Podcasts about house appropriations subcommittee

For review:1. President Trump on Last Leg of Middle East Visit.2. Despite No President Putin- Russia & Ukraine Delegations Still to Meet on16 May.3. US Army's First Unit Fielded with FLRAA will be 101st Airborne Division.4. US Army High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) aircraft procurement down to 6 systems instead of 12, as originally thought.  Last year, the Sierra Nevada Corporation won an Army contract to integrate a suite of capabilities onto the Bombardier Global 6500 jet under the HADES program. The service wants to have an initial aircraft ready for the force by the end of 2026 or early 2027.5.  USMC Commandant said the Marine Corps is still committed to the JLTV program. “It is our workhorse on the ground tactical vehicle fleet,” General Eric Smith told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Speaking to reporters in Tennessee on Wednesday, Army Vice Chief General James Mingus said the Army's last tranche of JLTVs was purchased in January. 6. US Senate Confirms Troy Meink as Air Force Secretary.

Supreme Court hears a case on the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause, and President Trump Executive Order to redefine it to not include children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, but much of the argument concerns whether nationwide court injunctions should be allowed; We hear some of the Justices' questioning and get analysis from Brett Samuels, The Hill's White House reporter (1); Senate Republicans block Democrats' attempt to bring up a bill to require a Trump Administration report on El Salvador's human rights record and any steps to comply with court orders on U.S. residents deported to Salvadoran prisons; House Republicans' Budget Reconciliation bill may be trouble, a day before the Budget Committee plans to take it up, with some Republicans already saying they will vote no; Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee about air traffic control upgrades; EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin goes before a House Appropriations Subcommittee, asked about a just announced decision about so-called 'forever chemicals' in water; President Donald Trump speaks to U.S. troops at an air base in Qatar before flying to United Arab Emirates;  President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting a Ukraine war peace agreement will only happen when President Trump can meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin; Vice President JD Vance speaks at the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service for National Police Week. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Federal Reserve holds interest rates steady. Chair Jerome Powell says there still is too much uncertainty in how Trump Administration policies, especially tariffs, will affect the economy, inflation and job growth; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testifies before a House committee about his meeting this weekend with Chinese officials on tariffs and trade; more Trump Administration officials go before House Appropriations Subcommittee about their agencies' budgets, including Energy Secretary Chris Wright, FEMA Acting Administrator Cameron Hamilton and FBI Director Kash Patel; Attorney General Pam Bondi announces the arrest of over 200 alleged child sex predators; Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) questions the President of Haverford College at a hearing on college antisemitism; Vice President JD Vance says Russia is "asking for too much" in peace negotiations with Ukraine; former President Joe Biden talks about war in Ukraine in a BBC Radio interview, his first since leaving office; black smoke comes out the chimney on the Sistine Chapel at The Vatican, meaning no pope elected on the first ballot of the Conclave. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney meets U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House Oval Office, for what the president calls a "very friendly conversation"; President asked if there is anything the prime minister can say that would make him lift tariffs on Canada, replies "no"; Prime Minister asked about the president wanting to make Canada the 51st State, saying, Canada "will never be for sale"; House Speaker Mike Johnson addresses reports of internal Republican divisions holding up the budget reconciliation bill, while House Democratic leaders are looking to pick off a few Republicans who might oppose cuts to Medicaid or nutrition assistance programs to block the bill; Senate passes a repeal of an EPA rule regulation air pollution from tire manufacturing, sending it to President Trump to be signed into law; Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testifies before a House Appropriations Subcommittee about deportations and REAL ID, the enhanced ID for domestic flights that takes effect tomorrow; Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) says he will not support Ed Martin for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia because of Ed Martin's role in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, putting the nomination in jeopardy; President Trump announces the Houthis in Yemen have agreed to stop attacking shipping in the Red Sea and the U.S. will therefore stop attacking them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Reaction to Atlantic magazine publishing texts of Trump Admin. group chat on Houthi military strikes; President Trump imposes a 25% tariff on imported cars and light trucks; NPR & PBS CEOs testify before House DOGE Subcommittee; NTSB Chair before House Appropriations Subcommittee on the effects of Elon Musk-led cuts in the government workforce; Supreme Court hears a case challenging the constitutionality of FCC fee subsidizing telecom for poor, rural areas, libraries, schools; memorial service in Tucson, AZ for late Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

February 11, 2025 ~ Michigan is facing contrasting road repairs proposals as Governor Whitmer's $1.6 billion plan is funded by corporate taxes, and the House Republicans' $3.1 billion plan utilizes reallocated funds without tax hikes. Representative Ron Robinson (R- Utica), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Local Transportation joins Guy, Lloyd, and Jamie to discuss this debate over efficient spending and the urgency for bipartisan collaboration.

Carrie Villar, director of curatorial affairs at the National Postal Museum joins Bob to discuss America's tradition of using the U.S. Postal Service to accept, transport and deliver election ballots. The is a history dating back to the Civil War. Coincidentally, on September 27, Postmaster General DeJoy testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, in part, to assure American voters that they should be confident in the Postal Service's vote by mail efforts. The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. David Joyce (R-OH).

In this episode of Breaking Battlegrounds, Congressman Dave Joyce from Ohio's 14th congressional district provides invaluable insights into federal spending and legislative processes as a key member of the House Committee on Appropriations and Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Congressman Joyce dives into dissecting the Homeland Security Bill, navigating appropriations negotiations, and addressing budget concerns. Following Congressman Joyce, Evan Power, Chairman of the Florida Republican Party, joins the discussion to examine the Florida primary results, providing a comprehensive recap of the political dynamics in the Sunshine State. Finally, Politico reporter Kimberly Leonard offers analysis on Florida's political landscape, including updates on Haiti and Governor Ron DeSantis' response to Haiti. Stay tuned for Kiley's Corner where she joins to provide an update on the missing Riley Strain, discuss squatter's rights, and explore the future of subscriptions amidst news of Walmart's self-checkout lanes potentially requiring subscriptions.Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds-About our guestsCongressman Dave Joyce has dedicated his life to family and public service. After graduating with his Juris Doctorate from the University of Dayton, Dave worked as a public defender before being elected as Geauga County Prosecutor in 1988 – a position in which he served his community for nearly 25 years. In November of 2012, Dave was elected to represent the 14th Congressional District of Ohio in the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently in his sixth term. He considers it a great honor to represent the people of Northeast Ohio and serve the communities where he was born and raised.As a former prosecutor, the safety and wellbeing of Ohio's communities remain one of Dave's top priorities. He co-founded the Bipartisan Task Force to End Sexual Violence in the 115th Congress and is the Vice Chair of the Addiction, Treatment and Recovery Caucus. With Ohio being one of the states hit hardest by the opioid epidemic, Dave fights to ensure that the federal funding Congress provides to combat addiction effectively supports the lifesaving work local communities carry out on the front lines of this crisis.Dave serves on the influential House Committee on Appropriations, which is responsible for scrutinizing federal spending and determining how your tax dollars are spent. In this role, he works to restore fiscal responsibility, which he believes is needed to create a stronger, more prosperous nation for the next generation. In keeping with a tradition he established while serving as Geauga County Prosecutor, Dave has returned more than $1.5 million from his personal Congressional budget to the U.S. Treasury since 2013.In 2022, Dave was elected Chairman of the Republican Governance Group, a group of Republican lawmakers from across the country comprised of pragmatic members who are committed to productive and effective governance. Members carefully consider policy stances and aim to make a difference rather than pushing partisan noise.In the first session of the 117th Congress, Dave was once again recognized as one of the most effective and bipartisan lawmakers in Washington by the Lugar Center and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy.-Evan Power is Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. He is a native of Chattanooga, TN where he graduated from the McCallie School. Mr. Power moved to Florida where he attended Florida State University. He received a Bachelor of Science in Finance and a Master of Science in Political Science. Evan started his career working for the now-Senator Marco Rubio in the Florida House of Representatives, serving both in the Majority Office and the Procedures and Policy Office where he left after serving as the Legislative Analyst. In 2010 Mr. Power was elected Vice Chairman of the Leon County Republican Party and in 2014, he was elected Chairman.Evan served as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2016 and 2020, where he was elected to the convention rules committee. In 2017, he was elected Assistant Treasurer of the Republican Party of Florida. Mr. Power served as Chair of Chairs of the Republican Party from 2019 to 2023.-Kimberly Leonard is a politics reporter and author of Florida Playbook, based in Miami. Her coverage focuses on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former President Donald Trump and the future of the conservative movement in the state. She has extensive experience covering financial disclosures, spending projections, and health care policy.Kimberly previously worked as a senior Florida politics correspondent for Insider. Before that, she spent a decade covering health care policy in D.C. and has worked for the Washington Examiner, U.S. News & World Report, the Center for Public Integrity and the Huffington Post Investigative Fund. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

More than likely the most important legislation the Congress will pass this year or this session is the multi-year fam bill that is projected to cost $1.5t over the next 10 years.  A significant component of farm bill leg is Title IV that addresses nutrition assistance, namely the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) that serves 42 million Americans, including one in every four children.  SNAP benefits were expanded during the COVID pandemic.  As of two months ago however expanded SNAP benefits expired.  Presently Congressional Republicans are looking go cut SNAP funding by weaponizing the debt ceiling vote. (Listeners may recall I discussed SNAP policy with the CBPP in March 2020.)    During this 30-minute conversation Ms. Bergh begins by providing an overview of current state of hunger and food insecurity. She proceeds to discuss the recent “food cliff” resulting from sunsetting expanded COVID emergency SNAP benefits this past February, discusses House Republican's April debt ceiling legislation that included cuts to SNAP programming and what SNAP reforms advocates are proposing. We conclude with comments regarding SNAP participation, the Biden administration's hunger conference last summer and pledge to end hunger and diet related-diseases by 2030 and the current state of the farm bill's legislative process. Ms. Katie Bergh is a Senior Policy Analyst on the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPPs) Food Assistance team. Prior to joining CBPP, Ms. Bergh worked as a Senior Policy Advisor for Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), where she managed her work as a member of the House Agriculture Committee and House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. Previously, Ms. Bergh spent six years as a staff member for the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry under Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), where she handled the committee's work on domestic and international food assistance programs for the 2018 farm bill.  Ms. Bergh holds a BA in Biology from Kalamazoo College and an MPP from the London School of Economics and Political Science.As an example of the CBPP's latest SNAP reporting, see this May 9th document: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/roundup-analyzing-house-republicans-harmful-debt-ceiling-and-cuts-bill. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (03/23/2023): 3:05pm- On Saturday, former President Donald Trump revealed that he expects to be arrested for hush money payments disturbed to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016—though, no arrest has yet been made. In his latest National Review report, Andrew C. McCarthy writes: “Turns out the state grand jury in Manhattan, which is investigating former president Trump's Stormy Daniels escapade, will not convene this afternoon. The grand jurors, whose proceedings occur in afternoons…had been on ‘standby,' waiting for prosecutors to tell them whether they'd be needed today. It is unclear whether, in keeping them on standby, Bragg's office contemplated presenting testimony from one or more additional witnesses, or asking the grand jurors to vote on an indictment… Based on experience, moreover, we can deduce that Bragg has misgivings because he has already moth-balled the investigation at least once, over a year ago. He resuscitated it under pressure from anti-Trump progressives and a pair of disgruntled prosecutors who quit over his refusal to move forward.” You can read more about McCarthy's assessment of Trump's supposedly pending indictment here: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/whats-going-on-in-braggs-grand-jury-investigation-of-trump/ 3:35pm- While appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Colorado Magistrate Judge Kato Crews—whom President Joe Biden has nominated to the U.S. District Court of Colorado—could not answer Senator John Kennedy's (R-LA) request to define the legal term “Brady Motion.” 3:40pm- Speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Robert J. Costello, a former legal adviser for Michael Cohen, called his former client a “serial liar” and insisted that Cohen paid hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels without former President Donald Trump's knowledge. 3:50pm- Trump Nicknames: In a video posted to Truth Social, former President Donald Trump referred to adult film star Stormy Daniels as “horse-faced.” What's the better Ron DeSantis nickname, Meatball Ron or Ron DeSanctimonious? The Florida Governor weighs-in. 4:05pm- While speaking with the White House press, National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby stated that it was not hypocritical for the Biden Administration to consider banning TikTok while simultaneously having President Joe Biden appear in videos posted to the social media application. 4:10pm- On Thursday, TikTok CEO Shou Chew appeared before the House Commerce Committee. During the hearing, Chew claimed that ByteDance—TikTok's parent company—is not controlled by the Chinese government. During a particularly intense exchange, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) accused TikTok of being used to “spy” on American journalists. At one point, while being questioned by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Chew seemingly conceded that the Chinese government has the ability to manipulate content on TikTok, though he vehemently denied that it has ever happened. 4:20pm- While being questioned by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), TikTok CEO Shou Chew was unable to say how many children have died due to dangerous “challenges” being promoted on TikTok. 4:45pm- According to a report from Jackie Roman of NJ.com, “[t]he school board of Hunterdon Central Regional High School is launching an investigation into a Twitter account with transphobic content reportedly owned by one of its board members” The account allegedly misgendered United States Secretary of Health Rachel Levine—a biological man who identifies as female. Read more about the story here: https://www.nj.com/education/2023/03/nj-school-will-investigate-transphobic-twitter-account-allegedly-run-by-board-member.html 5:05pm- The Drive at 5: Speaking with Piers Morgan, renowned University of Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins insisted that there are only two sexes—condemning attempts from the far-left to silence anyone who believes in science. 5:15pm- On Thursday, the House of Representatives held a hearing on “Parental Oversight of K-12 Schools.” During the hearing, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described Republican's proposed “Parents Bill of Rights” as “fascism.” 5:25pm- During Thursday's House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler criticized Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm for praising China despite its horrifying human rights abuses and record level of pollution. 5:40pm- Daniel Turner—Founder & Executive Director of Power the Future—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm's Congressional testimony on Thursday. During the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Sec. Granholm confirmed that the Biden Administration is, in fact, considering a ban on certain styles of gas stoves. 6:05pm- Climate activist Greta Thunberg will be presented with an honorary doctorate from the University of Helsinki during the school's graduation ceremony in May. 6:30pm- The Hamilton 68 Project: Did progressive federal government officials use inexact and misleading data to push social media applications like Twitter and Facebook to censor commentary they found disagreeable? 6:45pm- Philosophers vs Psychologist: The psychological science behind a belief in conspiracy theories.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: The Drive at 5: Speaking with Piers Morgan, renowned University of Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins insisted that there are only two sexes—condemning attempts from the far-left to silence anyone who believes in science. On Thursday, the House of Representatives held a hearing on “Parental Oversight of K-12 Schools.” During the hearing, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described Republican's proposed “Parents Bill of Rights” as “fascism.” During Thursday's House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler criticized Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm for praising China despite its horrifying human rights abuses and record level of pollution. Daniel Turner—Founder & Executive Director of Power the Future—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm's Congressional testimony on Thursday. During the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Sec. Granholm confirmed that the Biden Administration is, in fact, considering a ban on certain styles of gas stoves.

Daniel Turner—Founder & Executive Director of Power the Future—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm's Congressional testimony on Thursday. During the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Sec. Granholm confirmed that the Biden Administration is, in fact, considering a ban on certain styles of gas stoves.

With the implosion of FTX and the arrest of its founder, Washington finally woke up to the need for more effective regulation of cryptocurrency. Yet as government agencies and legislators take up the challenge of crypto regulation, the associated national security challenges need to be front and center, too. Relative anonymity or pseudonymity make crypto currency naturally attractive to those seeking to avoid government oversight and intervention — like criminals, terrorists, and the states that sponsor them. From cybercrime, terror finance, and sanctions busting to domestic extremism and drug and human trafficking, Washington needs a plan to tackle the unique challenges posed by crypto. To unpack everything, guest host and FDD Senior Advisor Rich Goldberg is joined by economic and national security experts Alex Levitov and Elaine Dezenski. Alex Levitov Alex is an associate managing director at K2 Integrity where he works with financial institutions, technology firms, and jurisdictional authorities to identify, assess, and mitigate risks associated with money laundering, terrorist financing, bribery and corruption, sanctions evasion, and other forms of illicit financial activity. He recently co-authored with Rich an FDD report on the risks of digital assets: The Underside of the Coin. Elaine Dezenski Elaine is the senior director and head of FDD's Center on Economic and Financial Power. She's a powerhouse and leading thinker on geopolitical risk, supply chain security, anti-corruption, and national security. Richard Goldberg Rich is the former Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction at the White House National Security Council. Prior to that, he focused on U.S. foreign assistance, including foreign military financing, international security assistance, development, and economic support funds as a staffer on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations. He also worked in the U.S. Senate, where he emerged a leading architect of the toughest sanctions on Iran. He was also the lead Republican negotiator for three rounds of sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran, the SWIFT financial messaging service, and entire sectors of the Iranian economy.  

With the implosion of FTX and the arrest of its founder, Washington finally woke up to the need for more effective regulation of cryptocurrency. Yet as government agencies and legislators take up the challenge of crypto regulation, the associated national security challenges need to be front and center, too. Relative anonymity or pseudonymity make crypto currency naturally attractive to those seeking to avoid government oversight and intervention — like criminals, terrorists, and the states that sponsor them. From cybercrime, terror finance, and sanctions busting to domestic extremism and drug and human trafficking, Washington needs a plan to tackle the unique challenges posed by crypto. To unpack everything, guest host and FDD Senior Advisor Rich Goldberg is joined by economic and national security experts Alex Levitov and Elaine Dezenski. Alex Levitov Alex is an associate managing director at K2 Integrity where he works with financial institutions, technology firms, and jurisdictional authorities to identify, assess, and mitigate risks associated with money laundering, terrorist financing, bribery and corruption, sanctions evasion, and other forms of illicit financial activity. He recently co-authored with Rich an FDD report on the risks of digital assets: The Underside of the Coin. Elaine Dezenski Elaine is the senior director and head of FDD's Center on Economic and Financial Power. She's a powerhouse and leading thinker on geopolitical risk, supply chain security, anti-corruption, and national security. Richard Goldberg Rich is the former Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction at the White House National Security Council. Prior to that, he focused on U.S. foreign assistance, including foreign military financing, international security assistance, development, and economic support funds as a staffer on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations. He also worked in the U.S. Senate, where he emerged a leading architect of the toughest sanctions on Iran. He was also the lead Republican negotiator for three rounds of sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran, the SWIFT financial messaging service, and entire sectors of the Iranian economy.  

A lifelong Ohioan, and born in Cleveland, Congressman Dave Joyce graduated with his Juris Doctorate from the University of Dayton and worked as a public defender before serving as the Geauga County Prosecutor for 25 years. In November of 2012, Congressman Joyce was elected to represent the 14th Congressional District of Ohio in the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently in his sixth term. In January 2023, he was appointed Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.rnrnThroughout his years, Congressman Joyce has championed bipartisan bills and efforts to combat pressing issues facing Ohioans--including ending sexual violence, supporting our Veterans, securing critical funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and ending the opioid epidemic. Mostly recently, Congressman Joyce introduced the bipartisan, bicameral Protect First Responders from Secondary Exposure Act, which aims to protect first responders from exposure to fentanyl and other dangerous drugs.rnrnJoin us at the City Club as we hear from Congressman Joyce on his priorities for the 118th Congress, and his plans to put policy over politics and work across the aisle to find solutions to the challenges facing the lives and livelihoods of Northeast Ohio families.

Appropriations Subcommittee Approves Fiscal Year 2023 Interior-Environment Funding Bill * The following contains portions of a June 21, 2022, press release from Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota). WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, of which Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN-04) is Vice Chair, today approved by voice vote the subcommittee's Fiscal Year 2023 bill, which includes funding for programs within the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies, including the Indian Health Service. The bill will next be considered by the full Appropriations Committee next week. In total, the bill includes $44.8 billion in regular appropriations, an increase of $6.8 billion – 18 percent – above the FY 2022 enacted level. There is also an additional $2.55 billion of funding provided under the fire suppression cap adjustment. The legislation also: Honors the federal government's responsibilities to Native American families by investing in tribal communities including through education and health care programs A summary of the fiscal year 2023 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill is below. The text of the bill is here. Bill Summary: Department of the Interior (DOI) – The bill provides a total of $16.6 billion in discretionary appropriations for DOI, an increase of $2.1 billion above the FY 2022 enacted level. Of this amount, the bill includes: $171 million for the Historic Preservation Fund. Within this amount, the bill includes $82 million for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, $38 million for Save America's Treasures competitive and project grants, $28 million for competitive grants to preserve the sites and stories of underrepresented community civil rights, and $10 million for grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. $4.4 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, and Office of the Special Trustee, an increase of $778 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. Within this amount, the bill includes: $2.2 billion for Bureau of Indian Affairs Operation of Indian Programs, an increase of $330 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. $50 million for Indian Land Consolidation, an increase of $43 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. $181 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Construction, an increase of $34 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. $14 million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program, an increase of $2 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. $1.2 billion for Bureau of Indian Education Operation of Indian Programs, an increase of $175 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. $375 million to Bureau of Indian Education Construction, an increase of $111 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. Fully funds Contract Support Costs and Payments for Tribal Leases. $111 million for the Office of the Special Trustee, an increase of $2 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. $457 million for Departmental Offices, $55 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. Within this amount, the bill includes: $129.7 million for the Office of Insular Affairs, an increase of $7.8 million above the FY 2022 enacted level and $4 million. $45 million for the Energy Community Revitalization Program, an increase of $40 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. The principal focus in fiscal year 2023 is on hard rock mining. Related Agencies $8.1 billion for the Indian Health Service, an increase of $1.5 billion above the FY 2022 enacted level. $5.7 billion for Health Services, an increase of $1 billion above the FY 2022 enacted level. $1.3 billion for Health Facilities, an increase of $367 million above the FY 2022 enacted level. Fully funds Contract Support Costs and Payments for Tribal Leases. $207 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts and the

The Biden administration is creating a new board at the Department of Homeland Security focused on countering alleged misinformation and disinformation. The announcement was made by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas while testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. The announcement has triggered debate around the nation on the constitutionality of the federal government's actions, as it appears to be trying to regulate speech. It has also sparked even deeper debate over the environment of online censorship. The latest move, however, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to federal government actions to monitor and counter information it deems false or harmful. Already, the Biden administration has been running programs countering information it deems “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and even “malinformation,” which it says is “malicious” truth. In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we'll discuss these issues and others, and answer questions from the audience. ⭕️ Stay up-to-date with Josh with the Crossroads NEWSLETTER

Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched an illegal, unjustified war against Ukraine and Putin himself is the only person who can stop the war immediately. In this episode, we seek to understand why President Putin has launched this horrific war in order to judge our country's ability to bring the war to a quicker end. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD244: Keeping Ukraine CD186: National Endowment for Democracy CD168: Nuclear Desperation Ukraine Civil War Alan MacLeod. Feb 22, 2022. “Documents Reveal US Spent $22 Million Promoting Anti-Russia Narrative in Ukraine & Abroad.” The Washington Standard. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Oct 8, 2021. “Conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine.” United Nations. Andrew Higgins and Peter Baker. Feb 6, 2014. “Russia Claims U.S. Is Meddling Over Ukraine.” The New York Times. NATO Expansion Becky Sullivan. Updated Feb 24, 2022. “How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine.” NPR. Henry Meyer and Ilya Arkhipov. Dec 17, 2021. “Russia Demands NATO Pullback in Security Talks With U.S.” Bloomberg. Joe Dyke. Mar 20, 2021. “NATO Killed Civilians in Libya. It's Time to Admit It.” Foreign Policy. NATO. Updated May 5, 2020. “Enlargement.” NATO. 2020. “The Secretary General's Annual Report.” National Security Archive. December 12, 2017. “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.” Arms Control Association. “The Debate Over NATO Expansion: A Critique of the Clinton Administration's Responses to Key Questions.” “Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts.)” February 9, 1990. National Security Archive. “Ukraine: The Orange Revolution and the Yushchenko Presidency.” In The Encyclopedia Britannica. NATO in Ukraine Xinhua. Nov 14, 2021. “Ukraine, NATO countries hold naval drills in Black Sea.” News.cn Chad Menegay and Aimee Valles. Sept 22, 2021. “US, NATO, Ukraine enhance interoperability with Rapid Trident exercise.” NationalGuard.mil Reuters. April 3, 2021. “Ukraine and Britain to Hold Joint Military Drills.” U.S. News and World Report. NATO Allied Maritime Command. Mar 17, 2021. “NATO forces train with the Ukrainian Navy.” European Deterrence Initiative Paul Belkin and Hibbah Kaileh. Updated July 1, 2021. “The European Deterrence Initiative: A Budgetary Overview” [IF10946.] Congressional Research Service. Weapons Treaties TASS. Feb 21, 2022. “Europe won't understand Kiev talking of regaining nuclear weapons — Russian diplomat.” Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation. Updated March 2021. “Fact Sheet: Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.” Arms Control Association. Last reviewed August 2019. “The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at a Glance.” General Dynamics General Dynamics. “Corporate Governance: Board of Directors.” Russia-China Alliance Chen Aizhu. Feb 4, 2022. “Russia, China agree 30-year gas deal via new pipeline, to settle in euros.” Reuters. Robin Brant. Feb 4, 2022. “China joins Russia in opposing Nato expansion.” BBC News. Sanctions Matina Stevis-Gridneff. Feb 25, 2022. “European Leaders Agree to a Second Wave of Russia Sanctions.” The New York Times. Congressional Response Joe Gould. Feb 22, 2022. “Emergency funding proposal for Ukraine gets bipartisan backing in Congress.” Defense News. Reuters. Feb 25, 2022. “U.S. providing $600 mln for Ukraine defensive weapons -House Speaker Pelosi.” Reuters. Images State Property Fund of Ukraine USAID Partnership Audio Sources House Speaker Weekly Briefing February 23, 2022 YouTube Version Overview: At her weekly briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with several of her Democratic colleagues, talked about the situation in Ukraine and President Biden's sanctions after Russia recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region. Clips 10:25 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Putin is terrified by the prospect of a democracy at his border. A democracy, giving an example to the Russian people of the kind of life and economy they might enjoy if they cast aside their own autocrat. This is, I think, one of the preeminent motivations of Vladimir Putin. 15:32 Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): I chair the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign operations, which oversees many of the resources to assist the Ukrainian people through this crisis. This includes our economic assistance to Ukraine, including loan guarantees. Economic assistance would come through the economic support accounts for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, those of the accounts that would come through. Without getting in too many of the weeds, I wanted to just mention that because it's an effort that we're looking at now in terms of our funding. It also includes humanitarian plans, including funding for refugees, God forbid, and for those internally displaced by conflict. The administration has committed to us that in the event of conflict, there is a need over the next 12 months of at least $1 billion for humanitarian needs. So I support the efforts of the administration also to bolster Ukraine's economy, including the proposed $1 billion in loan guarantees to continue with Ukraine's economic reforms. 22:08 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): I will just close by saying this: I had the privilege of going with President Clinton, who invited four members of Congress House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, the Senate Democrat was Senator Joe Biden. And we went to the expansion of NATO meeting in Paris. And it was all the heads of state of the then NATO countries who spoke and it was so beautiful because they all spoke in such a positive way about NATO. We thought like we were NATO and they were also NATO, they had ownership and agency in possession of the NATO possibilities. The representative of Russia who was there was Boris Yeltsin. And he was very ebullient, but he was welcoming to what was called was the expansion we had supported in our own country, the Baltic States, Poland, others countries becoming what was called the Partnership for Peace and it included many countries. Now Putin is saying push it back to pre-1997. Don't ever try to add another country and remove weapons out of Eastern Europe. That's what he wanted. No, that was not going to happen. 33:35 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): What is this about? The people of Hung -- many of us have visited Ukraine and have seen that they love democracy. They do not want to live under Vladimir Putin. He does not want the Russian people to see what democracy looks like. And therefore he wants to bring them under his domain. 35:15 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): When we talk about the president, he's doing the sanctions. He has a full picture of all this. As I said, he was present there the day of the expansion of NATO. I saw the respect he commanded then, and that was 1997, by the heads of state of all those countries, and of course, that has only grown over time, by his leadership, but also the expansion of NATO. I think we're very well served, I respect his judgement. And again, it's not just about when you do the sanctions, or how you support the people. It's about how the world views what Putin is doing. This is a very evil move on the part of Vladimir Putin. President Biden Remarks on Russia and Ukraine February 22, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: During an address, President Biden announced new sanctions against Russia in response to President Vladimir Putin sending Russian troops into separatist regions of Ukraine. Clips 1:57 President Biden So, today, I'm announcing the first tranche of sanctions to impose costs on Russia in response to their actions yesterday. These have been closely coordinated with our Allies and partners, and we'll continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates. We're implementing full blocking sanctions on two large Russian financial institutions: V.E.B. and their military bank. We're implementing comprehensive sanctions on Russian sovereign debt. That means we've cut off Russia's government from Western financing. It can no longer raise money from the West and cannot trade in its new debt on our markets or European markets either. Starting tomorrow [today] and continuing in the days ahead, we will also impose sanctions on Russia's elites and their family members. They share in the corrupt gains of the Kremlin policies and should share in the pain as well. And because of Russia's actions, we've worked with Germany to ensure Nord Stream 2 will not — as I promised — will not move forward. 3:23 President Biden: Today, in response to Russia's admission that it will not withdraw its forces from Belarus, I have authorized additional movements of U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen our Baltic Allies — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Let me be clear: These are totally defensive moves on our part. We have no intention of fighting Russia. We want to send an unmistakable message, though, that the United States, together with our Allies, will defend every inch of NATO territory and abide by the commitments we made to NATO. 4:22 President Biden: Russian forces remain positioned in Belarus to attack Ukraine from the north, including war planes and offensive missile systems. Russia has moved troops closer to Ukraine's border with Russia. Russia's naval vessels are maneuvering in the Black Sea to Ukraine's south, including amphibious assault ships, missile cruisers, and submarines. Russia has moved supplies of blood and medical equipment into position on their border. You don't need blood unless you plan on starting a war. 6:25 President Biden: I'm going to take robust action and make sure the pain of our sanctions is targeted at the Russian economy, not ours. We are closely monitoring energy supplies for any disruption. We're executing a plan in coordination with major oil-producing consumers and producers toward a collective investment to secure stability and global energy supplies. This will be — this will blunt gas prices. I want to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump. This is critical to me. 7:37 President Biden: Yesterday, the world heard clearly the full extent of Vladimir Putin's twisted rewrite of history, going back more than a century, as he waxed eloquently, noting that — well, I'm not going to go into it, but nothing in Putin's lengthy remarks indicated any interest in pursuing real dialogue on European security in the year 2022. 8:04 President Biden: He directly attacked Ukraine's right to exist. He indirectly threatened territory formerly held by Russia, including nations that today are thriving democracies and members of NATO. He explicitly threatened war unless his extreme demands were met. And there is no question that Russia is the aggressor. Russian President Putin Statement on Ukraine February 21, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: Russian President Vladimir Putin announced after a Security Council meeting that Russia would recognize the independence of the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine's Donbas region. Clips 00:15 President Putin: I would like to emphasise again that Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us – not only colleagues, friends and people who once served together, but also relatives, people bound by blood, by family ties. 1:22 President Putin: I would like to start by saying that the modern Ukraine was completely created by Russia. To be more exact, Bolshevist, partially communist Russia. This process started almost immediately after the 1917 revolutions, leading and planning and his group of supporters did it in a rough way. If we talk about Russia, they were alienating parts of historical territories of Russia. And millions of people who live there, obviously no one asked anything. Then before the Great Patriotic War, Stalin added to the USSR and handed over some lands that belonged to Poland and Hungary, and as a compensation gave some ancient German lands to Poland. And the 1960s crucial decision to take Crimea away from Russia and also gave it to Ukraine. That's how the territory of Soviet Ukraine was formed. 3:05 President Putin: We cannot help but react to this real threat, especially since I would like to reiterate that Western backers they can help Ukraine with getting this weapon to create yet another threat for our country because we can see how consistently they are pumping Ukraine with weapons. The United States alone starting from 2014 transferred billions of dollars including the arm supply training personnel. In recent months, Western weapons are sent to Ukraine given ceaselessly in front of the eyes of the entire world 7:05 President Putin: Actually, as I have already said, Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks' policy and can be rightfully called “Vladimir Lenin's Ukraine.” He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents, including Lenin's harsh instructions regarding Donbass, which was actually shoved into Ukraine. And today the “grateful progeny” has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization. You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine. 9:31 President Putin: Everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic. And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. 10:05 President Putin: It seems that the Communist Party leaders were convinced that they had created a solid system of government and that their policies had settled the ethnic issue for good. But falsification, misconception, and tampering with public opinion have a high cost. The virus of nationalist ambitions is still with us, and the mine laid at the initial stage to destroy state immunity to the disease of nationalism was ticking. As I have already said, the mine was the right of secession from the Soviet Union. 13:55 President Putin: Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies. The collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience. 14:39 President Putin: It was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine's dignity and sovereignty. According to expert assessments, confirmed by a simple calculation of our energy prices, the subsidised loans Russia provided to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, the overall benefit for the Ukrainian budget in the period from 1991 to 2013 amounted to $250 billion. 21:24 President Putin: A stable statehood has never developed in Ukraine; its electoral and other political procedures just serve as a cover, a screen for the redistribution of power and property between various oligarchic clans. Corruption, which is certainly a challenge and a problem for many countries, including Russia, has gone beyond the usual scope in Ukraine. It has literally permeated and corroded Ukrainian statehood, the entire system, and all branches of power. Radical nationalists took advantage of the justified public discontent and saddled the Maidan protest, escalating it to a coup d'état in 2014. They also had direct assistance from foreign states. According to reports, the US Embassy provided $1 million a day to support the so-called protest camp on Independence Square in Kiev. In addition, large amounts were impudently transferred directly to the opposition leaders' bank accounts, tens of millions of dollars. 23:37 President Putin: Maidan did not bring Ukraine any closer to democracy and progress. Having accomplished a coup d'état, the nationalists and those political forces that supported them eventually led Ukraine into an impasse, pushed the country into the abyss of civil war. 26:30 President Putin: In fact, it all came down to the fact that the collapse of the Ukrainian economy was accompanied by outright robbery of the citizens of the country, and Ukraine itself was simply driven under external control. It is carried out not only at the behest of Western capitals, but also, as they say, directly on the spot through a whole network of foreign advisers, NGOs and other institutions deployed in Ukraine. They have a direct impact on all the most important personnel decisions, on all branches and levels of government: from the central and even to the municipal, on the main state-owned companies and corporations, including Naftogaz, Ukrenergo, Ukrainian Railways, Ukroboronprom, Ukrposhta , Administration of Sea Ports of Ukraine. There is simply no independent court in Ukraine. At the request of the West, the Kiev authorities gave representatives of international organizations the pre-emptive right to select members of the highest judicial bodies - the Council of Justice and the Qualification Commission of Judges. In addition, the US Embassy directly controls the National Corruption Prevention Agency, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. All this is done under a plausible pretext to increase the effectiveness of the fight against corruption. Okay, but where are the results? Corruption has blossomed as luxuriantly, and blooms, more than ever. Are the Ukrainians themselves aware of all these managerial methods? Do they understand that their country is not even under a political and economic protectorate, but reduced to the level of a colony with a puppet regime? The privatization of the state has led to the fact that the government, which calls itself the "power of patriots", has lost its national character and is consistently leading the matter towards the complete desovereignization of the country. 31:04 President Putin: In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organisation of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia's Crimea and in Donbass. It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine.” 32:05 President Putin: As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era. In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. 33:47 President Putin: Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine's armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this. Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads. The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved. A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned. Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine's airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory. I will add that the US-built Maritime Operations Centre in Ochakov makes it possible to support activity by NATO warships, including the use of precision weapons, against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and our infrastructure on the entire Black Sea Coast. 36:54 President Putin: Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented. Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases. They just called a base a mission and were done with it. 37:16 President Putin: Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration. In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security 38:10 President Putin: Let me remind you that at the Bucharest NATO summit held in April 2008, the United States pushed through a decision to the effect that Ukraine and, by the way, Georgia would become NATO members. Many European allies of the United States were well aware of the risks associated with this prospect already then, but were forced to put up with the will of their senior partner. The Americans simply used them to carry out a clearly anti-Russian policy. 38:41 President Putin: A number of NATO member states are still very sceptical about Ukraine joining NATO. We are getting signals from some European capitals telling us not to worry since it will not happen literally overnight. In fact, our US partners are saying the same thing as well. “All right, then” we respond, “if it does not happen tomorrow, then it will happen the day after tomorrow. What does it change from the historical perspective? Nothing at all.” Furthermore, we are aware of the US leadership's position and words that active hostilities in eastern Ukraine do not rule out the possibility of that country joining NATO if it meets NATO criteria and overcomes corruption. All the while, they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote. They issued lots of verbal assurances, all of which turned out to be empty phrases. Later, they began to assure us that the accession to NATO by Central and Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow, relieve these countries of the fears steeped in their bitter historical legacy, and even create a belt of countries that are friendly towards Russia. However, the exact opposite happened. The governments of certain Eastern European countries, speculating on Russophobia, brought their complexes and stereotypes about the Russian threat to the Alliance and insisted on building up the collective defence potentials and deploying them primarily against Russia. Worse still, that happened in the 1990s and the early 2000s when, thanks to our openness and goodwill, relations between Russia and the West had reached a high level. Russia has fulfilled all of its obligations, including the pullout from Germany, from Central and Eastern Europe, making an immense contribution to overcoming the legacy of the Cold War. We have consistently proposed various cooperation options, including in the NATO-Russia Council and the OSCE formats. Moreover, I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO. I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans' true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country. I am referring to the overt support for terrorists in the North Caucasus, the disregard for our security demands and concerns, NATO's continued expansion, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and so on. 43:05 President Putin: Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO's eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia's borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust. The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic area. Thus, positioning areas for interceptor missiles are being established in Romania and Poland as part of the US project to create a global missile defence system. It is common knowledge that the launchers deployed there can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles – offensive strike systems. In addition, the United States is developing its all-purpose Standard Missile-6, which can provide air and missile defence, as well as strike ground and surface targets. In other words, the allegedly defensive US missile defence system is developing and expanding its new offensive capabilities. The information we have gives us good reason to believe that Ukraine's accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities has already been decided and is only a matter of time. We clearly understand that given this scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over. 45:07 President Putin: I will explain that American strategic planning documents confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. We also know the main adversary of the United States and NATO. It is Russia. NATO documents officially declare our country to be the main threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead for such a strike. 46:00 President Putin: Many Ukrainian airfields are located not far from our borders. NATO's tactical aviation deployed there, including precision weapon carriers, will be capable of striking at our territory to the depth of the Volgograd-Kazan-Samara-Astrakhan line. The deployment of reconnaissance radars on Ukrainian territory will allow NATO to tightly control Russia's airspace up to the Urals. Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia's entire European part. The flying time of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Moscow will be less than 35 minutes; ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat. I have no doubt that they hope to carry out these plans, as they did many times in the past, expanding NATO eastward, moving their military infrastructure to Russian borders and fully ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings. Excuse me, but they simply did not care at all about such things and did whatever they deemed necessary. Of course, they are going to behave in the same way in the future. 47:46 President Putin: Russia has always advocated the resolution of the most complicated problems by political and diplomatic means, at the negotiating table. We are well aware of our enormous responsibility when it comes to regional and global stability. Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities. Furthermore, it was made explicitly clear to us that only NATO members can have legally binding security guarantees. 48:35 President Putin: Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states. The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray. We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia's core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed. These principled proposals of ours have been ignored. 50:21 President Putin: They are again trying to blackmail us and are threatening us with sanctions, which, by the way, they will introduce no matter what as Russia continues to strengthen its sovereignty and its Armed Forces. To be sure, they will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack regardless of the developments in Ukraine. Their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia. 51:06 President Putin: I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do. 51:33 President Putin: With regard to the state of affairs in Donbass, we see that the ruling Kiev elites never stop publicly making clear their unwillingness to comply with the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the conflict and are not interested in a peaceful settlement. On the contrary, they are trying to orchestrate a blitzkrieg in Donbass as was the case in 2014 and 2015. We all know how these reckless schemes ended. Not a single day goes by without Donbass communities coming under shelling attacks. The recently formed large military force makes use of attack drones, heavy equipment, missiles, artillery and multiple rocket launchers. The killing of civilians, the blockade, the abuse of people, including children, women and the elderly, continues unabated. As we say, there is no end in sight to this. Meanwhile, the so-called civilised world, which our Western colleagues proclaimed themselves the only representatives of, prefers not to see this, as if this horror and genocide, which almost 4 million people are facing, do not exist. But they do exist and only because these people did not agree with the West-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014 and opposed the transition towards the Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy. They are fighting for their elementary right to live on their own land, to speak their own language, and to preserve their culture and traditions. How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can one put up with this? Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine's territorial integrity. All these years, it has persistently and patiently pushed for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2202 of February 17, 2015, which consolidated the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, to settle the situation in Donbass. Everything was in vain. Presidents and Rada deputies come and go, but deep down the aggressive and nationalistic regime that seized power in Kiev remains unchanged. It is entirely a product of the 2014 coup, and those who then embarked on the path of violence, bloodshed and lawlessness did not recognise then and do not recognise now any solution to the Donbass issue other than a military one. In this regard, I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic. I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly. 54:52 President Putin: We want those who seized and continue to hold power in Kiev to immediately stop hostilities. Otherwise, the responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will lie entirely on the conscience of Ukraine's ruling regime. Ukraine is 'longing for peace' says Zelensky at Munich Security Conference February 19, 2022 Transcript Overview: Western powers should drop their policy of "appeasement" toward Moscow, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky told a security forum Saturday, as fears mount of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Clips 13:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world's third nuclear capability. We don't have that weapon. We also have no security. 14:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt. President Biden Remarks on Russia-Ukraine Situation February 18, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: Following talks with NATO allies, President Biden provided an update on Russia-Ukraine tensions and international efforts to resolve the crisis. Clips 3:04 President Biden: You know, look, we have reason to believe the Russian forces are planning to and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week — in the coming days. We believe that they will target Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, a city of 2.8 million innocent people.War posturing - Biden US provided record security assistance to Ukraine 4:00 President Biden: This past year, the United States provided a record amount of security assistance to Ukraine to bolster its defensive — $650 million, from Javelin missiles to ammunition. And we also previously provided $500 million in Ukrai- — in humanitarian aid and economic support for Ukraine. And earlier this week, we also announced an additional sovereign loan guarantee of up to $1 billion to strengthen Ukraine's economic resilience. 7:24 President Biden: Well, I don't think he is remotely contemplating nuclear — using nuclear weapons. But I do think it's — I think he is focused on trying to convince the world that he has the ability to change the dynamics in Europe in a way that he cannot. President Biden Remarks on Russia and Ukraine February 15, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: President Biden gave an update on tensions between Russia and Ukraine, calling for diplomacy to resolve tensions. Clips 1:47 President Biden: The United States has put on the table concrete ideas to establish a security environment in Europe. We're proposing new arms control measures, new transparency measures, new strategic stability measures. These measures would apply to all parties — NATO and Russia alike. 2:14 President Biden: We will not sacrifice basic principles, though. Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate. 3:17 President Biden: And the fact remains: Right now, Russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling Ukraine in Belarus and along Ukraine's border. An invasion remains distinctly possible. That's why I've asked several times that all Americans in Ukraine leave now before it's too late to leave safely. It is why we have temporarily relocated our embassy from Kyiv to Lviv in western Ukraine, approaching the Polish border. 4:12 President Biden: The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. Ukraine is not threatening Russia. Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well. 4:26 President Biden: To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy. And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine — a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture. 5:52 President Biden: Today, our NATO Allies and the Alliance is as unified and determined as it has ever been. And the source of our unbreakable strength continues to be the power, resilience, and universal appeal of our shared democratic values. Because this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. It's about standing for what we believe in, for the future we want for our world. 7:25 President Biden: And when it comes to Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany, if Russia further invades Ukraine, it will not happen. 7:35 President Biden: While I will not send American servicemen to fight Russia in Ukraine, we have supplied the Ukrainian military with equipment to help them defend themselves. We have provided training and advice and intelligence for the same purpose. 7:50 President Biden: And make no mistake: The United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power. An attack against one NATO country is an attack against all of us. And the United States commitment to Article 5 is sacrosanct. Already, in response to Russia's build-up of troops, I have sent additional U.S. forces to bolster NATO's eastern flank. Several of our Allies have also announced they'll add forces and capabilities to ensure deterrence and defense along NATO's eastern flank. We will also continue to conduct military exercises with our Allies and partners to enhance defensive readiness. And if Russia invades, we will take further steps to reinforce our presence in NATO, reassure our Allies, and deter further aggression. 9:12 President Biden: I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices, so we are taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy markets and offset rising prices. We're coordinating with major enersy [sic] — energy consumers and producers. We're prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump. And I will work with Congress on additional measures to help protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump. Hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Russia Senate Committee on Foreign Relations December 7, 2021 Overview: Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. policy toward Russia. She addressed President Biden's earlier call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that Russia would suffer severe consequences if it attacked Ukraine. Other topics included the use of sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine, the cooperation of NATO and U.S. allies, Russia's use of energy during conflict, and the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Clips 10:42 Victoria Nuland: Since 2014 The United States has provided Ukraine with $2.4 billion in security assistance including $450 million this year alone. 30:55 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have repeatedly indicated that they seek to deny any potential path to NATO membership for Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. Does the administration view this demand is a valid issue for negotiation? Victoria Nuland: No we do not and President Biden made that point crystal clear to President Putin today that the issue of who joins NATO is an issue for NATO to decide it's an issue for applicant countries to decide that no other outside power will or may have a veto or a vote in those decisions. Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden January 23, 2018 Clips 24:30 Former Vice President Biden: I'll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to—or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Welcome to the New Year!... And to federal budget purgatory… The National Defense Authorization Act for the financial year 2022 is law, but the U.S. Senate hasn't passed a budget to pay for it. Lawmakers know this is not how you run a railroad, so this coming Wednesday the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense is holding a hearing about the impact. In this episode Laura Winter asks, who should be testifying and what questions need to be answered, from Mir Sadat, a former National Security Council director for defense and space policy, an Atlantic Council fellow, and a scholar with West Point's Modern War Institute; Peter Garretson, a book author, and podcaster, a senior defense studies fellow Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, as well as the editor of one of the most important space reports out there, State Of The Space Industrial Base; and Christopher Stone, a Senior Fellow for Space Studies for the Mitchell Institute's Spacepower Advantage Research Center, and the author of the upcoming policy paper Maneuver Warfare in Space: The Strategic Mandate for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion.

Two big announcements from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). First, the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program opens May 12 to provide eligible, high-poverty households with discounts on monthly broadband service costs, as well as a one-time discount to purchase a computer or tablet. Also, proposed regulations for spending the emergency $7.2 billion investment under the American Rescue Plan to help schools and libraries purchase broadband and connected devices. And in other administration news, we cover Secretary Cardona’s testimony about President Biden’s FY2022 education budget request and an update on nominations to key positions at the Department of Education. Emergency Broadband Benefit Program The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and worsened inequitable access to high-speed home internet and connected devices. To help address this problem, the FCC is opening the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program on May 12. The program was authorized by Congress last year in a coronavirus relief package. It provides federal funds to low-income households to help pay for monthly broadband services and a connected computer or tablet. Households are eligible if at least one member meets the eligibility requirements, including if a child is eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch. Eligible households can sign up at GetEmergencyBroadband.org. Participants receive up to $50 off their monthly broadband service bill. These discounts increase to $75 per month for households on Tribal lands. Additionally, participants can receive up to $100 toward a one-time purchase of a computer or tablet if they contribute between $10 and $50. Emergency Connectivity Fund That’s not all the FCC’s been doing to close the digital divide. As we discussed previously on Federal Flash, the American Rescue Plan includes $7.2 billion in one-time, emergency funding to help schools and libraries in low-income communities close the Homework Gap affecting millions of students. To distribute these Emergency Connectivity Funds, the law requires the FCC to issue regulations by May 10. In a somewhat unusual move, Acting Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel released a preview of the proposed regulations to the public—setting off a flurry of last-minute jockeying as stakeholders try to influence the final order. The agency’s proposal would permit funds to be used retroactively to first reimburse districts for purchases made between July 1, 2020 and April 30, 2021, with a second window (if there’s remaining funding) to reimburse future purchases. Qualified purchases would include laptops, tablets, Wi-Fi hotspots, modems, and routers, but not smart phones or desktop computers. The draft order also proposes a maximum reimbursement of $400 for laptops and tablets and $250 for Wi-Fi hotspots. Although it didn’t propose a cap on reimbursements for broadband service plans, the FCC expects those will be made under bulk purchasing agreements, with costs of $10 to $25 per month. With the FCC currently standing at four commissioners, Rosenworcel needs bipartisan support to enact the rule. Update May 11, 2021: The FCC unanimously voted in favor of issuing the final order on May 10. Additional information is available here. https://twitter.com/JRosenworcel/status/1391863624755462148 Secretary Cardona's Budget Testimony Shifting gears, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on President Biden’s FY 2022 budget request for the Department of Education, which would increase the agency’s budget by 41% to nearly $103 billion. Republicans balked at the proposed increase, with Ranking Member Tom Cole (R-OK) calling it “unnecessary, irresponsible and unacceptable.” Cole did, however, signal he was open to some of the administration’s ideas, such as an increase in special education funding. Secretary Cardona argued the proposed investments are needed to meet the unprecedented challenges caused ...

In May, for the first time, DECAL will celebrate Children’s Mental Health Week as  a reminder for all of us that the early years in a child’s life provide a key opportunity to establish safe and secure relationships and support healthy social and emotional development.  Joining us to talk about Children’s Mental Health Week is Laura Lucas, our new Director of Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health here at DECAL, and State Representative Katie Dempsey who represents Rome and Northwest Georgia and is Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Human Resources and a House Study Committee on Infant and Toddler Social and Emotional Health.  Support the show (http://www.decal.ga.gov)

The ink is barely dry on the American Rescue Plan the president will sign tomorrow, but the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency already knows where it’s spending its funding windfall. CISA leaders told House Appropriations Subcommittee members yesterday that the $650 million they'll receive to strengthen federal networks will have a huge impact. Federal News Network’s executive editor Jason Miller joined the Federal Drive with details of their spending plan.

Dr. Andy Harris, U.S. Representative for the 1st district of Maryland, Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, on House Democrats holding hearings on eliminating the Hyde Amendment that protects taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortion. Ryan Tucker, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Christian Ministries for Alliance Defending Freedom, on ADF’s oral arguments Tuesday before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Nevada governor’s rule treating churches worse than casinos. Stephen Moore, Economist, Co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, and a member of President Trump’s Economic Recovery Task Force, on Joe Biden’s plans for the U.S. to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords and the effect that would have on America and the economy. J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel at Public Interest Legal Foundation, on the latest on the Trump campaign lawsuit challenging the Georgia election. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

Today's show features: Dr. Andy Harris, U.S. Representative for the 1st district of Maryland, Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, on House Democrats holding hearings

In today's News: LCMS may delay conventions  COVID-19 continues to impact both the world and the work of the church. Due to ongoing effects of the pandemic, some LCMS district presidents have expressed uncertainty that their district conventions will be able to convene at all during 2021. The LCMS Council of Presidents voted unanimously at their November 2020 meeting to encourage Lcms President The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison to put before congregations a proposal as per LCMS constitution to delay the 2022 Synod convention one year to 2023, thus extending the window for district conventions to include the calendar year 2022. Harrison also consulted with The Synod Board of Directors. The participation of each LCMS congregation in this deliberation and decision is vital as the Synod navigates this historic vote. While congregations can begin considering the issue immediately, instructions on the electronic voting process will be sent to member congregations by mail early in January; the vote, which requires participation of at least one quarter of the synod’s congregations, will conclude Feb. 15.  A House body considers funding abortion  Today, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies is holding a virtual hearing to discuss the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortion through the federal Medicaid program. The Hyde amendment is a rider that has been added to the House appropriations bill every year since it was first passed on Sept. 30, 1976. Every president since then has supported it, and it is credited with saving at least 2.4-million lives from abortion. Today’s hearing includes four witnesses, with only one being pro-life — Christina Bennett, communications director for the Family Institute of Connecticut.  Biden picks pro-abortion Cabinet Secretary  Presumed President-Elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to serve as secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. Becerra, who has no experience in health care, is known for his hostility towards pro-life activists. As California’s attorney general, Becerra was preceded by Biden’s pick for vice president, Kamala Harris. Together, Becerra and Harris persecuted pro-lifers, with David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt as the most notable examples. As lead investigators for the Center for Medical Progress, Daleiden and Merritt exposed Planned Parenthood’s participation in the illegal trafficking of aborted baby body parts.  Hawaii court hears atheist case  A Hawaiian court has heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by two atheist activists accusing two churches of not properly compensating local public schools for using their facilities. Last Friday, Calvary Chapel Central Oahu and One Love Ministries went before a state trial court to argue that they lawfully compensated the schools they met in on weekends. The two churches were represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm that has argued religious liberty cases before The United States Supreme Court. 

State Rep. David Wood is the latest guest on the Politically Speaking podcast. The Versailles Republican spoke with St. Louis Public Radio’s Jaclyn Driscoll and Jason Rosenbaum Wood was elected to Missouri’s 58th House District in 2012. He’s currently serving his final term in the General Assembly’s lower chamber, where he’s chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Health, Mental Health and Social Services.

The United States system of government depends on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches keeping each other accountable, but what happens when two of the branches refuse to police the third? We might soon find out. In this episode, by examining the Attorney General William Barr's response to the release of the Mueller report, learn about recent events which foreshadow our system of government being tested in ways it hasn't been tested before. _________________________________________________  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links 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 CD191: The "Democracies" of Elliott Abrams CD143: Trumps Law Enforcers  _____________________________________________________  Additional Reading   Article: Barr Serving as Powerful Ally for Trump by Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, May 16, 2019. Article: Is this the Official Trump Constitutional Crisis? by Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker, May 9, 2019. Podcast Episode: Mueller Report Audio, Timberlane Media, May 4, 2019. Article: Trump Finds in Barr the Attorney General — and shield — he long sought by Matt Zapotosky,Josh Dawsey,Tom Hamburger and Ashley Parker, Washington Post, May 2, 2019. Letter: Erik Prince Criminal Referal Letter, by Adam Schiff, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. House of Representatives, April 30, 2019. Article: Mueller Complained that Barr's Letter did not Capture Context of Trump's Probe by Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotsky, The Washington Post, April 30, 2019. Article: Barr's Playbook: He Misled Congress by Ryan Goodman, Just Security, April 15, 2019. Article: Joe Biden's 2020 Ukranian Nightmare: A Closed Probe is Revived by John Solomon, The Hill, April 1, 2019. Article: Justice Under AG Barr Began Vast Surveillance Program Without Legal Review by Brad Heath, USA Today, March 28, 2019. Report: Mueller Letter to Barr on Russian Interference of 2016 Presidential Election by U.S. Department of Justice, Special Counsel's Office, March 27, 2019. Document: AG Barr’s 4 Page Summary by William Barr Attorney General of the United States, March 24, 2019. Document: Jen Briney Highlighted Mueller Report by Jen Briney, March 2019. Article: Attorney General Nominee Wrote Memo Critizing Mueller Obstruction Probe by Devlin Barrett, Washington Post, December 20, 2018. Article: Trump is compromised by Russia by by Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times, November 29, 2018. Memo: Memo from Bill Barr to Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Meullers "Obstruction" Theory by Bill Barr, June 8, 2018. Article: Paul Manafort's complicated ties to Ukraine explained by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, August 19, 2016. Article: Donald Trump Aide Paul Manafort Scrutinized for Russian Business Ties  by Tom Winter and Ken Dilanian, NBC News, August 18, 2016. Document: Manafort/Gates Indictment by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Article: U.S. Secretly Tracked Billions of Calls for Decades by Brad Heath, USA Today, April 7, 2015. Article: Obama, Holder Catch Heat for Close Ties by Carrie Johnson, NPR, July 9, 2010. Article: William P. Barr Oral History  UVA Miller Center, April 5, 2001. Article: Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair by David Johnston, The New York Times, December 25, 1992. Article: Nominee Barr an Unusual Path to Attorney Generals Office by Sharon LaFraniere, The Washington Post, November 12, 1991. Article: U.S. "Power" on Abductions Detailed by Michael Isikoff, Washington Post, August 14, 1991 Article: In Panama, An Illegal and Unwarranted Invasion by Matthew Rothschild, The Chicago Tribune, December 21, 1989. Letter: Crawford's Reply to Edwards by Honorable Don Edwards, The U.S. Department of Justice, November 7, 1989. Article: FBI Gets OK for Overseas Arrests by Ronald J. Ostrow, LA Times, October 13, 1989.   _____________________________________________________ Sound Clip Sources Press Conference: Speical Counsel Robert Mueller Statement on Russian Investigation, May 29, 2019. 4:10 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. 5:40 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: First, the opinion explicitly explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. 6:10 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. Hearing: Attorney General William Barr Contempt Resolution, House Judiciary Committee, May 8, 2019. 14:40 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): I urge my colleagues to think about how the department’s latest position and their insistence on ignoring our subpoena effects our committee, over time. Our fight is not just about the Mueller report, although we must have access to the Mueller report. Our fight is about defending the rights of Congress as an independent branch to hold the president, any president, accountable. 15:20 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): The chairman of the oversight and Reform Committee has been sued in his personal capacity to prevent them from acquiring certain financial records from the Trump organization. 15:30 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): The president has stated that his administration will oppose all subpoenas, and in fact, virtually all document requests are going unsatisfied. Witnesses are refusing to show up at hearings. This is unprecedented. If allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. As a coequal branch of government, we should not and cannot allow this to continue, or we will not be a coequal branch of government. Hearing: William Barr Testifies on Mueller Report, Senate Judiciary Committee, May 1, 2019. 7:50 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): I would like to do more to harden our infrastructure because the Russians did it. It wasn’t some 400 pound guy sitting on a bed somewhere. It was the Russians, and they’re still doing it. And it can be the Chinese, it could be somebody next. So my takeaway from this report is that we’ve got a lot of work to do to defend democracy against the Russians and other bad actors. And I promise the committee we will get on. Would that work? Hopefully in a bipartisan fashion. 9:20 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): This is what Strzok said on February 12th, 2016 “Now he’s in charge of the Clinton email investigation”. 11:25 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): “Trump is a fucking idiot”. 17:05 Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA: First Special Counsel Mueller’s report confirms that the Russian government implemented a social media campaign to mislead millions of Americans. 32:50 Attorney General William Barr: The special counsel investigated whether anyone affiliated with president Trump’s campaign conspired or coordinated with these criminal schemes. They concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that there had been any conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government or the IRA. 33:40 Attorney General William Barr: Now we first heard that the special council’s decision not to decide the obstruction issue at at the March 5th meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for Special Council Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that, but for the OLC’s opinion, he would have found obstruction. 34:40 Attorney General William Barr: Once we heard that the special counsel was not reaching a conclusion on obstruction, the deputy and I discussed and agreed that the department had to reach a decision. We had the responsibility to assess the evidence as set forth in the report and to make the judgment. I say this because the special counsel was appointed to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the department and to do it as part of the Department of Justice. The powers he was using, including the power of using a grand jury and using compulsory process exists for that purpose. The function of the Department of Justice in this arena (which is to determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct). It’s a binary decision. Is there enough evidence to show a crime and do we believe a crime has been committed? 35:30 Attorney General William Barr: We don’t conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public, we do so to make a decision. 35:40 Attorney General William Barr: And here we thought there was an additional reason, which is this was a very public investigation and we had made clear that the results of the investigation we’re going to be made public, and the deputy and I felt that the evidence developed by the special counsel was not sufficient to establish that the president committed a crime, and therefore it would be irresponsible and unfair for the department to release a report without stating the department’s conclusions and thus leave it hanging as to whether the department considered there had been criminal conduct. 38:13 Attorney General William Barr: We prepared the letter for that purpose. To state the bottom line conclusions. We use the language from the report to state those bottom line conclusions. I analogize it to announcing after an extended trial what the verdict of the trial is, pending release of the full transcript. 38:40 Attorney General William Barr: We were not trying to summarize the 410 page report. 44:05 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Very quickly, give us your reasoning why you think it would be inappropriate to proceed forward on obstruction of justice in this case. Attorney General William Barr: Well, um, generally speaking, an obstruction case, uh, typically has two aspects to it. One, there’s usually an underlying criminality that… Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Let’s stop right here. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Was there an underlying crime here? Attorney General William Barr: No. 48:00 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do you think the President’s campaign in 2016 was thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the Russians? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): And the answer is no according to Bob Mahler. Attorney General William Barr: That’s right. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): He couldn’t decide about obstruction, you did. Is that correct? Attorney General William Barr: That’s right. 1:02:08 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): In volume two of the report, the special council declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision. Instead, the special council laid out 200 or so pages relating to a potential obstruction analysis and then dumped that on your desk. In your press conference you said that you asked the special council whether he would have made a charging decision or recommended charges on obstruction, but for the office of legal console’s opinion on charging sitting presidents, and that the special counsel made clear that was not the case. So Mr. Barr, is that an accurate description of your conversation with the special council? Attorney General William Barr: Yes, he, he reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Yeah. If the special console found facts as sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice, would he have stated that finding? Attorney General William Barr: If he had found that, then I think he would state it. Yes. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Yeah. 1:03:45 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Do you agree with the reasons that he offered for not making a decision and Volume II of his report and why or why not? Attorney General William Barr: Well, I’m not really sure of his reasoning. I really could not recapitulate his analysis, which is one of the reasons in my March 24th letter. I simply stated the fact that he did not reach a conclusion and didn’t try to put words in his mouth. Um, I think that if he felt that he shouldn’t have gone down the path of making a traditional prosecuted decision, then he shouldn’t have investigated. That was the time to, uh, pull up. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Okay. 1:37:53 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you first learn of the New York Times and Washington Post stories that would make the existence of this letter public? The ones that came out last night? Attorney General William Barr: I think it could have been yesterday, but I’m not sure. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When they contacted you to ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: They didn’t contact me. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)*: Contact to DOJ and ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: I can’t actually remember how it came up, but someone mentioned it. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): So you…at some point you knew that the Mueller letter was going to become public and that was probably yesterday? Attorney General William Barr: I think so. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. When did you decide to make that letter available to us in Congress Attorney General William Barr: This morning. 1:37:53 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you first learn of the New York Times and Washington Post stories that would make the existence of this letter public? The ones that came out last night? Attorney General William Barr: I think it could have been yesterday, but I’m not sure. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When they contacted you to ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: They didn’t contact me. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)*: Contact to DOJ and ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: I can’t actually remember how it came up, but someone mentioned it. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): So you…at some point you knew that the Mueller letter was going to become public and that was probably yesterday? Attorney General William Barr: I think so. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. When did you decide to make that letter available to us in Congress Attorney General William Barr: This morning. 1:40:30 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The… Attorney General William Barr: As I said, I wasn’t interested in putting out summaries. Period. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Well, you know, we can… Attorney General William Barr: Frankly… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): This is another hairsplitting exercise because Bob Mueller, (who I think we all agree is fairly credible) actually described your letter as a summary. So you can say it wasn’t a summary, but Mueller said it was a summary and I don’t think… Attorney General William Barr: I wasn’t interested in summarizing the whole report. As I say, I was stating that the bottom line conclusions of the report… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Your letter said it’s intended to describe the report, I quote your words… Attorney General William Barr: Yeah, describe the report meaning volume one [inaudible] Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When you describe the report in four pages and it’s a 400 page report, I don’t know why you’re cowboying about whether it’s a summary or not. Attorney General William Barr: Because I state in the letter that I’m stating that the principle conclusions. 1:41:13 Attorney General William Barr: You know, Bob Mueller is the equivalent of a US attorney. He was exercising the powers of the attorney general subject to the supervision of the attorney general. He’s part of the Department of Justice. His work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general. At that point, it was my baby. 1:42:59 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Um, the interesting thing to me is that it goes on to say that because of the OLC opinion, we have to give the president an extra benefit of the doubt because he is denied his day in court where he could exonerate himself. That seems like a fallacy to me because if you are the president of the United States, you can either waive or readily override the OLC opinion and say, “I’m ready to go to trial.” “I want to exonerate myself.” “Let’s go.” Could you not? Attorney General William Barr: How is this relevant to my decisions? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): It’s relevant… Attorney General William Barr: Because I assumed that there was no OLC opinion. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Well, we have a report in front of us that says that this influenced the outcome. And in particular it says it influenced the outcome because it deprived the president of his ability to have his day in court. And my point to you is that the president could easily have his day in court by simply waving or overriding this OLC opinion that has no judicial basis. Correct? Attorney General William Barr: Well, I don’t…I don’t think that there was anything to have a day in court on. I think that the government did not have a prosecutable case, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): but part…well Mueller obviously didn’t agree because he left that up to you. Attorney General William Barr: Well… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): He said that he could neither confirm nor deny that there was a prosecutable case here. He left that to you and when he did, he said, and you apparently have agreed that this OLC opinion bears on it, and then it would be unfair to the president to put them to the burden of being indicted and not having the ability to be charged himself… Attorney General William Barr: I don’t want to characterize…have Bob’s thought process on this. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): I’m not asking you to characterize it. It’s in his report. He’s put it in writing. Attorney General William Barr: I’m not sure what he means by that in the report. 1:54:13 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): Tell me again briefly why Mr. Mueller told you he reached no conclusion…or he couldn’t make up his mind or whatever. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Attorney General William Barr: I really couldn’t recapitulate it. I… it was unclear to us. 2:31:25 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): The special council specifically said (at the same time I’m quoting), "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. He said it again at page 182, and yet in your summary and in the press room conference that you did, you in effect cleared the president on both so-called collusion. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. The difference is that I use the proper standard. Um, that statement you just read is actually a very strange statement. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): For four of the specific obstruction episodes, Robert Mueller concluded that it was substantial evidence on four on the three necessary elements of obstruction. Attorney General William Barr: Well, you’re…you’re on. You’re a prospect… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): I have to finish my question with all… Attorney General William Barr: You haven’t let me finish my answer. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Well, uh, let me just finish the… Chairman Lindsay Graham (SC): We can do both. Attorney General William Barr: Alright, good. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Uh, you ignored in that press conference and in the summary that Robert Mueller found substantial evidence and it’s in the report, and we have a chart that shows the elements of that crime. Intent, interference with an ongoing investigation and the obstructive act. 2:38:35 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You started by citing this thing in Volume II about how the report says that they could not be sure that they could clearly say that he did not violate the law. As you know, that’s not the standard we use in the criminal justice system. It’s presumed that if someone is innocent and the government has to prove that they clearly violated the law. We’re not in the business of exoneration. We’re not in the business of proving they didn’t violate law. Attorney General William Barr: I found that whole act very… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): …exonerated him in your press conference and in your four page summary Attorney General William Barr: How did that start? I didn’t hear the beginning of the question? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You in effect exonerated or cleared the president? Attorney General William Barr: No, I didn’t exonerate. I said that we did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction offense, which is the job of the Justice Department and the job of the Justice Department is now over. That determines whether or not there’s a crime. The report is now in the hands of the American people. Everyone can decide for themselves. There’s an election in 18 months. That’s very democratic process, but we’re out of it and we have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon. 2:50:30 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): You lied to Congress. You told Representative Charlie Krist that you didn’t know what objections Mueller’s team might have to your March 24th so-called summary. You told Senator Chris Van Hollen that you didn’t know if Bob Mueller supported your conclusions, but you knew you lied, and now we know. 2:51:10 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): I expected you would try to protect the president, and indeed you did. In 1989…this isn’t something you hadn’t done before. In 1989, when you refuse to show Congress and OLC opinion that led to the arrest of Manual Noriega. In 1992, when you recommended partners for the subjects of the Iran Contra scandal and last year when you wrote the 19 page memo, telling “Donald Trump as president”, can’t be guilty of obstruction of justice, and then didn’t recuse yourself from the matter. From the beginning, you are addressing an audience of one. That person being Donald Trump. 3:00:40 Attorney General William Barr: How did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent. And the evidence now is that was without a basis and two years of his administration, uh, have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false. And you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller report and found the opposite. 3:18:14 Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): In your March 24th summary, you wrote: “After reviewing the special council’s final report, deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.” Now the special council’s investigation produced a great deal of evidence. Um, I’ve led to believe it included witnesses, notes and emails, witnesses, congressional testimony, witnesses, interviews, um, which were summarized in the FBI 302 forms, former FBI Director Columbia’s memos and the president’s public statements. My question is, in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, no. We took a… we excepted… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did…Did Mr Rosenstein…? Attorney General William Barr: No, we accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate and made our… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you accepted the report as the evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did, uh, Mr Rosenstein review the evidence that underlines and supports the conclusions in the report…to your knowledge? Attorney General William Barr: Not to my knowledge. We accepted the statements in the report. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did anyone in your… Attorney General William Barr: The characterization of the evidence is true. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): No. 3:20:17 Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): As the Attorney General of the United States, you run the United States Department of Justice. If in any US attorney’s office around the country, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime. Would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they’d had not reviewed the evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Well, that’s a question for Bob Mueller. He’s the U.S. Attorney. He’s the one who presents the report. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): But it was you who made the charging decisions there. You made the decision not to charge the president Attorney General William Barr: No, in the pross memo and in the declination memo… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You said it was your baby. What did you mean by that? Attorney General William Barr: It was my baby to let, to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And whose decision was it,? Who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice? Attorney General William Barr: Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor. In this case, it was the…you know, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, who… who decide on the final decision, and that is based on the memo as presented by the US Attorney’s office. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I think you’ve made it clear that you’ve not looked at…we can move on. I think you’ve made it clear Sir that you’ve not looked at the evidence and we can move on. 3:22:25 Attorney General William Barr: You know I haven’t been the only decision maker here. Now let’s take the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who was approved by the Senate 94 to 6 with specific discussion on the floor that he would be responsible for supervising the Russian investing. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I’m glad you brought up that. That’s a great topic. Attorney General William Barr: He has 30 years experience and we had a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and non-career. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Yes, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve read a lot . I have another question and I’m glad you brought that subject up because I have a question about that. Earlier today in response to Senator Graham, you said quote “that you consulted with Rosenstein constantly” With respect to the special council’s investigation report, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is also a key witness and the firing of FBI Director Comey. Did you consult with…? I’m not finished. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah? Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did you consult with DOJ Ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation? The subject, of which; he is also a witness. Attorney General William Barr: My understanding was that he had been cleared already to participate in it. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you had consulted with them and they cleared it? Attorney General William Barr: No, I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation. Did you consider?.. Attorney General William Barr: That’s my understanding? I am…I Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You don’t know whether he’s been cleared of a conflict of interest? Attorney General William Barr: You would be participating if there was a conflict of interest. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you’re saying that it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethics officials in your office? Attorney General William Barr: I believe, well I believe it was reviewed and I… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): and what role should find…? Attorney General William Barr: I would also point out that this seems to be a bit of a flip flop because when the president’s supporters were challenging Rosenstein Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I think in this case that you’re not answering the question directly. Attorney General William Barr: What? Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did the ethics officials in your office, in the Department of Justice, review the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein being a part of making a charging decision on an investigation, which he is also a witness in? Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. So as I said, my understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): In making a decision on the Mueller report? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And, and the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice? Had he been cleared on that? Attorney General William Barr: He was, he was the acting Attorney General on the Mueller investigation. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Had he been cleared? Attorney General William Barr: He had been, I am… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): By your side recommendation? Attorney General William Barr: I am informed before I arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Of what? Attorney General William Barr: Serving as acting Attorney General on the Mueller case. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice? Attorney General William Barr: That is what the acting… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): With the lack of offenses, which include him as a witness? Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. He, that’s what the acting Attorney General’s job is. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): To be a witness and to make the decision about being a prosecutor? Attorney General William Barr: Well. No. But the big charging decisions. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I have nothing else. My time has run out. 3:45:15 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): And President Trump. I am correcting my earlier statement, never allowed anybody to interview him directly under oath. Is that correct? Attorney General William Barr: I think that’s correct. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): Even though he said he’s ready to testify. Thank you. 3:45:42 Attorney General William Barr: The absence of an underlying crime doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be other motives for obstruction. Although, it gets a little bit harder to prove and more speculative as to what those motives might be. But the point I was trying to make earlier, is that in this situation of the president, (who has constitutional authority to supervise proceedings), if in fact a proceeding was not well founded. If it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused and he would be worried about the impact on his administration. That’s important, because most of the obstruction claims that are being made here or, episodes, do involve the exercise of the president’s constitutional authority. And we now know that he was being falsely accused. 3:52:05 Attorney General William Barr: Right after March 5th, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And you made the decision when? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, probably on Sunday the 24th. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): That’s the day the letter came out? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. We made the decision… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And make the decision until the letter came out? Attorney General William Barr: No. No. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): You must have told somebody how to write the letter, you couldn’t… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you actually decide that there was no obstruction? Attorney General William Barr: The 24th. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. 3:52:35 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you get the first draft of the Mueller report? Attorney General William Barr: The, the first?.. It wasn’t a draft. We got the final. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The first version of it that you saw? Attorney General William Barr: Well, the only version of it I saw. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay, the only version for you Sir. When you do first? Attorney General William Barr: The 22nd Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The 22nd 3:52:50 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Now you told Senator Harris that you made your decision on the obstruction charge, you and Rosenstein, based on the Mueller report. Did I correctly infer that you made that decision then between the 22nd and the 24th? Attorney General William Barr: Well, we had had a lot of discussions about it before the 22nd but then the final decision was made on the 24th Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): and you didn’t… Attorney General William Barr: We had more than two and a half days to consider this. LLC had already done a lot of thinking about some of these issues even before, uh, the…we got the report. 4:03:30 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): This letter was an extraordinary act. A career prosecutor would rebuking the Attorney General of the United States memorializing in writing. Right? I know of no other incidents of that happening. Do you? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, I don’t consider Bob at this stage, a career prosecutor. He’s had a career as a prosecutor. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Well, he was a very eminent… Attorney General William Barr: Who was the head of the FBI for 12 years? Um… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): He’s a career…He’s had a, he’s… law enforcement professional? Attorney General William Barr: Right? Yup. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): I know of no other instances of… Attorney General William Barr: But he was also political appointee and he was a political appointee with me at the Department of Justice. I don’t, I, you know, the letters a bit snitty and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did you make a memorandum of your conversation? Attorney General William Barr: Huh? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did you make a memory? Attorney General William Barr: No, I didn’t need anyone else around them. What? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with Robert Mueller? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT):Who did that? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, there were notes taken of the call. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): May We have those notes? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT):Why not? Attorney General William Barr: Why should you have them? Hearing: Attorney General Barr News Conference on Mueller Report Release, Department of Justice, April 18, 2019. 4:00 Attorney General William Barr: As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. 9:30 Attorney General William Barr: Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. 10:30 Attorney General William Barr: In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. 18:00 Attorney General William Barr: But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o’Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.” 19:30 Attorney General William Barr: And we don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information. We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to. That was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. 20:15 Attorney General William Barr: Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view, since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not – I didn’t talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision. Hearing: Justice Department Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, April 9, 2019. 1:07:10 Rep. Charlie Crist (FL): Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the Special Council’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that? Attorney General William Barr: No, I don’t. I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. Hearing: Michael Cohen Testimony, House Oversight Committee, February 27, 2019. 4:01:34 Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): On January 17 of this year, the Wall Street Journal published a story stating that you hired John Gauger, the owner of a consulting company who works for Liberty University in Virginia, to rig at least two online polls related to Donald Trump. Did you hire him? Michael Cohen: Those were back in I believe 2015? Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): 2014. Michael Cohen: 2014. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): 2014. So you did hire him? Michael Cohen: Yes. I spoke with Mr. Gauger about manipulating these online polls. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): And did he use bots to manipulate the poll? Michael Cohen: He used algorithms and if that includes bots then the answer’s yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): Yes. That’s accurate. Did the president have any involvement Michael Cohen: Yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): In directing you to do this? Michael Cohen: Yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): What were the results of the poll Michael Cohen: Exactly where we wanted them to be. In the CNBC poll, we came in at number nine. And the Drudge Report, he was top of the Drudge Report as well. 4:50:20 Michael Cohen: So there was a contract that I ended up creating Mr Trump’s behalf for a Ukrainian oligarch by the name of Victor Pinchuk. And it was that Mr. Trump was asked to come into participate in what was the Ukrainian American Economic Forum. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to go, but I was able to negotiate 15 minutes by Skype where they would have a camera, very much like a television camera, very much like that one. And they would translate Mr. Trump to the questionnaire and then he would respond back. And I negotiated a fee of $150,000 for 15 minutes. I was directed by Mr. Trump to have the contract done in the name of the Donald J. Trump foundation as opposed to Donald J. Trump or services rendered. Hearing: FBI Oversight, Senate Judicary Committee, May 3, 2017. Witnesses: James Comey: FBI Director Sound Clips: *2:27:00: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): So potentially the President of the United States could be a target of your ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russian interference in our election. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: I just worry… I don’t want to answer that because it seems to be unfair speculation. We will follow the evidence. We’ll try and find as much as we can and we’ll follow the evidence where it leads. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The Veterans Health Administration operates a taxpayer-funded health system to provide our nation’s veterans physical and mental health services. The Veterans Choice Program is a fundamental change to that system as it allows veterans to get taxpayer-funded health care in the private sector. In this episode, learn the history of the Veterans Choice Program, discover the changes that Congress and the Trump Administration have made to the program this year, and get some insights into the future of the program. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills H.R. 3230: Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 Allows veterans to get medical care outside the Veteran's Administration system; they can go to any health facility that serves Medicare patients, health centers, the Defense Department, and the Indian Health Service. Veterans are only given this option if they'd have to wait over 30 days for an appointment with the Veteran's Administration or if they live 40 miles or further from a Veteran's Administration clinic. If eligible, the veteran will receive a special identification card. How it works: Veteran notifies VA, VA puts Veteran on an electronic waiting list or authorizes their request, VA works out a payment agreement with the health care provider, VA reimburses health care provider but no more than they would for Medicare services. If the veteran gets treated for a problem that was not related to their military service, their health insurance plan will be responsible for payment and the health care provider will be responsible for going after the insurance company for the money. Veterans can not be charged higher co-payments for care at private facilities than they would have been charged at the Veteran's Administration. This program will end in three years. Orders a private-sector review, establishes a fifteen person commission, and creates a technology task force to review VA practices. Wait times for care can not be considered when determining performance bonuses for top officials at the Veteran's administration and performance goals that disincentivize using private health providers for veteran care will be eliminated. Wait times for health care at the VA, VA facility quality measures, and VA doctor credentials will be published online. The VA will add 1,500 graduate medical education residency positions for five years to address staffing shortages. Extends the program that reimburses medical students for education costs and increases the amounts they'll receive for working for the VA. Expands coverage for mental health care related to sexual assaults, which will include veterans on inactive duty. This will be effective August 7, 2015. Extends a pilot program for assisted living care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries until October 2017. Disqualifies public colleges that charge veterans more than State residents from being qualified schools for veteran education benefits. Makes it easier to fire or transfer senior executives at the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Appropriates $15 billion to implement these changes. S. 544: A bill to amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to modify the termination date for the Veterans Choice Program, and for other purposes Eliminates the end date for the Choice Program, which was supposed to expire when the money ran out of after three years. Changes the payment system from one where the veteran's health insurance plan must pay for non-service related treatments, with doctors getting reimbursed directly from the insurance companies to a new system where the Veterans Department will pay and be reimbursed by the insurance companies. Establishes legal permission for the government to share medical records of veterans with "private entities" S. 1094: Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act Title I: Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Creates a new office, headed by a Presidential appointee, in charge of VA employee accountability and processing of whistleblower complaints. This office will have the power to impose disciplinary actions. The identities of whistleblowers must be protected unless the whistleblower consents to disclosure. The Department of Veterans' Affairs must train employees on the whistleblowing process. Title II: Accountability of senior executives, supervisors, and other employees Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to suspend, demote, or fire senior executives as long as the executive receives 15 days advance notice and all evidence against him or her, legal representation, and the ability to argue their case in an official process created by the Secretary that takes no more than 21 days. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to remove, demote, or suspend Veterans Administration employees for performance or misconduct. Demoted employees will have their pay decreased. The demotion or removal process must be completed within 15 business days and the employee has 7 business days to respond. These new procedures "shall supercede any collective bargaining agreement to the extend that such agreement is inconsistent with such procedures.". There is an appeal process but it must be started within 10 business days after the date of the removal, demotion, or suspension. The appeal must be decided within 180 days. The Secretary can not remove, demote, or suspend a whistleblower without approval of a Special Counsel or unless the Assistant Secretary refuses to act on the whistleblower account or unless a final decision has been made regarding the whistleblower's disclosure. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to order the repayment of bonuses or relocation expenses paid to VA employees if the Secretary determines that the employee engaged in misconduct or poor performance before the bonus was awarded. There is an appeal process via the Office of Personnel Management. S.114: VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 Title I: Appropriation for Veterans Choice Program Deposits $2.1 billion in the Veterans Choice Fund, which will not expire. Title II: Personnel matters Doubles the number of positions that can be labeled has having staffing shortages and gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the ability to directly hire people to those positions. "Executive Management Fellowship Program" A program to give VA employees 1 year of training in the private sector and to give private sector employees 1 year of training in the VA. Between 18 & 30 people from the private sector and the same amount from the VA will be selected in August of each year to participate. To accept the fellowship, the person must agree to work as a full-time employee of the VA for two years and is prohibited from working the corresponding private sector industry for two years after completing the program. Performance Evaluations Political appointees of the VA will have annual performance plans similar to the ones administered to career employees. Promotions Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the ability to easily promote existing employees or people who voluntarily left within 2 years, one employment status at a time. Employment Opportunity Database Creates a website that will list vacant positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Title III: Major medical facility leases We're paying to replace VA facilities in 28 locations. H.R. 3236: Surface transportation and veterans health care choice improvement act of 2015 Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD080: The July Laws Additional Reading Article: VA secretary David Shulkin: I don't consider this Texas church gunman as a veteran by Melissa Quinn, Washington Examiner, November 6, 2017. Article: Funding for a new veterans choice program remains the big, unresolved question for VA by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 24, 2017. Article: AFGE ramping up anti-privatization campaign, as VA readies new Choice draft by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 17, 2017. Article: Focus on VA hiring, not Veterans Choice, AFGE says by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 6, 2017. Article: Trump signs bill to speed up VA disability appeals process by Richard Sisk, Military.com, August 23, 2017. Article: Last-minute Veterans Choice funding bill filled with key VA hiring flexibilities by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, July 28, 2017. Article: Fix for Veterans Choice shortfalls fails in the House with little funds left by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, July 24, 2017. Radio Transcript: VA pane report to suggest more private care choices for veterans, Morning Edition with David Greene, NPR, July 6, 2017. Article: Shulkin offers first glimpse at a new VA Choice plan by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, June 8, 2017. Article: Trump extends program allowing some veterans to use local doctors, hospitals by Lisa Lambert, Reuters, April 19, 2017. News Report: Barry Coates dead; veteran was at heart of VA scandal by Scott bronstein, Nelli Black, Drew Griffin and Curt Devine, CNN Investigations, January 27, 2016. Article: How the VA developed its culture of coverups by David Farenthold, The Washington Post, May 30, 2014. Article: Obama accepts resignation of VA secretary Shinseki by Greg Jaffe and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, May 30, 2014. References Budget Plan: 2018 FY Homeland Security Budget-in-Brief GAO Report: Veterans health care: Preliminary observations on veterans access to Choice Program care House Amendment Act: S.114 of the 115th Congress Interactive Timeline: Veterans Choice Program Slideshow: Billing Procedures, VA Veterans Choice Program and Patient-Centered Community Care Strawman Document: Proposed Strawman Assessment Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Bills related to veterans choice; House Committee on Veterans Affairs; October 24, 2017. 02:42 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): To that end, I believe it’s important to state yet again that this effort is in no way, shape, or form intended to create a pipeline to privatize the V.A. healthcare system. I want to be completely clear about that. Everyone who participated in the roundtable earlier this month and contributed to the development of this legislation should be completely clear on that. Everyone listening today should also be completely clear on that. Supplemental care sourced from within the community has been a part of the V.A. healthcare system since the 1940s and services to expand V.A.’s reach and strengthen and support the care that V.A. provides. Rhetoric aside, strengthening and support V.A. is what this consideration is about—this conversation is about. It should go without saying that V.A. cannot be everywhere providing everything to every veteran. Expecting V.A. to perform like that sets up the V.A. to fail. That’s why my draft bill preserves V.A.’s role as the central coordinator of care for enrolled veteran patients. In addition to consolidating V.A.’s menu of existing community-care programs into one cohesive program, my bill would create a seamless, integrated V.A. system of care that incorporates V.A. providers and V.A. medical facilities where and when they are available to provide care a veteran seeks and a network of V.A. providers in the community who can step up when needed. Under my draft bill, the V.A. generally retains the right of first refusal, meaning that if V.A. medical facilities can reasonably provide a needed service to a veteran, that care will be provided in that facility. But when the V.A. can’t do that, my bill would ensure that veterans aren’t left out to dry. Press Conference: Trump signs veterans health care bill; C-Span; August 12, 2017. 0:30 David Shulkin: The V.A. Choice and Quality Employment Act has three important components. The first is that this helps us expand our ability to hire medical-center directors and other senior executives to serve in the V.A. This is about leadership, and it’s really important that we get the right leaders helping us to do the job for veterans. The second is that this bill authorizes 28 new facility leases that will be in different parts of the country that provide our veterans with updated facilities, something that, again, we are committed to providing our veterans with world-class care. And third, and most important, this bill allows us to continue to be able to provide care in the community for our veterans to make sure that they’re getting high-quality care and not waiting for care. Already this year, in the first six months of this year, we have authorized over 15 million appointments for veterans in the community. That’s 4 million appointments more than what was experienced at this time last year. So we’re making a lot of progress in expanding Choice. Hearing: Fiscal year 2018 Veterans Affairs budget; Senate Veterans Affairs Committee; June 14, 2017. 12:29 David Shulkin: Two years ago—I’m sure you’re going to remember in July of 2015 we had too little money in our community-care accounts within the V.A., which we solved with your help by accessing unused funds in the Choice account. So we transferred money from Choice into community care. We now have too little money in the Choice account, which we’re working to solve, again working with you, with legislative authority, to replenish funds into the Choice account. So this is the situation that we’ve described before where for a single purpose of providing care in the community we have two checking accounts, and I will tell you, I wish it were easier than it is. We have to figure out how to balance these two checking accounts at all times. And obviously it’s not a science, it’s an art; and we’re having difficulty with that once again, and that’s why we need to work with you to solve it. The Veterans CARE program that we outlined for you last week will solve this recurring problem permanently by modernizing and consolidating all of the community-care accounts, including Choice. Hearing: Examining the Veterans Choice program and the future of care in the community; Committee on Veterans Affairs; June 7, 2017. Witness: David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary 12:55 David Shulkin: Just in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, we saw 35% more authorizations for Choice than we did in the first quarter of 2016. So far in fiscal year 2017, we have approximately 18,000 more Choice-authorized appointments per day than we did in fiscal year 2016. But we still have a lot more work to do. That’s why we’re seeking support for the Veterans Coordinated Access and Rewarding Experiences program, the Veterans CARE program. Let me just go over that again because you need a good acronym in Washington. The Veterans Coordinated Access—that’s the C and the A—Rewarding Experiences program—the CARE program. I’ve testified before and I’ll report again today that our overarching concern remains veterans’ access to high-quality care when and where they need it. That’s regardless of whether the care is in the V.A. or in the community. Our goal is to modernize and consolidate community care. We owe veterans a program that’s easy to understand, simple to administer, and that meets their needs. That’s the CARE program, and now it’s time to get this right for veterans. So we need your help. 14:23 David Shulkin: Here’s how veterans could experience V.A. healthcare, with your help. The veteran talks with their V.A. provider. That’s a conversation over the phone, virtually, or in person. The outcome is a clinical assessment. The clinical assessment may indicate that the V.A. specialist is the best for the veteran, or it may indicate that community care is best to meet the veteran’s needs. If community care is the answer, then the veteran chooses a provider from a high-performing network. That’s the veteran choosing a provider from the high-performing network. Assessment tools help veterans evaluate community providers and make the best choices themselves. We may help veterans schedule appointments in the community, or in some circumstances, veterans can schedule the appointments themselves. We make sure community providers have all the information they need to treat the veteran. We get the veteran’s record back. We pay the veteran’s bill. This is all about individualized, convenient, well-coordinated, modern healthcare and a positive experience for the veteran. If the V.A. doesn’t offer the necessary service, then the veteran goes to the community. If the V.A. can’t provide timely services, the veteran goes to the community. If there are unusual burdens in receiving care, the veteran goes to the community. If a service at a V.A. clinic isn’t meeting quality metrics for specific services, veterans needing that service go to the community while we work to support that clinic to improve its performance. And veterans who need care right away will have access to a network of walk-in clinics. 19:20 David Shulkin: We want to make sure that if the service is low performing, if it’s below what the veteran could get in the community, that they have the opportunity—they don’t have to leave the V.A. They’re given a choice so that they are able to get care in the community or stay at the V.A., because, you know, if a veteran has a good experience and they have trust in their provider, they’re going to want to stay where they are. But that is the purpose. The whole idea here is to improve the V.A., not to get more care in the community. And the very best way that I know how to improve health care is to give the patient, in this case the veteran, choice and to make those choices transparent to let everybody see, because then if you’re not performing as high-quality service, you’re going to want to provide a higher-quality service, because you want to be proud of what you’re working on. And I want the V.A. to be improving over time, and I think this will help us do that. 24:42 Sen. Patty Murray (WA): Secretary Shulkin, in your draft of Veteran CARE plan, you outline a number of pilot projects that sound to me uncomfortably like a proposals that are made by the so-called straw-man document. It’s from the commission on CARE and by the extreme, and to me unacceptable, plan put forward by the Concerned Veterans of America. And those include creating a V.A. insurance plan and separating it from CARE delivery, dividing the governance of a V.A. insurance plan and the health system, and alternative CARE model that sends veterans directly to the private sector. The goal of those types of initiatives, as originally stated in the straw-man document, is “as V.A. facilities become obsolete and are underused, they would be closed when availability and accessibility of care in the community is assured.” Those policies serve not only to dismantle the V.A. and start the health system down to a road to privatization, I just want you to know I will not support them, and I will fight them with everything I have. So, I want to ask you, why are you agreeing to pursue those unacceptable policy options? David Shulkin: Well, first of all, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and as clearly as you have. I share your goal. I am not in support of a program that would lead towards privatization or shutting down the V.A. programs. What I am in support of is using pilots to test various ideas about governance, about the way that the system should be, organized in the way that we should evolve, because I don’t know without testing different ideas whether they’re good ideas or not. 35:28 Sen. Jerry Moran (KS): You said something that caught my attention: this will not be an unfettered Choice program— David Shulkin: Yep. Moran: —and I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain to me and to the committee what that means. Shulkin: Yeah. There are some that have suggested that the very best approach is just give veterans a card, a voucher, and let them go wherever they want to go. And I think that there are some significant concerns about that, and you’re going to see this proposal is not that. This proposal is to develop a system that is designed for veterans, that coordinates their care, and gives them the options when it’s best for in the V.A. and when it’s best in the community. Unfettered Choice is appealing to some, but it would lead to, essentially, I believe, the elimination of the V.A. system all together. It would put veterans with very difficult problems out into the community, with nobody to stand up for them and to coordinate their care. And the expense of that system is estimated to be at the minimum $20 billion more a year than we currently spend on V.A. health care. So for all those reasons, I am not recommending that we have unfettered access. At some point in the future, if you design a system right, giving veterans complete choice, I believe in principle, is the direction we should be headed in, but not in 2017. 39:05 Sen. Jon Tester (MT): I want to go back to the Choice program, community care versus V.A. care, and tell you where we’re probably all on the same page around this rostrum, but as we’re all on the same page and the budget comes out and gives a 33% increase for private-sector care versus a 1.2% increase for care provided directly by the V.A., it doesn’t take very many budgets like that and pretty soon you’re not going to have any vets going to the V.A., because all the money’s going to community care, and they will follow the money. I promise you they will follow the money. I think that—I don’t want to put words in the VSO’s mouth. He’ll have a chance here in a bit—but I think most of the veterans I talk to say, build the V.A.’s capacity. In Montana we don’t have enough docs, we don’t have enough nurses, we don’t have enough of anything. And quite frankly, that takes away from the experience and the quality of care, and so by putting 1.2% increase for care provided directly by the V.A. and 33% for private-sector care, we’re privatizing the V.A. with that budget. David Shulkin: Yeah. I told you I wasn’t going to say that you were right again, but there’s a lot that you said that I think that we both agree with. And the goal is not to privatize the V.A. What we’re asking for in this is something we don’t have. We need additional flexibility between the money that goes into the community and the money that can be spent in the V.A. Right now we’re restricted to a 1% ability to transfer money between. We are seeking that you give us more latitude there for exactly the reason you’re talking about, Senator. We need our medical centers and our VISNs to be able to say that they need to build capacity in the V.A. where it’s not available. The reason why we’re letting people go in the community now is because the V.A. doesn’t have it. We have to get them that care. Tester: I got it, but if we don’t make the investments so they can get that health care, they’ll never get that health care there. Shulkin: I— Tester: Okay. Hearing: Veterans affairs oversight; House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; May 3, 2017. Witness: Dr. David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary   16:13 David Shulkin: More veterans are opting for Choice than ever before, five times more in fiscal year 2016 than fiscal year 2015, and Choice authorizations are still rising. We’ve issued 35% more authorizations in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 than in the same quarter of 2016. 18:00 David Shulkin: My five priorities as secretary are to provide greater Choice for veterans, to modernize our systems, to focus resources more efficiently, to improve the timeliness of our services, and suicide prevention among veterans. We are already taking bold steps towards achieving each of these priorities. Two weeks ago the president signed a reauthorization of the Veterans Choice Act, ensuring veterans can continue to get care from community providers. Just last week the president ordered the establishment of a V.A. accountability office, and we’re moving as quickly as we can within the limits of the law to remove bad employees. V.A. has removed medical center directors in San Juan; Shreveport, Louisiana; and recently we’ve relieved the medical center director right here in Washington, D.C. and removed three other senior executive service leaders due to misconduct or poor performance. We simply cannot tolerate employees who act counter to our values or put veterans at risk. Since January of this year, we’ve authorized an estimated 6.1 million community-care appointments, 1.8 million more than last year, a 42% increase. We now have same-day services for primary care and mental health at all of our medical centers across the country. Veterans can now access wait-time data for their local V.A. facilities by using an easy online tool where they can see those wait times. No other healthcare system in the country has this type of transparency. V.A. is setting new trends with public-private partnerships. Last month we announced a public-private partnership of an ambulatory care development center, with a donation of roughly $30 million in Omaha, Nebraska, thanks to Mr. Fortenberry’s help there. Veterans now have, or will have, a facility that’s being built with far fewer taxpayer dollars than in the past. Finally, V.A. is saving lives. My top clinical priority is suicide prevention. On average 20 veterans a day die by suicide. A few months ago the Veterans Crisis Line had a rollover rate to a backup center of more than 30%. Today that rate is less than 1%. In support of our efforts to reduce suicides, we’ve launched new predictive modeling tools that allow V.A. to provide proactive care and support for veterans who are at the highest risk of suicide. And I’ve recently announced the V.A. will be providing emergency mental health care to former service members with other-than-honorable discharges at all of our medical facilities. We know that these veterans are at greater risk for suicide, and we’re now caring for them as well as we can. 23:19 David Shulkin: The VISTA system is something that, frankly, V.A. should be proud of. It invented it, it was the leader in electronic health records, but, frankly, that’s old history, and we have to look at keeping up and to modernize the system. I’ve said two things, Mr. Chairman, in the past. I’ve said, number one is, V.A. has to get out of the business of becoming a software developer. This is not our core competency. I don’t see why it serves veterans. I think we’re doing this in a way that, frankly, we can’t keep up with. So, I’ve said that we’re going to get out of that business. We’re either going to find a commercial company that will take over and support VISTA or we’re going to go to an off-the-shelf product. And that’s really what we’re evaluating now. We have an RFI out for, essentially, the commercialization of VISTA that we wouldn’t longer be doing internally. 27:33 David Shulkin: We also, as we get more veterans out into the community, out into the private-sector hospitals, we have to be very concerned about interoperability with those partners as well. 38:24 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL): Given that your goal is one program, are you analyzing which program ultimately would be phased out, because we have a tendency to instead of phasing out programs because they have people with a vested interest in them, simply— David Shulkin: Yes. Schultz: —going along to get along rather than rocking the boat, and so if we’re adding $3 1/2 billion to the Choice program and it had 950 million left, there have been challenges with the Choice program and confusion, and there are still challenges with the community care program, in what direction is the V.A. thinking of going when we—and what is the timeline for ultimately— Shulkin: Right. Schultz: — phasing out one program and only having one? Shulkin: Right. Well, with almost certainty I can tell you there will not be three programs, because the current Choice program will run out of money— Schultz: Right. Shulkin: —by the end of this calendar year. So, that program is going to go away and should be through December of this year. What we are hoping to do is to work with you so that we can introduce a community-care funding program—the chairman referred to it as Choice 2.0—which is a program that makes sense for veterans, which is a single program that operates under one set of rules for how veterans get care in the community. And that new legislation, which we believe needs to be introduced by late summer or early fall in order to make the timeline, would end up with a single program. Schultz: So, you eventually envision phasing out community care with the advent— Shulkin: Yes. Schultz: —of Choice 2.0. 1:33:11 Rep. Charles Dent (PA): In the one-page FY ’18 skinny budget we received in March, there’s a V.A. request for $2.9 billion in new mandatory funding, presumably to complete the FY ’18 funding for the Choice program after the mandatory $10 billion of the program is completely exhausted in January, I guess. Does this indicate the administration’s intent to fund the successor Choice program out of mandatory funding? David Shulkin: Yes. 1:45:37 Rep. Tom Rooney (FL): And many of the providers that are technically participating in the Choice program are refusing to accept Choice patients because they know that they’ll have to wait a long time to get paid themselves. So some providers that don’t accept the Choice patients will only do so if the veteran agrees to pay for the services up front. And that leaves the veterans in that same bind they were in before Choice, which was either face the excessive wait times at the V.A. facility with no option to obtain immediate care elsewhere without paying out of pocket first. And obviously that’s not the point, or that’s not what we’re looking to do. So, I mean, you as a doctor can probably appreciate, you know, with these people that want to take the Choice program to help veterans but they know that it’s going to take forever to get reimbursed be like, hey, will you pay me first, and then, you know, we’ll deal with getting reimbursed later. I don’t know if that’s the rationale, but it sounds like that. The OIG has criticized the V.A.’s monitoring oversight for these contracts and reported that these contracts still don’t have performance measures to ensure the contractors pay their providers in a timely manner, and the OIG made this recommendation January 30 of this year. So, as you work to expand the Choice program, how are you implementing the OIG’s recommendation specifically with regard to timely reimbursements? David Shulkin: Well, there is no doubt that this is an area of significant risk for us, that monitoring and making sure that the providers are paid is critical because of the issues that you’re saying: the veterans are being put in the middle. I would not recommend the veterans put out money for this. That is, as you said, is not the point of it. What we have done is we have done multiple contract modifications. We’ve actually advanced money to the third-party administrators. I’ve suspended the requirement that providers have to provide their medical records to us in order to get paid. We are improving our payment cycles through the Choice program, but it’s not perfect by any means. We have to get better at our auditing of these processes, and those were the IG recommendations, and we are working on doing that. So this is a significant area of risk for us. In the reauthorization, or the redesign, of the Choice program, what we’re calling Choice 2.0, we want to eliminate the complexity of this process. The private sector does not have to do the type of adjudication of claims that we do. They do auto adjudification. They do electronic claims payments. We just are not able to, under this legislation, do all the things that, frankly, we know are best practices. That’s what we want to get right in Choice 2.0. 1:56:40 David Shulkin: Our care needs to be focused on those that are eligible for care, particularly when we have access issues. So, I’d be glad to talk to you more about that. I do want to just mention two things. First of all, our policy is for emergency mental health care for other-than-honorable, not dishonorably, discharged; dishonorably discharged who were not— Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): Sorry if I misspoke. David Shulkin: Yeah, yeah, okay. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): But I do applaud you for those efforts. David Shulkin: I just wanted to clarify that. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): I know that there are a lot of wounds that are mental, of course, and— David Shulkin: Absolutely. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): —I get that. I applaud you for those efforts. Hearing: Veterans affairs choice program; House Committee for Veterans Affairs; March 7, 2017. Witness: David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary Michael Missal - Veterans Affairs Inspector General Randall Williamson - GAO Health Care Team Director 20:35 David Shulkin: However, we do need your help. The Veterans Choice Program is going to expire in less than six months, but our veterans’ community-care needs will not expire. This looming expiration is a cause for concern among veterans, providers, and V.A. staff, and we need help in eliminating the expiration date of the Choice program on August 7, 2017 so that we can fully utilize the remaining Choice funds. Without congressional action, veterans will have to face longer wait times for care. Second, we need your help in modernizing and consolidating community care. Veterans deserve better, and now is the time to get this right. We believe that a modernized and revised community-care program must have seven key elements. First, maintain a high-performing integrated network that includes V.A., federal partners, academic affiliates, and community providers. Second, increase Choice for all veterans, starting with those with cer—(audio glitch). Third, ensure that enrolled veterans get the care they need closer to their homes, when appropriate. Fourth, optimize coordination of V.A. healthcare benefits with the health insurance that an enrolled veteran already has. Fifth, maintain affordability of healthcare options for the lowest-income enrolled veterans. Sixth, assist in coordination of care for veterans served by multiple providers. And last, apply industry standards for performance quality, patient satisfaction, payment models, and healthcare outcomes. 23:24 Michael Missal: In October 2015, V.A. provided Congress with a plan to consolidate all V.A.’s purchased care programs into V.A.’s community-care program. Under consolidation, V.A. continues to have problems determining eligibility for care, authorizing care, making accurate payments, providing timely payments to providers, and ensuring the necessary coordination of care provided to veterans outside the V.A. healthcare system. 30:30 Randall Williamson: Finally, substantial resources will likely be needed to carry out Choice 2.0. Resources needed to fund IT upgrades and new applications for Choice are largely unknown but could be costly. Proposed changes in Choice eligibility requirements, such as eliminating the 30-day, 40-mile requirement for eligibility, could potentially greatly increase the number of veterans seeking care through community providers and drive costs up considerably. Also, if medical-center staff begin scheduling all appointments under Choice 2.0, as V.A. currently envisions, hiring more V.A. staff will likely be costly and tediously slow. Already, since Choice was established, V.A. medical-center staff devoted to helping veterans access non-V.A. care have increased threefold or more at many locations. 1:04:00 David Shulkin: We are looking primarily at technological solutions, and we are looking at the use of telehealth, which we are doing across V.A. on a scale that no other health system in America is even approaching—2.1 million visits; over 700,000 veterans getting access through telehealth services—and so we are looking at this very seriously about dramatically expanding its use to be able to support where we don’t have health professionals. 1:06:20 David Shulkin: Remember, we have four missions. The clinical care is what we always talk about, but we also have an education mission. We train more American healthcare professionals than any other organization in the country, we have research that’s dedicated solely to the improvement of the wellbeing of veterans, and we also serve a national emergency-preparedness role. So, all four of these missions are very important to us. I would just say two things. One thing is we know from the Choice program that only 5,000 of the several—of more now than a million veterans who’ve used the program chose only to use the Choice program. So they’re saying exactly what your constituent told you, which is the V.A. is essential and important to them. But we are not going to allow the V.A. programs to be diluted, and one of the reasons why that’s so important is that we need to modernize the V.A. system. Our lack of capitalizing the V.A. system in terms of the buildings, the equipment, the IT systems, could make it a noncompetitive system. But we’re going to make sure that the facilities that are open are the best for veterans, and veterans are going to want to continue to get their care there. The community-care program is a way to make sure that we supplement the V.A. in an integrated fashion. 1:10:00 Rep. Mike Bost (IL): The department itself has estimated that it can treat and cure most of the remaining 124,000 diagnosed cases of hepatitis C within the next three years. Is it the V.A.’s commitment that that timeline will be held to and that these will be treated regardless of the level of their liver disease or where they might be at? David Shulkin: Yes. Thanks to the support from Congress, we were provided the resources to meet that timeline. I actually think we’re going to beat it, but with one caveat. What we’ve learned is that our initial outreaches, we were getting thousands and thousands of veterans to come in and to get treatment. We have a treatment, of course, as you know, that now cures more than 95% of hepatitis C. So it’s tremendous medical advance. The doctor to my right is one of those doctors. He’s an I.D. doctor who does this in his clinical work at the V.A. Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Shulkin: What we’re finding now is, and if Dr. Yehia wants to comment on this, we’re finding that we’re now seeing less and less veterans coming in to get cured. There is a substantial number of veterans for a number of reasons, either psychological reasons or social reasons, who are not taking advantage of this care. And so this is now becoming a research question for us. How do we have to begin to approach people that are saying, I have a disease that may end up killing me, but I’m not interested in the treatment. And so I think we’re going to beat your three-year timeline, but there's still going to be a subset of veterans that don’t want to come in and get care. 1:12:50 Rep. Mike Bost (IL): What would happen if we didn’t make that extension go past the August 7, and what would be the final cutoff if we don’t get it past? David Shulkin: Well, first of all, if we don’t do this extension, this is going to be a disaster for American veterans. We’re going to see the same situation that we saw in April 2014, that Senator Kaine started out tonight with, that we saw in Phoenix. And so here’s the timeline. We do need to do this now. As I think Chairman Roe referred to, already today veterans are not able to use the Choice program, because the law states that we have to obligate the funds now for when the care is going to be delivered. So a pregnant veteran who comes to us and says, I want to get care using the Choice program, they no longer can, because nine months from now is past August 7. But this is now beginning to happen with care that is multiple months in length, like oncology care and chemotherapy and other types of therapies. We have a chart that shows that when you start getting towards the end of April to May, this is where you’re going to start seeing a large number of veterans not being able to get access to care, because episodes of care that we’re used to, like hip replacements and other things, are generally three to four months. So we think the time is now that we need to act. Bost: Okay, so, but what we’re doing is not any intention to privatize or anything like that. This is just making sure that those people who are on the Choice program, that we are moving forward to make sure that those services are provided. Shulkin: Not only that, but this is not going to cost any additional money. We are just seeking the authority to spend the money that you’ve already given us past August 7 of this year. 1:17:15 David Shulkin: We are going to go and we are going to start providing mental health care for those that are other-than-honorably discharged for urgent mental health. And we want to work with Representative Coffman on his bill on this, and we want to do as much as we can. But I don’t think it can wait, and so we’re going to start doing that now. I believe that’s in the secretary’s authority to be able to do that.   Hearing: A call for system-wide change; House Committee for Veterans Affairs; October 7, 2015. Witnesses: Robert McDonald: then Secretary of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin: Under Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Brett Giroir: Senior Fellow at the Texas medical Center Health Policy Institute 13:37 Robert McDonald: As you know, we have five strategies: first is improving the veteran experience, second is improving the employee experience, third is achieving support-service excellence, fourth is establishing a culture of continuous improvement, and fifth is enhancing strategic partnerships, and we would be happy to drill down on those during the question period. 14:17 Robert McDonald: In the past year, we’ve moved out aggressively in response to the access crisis, meeting increasing demand and expanding capacity on four fronts: more staffing, more space, more productivity, and more V.A. care in the community. During that period of time, we’ve completed 7 million more appointments for veterans of completed care: 4 1/2 million in the community, 2 1/2 million within V.A. We’ve added more space, we’ve added more providers, we’ve added more extra hours, all in effect to get more veterans in. But because of that, and because we’ve done a better job of caring for veterans, we have more veterans desiring care. So even those 97% of appointments are now completed within 30 days of the needed or preferred date, the number not completed in 30 days has grown from 300,000 to nearly 500,000. 16:15 Robert McDonald: We simply can’t make many necessary changes because of statutory limitations. We need to consolidate our various care in the community programs. We need a freer hand to hire, assign, and reward the executives we task to act as change agents. We need a freer hand in disposing of outdated, unused, or little-used facilities. We need a freer hand in the management of existing facilities so facilities’ managers can adjust their use of resources to the changing needs of veterans. 25:47 Brett Giroir: As background, in 2014 9.1 million of 21.6 million U.S. veterans were enrolled in the VHA. Of these, 5.8 million were actual patients, and on average these patients relied on the VHA for much less than 50% of their healthcare services. These demographic data combined with access challenges suggest reconsideration of whether the VHA should aim to be the comprehensive provider for all veterans’ health needs or whether the VHA should evolve into more focus centers providing specialized care while utilizing non-VHA providers for the majority of veterans’ healthcare needs. Either paradigm could be highly beneficial to veterans as long as the demand and resources are prospectively aligned and there is a consolidation of current programs to simplify access to non-VHA providers. 30:05 David Shulkin: The V.A. approach is to find the very best care that serves the veterans, and I think that we’ve shown that in response to our access crisis that we have encouraged the use of community care to address our access issues. I think the difference here between—maybe what I would expand on what Dr. Giroir said is that the care that V.A. provides is very, very different than the care that the private sector provides. The V.A. provides a much more comprehensive approach than just dealing with physical-illness issues. It provides psychological and social aspects of care that actually meet the needs of what veterans require. And that's why I think that we really do need to do what Dr. Giroir said, which is to see what VHA provides best for our veterans and what care can be provided by the private sector, and it’s that hybrid-type system that's going to meet our veteran's needs. 34:39 Former Rep. Corrine Brown (FL): I think the elephant in the room is that there are people out there that would actually want to just completely close the V.A. and privatize the entire V.A. system, which is totally unacceptable and it is absolutely not what the veterans want. And as you begin, I want you to discuss flexibility, but I want you to let people know how many people we actually serve every day throughout this country. Robert McDonald: Thank you, Ranking Member Brown. As I was going through my confirmation process, I often got the question from senators why—you know, from some senators, small group—why don't we get rid of the V.A. and just give out vouchers? So I studied that—as a business person, I wanted to know—and what I discovered was V.A.'s not only essential for veterans, it's essential for American medicine and it's essential for the American people. Three-legged stool: research. We spent $1.8 billion a year on research. We invented the nicotine patch. We were the ones who discovered the aspirin was important for heart disease—take an aspirin every day. First liver transplant. First implantable pacemaker. Last year two V.A. doctors invented the shingles vaccine. I could go on. That research is important for the American people, and I didn't even mention posttraumatic stress or traumatic brain injury or prosthetics, things that we're known for. Second, training. We trained 70% of the doctors in this country. Who's going to train those doctors without the V.A.? We have also the largest employer of nurses and the largest trainer of nurses. Third leg is clinical work. Our veterans get the best clinical care because our doctors are doctors that not only do the clinical care but also do research and teach in the best medical schools of our country. So I think the American people benefit from the V.A., and it would be a big mistake to even think about privatizing it. 1:06:06 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): Let me go right to what I wanted to talk about which is my own veteran’s officer at home—person that does my work at home—and basically what she’s saying is, how do you get an appointment through the Veterans Choice Program? She said she had been trying to put together a summary, and what's happening is there’re two ways you get in there: a veteran can either be eligible by a 30-day wait list or more than 40 miles. And the most of problems she saw were the 30-day list. And this is what happens. Below is the information’s been given to me by the roll out of the program. In my experience, there appears to be a breakdown somewhere in this process but have been unable to get clear answers on how to fix it. The V.A. blames TriWest; TriWest blames the V.A. Eligibility is determined by the V.A. primary-care doctor if the appointment’s passed 30 days. The non-V.A. care staff then uploads this list of eligible veterans to the V.A. central office here in Washington nightly, and the veteran’s told to wait five to seven days and then call TriWest. The central office then sends the information to TriWest, can take three to seven days. If the consults don't get added, medical documentation didn't get uploaded, authorizations gets canceled, then the veteran’s on a merry-go-round. Look, when they came to my office to get an appointment, I said, you need an appointment with Dr. Smith. They went out front and made the appointment. That's what should happen. It ain’t that complicated. And all of this in between—and I could go on and on—TriWest has a different view of it, and I want to submit this to the record because it really gets to the bottom of what’s actually going— Unknown Chairman: Not objection. Roe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The non-V.A. care staff were given no training on this, and they basically were left just to wing it, how to make these appointments. That was one of the things was brought up in the report. Our local V.A. care—non-V.A. care staff—increased from 5 to 15 but still are struggling to make all these appointments, and there's talk of—now, listen to this right here—there is talk of calling each patient for every appointment to make sure they keep it. If the patient says, I don't want to go, they still are told to call them two times a month until the past the appointment time. That's a complete waste of time. And the outpatient clinics also ought to be able to add patients to the electronic wait list instead of sending them over because appointment may come up; veterans get left out like that. And the TriWest portal is not very friendly. Private doctors did not like jumping through all the hoops of the Choice programmers saying they must give a percent of their fee to TriWest in order for TriWest to file the claim. So, we have a clinic that’s closing in our office, in our V.A., on a chiropractic and pulmonary clinic, because the doctors are just fed up with the way the system is. It’s so bureaucratic. So, anyway, I could go on and on. This is a very extensive—this is on-the-ground stuff that’s going on today at our medical center, and I bet you it's going on around the country. And I think these are things I will submit to you so you can get to work on this, and, again, appreciate the effort that you put into it. Mr. Chairman, there’s some valuable information here for the V.A. to use. And I yield back. Unknown Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Brown, you had a question. Corrine Brown: I do, because I want the secretary to answer that, because I think—I'm meeting with TriWest today—but the important thing is, you can't send a veteran to an agency or anywhere until they get prior approval from the V.A. because the most important thing is that that doctor get that reimbursement. So can you clear this up? I mean, no person in my office can send someone to a doctor; it must go through the system so that you get prior approval. And once that's done, how long—why does it take so long for that physician to get reimbursed, and can he answer that question? Robert McDonald: We have flowcharted that process, and let me let David talk about the improvements that we’ve made to that process. He'll answer questions one and three, and I'll take two on the facilities. David Shulkin: Okay. Dr. Roe, I think your old adage on the three A's is exactly right. And you have to remember we brought this Choice system up in 90 days. This is a national, very complex system, and what we've heard after bringing it up in 90 days is exactly the type of feedback that you've been hearing from your constituents. The secretary and I are both out in the field, we understand that these problems are happening, and so what we've begun to do is to redesign the system and to process-map it out. Both the secretary and I spoke to the CEO of TriWest last evening, and we are beginning now to make outbound calls to the veterans before they had to call in. We are beginning to actually embed TriWest staff in the V.A. so that they're working in teams, and we're beginning to start eliminating some of those steps. It is going to take a while. It is painful to watch this when you hear stories like what you're hearing, but we understand the problems there, we are working very hard, we think TriWest and Health Net are working to help us make the system better, and we're committed to doing this with urgency. 1:58:08 David Shulkin: We do have a crisis in leadership. We have too many open, vacant positions. We have too many people in acting positions and interim positions. You can't expect that you're going to have a transformation in a health system unless you have stable leadership in place. We need your help on this. We need your help to help create the V.A. to be an environment people want to come and serve and to be excited about, and we are asking for your help in Title 38 for the—Hybrid Title 38—to be able to help get the right type of compensation for leadership positions in V.A. That will help us a lot. Hearing: HR 1994 VA accountability act and HR 3236 surface transportation and veterans health care choice improvement act; House Rules Committee; July 28, 2015. 1:28:40 Bradley Byrne (AL): We don’t need to have a government-run healthcare system for our veterans. We need to transition out of it and give all of our veterans a card, just like an insurance card. Hearing: Veterans Affairs health care and budget; House Veterans Affairs Committee; July 22, 2015. 19:20 Robert McDonald Clinical output has increased 8% while budget has increased 2%, 35% more people (1.5 million beneficiaries) 20:22 Robert McDonald Increased Choice authorizations by 44% (900,000), 4% more appointments, percentages of wait times, wait times for types of care 21:50 Robert McDonald Care crisis of 2014 was caused by an imbalance in supply and demand, VA has been governing to fit a budget, not making budget fit the care, stats on new enrollees, 147% increase. enrolled veterans use VA for 34% of their care 56:00 Robert McDonald Here is a packet explaining the transformation of the VA, we have an advisory board full of CEOs, VA is going through the largest transformation in it’s history 1:09:40 Tim Heulskamp (KS) Concerned that money will be redirect away from Choice and he thinks “many employees” are not supportive of Choice, throws out bullshit numbers James Tuchschmidt corrects him and said they took money out to pay for the Hepatitis C drug 1:11:50 Tim Heulskamp wants to know why only two people have been fired for the wait time scandal. Robert McDonald many have retired, one indictment, 1,300 have been fired, new leadership, 7 million more appointments this year 1:27:30 Rep.Jackie Walorski (IN) Veterans died because of the Veteran’s Administration, I wanted to see people go to prison, list of things she’s pissed about, "Nothing is working” Robert McDonald 300,000 on wait list a year ago, low wait times, 1:35:00 McDonald we need a better system for anticipating what demand will be. 34% of eligible people are using VA system right now 1:35:20 Robert McDonald the crisis in 2014 was due to Vietnam vets, not Iraq & Afghanistan and we need to prepare as they age 1:36:00 Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) Why don’t we “refer out" the care that’s not directly related to military service? Robert McDonald people like to have all their doctors in one place, private sector doctors have to treat veterans differently - different questions to ask 1:41:00 Phil Roe (TN) Getting veterans outside care should be be through 1 program because it "aught to be easy" 1:43:50 Robert McDonald Moral is low because people don't want to be called out for not caring. They work hard every day 1:46:00 Kathleen Rice (D-NY) Why is there a budget shortfall? Robert McDonald 7 million more veterans needed care. "That's the reason" 1:56:00 Mark Takano (D-CA) New way of operating with non-VA providers - "Care in the Community" - not a conspiracy to "disappear the VA" - That's why we changed the name 2:05:00 Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) We should "outsource" collections” of payment from veterans with other insurance James Tuchschmidt We are looking at doing that. Wenstrup we should take bids. 2:18:00 Robert McDonald We are in favor of Choice program & we need to know about any employees who aren't because "that would be wrong" - Don't care where they get care as long as it's great care 2:20:00 Jerry McNerney (D-CA) Do you favor public private partnerships? Robert McDonald Yes, it's part of our transformation strategy. we have an “office of strategic parterships” 2:22:55 James Tuchschmidt We thought more people would use Choice, the goal was to not have vets waiting more than 30 days for care, we're asking to use that money to pay for care we purchased, we want a bill before you leave in August 2:28:00 James Tuchschmidt We’ve treated over 20,000 veterans with hepatitis C and veterans can use the Choice Program to get their treatment Rep.Ralph Abraham (LA) $500 million would be designated for Hepatitis C treatment Robert McDonald yes Hearing: Non-VA care: An integrated solution for veteran access; House Veterans Affairs Committee; June 18, 2014. 50:40 Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX): Why have the V.A. at all? Why not privatize that care? The private sector could do it better. What’s missing in the V.A. is competition. Our veterans deserve the very best. Let’s not keep them in this institution that’s not working. From veterans, almost to a person, I hear, if I get in the V.A., I love the care. I’m treated very, very well. The outcomes are great. Don’t touch the V.A. So, what do you do best, and what does the V.A. do best? And five years down the road, after we get out of this current crisis, what will this look like? Unknown Speaker: That’s a great question. And it’s an honor to serve El Paso, where I spent part of my childhood when my dad was in the army as a doc. I will tell you that I hope it does not take five years. And I think everybody else would echo that statement. My belief is that the first phase is to make sure that the program that the V.A. has invested taxpayer money in—VAPC3—is put in place, is mature, that the processes on the V.A. side are mature, that our processes are mature, and that together we’re identifying where those pockets of veterans are that might not otherwise be able to get what they need in a complete capacity through the direct V.A. system because they lack the capacity to deliver on all the needs, and that the V.A. syst— Yes, sir. O’Rourke: Let me—I’m sorry to interrupt you, but I do want to understand what you think beyond taking care of capacity issues when the V.A.’s not able to see someone in a reasonable period of time. Are there specific kinds of care that you all would be better equipped to take care of? For example, I often think the V.A. is or should be better at handling PTSD or the aftereffects of traumatic brain injury because they see so many people like that as opposed to your typical health system or hospital. Maybe that’s a V.A. center of excellence. Is there something on the outside that we should just move all appointments or consults or procedures in a given area over to the private sector or let the private sector compete for? Unknown Speaker: Great question. My personal view is that it’s too early to ask that question—or to answer it, probably a better way to put it. It’s early to ask it, it’s right to ask it, you’re looking over the horizon line, but that we first need to get the pieces plugged together. And then there needs to be a make-by decision, category by category, and facility by facility, to look at what’s best done with taxpayer funds. Is it best to have the direct system provide care for four veterans in a particular category? Is that really necessary? Or should we buy that on the outside because it’s more efficient and more effective? 54:30 O’Rourke: You know, I’ve been on this committee for a year and a half now—it’s my first year in Congress—but I’d never been approached by a lobbyist on my way in to a meeting. Today I was, who represents providers in the private sector in El Paso and said, we have a hard time getting paid. It takes us a year sometimes. We want to see these veterans who are not able to be seen by the V.A., but it’s going to be really hard to do this if we don’t get paid. 1:34:00 Jolly: We need to do even more in providing a veteran choice. This, bottom line. The question, though, is how do we do that in a way that’s fiscally responsible? And so my question for you generally—and again, if you don’t have enough information, that’s certainly fine—in your role of supporting non-V.A. care, can you give either an assessment, if you have the technical information, or if it’s just in a working opinion on the cost effectiveness compared to traditional care, realizing that we have hard infrastructure costs within our V.A. system that aren’t reflective when you go to non-V.A. We can look at all sorts of data. I’m somebody who thinks typically data’s manipulated to get whatever outcome or position we want to finally be able to support. But can you give an opinion or assessment on the cost effectiveness of non-V.A. care versus within the V.A.? Ms. Doody: I can tell you from our experience with Project ARCH—and I wish I could give you specific numbers, sir—the company Altarum, who was contracted to collect this information—my understanding is they’re going to report back to you folks in 2015—are looking at the cost of care per veteran. From my understanding, it is less than if they would have gone to a V.A. facility for certain procedures. So, again, it’s anecdotal. It may be geographic; I can’t comment on the other regions or other states in our nation. But also just limiting the amount of mileage, the travelling that the veteran would have to do travelling to a V.A. hospital to receive care as a savings to the system also. 1:45:00 Titus: You confirm that you can’t talk about the cost effectiveness; there’s just not enough data there, yet you think it’s working pretty well, but we don’t have any hard figures, and we also know that CVO’s been kind of unable to assess the cost going forward, and nobody’s talking about how to pay for it. Yet, we are moving pell mell towards more veterans using this kind of non-V.A. care. And it’s not that I’m opposed to that, but I want us to do it right or else we’ll be having hearings five years from now, talking about all the problems with non-V.A. care. Now, to hear y’all talk about it, you’re not having any problems; things are working great under your networks. But we know that’s not true, either. I mean, there are problems out there, and we need to be serious about how to address them from the beginning. Now, as I understand it, y’all are just kind of like the middleman, like Sallie Mae and Medicare Advantage, where you have a contract to provide a service. That’s fine, but as you push more people out into the private sector, do you see your kind of business growing, or is your network going to cover more areas, or are more new networks and competition going to come on to be part of this new system that we’re going to be creating? Hearing: A continued assessment of delays in VA medical care and preventable veteran deaths; House Veterans Affairs Committee; April 9, 2014. 2:35 Rep. Jeff Miller (FL): On Monday, shortly before this public hearing, V.A. provided evidence that a total of 23 veterans have died due to delays and care at V.A. medical centers. Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our committee still doesn’t know when they may have happened beyond the statement from V.A. that they most likely occurred between 2010 and 2012. These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable. Outside of the V.A.’s consult review, this committee has reviewed at least 18 preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection-control practices, and a whole host—a whole host—of maladies that plagued the V.A. healthcare system all across this great nation. 8:53 Rep. Jeff Miller (FL): Mr. Coates waited for almost a year and would have waited even longer had he not personally persistently insisted on receiving the colonoscopy that he and his doctors knew that they needed. That same colonoscopy revealed that Mr. Coates had Stage IV colon cancer that had metastasized to his lungs and to his liver. 13:55 Barry Coates: My name is Barry Lynne Coates, and due to the inadequate and lack of followup care I received through the V.A. system, I stand here before you terminally ill today

It's the day after Halloween and we survived. Now what? I need to revisit a couple of stories that I didn't get to the last broadcast plus we have had big news since then that we should talk about.  Frank Stephens, an actor with Down Syndrome, gave one hell of a speech before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. A candidate in Virginia did jail time for threatening to kill the president and is pro-child ography. Thank you Terry McAuliffe. And don't forget about the Edwards Notebook and the Veteran's Tip of the Day! All of this and more as time allows. Listen live, join the chatroom, be a part of the show. Tapp into the Truth

It's the day after Halloween and we survived. Now what? I need to revisit a couple of stories that I didn't get to the last broadcast plus we have had big news since then that we should talk about. Frank Stephens, an actor with Down Syndrome, gave one hell of a speech before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. A candidate in Virginia did jail time for threatening to kill the president and is pro-child ography. Thank you Terry McAuliffe.And don't forget about the Edwards Notebook and the Veteran's Tip of the Day! All of this and more as time allows. Listen live, join the chatroom, be a part of the show.Tapp into the Truth

In the latest round of PC overload, the left has renewed its war on Halloween. What costumes are insensitive or worse, cultural appropriations? Two white nationalist groups, Vanguard America and The League of the South, organized "White Lives Matter" rallies in Shelbyville and Murfreesboro, Tennessee this past Saturday. Let's talk about it. Frank Stephens, an actor with Down Syndrome, gave one hell of a speech before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. A candidate in Virginia did jail time for threatening to kill the president and is pro-child ography. Thank you Terry McAuliffe.And don't forget about the Edwards Notebook and the Veteran's Tip of the Day! All of this and more as time allows. Listen live, join the chatroom, be a part of the show. Tapp into the Truth 

In the latest round of PC overload, the left has renewed its war on Halloween. What costumes are insensitive or worse, cultural appropriations? Two white nationalist groups, Vanguard America and The League of the South, organized "White Lives Matter" rallies in Shelbyville and Murfreesboro, Tennessee this past Saturday. Let's talk about it. Frank Stephens, an actor with Down Syndrome, gave one hell of a speech before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. A candidate in Virginia did jail time for threatening to kill the president and is pro-child ography. Thank you Terry McAuliffe. And don't forget about the Edwards Notebook and the Veteran's Tip of the Day! All of this and more as time allows. Listen live, join the chatroom, be a part of the show.   Tapp into the Truth  

This week, House Republicans released a blueprint for their proposed 2018 budget, Igor & Michele speak with Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd District), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and author of "The Least Among Us: Waging the Battle for the Vulnerable," and CAP’s Harry Stein to help us understand what’s in this budget, and what the American people REALLY need economically.

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday Podcast, Michael J. Novogradac, CPA, begins with the general news section, where he shares news on the Trump administration's plans to release a detailed tax plan. Then, he discusses one path that House appropriators are considering for passing 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2018. After that, he announces two congressional hearings. One is in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies and concerns the Trump administration's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget. The other is in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on the nomination of Pam Patenaude as HUD deputy secretary. In affordable housing news, he discusses a new methodology proposed by HUD on calculating fair market rents. Then, he outlines a Louisiana state court decision on affordable housing property valuations that could have significant consequences for affordable housing in New Orleans. He closes out with historic tax credit news, where he shares good news from Alabama and Louisiana.'

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday Podcast, Michael J. Novogradac, CPA, begins with the general news section, where he shares news on the Trump administration's plans to release a detailed tax plan. Then, he discusses one path that House appropriators are considering for passing 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2018. After that, he announces two congressional hearings. One is in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies and concerns the Trump administration's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget. The other is in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on the nomination of Pam Patenaude as HUD deputy secretary. In affordable housing news, he discusses a new methodology proposed by HUD on calculating fair market rents. Then, he outlines a Louisiana state court decision on affordable housing property valuations that could have significant consequences for affordable housing in New Orleans. He closes out with historic tax credit news, where he shares good news from Alabama and Louisiana. 

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday Podcast, Michael J. Novogradac, CPA, starts off with the general news section, where he talks about Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's tax reform timeline. He also discusses when the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies (T-HUD) may consider a new fiscal year 2017 spending bill. In low-income housing tax credit news, he talks about the recently released 2017 calendar year resident population figures. He also discusses a sign-on letter from the Affordable Rental Housing ACTION Campaign. Then he details the Housing for Homeless Students Act of 2017. In new markets tax credit news, he discusses a CDFI Coalition and NMTC Coalition advocacy letter sent to Mnuchin. Then, he summarizes the latest qualified equity investment (QEI) issuance report. After that, he shares CDFI Bond Guarantee program deadlines. He closes with historic tax credit news, where he talks about West Virginia's H.B. 2545, which would increase the state historic tax credit from 10 percent to 25 percent.

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday Podcast, Michael J. Novogradac, CPA, starts off with the general news section, where he talks about Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's tax reform timeline. He also discusses when the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies (T-HUD) may consider a new fiscal year 2017 spending bill. In low-income housing tax credit news, he talks about the recently released 2017 calendar year resident population figures. He also discusses a sign-on letter from the Affordable Rental Housing ACTION Campaign. Then he details the Housing for Homeless Students Act of 2017. In new markets tax credit news, he discusses a CDFI Coalition and NMTC Coalition advocacy letter sent to Mnuchin. Then, he summarizes the latest qualified equity investment (QEI) issuance report. After that, he shares CDFI Bond Guarantee program deadlines. He closes with historic tax credit news, where he talks about West Virginia's H.B. 2545, which would increase the state historic tax credit from 10 percent to 25 percent.

GUESTS: Ben Wolfgang, Washington Times White House reporter Rep. Robert Aderholt (R, AL), Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture Cully Stimson, Heritage Foundation fellow & attorney Rep. Bob Goodlate (R, VA), Chairman, House Judiciary Committee Jennifer Harper, Washington Times columnist, Inside the Beltway