeland Security can authorize "intrusion detection and prevention capabilities" on another agency's information systems in the case of an "imminent threat" Study on Mobile Device Security The Secretary of Homeland Security will study threats caused by the shift of technology from desktops to mobile in the Federal Government Health Care Industry Sharing Creates a task force to create a plan for sharing with private health care entities specifically Strategy for Protecting Critical Infrastructure The Secretary of Homeland Security will have 180 days to develop a strategy ensuring that cyber security incidents would probably not be catastrophic for public health or safety, economic security, or national security. The strategy must include... An assessment of whether each entity should be required to report cyber security incidents A description of security gaps Additional power needed Some of this report can be classified. Sunset The provisions of this bill would expire 10 years after enactment H.R. 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015 For reference, here's the text as of March 2015 of the Homeland Security Act, which is amended by this bill. This bill: Adds "private entities" to the list of groups that will be part of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, which coordinates information sharing between the Federal government and other entities. Adds new groups to the list of who will be included in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center who will coordinate with all sizes of businesses. Expands the type of information that the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center will share between the Federal government, local governments, and private sector. Authorizes the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to share information internationally. Requires the government and businesses to use existing technology to "rapidly advance" implementation of "automated mechanisms" for sharing between the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and Federal agencies. Participation by non-Federal entities will be voluntary. Agreements that exist before this bill is signed into law will be deemed compliant with this law. All participating entities need to take "reasonable efforts to remove information that can be used to identity specific persons". There's no listed punishments if they don't. The Under Secretary for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection will create policies for governing the use of information shared with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 180 days AFTER the bill becomes law. He/she will also be responsible for creating "sanctions" for government employees who disregard his/her privacy policies. Private entities that share information will have immunity from lawsuits, if they share information according to this law. If the Federal government breaks this law, it will have to pay the person actual damages or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus attorneys fees. There is a two year statute of limitations. This law will trump state laws that limit information sharing. The law would sunset 7 years after enactment. Passed 355-63 in the House Sponsored by Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas 60 pages H.R. 1560: Protecting Cyber Networks Act Contains the text of H.R. 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act Within 90 days of enactment, the Director of National Intelligence must develop procedures for sharing classified "cyber threat indicators" with "non-Federal entities" Allows cybersecurity monitoring of government systems to be privatized Allows "non-Federal entities" to share information to with anyone other than the Defense Department. The entity sharing information must "take reasonable efforts" to remove personally identifiable information on people "not directly related" to the cybersecurity threat. The President will develop polices governing what happens to information received by the Federal Government, within 90 days of the bill becoming law. The Attorney General will create policies relating to privacy and civil liberties, within 90 days of the bill becoming law. A new branch, with 50 or less employees, will be created within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, which will "serve as the primary organization within the Federal Government for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States pertaining to cyber threats." Information shared with the government is exempt from public disclosure. Information given to the government "shall not be subject to a rule of any Federal department or agency or any judicial doctrine regarding ex parte communications with a decision-making official." The government can keep and use information given to it to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat of "death or serious bodily harm or an offense arising out of such a threat" and to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat to a minor. The information can also be used to prevent, investigation, disrupt, or prosecute fraud, unauthorized access to computers and transmission of information taken from it, "serious violent felonies" including murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, extortion, firearms use, firearms possession, or attempt to commit any of these crimes, espionage including photographing or sketching defense installations, and theft of trade secrets. Passed 307-116 in the House Sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes of California 121 pages Audio Sources Senate Floor Proceeding CISA debate, October 27, 2015 (Transcript) House Rules Committee: Hearing about HR 1731 and HR 1560, the House cybersecurity bills, April 21, 2015 Additional Information Article: The fight over CISA is far from over by Eric Geller, The Daily Dot, October 28, 2015. Webpage: About the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, Department of Homeland Security. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Medicare, cybersecurity, favors for banks, mortgages, IRS bullying, a tax cut for the rich, and a couple of good ideas are highlighted from the law and bills that passed Congress in April. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Laws H.R. 2: Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR): Enacted in 1997, the SGR paid doctors for Medicare patients based on the growth in gross domestic product (GDP). If Medicare costs increased more than GDP, doctors payments were cut across the board. According to the American College of Physicians, this formula for payment has meant that the Medicare payment rate to doctors is essentially the same as it was in 2001 and cuts have been postponed so many times that doctors' payments would have been cut by 21% if this bill was not signed into law by April 1. This new law: Repeals the Sustainable Growth Rate formula for Medicare payments to doctors. Increases payments to doctors by 0.5% through 2019 while the payment rate transitions away from a pay-per-service model. The new system will be based on scores assessed by a "Merit-based Incentive Payment System" which will be created by the Secretary of Health and Human Services which will go into effect on January 1, 2019. A list of "quality measures" will be posted every November and doctors can choose which one's will be used in their performance assessments. Doctors will be rated and paid based on a performance score from 0 to 100, which will take improvement into account starting in the second year of the program. The GAO will report on the effectiveness of the system by October 1, 2021. An advisory committee will be created to propose alternative payment models, which will be lump sum payments to group practices and medical homes. Sets a goal for Medicare records to be electronic nation-wide by December 31, 2018. Extends a bunch of existing Medicare programs, including the Children's Health Insurance Program (which covers low income kids whose parents make too much for Medicaid) for two years. Doubles the length of Medicare administrator contracts from five to ten years. Expands nationally a prior authorization requirement for "repetitive scheduled non-emergent ambulance transport" Prohibits the printing of social security numbers on Medicare cards Pays for the new system by... Denying access to policies with no out of pocket costs to people who enter Medicare after January 1, 2020. For all future beneficiaries, they will have to pay at least $147 per year (the cost of the Medicare Part B deductible). Increasing the premiums for relatively high income individuals. People who have a gross income between $133,501 and $160,000 ($267,000 and $320,000 for a couple) will pay a 65% premium instead of 50%, and people above that will pay an 80% premium rate. This would increase with inflation beginning in 2020. Has a huge increase in the levy that the Treasury Department can impose on tax delinquent service providers, increasing it from 30% to 100%, effective on October 16, 2015. Will have auditors distribute information about improper payments to help reduce the number of them. Creates a paper-free option for Medicare notices, saving mail fees. The effect this bill will have on the budget will not be counted. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this bill will increase the budget deficit by $141 billion. Passed 392-37 in the House and 92-8 in the Senate Sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas 95 pages Bills H.R. 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015 For reference, here's the text as of March 2015 of the Homeland Security Act, which is amended by this bill. This bill: Adds "private entities" to the list of groups that will be part of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, which coordinates information sharing between the Federal government and other entities. Adds new groups to the list of who will be included in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center who will coordinate with all sizes of businesses. Expands the type of information that the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center will share between the Federal government, local governments, and private sector. Authorizes the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to share information internationally. Requires the government and businesses to use existing technology to "rapidly advance" implementation of "automated mechanisms" for sharing between the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and Federal agencies. Participation by non-Federal entities will be voluntary. Agreements that exist before this bill is signed into law will be deemed compliant with this law. All participating entities need to take "reasonable efforts to remove information that can be used to identity specific persons". There's no listed punishments if they don't. The Under Secretary for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection will create policies for governing the use of information shared with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 180 days AFTER the bill becomes law. He/she will also be responsible for creating "sanctions" for government employees who disregard his/her privacy policies. Private entities that share information will have immunity from lawsuits, if they share information according to this law. If the Federal government breaks this law, it will have to pay the person actual damages or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus attorneys fees. There is a two year statute of limitations. This law will trump state laws that limit information sharing. The law would sunset 7 years after enactment. Passed 355-63 in the House Sponsored by Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas 60 pages H.R. 1560: Protecting Cyber Networks Act Contains the text of H.R. 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act Within 90 days of enactment, the Director of National Intelligence must develop procedures for sharing classified "cyber threat indicators" with "non-Federal entities" Allows cybersecurity monitoring of government systems to be privatized Allows "non-Federal entities" to share information to with anyone other than the Defense Department. The entity sharing information must "take reasonable efforts" to remove personally identifiable information on people "not directly related" to the cybersecurity threat. The President will develop polices governing what happens to information received by the Federal Government, within 90 days of the bill becoming law. The Attorney General will create policies relating to privacy and civil liberties, within 90 days of the bill becoming law. A new branch, with 50 or less employees, will be created within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, which will "serve as the primary organization within the Federal Government for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States pertaining to cyber threats." Information shared with the government is exempt from public disclosure. Information given to the government "shall not be subject to a rule of any Federal department or agency or any judicial doctrine regarding ex parte communications with a decision-making official." The government can keep and use information given to it to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat of "death or serious bodily harm or an offense arising out of such a threat" and to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat to a minor. The information can also be used to prevent, investigation, disrupt, or prosecute fraud, unauthorized access to computers and transmission of information taken from it, "serious violent felonies" including murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, extortion, firearms use, firearms possession, or attempt to commit any of these crimes, espionage including photographing or sketching defense installations, and theft of trade secrets. Passed 307-116 in the House Sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes of California 121 pages H.R. 650: Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2015 Changes the definition of "Mortgage originator" to exclude mobile home retailers who take mortgage loan applications, negotiate loans, or advise consumers on loan terms (including rates, fees, and other costs) This exempts mobile home dealers from licensing, registry, a law prohibiting payment based on the terms of the loan, regulations prohibiting steering customers towards loans they can't repay or with excessive fees, regulations prohibiting mischaracterizing a customer's credit history, regulations prohibiting the mischaracterization of the appraised value of the home, or steering a customer towards a loan that's more expensive than others that they qualify for. Increases the interest banks can charge people buying a home for under $75,000 without the loan being labeled as "high-cost", which subjects the loans to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations. The regulations this would exempt the loans from: Ban balloon payments, which is an oversized payment due at the end of a mortgage Prohibit banks from charging prepayment penalties and fees Restrict late fees to four percent of the payment that is past due Bans fees for loan modification Require banks make sure the loan can be repaid before offering it Prohibit banks from recommending that a customer default on a loan Require that banks receive a confirmation that the customer has received homeownership counseling before they accept a high-cost mortgage. Would allow banks to charge $3,000 or 5% in fees for loans under $75,000, whichever is greater. Current law says banks can charge 5% for loans over $20,000, so the $3,000 fee option would hit the smaller loans the hardest. Passed the House 263-162. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina was the only Republican no vote. The bill would be vetoed by President Obama. Sponsored by Rep. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee He took $15,150 from Clayton Homes for the 2014 election, his #4 donor and Clayton Home's #1 recipient of funds. Jeb Hensarling, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee was Clayton Homes #2 recipient in 2014, giving him $8,750. 4 pages H.R. 685: Mortgage Choice Act of 2015 By changing the definition of what charges count as "points and fees", this bill... Reverses a Dodd-Frank requirement that charges for title insurance be counted as points and fees if they're paid to an affiliate of the bank/creditor that issued the loan. Currently, points and fees can not be greater than 3% of the loan amount, which include fees charged by affiliated settlement providers. Every thing that gets exempted from counting as "points and fees" therefore becomes additional charges the lender is allowed to tack on to a mortgage. Exempts money held in escrow for insurance from being considered points and fees, which exempt insurance charges from the fee caps. The change in definition allows more fees to be charged to mortgages, while keeping those mortgages from being classified as "high-cost" and being subject to greater restrictions. This is a zombie bill from the 113th Congress; it passed by voice vote on June 9, 2014. Passed the House 286-140. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina was the only Republican no vote. Sponsored by Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan His top three contributing industries are - in this order - Insurance ($273,265), Real Estate ($218,175), and Commercial Banks ($193,000). 4 pages H.R. 299: Capital Access for Small Community Financial Institutions Act of 2015 Federal Home Loan Banks are privately owned cooperatives, funded by the global credit market, which provide money to local banks. There are twelve of them around the country and they are owned by the member banks. Most local banks are members of least one Federal Home Loan Bank. Allows privately insured credit unions to become members of Federal Home Loan Banks if they are FDIC eligible or are certified by the State. If the State doesn't get to it in under 6 months, the application is deemed approved. Zombie bill from the 113th Congress Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio His top three contributing industries over the course of his four year Congressional career have been Insurance ($898,858), Commercial Banks ($534,622), and Securities and Investment ($502,098). 6 pages H.R. 1259: Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act Orders the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to create an application process for people or companies to have their location designated as "rural" This would allow residents to become eligible for certain mortgages and exempt lenders from regulations intended for urban areas, according to Phil Hall of National Mortgage Professional Magazine Sunsets after 2 years. Zombie bill from the 113th Congress Passed the House 401-1. Nydia Valazquez of New York was the only no vote. Sponsored by Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky He has taken $333,800 from the Securities & Investment industry during his 3 years in Congress. 4 pages H.R. 1195: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act Creates paid advisory boards for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau made up of bankers Places limits on funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Passed the House 235-183, with 4 Democrat Ayes and 5 Republican Nays President Obama would veto the bill Sponsored by Rep. Robert Pittenger of North Carolina His #4 and #5 contributing industries are Securities & Investment and Commercial Banks; he's taken a combined $189,450 during his 3 years in Congress 7 pages H.R. 1314: Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act Became the vehicle for Trade Promotion Authority in the Senate Creates an appeal process for organizations that are denied tax-exempt status Would apply to decisions made on or after May 19, 2014. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania 4 pages H.R. 1026: Taxpayer Knowledge of IRS Investigations Act Gives the Treasury Secretary the option of telling organizations if they are investigating a claim of unauthorized information disclosure by a government, if the investigation substantiated their claim, and if any action, including prosecution, is planned. Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania 3 pages H.R. 709: Prevent Targeting at the IRS Act Allows the IRS to fire employees who steer and audit for a political purpose or for personal gain. Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. James Renacci of Ohio 2 pages H.R. 1104: Fair Treatment for All Gifts Act Makes gifts made to 501(c)4 "social welfare" groups, 501(c)5 labor and agricultural groups, and 501(c)6 business groups (including chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, and professional football leagues) tax exempt. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois 3 pages H.R. 1058: Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act Tells the IRS Commissioner to "ensure" that IRS employees are "familiar with and act in accord" with a list of "taxpayer rights" including The right to be informed The right to quality service The right to pay no more than the correct amount of tax The right to challenge the position of the Internal Revenue Service and be heard The right to appeal a decision of the Internal Revenue Service in an independent forum The right to finality The right to privacy The right to confidentiality The right to retain representation The right to a fair and just tax system Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois 3 pages H.R. 1152: IRS Email Transparency Act Prohibits IRS employees from using personal email accounts for official business Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas 2 pages H.R. 1105: Death Tax Repeal Act Repeals the estate tax for anyone who dies after the bill is signed Repeals the generation-skipping transfer tax, which is a tax on gifts and transfers of wealth to unrelated people who are more than 37.5 years younger than the donor, or to related people who are one generation younger. Would lower the top gift tax rate from 40 to 35 percent. The effects of this on the budget would not be counted. The CBO says this would increase the deficit by $269 billion over the next 10 years President Obama would veto the bill. Passed by 240-179 Sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas 7 pages H.R. 622: State and Local Sales Tax Deduction Fairness Act Permanently extends the law that allows taxpayers who itemize their claims to deduct their state's sales taxes instead of getting a deduction for their state's income taxes. The effect of this bill on the budget would not be counted. CBO says this would increase the Federal deficit by $42 billion over the next ten years. President Obama would veto the bill. Passed the House 272-152. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina was the only Republican no vote Sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas 2 pages H.R. 1562: Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2015 Stops Federal agencies from contracting with companies that are tax delinquent A waiver can be issued and the contract granted if a report is submitted to Congress saying that the contract "significantly affects the interests of the United States" Passed the House 424-0 Sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah 9 pages H.R. 471: Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act Makes the Attorney General list specific laws and regulations that a drug company is accused of violating in their notices to the companies regarding the possible suspension of their drug's registration. Allows drug companies to submit a "corrective action plan" when their drug registration may be suspended Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Tom Marino of Pennsylvania His top contributing industry for the last election was the pharmaceutical industry; they gave him $55,250. 6 pages S. 971: Medicare Independence at Home Medical Practice Demonstration Improvement Act Increases the length of Medicare contracts for at-home care from 3 years to 5 years Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon 2 pages H.R. 373: Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act Clarifies that search and rescue volunteers are not Federal volunteers and are not entitled to Federal compensation. Releases the government from liability for allowing search and rescue teams onto Federal land so that they won't have to get insurance. The government as to approve or deny a request for a search and rescue mission within 48 hours. Passed the House 413-0 Sponsored by Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada Rep. Heck introduced the bill in response to the murder of Keith Goldberg; the search for his body in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area was delayed because the search team needed a special use permit and a $1 million insurance policy. It took 10 months to get the insurance; his body was found 3 hours after their search began. The National Association for Search and Rescue and the National Park Service, however, don't think access is a problem. 6 pages S. 304: Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act Protects the identity of whistleblowers who provide information relating to motor vehicle defects or other dangerous safety problems. Allows the government to give up to 30% of the fine collected from a car company that breaks the law to the whistleblower whose information lead to the conviction. The whistleblower is not allowed to be represented by a lawyer. Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Senator John Thune of South Dakota Senator Thune has taken over $380,000 from the automotive industry 11 pages S. 984: Steve Gleason Act of 2015 Starting in 2016, Medicare would cover speech generating devices. Allows people to own their speech generating devices (as opposed to renting them) if purchased between October 1, 2015 and October 1, 2018. Named after former NFL football player Steve Gleason, who played for the New Orleans Saints before being diagnosed with ALS Passed the Senate of a voice vote Sponsored by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana 3 pages Hearings Rules Committee: April 13 on HR 650 and HR 685, about housing bills. Rules Committee: April 21 on HR 1731 and HR 1560 on Cybersecurity House Committee on Financial Services: March 18 hearing on deregulation for banks titled "Preserving Consumer Choice and Financial Independence" Information Presented in This Episode Article: 'Doc fix' headed to president's desk after easily clearing Senate by Paul Demko, Modern Healthcare, April 14, 2015. Article: The mobile-home trap: How a Warren Buffett empire preys on the poor by Mike Baker and Daniel Wagner, The Seattle Times, April 2, 2015. Article: MBA's Mortgage Action Alliance: A Message from MAA Chairman Fowler Williams by Fowler Williams, National Mortgage Professional Magazine, June 11, 2015. Article: U.S. Bank Profits Near Record Levels by Robin Sidel and Saabira Chaudhuri, Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2014 Article: Bureaucracy hindered search for slain brother by Anjeanette Damon, USA Today, March 8, 2014. Webpage: About the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, Department of Homeland Security. Webpage: Team Gleason Press Release: Rep. Kelly Introduces Taxpayer Knowledge of IRS Investigations Act Additional Information Kickstarter: Explore Campaign Finance App by Soloman Kahn. Jen's Podcast Appearances Episode 66: Talk Nerdy with Cara Santa Maria Episode 42: Podcast Junkies with Harry Duran Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Ask Your Doctor by Neal Fox (found on Music Alley by mevio) Thank you by Ben Willmott (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) did not exist before September 11, 2001. In this episode, we look back at the bills that created these new government agencies. Links to Information in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Music: Homeland Security Blues by Spartacus Jones (found on Music Alley by mevio) The Department of Homeland Security was created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (signed into law on November 25, 2002). Democracy Now episode from November 26, 2002: President Bush signs the Homeland Security Act into law. Contains an interview with Joan Claybrook, former President of Public Citizen The stated purpose was to consolidate all departments related to "homeland security" into one cabinet in response to the September 11 attacks. Twenty-two agencies were brought into the new department: New $4.5 billion Department of Homeland Security headquarter complex only houses the Coast Guard; they just moved over the last few weeks. The Homeland Security Act was passed after many members of a lame duck Congress had left for vacation; corporate friendly provisions were slipped into the bill. Section 201, paragraph 14 orders the Department of Homeland Security to start data-mining: "To establish and utilize, in conjunction with the chief information officer of the Department, a secure communications and information technology infrastructure, including data-mining and other advanced analytical tools, in order to access, receive, and analyze eta and information in furtherance of the responsibilities under this section, and to disseminate information acquired and analyzed by the Department, as appropriate." Democracy Now episode from November 21, 2002 Contains a Pentagon press conference by Pete Aldridge, then Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, during which he explains the plan for Total Information Awareness Contains an interview with Gail Russell Chaddock, author of an Christian Science Monitor article about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security Total Information Awareness programs were split up and transferred to private contractors hired by the NSA. What are fusion centers? "According to government documents, the fusion centers collect cell phone numbers, insurance claims, credit reports, financial records, and names of relatives and associates. The information is shared among law enforcement officials nationwide." - Democracy Now, April 3, 2008 Fusions centers collect state and local information from license plate readers Secure Communities collects the fingerprints of everyone who has been arrested Private intelligence companies such as Stratfor do surveillance work for private corporations, the Department of Homeland Security, the military, and intelligence agencies. Democracy Now episode from October 3, 2012 Contains details on a Senate report that concluded Department of Homeland Security fusion centers to be "useless" [caption id="" align="alignright" width="275"] Border Patrol drones (Source: DHS.gov)[/caption] Democracy Now episode from May 4 2006 about immigration prisons Contains and interview with Judy Greene, justice policy analyst for Justice Strategies The Transportation Security Administration was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law on November 19, 2001. The act federalized airport security. Democracy Now episode from October 15, 2001 Contains information about the Bush administrations resistance to federalizing airport security Contains information on Argenbright Security, the private security company which failed to detect the 9/11 hijackers at Newark International Airport and Washington-Dulles International Airport. Watch the September 11 hijackers walked by - not through- the metal detectors monitored by employees of Argenbright Security. Huntleigh, the subsidiary of Israeli firm ICTS International, was the security firm at Boston Logan airport on September 11, 2001. Both of the planes that hit the World Trade Center in New York City originated from Boston Logan International Airport & all the hijackers went undetected through security managed by Huntleigh. After airport screening operations were federalized, Huntleigh sued the United States for it's lost business, calling the federalization "unfair". The Screening Partnership Program allows airport security operations to be re-privatized. Sixteen airports currently have private security. Section 147 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act limited liability for the owners and operators of the World Trade Center and New York City for the events of September 11: (b) EXTENSION OF LIABILITY RELIEF TO AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS- Section 408 of that Act is amended-- (1) by striking `air carrier' in the section heading; (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: `(a) IN GENERAL- `(1) LIABILITY LIMITED TO INSURANCE COVERAGE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, liability for all claims, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or indemnity, arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, against an air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor, or person with a property interest in the World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001, whether fee simple, leasehold or easement, direct or indirect, or their directors, officers, employees, or agents, shall not be in an amount greater than the limits of liability insurance coverage maintained by that air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor, or person. `(2) WILLFUL DEFAULTS ON REBUILDING OBLIGATION- Paragraph (1) does not apply to any such person with a property interest in the World Trade Center if the Attorney General determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record, that the person has defaulted willfully on a contractual obligation to rebuild, or assist in the rebuilding of, the World Trade Center. `(3) LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY FOR NEW YORK CITY- Liability for all claims, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or indemnity arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, against the City of New York shall not exceed the greater of the city's insurance coverage or $350,000,000. If a claimant who is eligible to seek compensation under section 405 of this Act, submits a claim under section 405, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, including any such action against the City of New York. The preceding sentence does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations.'; and (3) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following: `Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to civil actions to recover collateral source obligations. Nothing in this section shall in any way limit any liability of any person who is engaged in the business of providing air transportation security and who is not an airline or airport sponsor or director, officer, or employee of an airline or airport sponsor.'. Domestic Security Bill Riles 9-11 Families, New York Times, November 26, 2002. Information regarding the history of the World Trade Center construction, New York City building codes, and the death tolls from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were from The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers by Jim Dwyer and Keven Flynn. Democracy Now episode from September 1, 2005: Hurricane Katrina exposed the dis-function of the Department of Homeland Security Contains an interview with Matthew Brzezinski, author of "Fortress America: On the Frontlines of Homeland Security-An Inside Look at the Coming Surveillance State." Representatives Quoted in this Episode Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin (clip from House floor, November 16, 2001) Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland (clip from House floor, November 22, 2002)

This presentation, by a former Deputy Legal Adviser to the White House National Security Council, and author of a chapter on legal issues in the forthcoming "Case Studies for Implementing the NSA IEM," will provide information security consultants and information technology providers alike with insights into: how emerging United States national security and cybersecurity policies and initiatives could impact the work of consultants and technology providers; emerging standards of potential legal and regulatory liability for such consultants and providers; and strategies for mitigating risk and protecting proprietary and vulnerabilities information. Bryan Cunningham has extensive experience as a cybersecurity and intelligence expert, both in senior U.S. Government posts and the private sector. Cunningham, now a corporate information and homeland security consultant and principal at the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham LLC, most recently served as Deputy Legal Adviser to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. At the White House, Cunningham drafted key portions of the Homeland Security Act, and was deeply involved in the formation of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, as well as numerous Presidential Directives and regulations relating to cybersecurity. He is a former senior CIA Officer and federal prosecutor, founding co-chair of the ABA CyberSecurity Privacy Task Force, and, in January 2005, was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement for his work on information issues. Cunningham holds a Top Secret Security Clearance and counsels corporations on information security programs, as well as information security consultants on how to structure and conduct their assessments and remediation to mitigate potential liability. C. Forrest Morgan (JD (1987), Trained in NSA IAM) has extensive experience in corporate practice and structure including contracting, corporate formation, and operations. Mr. Morgan advises information security consultants on drafting and negotiating contracts with their customers to best protect them against potential legal liability. Mr. Morgan's practice also has emphasized commercial contract drafting and reorganization, and corporate litigation, providing in-depth understanding of the business and legal environment. He has represented both national corporations and regional firms in state and federal courts and administrative agencies in matters of litigation, creditors' rights, bankruptcy, administrative law and employment issues. Mr. Morgan served as the Regional Editor of the Colorado Bankruptcy Court Reporter from 1989 to 1992, and he co-authored the Bankruptcy section of the Annual Survey of Colorado from 1991 to 1997. As a Principal of the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham, LLC, Mr. Morgan's practice also includes corporate information and security consulting. He counsels corporations on information security programs, including development of corporate policies and procedures to minimize business risks and litigation exposure.

This presentation, by a former Deputy Legal Adviser to the White House National Security Council, and author of a chapter on legal issues in the forthcoming "Case Studies for Implementing the NSA IEM," will provide information security consultants and information technology providers alike with insights into: how emerging United States national security and cybersecurity policies and initiatives could impact the work of consultants and technology providers; emerging standards of potential legal and regulatory liability for such consultants and providers; and strategies for mitigating risk and protecting proprietary and vulnerabilities information. Bryan Cunningham has extensive experience as a cybersecurity and intelligence expert, both in senior U.S. Government posts and the private sector. Cunningham, now a corporate information and homeland security consultant and principal at the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham LLC, most recently served as Deputy Legal Adviser to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. At the White House, Cunningham drafted key portions of the Homeland Security Act, and was deeply involved in the formation of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, as well as numerous Presidential Directives and regulations relating to cybersecurity. He is a former senior CIA Officer and federal prosecutor, founding co-chair of the ABA CyberSecurity Privacy Task Force, and, in January 2005, was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement for his work on information issues. Cunningham holds a Top Secret Security Clearance and counsels corporations on information security programs, as well as information security consultants on how to structure and conduct their assessments and remediation to mitigate potential liability. C. Forrest Morgan (JD (1987), Trained in NSA IAM) has extensive experience in corporate practice and structure including contracting, corporate formation, and operations. Mr. Morgan advises information security consultants on drafting and negotiating contracts with their customers to best protect them against potential legal liability. Mr. Morgan's practice also has emphasized commercial contract drafting and reorganization, and corporate litigation, providing in-depth understanding of the business and legal environment. He has represented both national corporations and regional firms in state and federal courts and administrative agencies in matters of litigation, creditors' rights, bankruptcy, administrative law and employment issues. Mr. Morgan served as the Regional Editor of the Colorado Bankruptcy Court Reporter from 1989 to 1992, and he co-authored the Bankruptcy section of the Annual Survey of Colorado from 1991 to 1997. As a Principal of the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham, LLC, Mr. Morgan's practice also includes corporate information and security consulting. He counsels corporations on information security programs, including development of corporate policies and procedures to minimize business risks and litigation exposure.