Podcasts about Jacob Javits

President Trump has been threatening to “take back” the Panama Canal since he regained power. In this episode, listen to testimony from officials serving on the Federal Maritime Commission who explain why the Panama Canal has become a focus of the administration and examine whether or not we need to be concerned about an impending war for control of the canal. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Current Events around the Panama Canal March 5, 2025. the Associated Press. Sabrina Valle, Suzanne McGee, and Michael Martina. March 4, 2025. Reuters. Matt Murphy, Jake Horton and Erwan Rivault. February 14, 2025. BBC. May 1, 2024. World Weather Attribution. World Maritime News Staff. March 15, 2019. World Maritime News. July 29, 2018. Reuters. Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 U.S. Department of State. The Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” Michele Ruta. March 29, 2018. World Bank Group. The Trump-Gaza Video February 26, 2025. Sky News. Laws Audio Sources Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation January 28, 2025 Witnesses: Louis E. Sola, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Daniel B. Maffei, Commissioner, FMC , Professor, Scalia Law School, George Mason University Joseph Kramek, President & CEO, World Shipping Council Clips 17:30 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Between the American construction of the Panama Canal, the French effort to build an isthmus canal, and America's triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across Panama cost more than 35,000 lives. For the final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United States spent nearly $400 million, equivalent to more than $15 billion today. The Panama Canal proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and to the US economy. 18:45 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): But the Panama Canal was not just given away. President Carter struck a bargain. He made a treaty. And President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that that treaty is being violated right now. 19:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): President Trump has highlighted two key issues. Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit. 19:20 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the canal at a slow pace, so as to take nearly a decade. And Chinese companies control container points ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability to block the canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation, I believe, poses acute risks to US national security. 19:50 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Meanwhile, the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans, because US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of Canal transits. US Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships. Canal profits regularly exceed $3 billion. This money comes from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees Panama chooses to levy for canal transits, and they have paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly 1/10 of its budget is paid for with canal profit. 21:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama has for years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost fleet, which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil profits to fund terror across the world. 21:40 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): And Chinese companies have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous Belt and Road Initiative has come to Panama. China often engages in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion. In Panama, it also seems to have exploited simple corruption. 32:40 Louis Sola: The Panama Canal is managed by the Panama Canal Authority, ACP, an independent agency of the Panamanian government. The ACP is a model of public infrastructure management, and its independence has been key to ensure a safe and reliable transit of vessels critical to the US and global commerce. 33:25 Louis Sola: In contrast, the broader maritime sector in Panama, including the nation's ports, water rights, and the world's largest ship registry, falls under the direct purview of the Panamanian government. 33:35 Louis Sola: Unfortunately, this sector has faced persistent challenges, including corruption scandals and foreign influence, particularly from Brazil and China. These issues create friction with the ACP, especially as it works to address long term challenges such as securing adequate water supplies for the canal. 33:55 Louis Sola: Although the ACP operates independently, under US law both the ACP and the government of Panama's maritime sector are considered one in the same. This means that any challenges in Panama's maritime sector, including corruption, lack of transparency, or foreign influence, can have a direct or indirect impact on the operations and long term stability of the canal. This legal perspective highlights the need for diligence in monitoring both the ACP's management and Panama government's policies affecting maritime operations. 34:30 Louis Sola: Since 2015, Chinese companies have increased their presence and influence throughout Panama. Panama became a member of the Belt and Road Initiative and ended its diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Chinese companies have been able to pursue billions of dollars in development contracts in Panama, many of which were projects directly on or adjacent to the Panama Canal. Many were no bid contracts. Labor laws were waived, and the Panamanian people are still waiting to see how they've been benefited. It is all more concerning that many of these companies are state-owned, and in some cases, even designated as linked to the People's Liberation Army. We must address the significant growing presence and influence of China throughout the Americas and in Panama, specifically. 35:20 Louis Sola: American companies should play a leading role in enhancing the canal's infrastructure. By supporting US firms, we reduce reliance on Chinese contractors and promote fair competition. 36:55 Daniel Maffei: Because the canal is essentially a waterway bridge over mountainous terrain above sea level, it does depend on large supplies of fresh water to maintain the full operations. Panama has among the world's largest annual rainfalls. Nonetheless, insufficient fresh water levels have occurred before in the canal's history, such as in the 1930s when the Madden Dam and Lake Alajuela were built to address water shortages. Since that time, the canal has undertaken several projects to accommodate larger, more modern ships. In the last couple of years, a trend of worsening droughts in the region, once again, has forced limits to the operations of the canal. Starting in June of 2023 the Panama Canal Authority employed draft restrictions and reduced the number of ships allowed to transit the canal per day. Now the Panama Canal limitations, in combination with the de facto closure of the Suez Canal to container traffic, has had serious consequences for ocean commerce, increasing rates, fees and transit times. 39:30 Daniel Maffei: Now, fortunately, Panama's 2024 rainy season has, for now, alleviated the most acute water supply issues at the canal, and normal transit volumes have been restored. That said, while the Panamanian government and Canal Authority have, with the advice of the US Army Corps of Engineers, developed credible plans to mitigate future water shortages, they also warned that it is likely that at least one more period of reduced transits will occur before these plans can be fully implemented. 41:55 Eugene Kontorovich: We shall see that under international law, each party to the treaty is entitled to determine for itself whether a violation has occurred. Now, in exchange for the United States ceding control of the canal which it built and maintained, Panama agreed to a special regime of neutrality. The essential features of this regime of neutrality is that the canal must be open to all nations for transit. That's Article Two. Equitable tolls and fees, Article Three. An exclusive Panamanian operation, Article Five. The prohibition of any foreign military presence, Article Five. Article Five provides that only Panama shall operate the canal. Testifying about the meaning of the treaty at the Senate ratification hearings, the Carter administration emphasized that this prohibits foreign operation of the canal, as well as the garrisoning of foreign troops. Now, Article Five appears to be primarily concerned about control by foreign sovereigns. If Panama signed a treaty with the People's Republic of China, whereby the latter would operate the canal on Panama's behalf, this would be a clear violation. But what if Panama contracted for port operations with a Chinese state firm, or even a private firm influenced or controlled in part by the Chinese government? The Suez Canal Company was itself, before being nationalized, a private firm in which the United Kingdom was only a controlling shareholder. Yet this was understood to represent British control over the canal. In other words, a company need not be owned by the government to be in part controlled by the government. So the real question is the degree of de jure or de facto control over a Foreign Sovereign company, and scenarios range from government companies in an authoritarian regime, completely controlled, to purely private firms in our open society like the United States, but there's many possible situations in the middle. The treaty is silent on the question of how much control is too much, and as we'll see, this is one of the many questions committed to the judgment and discretion of each party. Now turning to foreign security forces, the presence of third country troops would manifestly violate Article Five. But this does not mean that anything short of a People's Liberation Army base flying a red flag is permissible. The presence of foreign security forces could violate the regime of neutrality, even if they're not represented in organized and open military formations. Modern warfare has seen belligerent powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their actions in civilian garb, from Russia's notorious little green men to Hamas terrorists hiding in hospitals or disguised as journalists. Bad actors seek to exploit the fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China's man made islands in the South China Sea began as civilian projects before being suddenly militarized. Indeed, this issue was discussed in the Senate ratification hearings over the treaty. Dean Rusk said informal forces would be prohibited under the treaty. Thus the ostensible civilian character of the Chinese presence around the canal does not, in itself, mean that it could not represent a violation of the treaty if, for example, these companies and their employees involved Chinese covert agents or other agents of the Chinese security forces. So this leads us to the final question, Who determines whether neutrality is being threatened or compromised? Unlike many other treaties that provide for third party dispute resolution, the neutrality treaty has no such provision. Instead, the treaty makes clear that each party determines for itself the existence of a violation. Article Four provides that each party is separately authorized to maintain the regime of neutrality, making a separate obligation of each party. The Senate's understanding accompanying to ratification also made clear that Article Five allows each party to take, quote, "unilateral action." Senator Jacob Javits, at the markup hearing, said that while the word unilateral is abrasive, we can quote, "decide that the regime of neutrality is being threatened and then act with whatever means are necessary to keep the canal neutral unilaterally." 46:35 Joseph Kramek: My name is Joe Kramek. I'm President and CEO of the World Shipping Council. The World Shipping Council is the global voice of liner shipping. Our membership consists of 90% of the world's liner shipping tonnage, which are container vessels and vehicle carriers. They operate on fixed schedules to provide our customers with regular service to ship their goods in ports throughout the world. 47:15 Joseph Kramek: As you have heard, using the Panama Canal to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific saves significant time and money. A typical voyage from Asia to the US or East Coast can be made in under 30 days using the canal, while the same journey can take up to 40 days if carriers must take alternate routes. From a commercial trade perspective, the big picture is this. One of the world's busiest trade lanes is the Trans Pacific. The Trans Pacific is cargo coming from and going to Asia via the United States. Focusing in a bit, cargo coming from Asia and bound for US Gulf and East Coast ports always transits the Panama Canal. Similarly, cargo being exported from US and East Coast ports, a large share of which are US Agricultural exports, like soybeans, corn, cotton, livestock and dairy also almost always transits the Panama Canal. The result is that 75% of Canal traffic originates in or is bound for the United States. 48:55 Joseph Kramek: We've talked about the drought in 2023 and the historic low water levels that it caused in Lake Gatún, which feeds the canal locks, a unique system that is a fresh water feed, as contrasted to an ocean to ocean system, which the French tried and failed, but which is actually active in the Suez Canal. These low water levels reduced transits from 36 transits a day to as low as 22 per day. Additionally, the low water levels required a reduction in maximum allowable draft levels, or the depth of the ship below the water line, which for our members reduced the amount of containers they could carry through the canal. This resulted in a 10% reduction in import volumes for US Gulf and East Coast ports, with the Port of Houston experiencing a 26.7% reduction. 51:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Are you aware of allegations from some vessel operators of disparate treatment such as sweetheart deals or favorable rebates by Panama for canal transits? Louis Sola: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, we have become aware through some complaints by cruise lines that said that they were not getting a refund of their canal tolls. When we looked into this, we found a Panamanian Executive Order, Decree 73, that specifically says that if a cruise line would stop at a certain port, that they could be refunded 100% of the fees. And as far as I know, that's the only instant where that exists. 53:05 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): So Panama was the very first Latin American country to join China's Belt and Road Initiative, and right now, China is building a fourth bridge across the Panama Canal for car traffic and light rail. Chairman Sola, why should Chinese construction of a bridge near Panama City concern the United States? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, we all saw the tragedy that happened here in the Francis Scott Key Bridge incident and the devastation that had happened to Baltimore. We also saw recently what happened in the Suez Canal, where we had a ship get stuck in there. It's not only the construction of the bridge, but it's a removal of a bridge, as I understand it, called the Bridge of the Americas. It was built in 1961 and that would paralyze cargo traffic in and out of the canals. 53:55 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama also recently renewed the concessions for two container ports to a Chinese company, Hutchison Ports PPC. Of course, Chinese companies are controlled by the Communist Party. How does China use control of those ports for economic gain? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, I am a regulator, a competition regulator. And the Chinese ports that you're referring to, let me put them into scope. The one on the Pacific, the Port of Balboa, is roughly the same size as the Port of Houston. They do about 4 million containers a year. They have about 28 game tree cranes. The one on the Atlantic is the same as my hometown in Miami, they do about 1 million containers. So where Roger Gunther in the Port of Houston generates about $1 billion a year and Heidi Webb in Miami does about $200 million, the Panama ports company paid 0 for 20 years on that concession. So it's really hard to compete against zero. So I think that's our concern, our economic concern, that we would have. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Commissioner Maffei, anything to add on that? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, I do too also think it is important. I would point out that you don't have to stop at either port. It's not like these two ports control the entrance to the canal. That is the Canal Authority that does control that. However, I think it's of concern. I would also point out that the Panamanian government thinks it's of concern too, because they're conducting their own audit of those particular deals, but we remain very interested as well. 56:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Would the facts discussed here be considered violations of the neutrality treaty in force right now between the United States and Panama? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think Senator, I think potentially they could, but it's impossible to say definitively without knowing more, in particular, about the degree of Chinese control and involvement in these companies. I think it's important to note that these port operation companies that operate the ports on both sides, when they received their first contract, it was just a few months before Hong Kong was handed over to China. In other words, they received them as British companies, sort of very oddly, just a few months before the handover. Now, of course, since then, Hong Kong has been incorporated into China, has been placed under a special national security regime, and the independence of those companies has been greatly abridged, to say nothing of state owned companies involved elsewhere in in the canal area, which raised significantly greater questions. Additionally, I should point out that the understandings between President Carter and Panamanian leader Herrera, which were attached to the treaty and form part of the treaty, provide that the United States can, quote, "defend the canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality," and I understand that as providing some degree of preemptive authority to intervene. One need not wait until the canal is actually closed by some act of sabotage or aggression, which, as we heard from the testimony, would be devastating to the United States, but there is some incipient ability to address potential violations. 58:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): If the United States determines that Panama is in violation of the treaty, what is the range of remedies the United States would have for that treaty violation? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think it may be shocking to people to hear today, but when one goes over the ratification history and the debates and discussions in this body over this treaty, it was clear that the treaty was understood as giving both sides, separately, the right to resort to use armed force to enforce the provisions of the treaty. And it's not so surprising when one understands that the United States made an extraordinary concession to Panama by transferring this canal, which the United States built at great expense and maintained and operated to Panama, gratis. And in exchange, it received a kind of limitation, a permanent limitation on Panamanians sovereignty, that Panama agreed that the United States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force. Now, of course, armed force should never be the first recourse for any kind of international dispute and should not be arrived at sort of rationally or before negotiations and other kinds of good offices are exhausted, but it's quite clear that the treaty contemplates that as a remedy for violations. 1:03:20 Louis Sola: I believe that the security of the canal has always been understood to be provided by the United States. Panama does not have a military, and I always believed that there's been a close relationship with Southern Command that we would provide that. And it would be nice to see if we had a formalization of that in one way or another, because I don't believe that it's in the treaty at all. 1:05:05 Daniel Maffei: While we were down there, both of us heard, I think, several times, that the Panamanians would, the ones we talked to anyway, would welcome US companies coming in and doing a lot of this work. Frankly, their bids are not competitive with the Chinese bids. Frankly, they're not that existent because US companies can make more money doing things other places, but even if they were existent, it is difficult to put competitive bids when the Chinese bids are so heavily subsidized by China. 1:06:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What would China's incentive be to heavily subsidize those bids to undercut American companies and other companies? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, it's not a real short answer, but Senator, China's made no secret of its ambitious policies to gain influence of ports throughout the globe. It's invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries. It runs a majority of 17 ports, that does not include this Hong Kong company, right? So that's just directly Chinese-owned ports. So it has been a part of their Belt and Road strategy, whatever you want to call it, the Maritime Silk Road, for decades. So they believe that this influence, this investment in owning maritime ports is important to their economy. 1:07:05 Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): In 2021, Hutchison was awarded those two ports, Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, in a no-bid award process. Can you tell me, does the United States have any authority or recourse with the Panama Canal Authority under our current agreement with Panama to rebid those terminal concession contracts. And perhaps Mr. Kantorovich, that's more in your purview? Louis Sola: Senator, both of those ports were redone for 25 years, until 2047, I believe. And they have to pay $7 million is what the ongoing rate is for the Port of Houston- and the Port of Miami-sized concessions. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And it can't be rebid until after that date? Louis Sola: Well, I believe that that's what the comptroller's office is auditing both of those ports and that contract. That was done under the previous Panamanian administration. A new administration came in, and they called for an audit of that contract immediately. 1:20:10 Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Are the companies now controlling both sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese companies, subject to the PRC national security laws that mandate cooperation with the military, with state intelligence agencies. Does anyone know that? Eugene Kontorovich: They're subject all the time. They're subject to those laws all the time by virtue of being Hong Kong companies. And you know, they face, of course, consequences for not complying with the wishes of the Chinese government. One of the arguments -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Wouldn't that be a violation of the treaty? And isn't that a huge risk to us right now that the Chinese -- Eugene Kontorovich: That is a threat to the neutrality -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): If they invaded Taiwan, invaded the Philippines, they could go to these two companies saying, Hey, shut it down, make it hard, sink a ship in the canal. And wouldn't they be obligated to do that under Chinese law if they were ordered to by the PLA or the CCP? Eugene Kontorovich: I don't know if they'd be obligated, but certainly the People's Republic of China would have many tools of leverage and pressure on these companies. That's why the treaty specifically says that we can act not just to end actual obstructions to the canal. We don't have to wait until the canal is closed by hostile military action. Thatwould be a suicide pact, that would be catastrophic for us, but rather that we can respond at the inchoate, incipient level to threats, and then this is up to the president to determine whether this is significantly robust to constitute -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): So aren't we kind of walking up to the idea of a suicide pact, because we've got two big Chinese companies on both ends of the Panama Canal, who, if there's a war in INDOPACOM, Taiwan that involves us and China, these companies would be obligated to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party and PLA? I mean, are we kind of walking up to a very significant national security threat already? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, certainly, there's a threat. And I think what makes the action of the Chinese government so difficult to respond to, but important to respond to, is that they conceal this in sort of levels of gray without direct control. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Let me ask you on that topic, as my last question, Professor, let's assume that we find out. And again, it wouldn't be surprising. I think you can almost assume it that these two companies have Chinese spies or military officials within the ranks of the employees of the companies. Let's assume we found that out, somehow that becomes public. But I don't think it's a big assumption. It's probably true right now. So you have spies and military personnel within the ranks of these two companies that are controlling both ends of the Panama Canal for you, Professor, and Chairman Sola, wouldn't that be a blatant violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty, if that were true, which probably is true? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, I do think it would be a clear violation. As former Secretary of State, Dean Ross said at the ratification hearings, informal forces can violate Article Five as well as formal forces. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Is there any evidence of Chinese spies or other nefarious Chinese actors embedded in these companies? Louis Sola: Senator, we have no information of that. That's not under the purview of -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): But you agree that would be a violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty? Louis Sola: I do. 1:26:25 Daniel Maffei: Senator Sullivan was talking about Hutchison Ports. That's actually the same company that runs terminals on both ends of the canal. I am concerned about that. However, if we want to be concerned about that, all of us should lose a lot more sleep than we're losing because if there are spies there, then there might be spies at other Hutchinson ports, and there are other Hutchinson ports in almost every part of the world. They own the largest container port in the United Kingdom, Felix Dow, which is responsible for nearly half of Britain's container trade. They control major maritime terminals in Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, the Netherlands, South Korea and Tanzania. If owning and managing adjacent ports means that China somehow has operational control or strategic control over the Panama Canal, they also have it over the Suez, the Singapore Straits, the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. 1:35:45 Louis Sola: The fees that I think we are looking at, or have been looked at, the reason that we went there was because of the auctioning of the slots. And so what Panama did is they had a smaller percentage, maybe 20% allocation, and then they moved it up to 30% and 40% because it became a money maker for them. So as they were doing -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, let me interject here. The auctioning of the slots gives these the right to skip the queue? Louis Sola: Yes, ma'am. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, so just for the record there. Continue. Louis Sola: So the auctioning of the slots. Under maritime law, it's first come first serve, but Panama has always put a certain percentage aside, and they started to put more and more. So we got a lot of complaints. We got a lot of complaints from LNG carriers that paid $4 million to go through, and we got a lot of complaints from agriculture that didn't have the money to pay to go through, because their goods were gonna go down. So if you look at the financial statements -- I'm a nerd, I look at financial statements of everybody -- the canal increased the amount of revenue that they had from about $500 million to $1.8 billion in the last three years just because of those fees. So this is what is very concerning to us. 1:39:20 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you know of any instances where the United States has been singled out or treated unfairly under the neutrality treaty in the operation of the canal? Daniel Maffei: I do not. I would add that one of the reasons why saying the US is disproportionately affected by raises in Canal fees and other kinds of fees at the canal is because the United States disproportionately utilizes the canal. 1:44:55 Louis Sola: We have a US port there, SSA, out of Washington State that I actually worked on the development of that many years ago, and helped develop that. That used to be a United States Navy submarine base, and we converted that. As far as the two ports that we have, they're completely different. One is a major infrastructure footprint, and also a container port that's moving 4 million containers a year. That's really phenomenal amount. That's more than Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and you've probably got to get Tampa and a little bit of Jacksonville in there to get that type of volume. And on the other side, we have a very small port, but it's a very strategic port on the Atlantic. So how are the operations done?I don't know how they don't make money. I mean, if you want to come right down to it, if they've been operating the port for 20 years, and they say that they haven't made any money, so they haven't been able to pay the government. That's what concerns me is I don't believe that we're on a level playing field with the American ports. 1:58:50 Eugene Kontorovich: I think the charges and fees are less of an issue because they don't discriminate across countries. We pay more because we use more, but it's not nationally discriminatory. 1:59:00 Eugene Kontorovich: The presence of Chinese companies, especially Chinese state companies, but not limited to them, do raise serious issues and concerns for the neutrality of the treaty. And I should point out, in relation to some of the earlier questioning, the canal, for purposes of the neutrality treaty, is not limited just to the actual locks of the canal and the transit of ships through the canal. According to Annex One, paragraph one of the treaty, it includes also the entrances of the canal and the territorial sea of Panama adjacent to it. So all of the activities we're talking about are within the neutrality regime, the geographic scope of the neutrality regime in the treaty. 2:00:30 Daniel Maffei: I actually have to admit, I'm a little confused as to why some of the senators asking these questions, Senator Blackburn, aren't more concerned about the biggest port in the United Kingdom being run by the Chinese. Petraeus in the port nearest Athens, one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean, is not just run by a Chinese-linked company, it's run directly by a Chinese-owned company, and I was there. So you're on to something, but if you're just focusing on Panama, that's only part. 2:01:45 Louis Sola: About a year ago, when we were having this drought issue, there was also a lot of focus on Iran and how they were funding Hamas and the Houthis because they were attacking the Red Sea. What the United States has found is that Iranian vessels are sometimes flagged by Panama in order to avoid sanctions, so that they could sell the fuel that they have, and then they can take that money and then they can use it as they wish. Panama, at the time, had a very complicated process to de-flag the vessels. There was an investigation, there was an appeals process. By the time that OFAC or Treasury would go ahead and identify one of those vessels, by the time that they were doing the appeals and stuff like this, they've already changed flags to somewhere else. So when we went to Panama, we met with the Panamanian president, and I must say that we were very impressed, because he was 30 minutes late, but he was breaking relations with Venezuela at the time because the election was the day before. We explained to him the situation. The very next day, we met with the maritime minister, with US embassy personnel and Panama actually adjusted their appeals process so to make it more expedient, so if the United States or OFAC would come and say that this Iranian vessel is avoiding sanctions, now we have a process in place to go ahead and do that, and 53 vessels were de-flagged because of that. 2:06:05 Sen. John Curtis (R-UT): Is there any reason that China can't watch or do whatever they want from this bridge to get the intel from these containers? And does that concern anybody? Louis Sola: Well, it definitely concerns Southern Command, because they've brought it up on numerous occasions that there could be some sort of surveillance or something like that on the bridges. 2:20:30 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): We segregate ourselves artificially in a way that they do not. We segregate ourselves. Let's talk about military. Let's talk about intelligence. Let's talk about economics. They don't. China doesn't work that way. It's a whole of government approach. They don't draw a delineation between an economics discussion and a military one. And their attack may not look like Pearl Harbor. It may look like an everyday ship that decides, you know, it pulls into the locks and blows itself up. And now the locks are non-functional for our usage, and we can't support an inter ocean fleet transfer, and our ability to defend it, as you referred to Chairman, is now inhibited by the fact that we no longer have the military infrastructure around the canal that we did just as recently as 1999. 2:21:10 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): So from a commercial perspective, do the shipping companies have concerns over the security of the narrow waterways? We've the Strait to Malacca, we've got the Suez Canal, we've got Gibraltar, we've got Panama. Is that a concern that's thrown around in the boardrooms of the largest shipping corporations in the world? Joseph Kramek: Senator, I think it's something they think about every day. I mean, really, it's drawn into sharp relief with the Red Sea. It was what I call a pink flamingo. There's black swans that just come up and there's pink flamingos that you can see, but you don't act. But no one really thought a whole lot that one of the most important waterways in the world could be denied, and moreover, that it could be denied for such a sustained period. The good news is that -- Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): And denied, I might add, by a disaffected non-state actor of Bedouins running around with rocket launchers, who also managed to beat us in a 20 year war in Afghanistan. My point to saying all this is we're just debating operational control of the canal, yet it seems very clear to all of us that a very simple act can debilitate the canal and eliminate our ability to use it in a matter of minutes with no warning, and we have no ability to intervene or stop that. To me, that means we do not have operational control of the canal. 2:30:40 Daniel Maffei: I will say that certainly we need to look at other kinds of ways to get US companies in positions where they can truly compete with the Chinese on some of these things. Blaming it all on Panama really misses the point. I've seen the same thing in Greece, where Greece didn't want to give the concession of its largest port to a Chinese company, but because of its financial difficulties, it was getting pressure from international organizations such the IMF, Europe and even maybe some of the United States to do so. So I just ask you to look at that. 2:31:20 Daniel Maffei: Panamanians are making far more on their canal than they ever have before. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's going to the right place. But where they're really making the money is on these auctions, and that is why it remains a concern of mine and I'm sure the chairman's. That is where we are looking at, potentially, using our authority under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act where we could, if we can show that it is a problem with the foreign trade of the US, it's interfering with foreign trade of the US, there are certain things that we can do. Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 15, 2024 Clips 4:01:40 Marco Rubio: The thing with Panama on the canal is not new. I visited there. It was 2016. I think I've consistently seen people express concern about it, and it's encapsulized here in quote after quote. Let me tell you the former US ambassador who served under President Obama said: "the Chinese see in Panama what we saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and aviation logistics hub." The immediate past head of Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, said, "I was just in Panama about a month ago and flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each side of the Panama Canal. They look like civilian companies or state owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and could be quickly changed over to a military capability." We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in the house China Select Committee, where he asked a witness and they agreed that in a time of conflict, China could use its presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the United States in a conflict situation. So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I've been in the United States Senate, and they've only accelerated further. And this is a very legitimate issue that we face there. I'm not prepared to answer this question because I haven't looked at the legal research behind it yet, but I'm compelled to suspect that an argument could be made that the terms under which that canal were turned over have been violated. Because while technically, sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power, in reality, a foreign power today possesses, through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict. And that is a direct threat to the national interest and security the United States, and is particularly galling given the fact that we paid for it and that 5,000 Americans died making it. That said, Panama is a great partner on a lot of other issues, and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and of its security, and also continue to work with them cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common, including what to do with migration. 4:38:35 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Now, President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the fact that there are some questions arising about the status of the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal, we're reminded that some things maybe aren't quite as they should be there right now. Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that there's at least an open question. There's some doubt as to whether the canal remains neutral. Would you agree with that assessment? Marco Rubio: Yes. Here's the challenge. Number one, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian government, particularly its current office holders, are very friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want that to continue, and I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the canal. Now I am not, President Trump is not inventing this. This is something that's existed now for at least a decade. In my service here, I took a trip to Panama in 2017. When on that trip to Panama in 2017 it was the central issue we discussed about the canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west, and the concerns among military officials and security officials, including in Panama, at that point, that that could one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment of conflict. Going back to that I -- earlier before you got here, and I don't want to have to dig through this folder to find it again, but -- basically cited how the immediate past head of Southern Command, just retired general Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw those Chinese port facilities, and said Those look like dual use facilities that in a moment of conflict, could be weaponized against us. The bipartisan China commission over in the House last year, had testimony and hearings on this issue, and members of both parties expressed concern. The former ambassador to Panama under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be confronted. The second point is the one you touched upon, and that is, look, could an argument be made, and I'm not prepared to answer it yet, because it's something we're going to have to study very carefully. But I think I have an inkling of I know where this is going to head. Can an argument be made that the Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime they want? Because if they order a Chinese company that controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit, they will have to do so. There are no independent Chinese companies. They all exist because they've been identified as national champions. They're supported by the Chinese government. And if you don't do what they want, they find a new CEO, and you end up being replaced and removed. So they're under the complete control of their government. This is a legitimate question, and one that Senators Risch had some insight as well. He mentioned that in passing that needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal issue is a very serious one. 4:44:30 Marco Rubio: In 2016 and 2017 that was well understood that part of the investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries to flip their recognition away from Taiwan. That happened. Jen Briney's Recent Guest Appearances Travis Makes Money: Give and Take: Music by Editing Production Assistance

On this weeks forecast! Trump visits barbershop in the Bronx. Yankees win to proceeded to the World Series. Looks like the Bronx is up! Six new lawsuits allegedly for P Diddy. & A vigil for the four-year-old in Harlem that died of starvation. Big Meech released according to records and a photo allegedly. Breast cancer awareness month takes over Central Park in their annual walk. New York comic con takes over Jacob Javits center in Midtown. Hot topic news and more! Like and subscribe. Available on Spotify and Apple podcast to name a few. Original music by @mrcakeave Ep 192 Road to 200! NY CERTIFIED PODCAST

En el año 1976 el editor Walter White Jr. tuvo ocasión de entrevistar a Harold Wallace Rosenthal, asistente personal del por aquel entonces senador de Nueva York, Jacob Javits. Poco tiempo después Harold moriría asesinado durante el transcurso de un ataque terrorista en Estambul (Turquía). La entrevista vería la luz tiempo después bajo el título “La tiranía oculta”, en la cual Harold expone un plan de dominación mundial. Igualmente fue reeditada en el año 1990, siendo calificada de antisemita y señalada como falsa. Dicha entrevista también es considerada por muchos como la más importante de los últimos tiempos y cuanto menos digna de análisis. En el presente episodio podrás escuchar una recreación de la misma, basada en su transcripción. Este programa no se responsabiliza del contenido de dicha entrevista, la cual es de dominio público, al igual que no implica conformidad alguna con las declaraciones vertidas en ella. ENLACES A LA ENTREVISTA: https://www.studocu.com/bo/document/universidad-mayor-de-san-simon/ciencias-de-la-comunicacion-social/harold-wallace-rosenthal-interview-1976/80483040 https://es.scribd.com/document/240734923/Entrevista-en-1976-a-Harold-W https://bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_zion89.htm https://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/Harold_Wallace_Rosenthal_Interview_1976.htm https://religionlavozlibre.blogspot.com/2023/02/el-dios-de-los-judios-es-lucifer-h-w.html URSULA HAVERBECK - CONDENADA A 2 AÑOS DE CÁRCEL POR NEGAR EL HOLOCAUSTO: https://www.france24.com/es/20180508-abuela-nazi-holocausto-alemania-carcel MONS. VIGANÓ - HOLOCAUSTO SANITARIO, EL GOLPE MUNDIAL CONTINÚA: https://tierrapura.info/2024/03/12/mons-vigano-holocausto-sanitario-el-golpe-mundial-continua/ UNO DE CADA CINCO JÓVENES ESTADOUNIDENSES PIENSAN QUE EL HOLOCAUSTO ES UN MITO: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/1-5-young-americans-say-holocaust-was-myth-twice-many-democrats-republicans RABINO JABAD LUBAVITH - LA DIFERENCIA ENTRE JUDÍOS Y NO JUDÍOS ES TAN GRANDE QUE DEBEN SER CONSIDERADOS COMO ESPECIES DIFERENTES: https://elcasopedrovarela.wordpress.com/2024/02/26/rabino-jabad-lubavitch-la-diferencia-entre-judios-y-no-judios-es-tan-grande-que-deben-ser-considerados-como-especies-diferentes/ YUVAL NOAH HARARI - LA MAYORÍA DE LA GENTE SERÁ INNECESARIA EN EL SIGLO XXI: https://www.elperiodico.com/es/ocio-y-cultura/20161010/entrevista-yval-noah-harari-homo-deus-5482036 NAZISMO Y SIONISMO - LAS DOS CARAS DE LA MONEDA: http://nazismosionismo.blogspot.com/2012/03/introduccion-nazismo-y-sionismo-las-dos.html DOCUMENTAL HELLSTORM - EL HOLOCAUSTO OCULTO (CENSURADO): https://veritasconexion.blogspot.com/2016/01/documental-hellstorm-el-holocausto.html ENLACE AL DOCUMENTAL "HELLSTORM" - MICHAEL THOMAS GOODRICH: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1143113485750158 CONTACTO: eliniciado@yahoo.com Este programa no tiene ánimo de lucro ni será monetizado, por el contrario el único afán es la máxima divulgación de cuestiones que nos atañen a todos.

Elizabeth Holtzman is best known for her legendary primary upset of the Dean of the House in 1972, making her the youngest woman elected to Congress and propelling her to national notice as part of the House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings of Richard Nixon. Even beyond that specific era, the diversity and duration of her public service is nearly unrivaled...including working in 1960s Georgia to advance civil rights, her role bringing 100+ Nazi War Criminals closer to justice, becoming the first woman to be a District Attorney in New York City,  the only woman to serve as NYC comptroller, and an impactful political legacy spanning several decades that continues to this day.IN THIS EPISODEMemories of growing up in an immigrant family in Brooklyn, NY...An incredibly formative experience working on civil rights issues in Albany, GA...Her instrumental role bringing 100+ Nazi war criminals to justice in the 1970s...How she became the youngest woman elected to Congress by beating the Dean of the House in 1972...Stories of taking on the Brooklyn political machine...An unsettling comment from a veteran member after she's first elected to the House...Memories of her service on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon Impeachment Hearings...Her rejection of the revisionist view of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon...Analyzing her very narrow loss for US Senate in 1980...Looking back on her stint as both Brooklyn District Attorney and NYC Comptroller...Her view on the "finest mayor NYC has had"...Comparing her 2022 House race to her first run in 1972...Her view of the current Supreme Court as "illegitimate"...The couple of times her path crossed with Donald Trump in NYC politics...AND Abraham Lincoln High, Samuel Alito, Birch Bayh, Jimmy Breslin, bureaucratic gobbledygook, the CIA, CORE, Jimmy Carter, cattle prods, Manny Celler, Frank Church, Cracker Barrel, John Culver, Al D'Amato, Mike Dewine, William O. Douglas, Meade Esposito, the first piece of paper, Flatbush, Gimbles, The Godfather, Barry Goldwater, the instrumentality of the state, Jacob Javits, John Lindsay, Carolyn Maloney, James Meredith, Pat Moynihan, NAACP, Radcliffe, John Rhodes, Peter Rodino, Russian pogroms, SNCC, Bernie Sanders, Hugh Scott, shoe leather, smoking guns, John Paul Stevens, Adlai Stevenson, Tammany Hall, Clarence Thomas, Larry Tribe, whistleblowers, witch hunts & more!

You almost certainly know that, for decades, Stu Rothenberg and his Rothenberg Political Report (now Inside Elections) penned among the most influential political analysis in Washington. But you probably don't know the origin story...his initial academic career track, how he cut his political teeth at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and what led to launching his own newsletter. In this conversation, we talk through all of that plus his most memorable interactions with candidates, biggest surprises, savviest politicians, and when he knew it was time to pass the newsletter baton to his partner Nathan Gonzales. IN THIS EPISODEStu grows up in a family of Rockefeller Republicans in Central Park West Manhattan…Stu's growing interest in politics and initial career trajectory to become an academic…How Stu's path diverted from the academic track to join the political operation of the conservative Heritage Foundation…Stu's tutelage under conservative political icon Paul Weyrich…What led to launching the Rothenberg Report newsletter…Stu's early intersection with fellow newsletter groundbreaker Charlie Cook…Stu's memories from “candidate interviews” with Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, and Barack Obama…Stu on the single biggest surprising result in his decades as a political observer…Stu talks some of the smartest political minds in Congress & the one committee chair who was a “giant pain in the ass”…The backstory behind a favorite Rothenberg column “For the Thousandth Time, Don't Call It a Push Poll”…Stu's memorable 2006 meeting with then-Vice President Dick Cheney…How Stu handled passing the torch of the Rothenberg Report to Inside Elections with Nathan Gonzales…AND The Almanac of American Politics, Morton Blackwell, Bill Bradley, Sherry Boehlert, Mary Bono, Sonny Bono, William Buckley, Bucknell University, CNN, CSX, Canadian-American regional integration, the Club for Growth, Colby College, complicated conservatives, Ted Cruz, Al D'Amato, Mitch Daniels, Tom Davis, David Dewhurst, egomaniacs, Rollie Fingers, Charles Franklin, the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Mark French, Milton Friedman, Martin Frost, The Greenbrier, Nikki Haley, Tom Harkin, Peter Hart, Friedrich Hayek, Blair Hull, “It's Only Politics”, Jan Plans, Jacob Javits, Roger Jepsen, Tommy John, Ben Jones, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Kenneth Keating, Harmon Killebrew, Leading Authorities, Louis Lefkowitz, Jon Lerner, John Lindsay, Juan Marichal, Marxist feminists, John McCain, Joe McLean, Ed Muskie, NYU, Lindsey Nelson, Frank Newport, Richard Nixon, George Pataki, political goo, Walter Rich, Roll Call, Jack Ryan, Larry Sabato, sewage trolls, Casey Stengel, Inez Tenenbaum, total losers, Donald Trump, UCONN, Amy Walter…& more!

Congressional observer Ira Shapiro revisits his past critiques of Congress. Ira Shapiro's forty-five-year Washington career has focused on American politics and international trade. Shapiro served twelve years in senior staff positions in the U.S. Senate, working for a series of distinguished senators: Jacob Javits, Gaylord Nelson, Abraham Ribicoff, Thomas Eagleton, Robert Byrd, and Jay Rockefeller. He served in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative during the Clinton administration, first as general counsel and then chief negotiator with Japan and Canada, with the rank of ambassador. In his most recent book on the U.S. Senate, The Betrayal: How Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans Abandoned America (Rowman & Littlefield; May 17, 2022), Shapiro turns his gaze to how the Senate responded to the challenges posed by the Trump administration and its prospects under President Biden.

Gary Hart has perhaps the most unique political career of his generation...staffer for Robert Kennedy's Justice Department...manager of George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign...two-term US Senator...nearly becoming the Democratic nominee for President in 1984...starting 1988 as the Democratic frontrunner before leaving the race amid a media frenzy...and 5+ decades as a forward-looking thinker on the challenges facing the U.S. and the world.(To donate to support The Pro Politics Podcast, you may use this venmo link or inquire by email at mccrary.zachary@gmail.com)IN THIS EPISODE…Growing up in a farming town in Eastern Kansas and his roots in the Church of the Nazarene…How a connection to Robert Kennedy leads to managing the McGovern campaign in 1972…The Iowa strategy that helped McGovern win the '72 Democratic nomination…The one word that defined the success of the McGovern primary campaign…Inside the chaotic Tom Eagleton / Sargent Shriver '72 VP process…How he made the jump from campaign manager to a winning first-time US Senate candidate…Senator Hart remembers his Colorado Democratic colleague, the late Congresswoman Pat Schroeder…Early memories as a 36-year old U.S. Senator…How he forged a path as a new breed of Democrat…What led him to run for President in 1984 and how he nearly won the nomination….Who might have been Gary Hart's 1984 VP choice?Why he didn't run for re-election in 1986?What he will and won't say about the short-lived '88 campaign and why the “true story” may never come out…How he tackled his career after leaving the national stage as a candidate…The current issue Senator Hart believes is most under-discussed…Reflecting on his 50+ year friendship with Joe Biden…His confusion over the current state of US politics…His lifelong affinity for used-book stores… AND Atari Democrats, Matt Bai, Michael Bennet, Brumus, Carnegie libraries, clever journalistic shorthands, Bill Clinton, cool and aloof, Walter Cronkite, Detroit, Eisenhower Republicans, The Fairness Doctrine, Geraldine Ferraro, generational friction, Dick Gephardt, Newt Gingrich, John Glenn, Al Gore, Happy Days, hinges of history, Hubert Humphrey, Hugh Jackman, Jacob Javits, JFK, Pat Leahy, Mike Mansfield, Mac Mathias, the McGovern Army, Ed Muskie, the Military Reform Caucus, the National Security Division, The New York Times, Richard Nixon, peanut butter sandwiches, Warren Rudman, the Sermon on the Mount, Silicon Valley, super-delegates, Rick Stearns, Stu Symington, tremendous ferment, Stewart Udall, Watergate, Theodore White, Tim Wirth & more!

Who's lived a more varied, interesting political life over the last 6 decades than Jeff Greenfield? Aide and speechwriter to Senator Robert Kennedy...staffer for NYC Mayor John Lindsay...successful political consultant with the famed David Garth...and then as an omnipresent political commentator at CBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN...5 time Emmy Award Winner...author of several books. This is a great, wide-ranging conversation with one of the most respected, enduring, and distinctive voices in American politics.IN THIS EPISODEHow the New York Yankees are responsible for Jeff's political obsession…The serendipitous path that led Jeff to become an aide to Senator Robert Kennedy…Jeff's memories of the U.S. Senate of the 1960s…Jeff on the political savvy of RFK…The stories behind two of RFK's most memorable speeches in the aftermath of Martin Luther King Jr's Assassination…Jeff talks how the 1968 election might have played out had Senator Kennedy lived…What it was like writing a speech for Robert Kennedy…Jeff's theory on the right match of speechwriter and speaker…Jeff's time working with famed political consultant David Garth…The ad Jeff wrote as a media consultant of which he's most proud…Jeff talks his connection with longtime friend William F. Buckley…The story of Margaret Thatcher insulting Jeff on national TV…Jeff's move from political consulting to working in television…The media job Jeff held that was the most fun…Jeff's approach to interesting television commentary…Four of Jeff's pet peeves about contemporary political punditry…The “single most powerful event” Jeff ever attended…Recommendations from one of Jeff's favorite restaurants and favorite band…AND  Aeschylus, Muhammad Ali, Barney Greengrass, the Beatles, Tom Bettag, Beyonce, Big Pink, Tom Bradley, the Bronx High School of Science, Ron Brown, Buggs Bunny, bullshit measurements, Hugh Carey, William Sloane Coffin, communist cigars, computer manuals, Daffy Duck, Richard Daley, doo wop, Fred Dutton, Peter Edelman, Dwight Eisenhower, elephants, Firing Line, Joe Frazier, John Kenneth Galbraith, John Glenn, the Grateful Dead, Averell Harriman, Lester Holt, Hubert Humphrey, Inspector Javert, Irving Ives, Jacob Javits, journalistic utopias, jut jaws, Murray Kempton, Henry Kissinger, Ted Koppel, John Lindsay, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Lil Nas, losing altitude, Russell Long, the longest slogans in the world, Al Lowenstein, the Making of the President, Eugene McCarthy, Joe McCarthy, George McGovern, Stephen Miller, mock primaries, Bill Moyers, the National Review, The New York Times, Richard Nixon, Lee Harvey Oswald, particle physics, personal antipathy, Ronald Reagan, Robbie Robertson, Howard Samuels, Ted Sorensen, Aaron Sorkin, Adlai Stevenson, Norman Thomas, Donald Trump, two doses of herpes, Unconventional Wisdom, the unit rule, V-E Day, the violence of institutions, Adam Walinsky, wartime correspondents, Watergate, Billy Wilder, wretched ironies, Sam Yorty & more!

Congressman David Price served 34 years representing North Carolina's Research Triangle, leaving the House just this January. Beyond his time as an institution in the House, he's lived a remarkable political life...present on the Washington Mall during the MLK "I Have A Dream" speech...a Senate staffer witnessing key civil rights votes in the mid 1960s...a leading political scientist at Duke University...a Democratic Party leader who helped devise the primary reforms now known as "super delegates"...and an influential House member who's served across parts of five decades in the House and been a witness to - and a part of - some of the most important political moments of the past half century.IN THIS EPISODE...Growing up in the unique political culture of small-town East Tennessee...The Civil Rights Movement inspires an awakening for public service...Memories of being on The Mall during the March on Washington and the MLK "I Have A Dream" Speech...His time as a Senate staffer during the critical 1964 vote to break the filibuster on civil rights... How he merged teaching Political Science at Duke with activity in real-world politics...His time in state party leadership and as part of The Hunt Commission reforming the Democratic Presidential Primary process...The political skill and legacy of North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt...North Carolina's legacy as a progressive Southern state...Remembering the 1984 Senate "race of the century" of Jesse Helms vs. Jim Hunt...His path to running and winning his first race for Congress in 1986...Memories of his first few terms in the House...The story of his loss in the 1994 GOP wave and comeback win in 1996...His thoughts on the legacy of the Newt Gingrich Revolution of the 1990s...His proudest accomplishments from 30+ years in the House...The toughest two votes he took...His analysis on the leadership success of Speaker Nancy Pelosi...The closest Congressman Price came to a statewide race...The advice he gives to new House members...His current work and focuses in his post-House career...AND Lamar Alexander, Howard Baker, Bob Bartlett, Joe Biden, Jack Brooks, C-Span after hours, cabals, Tom Carper, Chapel Hill, church suppers, Joe Clark, Bill Clinton, Jim Clyburn, committee barons, the Confederate Cause, the Contract with America, Harold Cooley, Thomas Dewey, John Dingell, down-home types, Clair Engle, existential questions, Bill Ford, the Gang of Eight, Albert Gore Sr., Jerry Grinstein, Phil Hart, Helms' proteges, Hope VI, Steny Hoyer, inherited Republicanism, inner clubs, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, Jacob Javits, Warren Magnuson, Mars Hill, Kevin McCarthy, the McGovern Commission, metal aprons, Bob Michel, midterm effects, moral suasion, Morehead Scholarships, Mountain Republicans, Ed Muskie, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, PLEOs, peer pressure, pep talks, Mike Pertschuk, the Political Science Caucus, Edward Pugh, Ronald Reagan, Dan Rostenkowski, rump conventions, Terry Sanford, the Sanford School of Public Policy, Saul Shorr, shouting matches on the House floor, sit-ins, Sputnik, Freddy St. Germain, super-delegates, talk radio, the Tea Party, Donald Trump, turbulent townhall meetings, turnaround artists, Jamie Whitten, Jim Wright, Yale Divinity School, yeoman farmers & more!

Blurb: Washington insider Ira Shapiro takes the Senate to task – and asks us to fix it. Ira Shapiro's forty-five-year Washington career has focused on American politics and international trade. Shapiro served twelve years in senior staff positions in the U.S. Senate, working for a series of distinguished senators: Jacob Javits, Gaylord Nelson, Abraham Ribicoff, Thomas Eagleton, Robert Byrd, and Jay Rockefeller. He served in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative during the Clinton administration, first as general counsel and then chief negotiator with Japan and Canada, with the rank of ambassador. In his two previous highly regarded books on the U.S. Senate, Ira Shapiro chronicled the institution from its apogee in the 1970s through its decline in the decades since. Now, in his new book -- The Betrayal: How Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans Abandoned America (Rowman & Littlefield; May 17, 2022), Shapiro turns his gaze to how the Senate responded to the challenges posed by the Trump administration and its prospects under President Biden.

Tom Davis served seven terms in the House from Northern Virginia, including 2 cycles as NRCC Chair and as Chair of the House Government Reform Committee. In this conversation, he talks becoming obsessed with politics at an early age, working as a Senate page in the 1960s, playing a small role in the political operation of Richard Nixon, 15 years on the Fairfax County Board, 14 years in Congress, protecting the GOP majority in 2000 and 2002 while helming NRCC, why he left elected politics, the work he's most passionate about now, and his expectations ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. IN THIS EPISODE..One early moment when the lifelong political obsession started to click for a 6-year old Tom Davis…Working as a teenage U.S. Senate page…Tom spends 30 minutes in the Oval Office with President Nixon…Tom's early stint as part of the Nixon political operation…Tom talks the political legacy of Virginia's famed Byrd Machine…Tom remembers his 14+ years on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors…Tom on the excitement as part of the 1994 House GOP wave…Tom talks the political skills (and flaws) of Newt Gingrich…Early impressions and surprises on his first term in the House…Memories of tough votes surrounding the impeachment of President Clinton…Tom's path to running the NRCC in both the 2000 and 2002 cycles…Inside the candidate-recruitment process of the Tom Davis-led NRCC…Highlights of his tenure as Chair of the House Government Reform Committee…The tough decision to pass on an open 2008 Senate race and ultimately forgo re-election altogether…The two types of lobbyists in Washington…Tom breaks down lessons for Republicans in Glenn Youngkin's 2021 Virginia win…How Tom is thinking about the 2022 midterms…AND Amherst, Appalachian State University, appendages, John Boehner, Harry Byrd, Eldridge Cleaver, Bill Clinger, Carl Curtis, Tom Delay, Harry Dent, Everett Dirksen, David Dreier, Dulles Airport, David Eisenhower, Martin Frost, gay newspapers, George Mason University, Jim Gilmore, Barry Goldwater, Bart Gordon, Bob Haldeman, Jesse Helms, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Jim Holshouser, Rush Holt, Linwood Holton, John Hostettler, Steny Hoyer, Roman Hruska, Hubert Humphrey, Andrew Jackson, Jacob Javits, Nancy Johnson, Kent State, V.O. Key, lifelong teetotalers, John Linder, Louisiana Smart, Malibu, Mike Mansfield, Terry McAuliffe, Wayne Morse, the Mountain Valley Group, no confidence votes, Oliver North, Barack Obama, Dick Obenshain, Bill Paxon, perfecting amendments, Colin Peterson, Jeffrey Pine, George Rawlings, rental seats, Tom Reynolds, Alice Rivlin, Willis Robertson, Win Rockefeller, the Rotary Club, Antonin Scalia, Chris Shays, slackers, Howard Smith, Billy Tauzin, the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, Charles Thone, Strom Thurmond, Tulane, Fred Upton, Bob Walker, John Warner, Mark Warner, the Washington Post, Watauga County, Roger Wicker, wiffle ball, Frank Wolf, Jim Wright, Dick Zimmer, Elmo Zumwalt & more!

When Robert Draper of the New York Times recently asked Rose Sperry, a state committeewoman for Arizona's G.O.P., to name the first Republican leader she ever admired, she immediately mentioned former Wisconsin senator Joe McCarthy. “I grew up during the time that Joe McCarthy was doing his talking,” Sperry said. “I was young, but I was listening. If he were here today, I would say, ‘Get him in there as president!'”I also grew up during the time Joe McCarthy was “doing his talking,” and I was young and listening, too. But I would not want Joe McCarthy to be president. Neither, let me add, did my father. Ed Reich called himself a liberal Republican, in the days when such creatures still existed. He voted for Thomas Dewey in 1948 (cancelling my mother's vote for Harry Truman), and then for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 (cancelling my mother's votes for Adlai Stevenson), and he thought highly of New York State's Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, and its Republican senator, Jacob Javits — neither of whom would last a second in today's G.O.P.But Ed Reich could not abide bullies and he detested Joe McCarthy. My father thought that anyone who had to bully someone else to feel good about himself was despicable. Bullying led to antisemitism and antisemitism had led to the holocaust. In 1947, Ed Reich moved us from Scranton to a little village in the country some sixty miles north of New York City, called South Salem, so as to be within equal driving distance of his two women's clothing stores, in Norwalk, Connecticut, and Peekskill, New York. Soon after we arrived, a delegation of older men from the village came by to inform us that South Salem was a “Christian community” and we were not welcome there. That was the day my father decided we'd stay put in South Salem. “I'll show those b******s,” he said. Senator Joseph McCarthy had a special place in Ed Reich's pantheon of evil bullies. McCarthy didn't just attack those he claimed were members of the Communist Party. He did it with malice. McCarthy's crusade against “subversives” extended into the mainstream of America and American politics, as he ridiculed the “pitiful squealing” of “those egg-sucking phony liberals” who “would hold sacrosanct those Communists and queers.” Every time McCarthy's image came across the six-inch screen on the Magnavox television in our living room, my father would shout “son of a B***H” so loudly it made me shudder. In Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, historian Ellen Wolf Schrecker describes a movement that “punished thousands of law-abiding Americans and scared millions more into silence, destroying much of the left and seriously narrowing the political spectrum.” McCarthyism was the byproduct of the Republican Party's postwar effort to eradicate the New Deal by linking it to communism. The G.O.P. portrayed the midterm election of 1946 as a “battle between Republicanism and communism.” The Republican National Committee chairman claimed that the federal bureaucracy was filled with “pink puppets.” According to John Nichols, in The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party, Southern segregationist Democrats joined the red-baiting rhetoric. Mississippi senator Theodore Bilbo, a Klansman who had filibustered to block anti-lynching legislation, described multiracial labor unions' advocacy for civil rights as the work of “northern communists.” Representative John Elliott Rankin, a fiercely racist and antisemitic Mississippi Democrat who helped establish the House Un-American Activities Committee as a standing congressional committee, called the CIO's Southern organizing campaign “a communist plot” and charged that it would lead to more Black voting rights. “We're asleep at the switch,” he warned. “They're taking over this country; we've got to stop them if we want this country.”The backlash was successful. In the 1946 midterms, Democrats lost control of both the Senate and the House. Wisconsin ended its era of progressive Republican La Follettes and sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate. California replaced New Dealer Jerry Voorhis with a young Republican lawyer who had already figured out how to use red-baiting as a political tool. His name was Richard Nixon. In December 1946, at the founding convention of the Progressive Citizens of America, FDR's former vice president, Henry Wallace, saw the red scare for what it was — a tool of the most powerful economic forces in America. “We shall … repel all the attacks of the plutocrats and monopolists who will brand us as Reds,” he said. If it is traitorous to believe in peace — we are traitors. If it is communistic to believe in prosperity for all — we are communists. If it is unAmerican to believe in freedom from monopolistic dictation — we are unAmerican. We are more American than the neo-Fascists who attack us. The more we are attacked the more likely we are to succeed, provided we are ready and willing to counterattack.But there was no counterattack. The red scare continued to gain ground, encouraged by J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the F.B.I. Soon after the release of Frank Capra's loving ode to America, “It's a Wonderful Life” in January 1947, the F.B.I. (using a report by an ad-hoc group that included Fountainhead writer and future Trump pin-up girl Ayn Rand) warned that the movie represented “rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a ‘scrooge-type' so that he would be the most hated man in the picture.” The movie “deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. This … is a common trick used by Communists.” The F.B.I. report compared “It's a Wonderful Life” to a Soviet film, and alleged that Frank Capra was “associated with left-wing groups” and that screenwriters Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were “very close to known Communists.”President Truman succumbed to the mounting anti-communist hysteria. On March 21, 1947 he signed Executive Order 9835, the Loyalty Order that ushered in loyalty oaths and background checks, and created the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. Yet the progressive left remained silent. As the 1950 election approached, a Times headline announced that the “Left is Silent in Campaign.” Even the American Civil Liberties Union, whose roots lay in the first Red Scare of the World War I era, was reluctant to take the lead in opposing the threat to civil liberties in the second Red Scare of the 1950s. California Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas, dubbed the “Pink Lady” for her supposed communist sympathies, tried for the Senate in 1950. She survived a bitter primary battle only to be beaten in November by red-bater Richard Nixon. On June 9, 1954, I sat at my father's side on our living room couch, watching the Army-McCarthy hearings. McCarthy had accused the U.S. Army of having poor security at a top-secret facility. Joseph Welch, a private attorney, was representing the Army. McCarthy charged that one of Welch's young staff attorneys was a communist. “Son of a B***H,” my father shouted.As McCarthy continued his attack on Welch's staff attorney, Welch broke in, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.”I was spellbound. McCarthy didn't stop. “Son of a B***H,” Ed Reich shouted ten times more loudly. The earth shook. At this point, Welch demanded that McCarthy listen to him. “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator,” he said. “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?” Almost overnight, as the Senate Historical Office recounts, “McCarthy's immense national popularity evaporated. Censured by his Senate colleagues, ostracized by his party and ignored by the press, McCarthy died three years later, 48 years old and a broken man.”***During the Army-McCarthy hearings, McCarthy's chief counsel was Roy Cohn. Cohn had gained prominence as the Department of Justice attorney who successfully prosecuted Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage, leading to their execution in 1953. The Rosenberg trial had brought the 24-year-old Cohn to the attention of J. Edgar Hoover, who convinced McCarthy to hire Cohn as chief counsel for McCarthy's Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where Cohn became known for his aggressive questioning of suspected communists. My father thought Roy Cohn almost as despicable as Joe McCarthy. After McCarthy's downfall, Cohn proved useful to a young New York real estate developer named Donald Trump who was then undertaking several large construction projects in Manhattan and needed a fixer and mentor. Cohn filled both roles. Fred Trump had got his son's career started by bringing him into the family business of middle-class rentals in Brooklyn and Queens. Cohn established Donald in Manhattan, introducing him to New York's social and political elite, and defending him against a growing list of enemies.In 1973, the Justice Department accused Trump of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in thirty-nine of his properties, alleging that Trump quoted different rental terms and conditions to prospective tenants based on their race, and made false “no vacancy” statements to Black people seeking to rent. Representing Trump, Roy Cohn filed a countersuit against the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were “irresponsible and baseless.” Although the countersuit was unsuccessful, Trump settled the charges out of court in 1975, asserting he was satisfied that the agreement did not “compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.” Three years later, when the Trump Organization was again in court, this time for violating terms of the 1975 settlement, Cohn called the charges “nothing more than a rehash of complaints by a couple of planted malcontents.” Trump denied the charges. Cohn was also involved in the construction of Trump Tower, helping secure concrete during a city-wide Teamster strike through a union leader linked to a mob boss. At about this time, Cohn introduced Trump to another of Cohn's clients, Rupert Murdoch. During Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, Cohn helped a young Roger Stone arrange for John Anderson to be nominated by New York's Liberal Party, thereby splitting the state's opposition to Reagan and allowing Reagan to carry the state with 46 percent of the vote. Stone later recounted that Cohn gave him a suitcase to be dropped off at the office of a lawyer influential in Liberal Party circles. Speaking after the statute of limitations for bribery had expired, Stone said, “I paid his law firm. Legal fees. I don't know what he did for the money, but whatever it was, the Liberal Party reached its right conclusion out of a matter of principle.”In 1986, Cohn was disbarred by the New York State Bar for unethical conduct after attempting to defraud a dying client by forcing the client to sign a will amendment leaving Cohn his fortune. (Cohn died five weeks later from AIDS-related complications.)In his first and best-known book, “The Art of the Deal,” Trump distinguished between integrity and loyalty — and made clear he preferred loyalty. Trump compared Roy Cohn to “all the hundreds of ‘respectable' guys who make careers out of boasting about their uncompromising integrity but have absolutely no loyalty ... What I liked most about Roy Cohn was that he would do just the opposite.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Richard Nixon's legacy will be forever tarnished by the Watergate scandal that led him to become the first and only U.S. president to resign from office. But Nixon was also a political mastermind whose impact continues to resound in both domestic and world politics. John R. Price served on the domestic policy side of the first Nixon administration, eventually becoming Special Assistant to the President for Urban Affairs. He has written about his experience in a compelling new memoir and history, The Last Liberal Republican: An Insider's Perspective on Nixon's Surprising Social Policy. In this interview, Price talks about his background as one of the founding memoirs of the Ripon Society (a moderate Republican activist group in the 1960s), his efforts on behalf of progressive Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits, and his work in the Nixon administration for the eminent Harvard sociologist (and later U.S. Senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Price describes his efforts with Moynihan and Nixon to create the Family Assistance Plan, a far-reaching welfare proposal that would have implemented a negative income tax for households with working parents. He makes the case that Nixon was in many ways a liberal — indeed the last liberal Republican president — and that his social welfare program, if it had passed Congress, would have put the country on a different and better trajectory. Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Brian, Christine & Clay talk about the Olympics that weren't. And the team is floored by what happened when Senator Javits went to Washington (14:45) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Javits . Plus - our Medals of The Week (40:00). twitter.com/limbaughpodcast Logo design by Olga Shcheglova www.olgashcheglova.com Theme song by Clay Russell

In this bonus episode, Frank Cummings (Guest from Ep.1) shares some key moments from his time on Capitol Hill working closely with the late Senator Jacob Javits. Here, Frank describes how he convinced Senator Javits to push for equal access for women in some crucial areas. He also shared a humorous story about former President Lyndon Johnson following the signing of ERISA. 

They don't make too many people like Saul Shorr. After hitchhiking across the country,  working in sugar refineries, being in and out of college, Saul fell into working on Mo Udall's 1976 presidential campaign. He soon became an expert in big city politics, started his own media firm, and has helped elect Senators and Governors and Presidents.Saul has one of the most unique paths, some of the biggest wins, and many of the best stories after decades as one of the most respected admakers and strategists in the business. Trust me...if you like politics, you'll love this episode with Saul. Podcast WebsiteTwitter: @ProPoliticsPodTwitter: @ZacMcCraryFacebook: The Pro Politics PodcastIN THIS EPISODE...Robert Moses, of The Power Broker fame, has a lot to do with how Saul grew up in Queens…Saul's memories of the day President Kennedy died…Saul's favorite political slogan of all time…The unusual thing that happened to Saul on his second day working in politics…Saul works for the iconic American political figure Allard Lowenstein…A young Saul spends a day with Coretta Scott King…Saul cuts his teeth in Philly politics during the tumultuous late 70s and early 80s…Saul helps elect Ben Nelson Governor of Nebraska after starting at less than 1%...Saul grows his business by finding a niche with Lieutenant Governors in the South…Saul's paean to life on the road as a political consultant…Saul gives his view from a front row seat of tragedy and triumph of Mel Carnahan…What it was like when Saul joined the historic Obama 2008 team…David Axelrod's memorable when Saul put together test-attack ads against then Senator Obama…Saul's best practices on negative ads…Saul makes arguably the most memorable attack ad against Mitt Romney in 2012…Saul tells the story of how Al Franken's first TV ad “made him Minnesota” and helped propel him to the US Senate…Saul helps Tom Wolf break out of a crowded PA Governor's field…The one criteria Saul (jokingly) gives on bringing on a new client…Saul provides an itinerary for your next trip to Philly... ALSO… Jim Andrews, John Anderson (the Black one), John Anderson (the white one), Andre the Giant, John Ashcroft, Geno Auriemma, David Axelrod, Bob Bedard, Paul Begala, Lucien Blackwell, Sherrod Brown, Jerry Brown, Mary Beth Cahill, Jean Carnahan, Bob Casey, Dick Cheney, Robert Clark, Howard Coffin, Norm Coleman, Tom Corbett, Dick Durbin, Tom Eagleton, Mike Easley, Dwight Evans, Marc Farinella, Chaka Fattah, Diane Feldman, Alan Franken, Ben Franklin, Bill Gray, Pierre Howard, Jay Howser, Jacob Javits, Andi Johnson, Rabbi Meir Kahane, Robert Kennedy, Ed Koch, John Lindsay, Myra MacPherson, Kevin Mack, Adam Magnus, Josh Mandel, Terry McAuliffe, Rob McCord, Katie McGinty, Val Molin, Jim Margolis, George McGovern, James Michener, Molly Murphy, Ricky Nelson, Pall Mall unfilitereds, Elizabeth Pearson, Bev Perdue, David Perdue, David Price, JB Pritzker, Fran Rafferty, Frank Rizzo, Cokie Roberts, Mary Ann Sandretti, Allyson Schwartz, Joe Shafer, The Shorr Holding Company, Chris Sifford, Paul Tully,  Mo Udall, Stewart Udall, Anthony Weiner, Alan Wheat, Dennis Wicker, Roger Wilson, Harriet Woods, Jim Young, and MORE!

In Part 1 of the premiere episode, we touched on one of the most important events in the history of retirement savings, the collapse of Studebaker in 1963. Today's guest, Frank Cummings, was back then just beginning his 70-year law career with one of his very first clients…Studebaker.  In Part 2 of this episode, Frank recounts his journey from New York to South Bend, Indiana, to Washington, DC as lead bargainer for the auto company. He recalls his meeting with Senator Jacob Javits, with whom he embarks on a series of ‘Road Shows' centered on the tragic stories of people losing their pensions, all in the hopes of providing the public with better information around pension reform legislation.    Listen in to this incredible account of policy reform, a journey that spanned four presidents, nearly 50 states, Watergate, and finally, a Rose Garden signing that helped pave the way for the modern retirement system and the regulations Plan Sponsors are still living with today. 

Our goals can only be reached through the vehicle of a plan, in which we must fervently believe, and upon which we must vigorously act. There is no other route to success.—Pablo PicassoThe Designer Behind The Coolest Clutches In The World. - Nylon MagazineI knew she was different when I met her. She was petite, around five feet tall and ninety pounds, with big eyes and a captivating smile that implied, “I know something you don't, and I am not going to tell you what it is.” But beyond her beauty, she was extraordinarily creative, with the kind of energy that bubbles up without intention— it's just part of who she is. When you combine that type of creative energy with sensitivity, kindness, and a love of family, you're talking about my ideal woman…which is why I asked her to be my wife. But it just so happens that Gelareh Mizrahi is also a perfect example of what everyone can manifest in the Age of Ideas.When I met her, Gelareh had recently graduated from the Parsons School of Design and was helping her cousin Aimee with her clothing brand, Queen of e.vil. The two of them would lock themselves in Aimee's apartment for endless hours and cook up crazy design ideas that would end up on T-shirts, sweatshirts, and cashmere sweaters sold in department stores and boutiques from Dallas to Dubai. (You know that amazingly inspirational gear you pick up at SoulCycle? Aimee and Gelareh came up with the initial designs.) But before long, Gelareh, with her creative energy and desire, needed a new outlet; she wanted more.That was when the universe (and her mother) swooped in.One afternoon Gelareh's mother Gilda was working in her boutique in Georgetown, an upscale area in Washington D.C. A customer noticed the python-skin handbags she had for sale and commented, “You know, I could make similar handbags for you. Maybe I could do a private label for your store.” Gilda said, “I don't really want a private label, but you should speak with my daughter. She's a fashion designer in New York.” And so Gelareh was put in touch with this woman, who owned a factory that produced handbags.A couple of conversations and emails later, an arrangement was in place: Gelareh would design and sell the python handbags in the U.S., while the woman would handle producing the bags overseas, and they would see how things developed from there. I was skeptical; yes, she had a partner, but no start-up capital. Why wouldn't she just get a job doing design for someone else? But Gelareh was determined, and when she is determined, get on board or get out of the way.The first step for her new business was to get a booth at the Coterie show, a wholesale fashion tradeshow where all the major retailers buy from all the major producers. When you aren't a recognized name, they don't just hand you a booth, and most booths are committed months in advance. If a newcomer is lucky enough to score a space, it's usually way in the back. That's what happened here. Gelareh designed a low-cost but appealing booth for the Coterie show, and her father, brother, and I built it on-site, way in the back of the Jacob Javits convention center.I wanted to help with the sales process, but Gelareh was not having it. She asked me to go back to work and show up when it was time to break the booth down. Each night she came home exhausted, collapsed in bed, and left the next morning at the break of dawn. When the Coterie show ended, I broke down the booth. As we began our drive home, Gelareh was silent. She had not shared any sales numbers, so I was worried that no sales had been made. I was afraid of the impact this might have on her confidence and our new enterprise. But before long a subtle grin began to show on her face.I felt inspired to ask, “So did you make any sales?”“Maybe,” she replied.“How much you take in?”After a pause, she blurted, “We made $48,000!”

In the late 1970s toxic chemicals were discovered oozing from the ground in a neighbourhood in upstate New York. The neighbourhood was called Love Canal. Hundreds of houses and a school had been built on top of over 20,000 tonnes of toxic industrial waste. The disaster led to the formation in 1980 of the Superfund program, which helps pay for the clean up of toxic sites. Farhana Haider has been speaking to former Love Canal resident and campaigner Luella Kenny about her fight for relocation. Photo Pres. Jimmy Carter, Love Canal resident Lois Gibbs, Rep. John LaFalce and Senator Jacob Javits signing the superfund legislation 1980. Credit Center for Health, Environment & Justice.

This is the first of our NRF podcast series, we ventured out of the studio and took our podcast in the road. We stopped by the Jacob Javits convention center and spoke with Payton Aragon from Discount Bandits about some marketing strategies that they utilize to get people to stop by their booth during trade shows.

In today's Back Story, former WCBS reporter Walt Wheeler remembers the congressional career of Jacob Javits.

Connie Morella on becoming a Republican ~ "Mac was running for office and he had very stiff competition. He was a Republican. I had to cross-over and become a Republican to vote for him in a primary. I did, and I thought, I think I'll go back. Then, I looked at what was happening in our Country. I saw Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Everett Dirksen. I saw all of these great men who brought both sides together who were Republicans. Who believed in fiscal responsibility, but also believed in liberal rights, rights for people. I stayed a Republican. I became the Moderate Republican, which then gradually became an endangered species, and now it is almost extinct." Connie Morella (right) and Andy Ockershausen (left) in studio interview A Ockershausen: This is Andy Ockershausen, and this is Our Town. We have such a delightful, delightful friend and one of the great women of my lifetime. In spite, my wife is right up there too. She's made such an impact on Our Town. So many ways in a national local level. She served in, The United States Congress representing the 8th Congressional District, of Maryland, as a Republican. That will never happen again. She's a mother to 9 children, a teacher, and an advocate for human rights, women's health, and domestic violence issues. Did she stop after Congress? No way. She was just beginning, and she's here today to tell us about what she's been up to besides Ambassador of France. She's had a wonderful, wonderful career after Congress, and that's Connie Morella. Connie Morella: Thank you very much Andy O. Your very lavish introduction reminded me of something attributed to May West if you can remember that name from the old, old ... When she said, "Too much of a good thing, can be downright enjoyable." A Ockershausen: Oh my God. May West, come up and see me sometime. I remember all those sayings. I think Ken might be too young. Ken's our technical director. Ken Hunter: No, I remember May West. Oh yes. Somerville, Massachusetts | Grammar School through High School A Ockershausen: Connie, you have had such a remarkable impact on Our Town. In addition to your work in Congress, but it's so many things. You are from Somerville, Massachusetts. It's a long way from Washington, but maybe it isn't. Maybe it was great. You went to school ... You went to grammar school in Somerville? Connie Morella: I did indeed, and high school. A Ockershausen: Catholic school? Connie Morella: No. Public school. On Boston University A Ockershausen: Wow. You went to BU, that's not Catholic either. Connie Morella: Yeah, right. A Ockershausen: Is that a city school, or is that part of U Mass? Connie Morella: No, no, that's a private school. A Ockershausen: Private school? Connie Morella: Boston University. A Ockershausen: It's not connected with any religious order? Connie Morella: You know, it's like so many of these major universities, have some kind of a connection. Sometimes very remote. There is a remote connection with Methodists. Just like American University. It's Methodist . . . A Ockershausen: They're actually common usually. Connie Morella: Exactly. Boston University is in that ... A Ockershausen: A very, very independent school. Connie Morella: Right. A Ockershausen: You learned a lot, and learned to be very independent. How did you learn ... Did you learn growing up to be a Republican, or did that evolve? Connie Morella: No. In Somerville, Boston, Massachusetts, you're not a republican. I grew up in a Democratic household. I was Democrat when we married and came to Washington DC, and then moved into Maryland. What happened? My epiphany came when Charles "Mac" Mathias, who was the Senator ... A Ockershausen: I knew Mac very well. From a Democrat to Republican Connie Morella: Yes. Mac was running for office and he had very stiff competition. He was a Republican. I had to cross-over and become a Republican to vote for him in a primary. I did, and I thought,

Hello kids and welcome to another episode of the Motorcycle Men Podcast.  But first, thank you for tuning in and listening to this episode and of course for all of the motorcycle men Episodes. The motorcycle men comes to you absolutely free to listen to and download and this is thanks to our sponsors, donations and subscribers to the show. We mention supporters and friends of the motorcycle men on each episode and we ask that you patronize them as well and please let them know that you heard about them here on the motorcycle men podcast.  This raises awareness of their products and services and it is good for everyone. Additionally, 50% of all contributions via Patreon and direct donations will be donated to VetRest. VetRest helps veterans who live with PTS and we here at the Motorcycle Men are doing our part to make sure our servicemen and women are taken care of.  Your help, regardless of its size goes a long way to help.  If you would like to help out our Vets and the show, you can make a one time contribution by clicking on the donate button on the homepage at www.motorcyclemen.us or you can also click on the Patreon button there as well if you’d like to make a monthly donation.    As you know the motorcycle Men are Harley guys, we love our Harley’s. And as listeners you also know that we respect and appreciate all types of riders and what they ride. Be that a Scooter or a Spyder… well maybe not all of us on that one, but we do love anyone who twists a throttle. One of the great things about doing this podcast is that it has enabled us to attend events like the International Motorcycle Show in NY city at the Jacob Javits center and we get to see new and innovative products and motorcycles. This last time at the IMS event we had the chance to see a new motorcycle that is on the verge of hitting the streets. Vanguard motorcycles has create a fresh design that will certainly get your attention. With that, I have with me, Mr. Francois Terny, the CEO of Vanguard Motorcycles. Don’t forget to check out our friends over at Loud Pipes Podcast, Thottled Podcast, Motorcycles and Misfits, Cleveland Moto, Moterrific, Café Racer Podcast and of course The Wheelnerds. And for you video nerds, check out Delboy’s Garage on Youtube, you might learn something. All of these podcasts and many more out there do great things to promote and encourage our sport and passion.   Also look at our sponsors. Love-jugs… cool off your big twin with love jugs.  That’s Love-Jugs.com… and… of course Ciro3D…. Providing you with top quality accessories, comfort and performance parts for your big twin…. Ciro3D.com and also our new friends at Uclear Digital Last but not least, Get your leather on with Shore Fire Designs, custom lids for your bagger. Simm’s Designs, your bike ain’t cool until it’s Simm’s Design cool. And of course, get ahold of Dave Ackerman over at Tobacco Motorwear and get yourself some Kevlar Lined jeans.   From Tim buktu, Chris theSupport the show (https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=zPl7v5FjoO6fCov5rwbFo35sxmoOIUqUhcR1q1UVtP34xAVolJzW0aJ6GNSdljsPAT4MC0&fromUL=true&country.x=US&locale.x=en_US)

Our 5th, and final, installment of our examination of the history behind the phrase "Constitutional Convention", as it has been, and continues to be, applied to describe the Constitution's Article V State authorized amending mode, a "convention for proposing amendments". Last week we discussed the 1960's campaign, led by Senator Everett Dirksen, to promote an amending convention focused on overturning the apportionment rulings of an activist Supreme Court, and the responses from the likes of Senators Joseph Tydings, Robert Kennedy, William Proxmire, and Jacob Javits.  This final look at the fruits of the disinformation campaign will pick up with the influence of Senator Robert Kennedy and his political clout, the continuing presence of Yale Law Professor Charles Black, and culminating in the opposition successfully rebranding the phrase "convention to propose amendments" into the politically charged phrase "Constitutional Convention", as a means to counteract the Balanced Budget Amendment movement of the late 1970's/early 1980's. How has the prominence of the phrase affected the view of Article V? We'll spend a little bit of time with Convention of States news first.  And save some time for phone calls. "That Provident Article" is hosted by Convention of States Texas volunteer Paul Hodson, with the Convention of States since late 2013, a District Captain in Texas from February 2014 through November 2015, and now serving as Co-Director for the Convention of States Texas.

Part 4 of our examination of the history behind the phrase "Constitutional Convention", as it has been, and continues to be, applied to describe the Constitution's Article V State authorized amending mode, a "convention for proposing amendments". We will pick up right where we left off last week, following the coordinated disinformation campaign from prominent progressive law professors, through the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, high-profile Senators like Joseph Tydings, Robert Kennedy, William Proxmire, and Jacob Javits. How has the prominence of the phrase affected the view of Article V? We'll spend a little bit of time with Convention of States news first.  And save some time for phone calls. "That Provident Article" is hosted by Convention of States Texas volunteer Paul Hodson, with the Convention of States since late 2013, a District Captain in Texas from February 2014 through November 2015, and now serving as Co-Director for the Convention of States Texas.

This week (June 19 to June 21) is the yearly International Franchise Expo in Manhattan at the legendary Jacob Javits Center. Numerous franchise experts refer to this event as the Super Bowl of franchising. Today you will hear several interviews from experts in franchising on attending the shows and get 7 tips.  First you will hear our interview with Tom Portesy, president of MFV Expositions --- producers of franchise events worldwide.  Tom will talk about what people can expect from these shows and what can be gained in attending. Next your will hear our interview with the founder of FranchiseWorks.com Terry Corkery who gives his advice to aspiring entrepreneurs looking to buy a franchise as well as some fantastic tips on attending franchise shows. The Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, or Javits Center is a large convention center located on Eleventh Avenue, between 34th and 40th streets, on the West side of Manhattan in New York. http://www.ifeinfo.com/

This weekend is the annual International Franchise Expo in New York City at the Jacob Javits Center. Many refer to this event as the Super Bowl of franchising.  Today you will hear our interview with the founder of FranchiseWorks.com Terry Corkery who gives his advice to aspiring entrepreneurs looking to buy a franchise as well as some fantastic tips on attending franchise shows. Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, or Javits Center is a large convention center located on Eleventh Avenue, between 34th and 40th streets, on the West side of Manhattan in New York.  

Listen NowIn preparation for further federal health care policy reform anticipated next year several plans are floating around Washington, D.C., all promising, among other things, to "bend the cost curve" or improve health care affordability.  In this 33 minute podcast Mr. Rother briefly defines National Coalition on Health Care's goals and how and why its health care affordability reform proposal, "Curbing Costs, Improving Care: The Path to an Affordable Health Care Future" was created.  He moreover discusses options in the plan beginning with several "game changers" identified in the report, i.e., reforms that pay for value or outcomes instead of services or volume, reforming how Medicare pays doctors, options for limiting the tax exclusion employers receive in providing employee health benefits, and taxing sugar-sweetened beverages.  He outlines reforming chronic disease care, improving medication adherence and lowering drug costs and reforming the private insurance markets via value based insurance designs.  More thematically he discusses market competition, active purchasing and transparency.  Finally, John describes what has been Congressional leadership's reception to the plan and chances next year for legislating any number of these affordability reforms.John Rother is President and CEO of the NCHC, America's oldest and most diverse group working to achieve comprehensive health system change.  Prior to NCHC, Mr. Rother was for over 25 years the Executive Vice President for Policy, Strategy, and International Affairs at the AARP (formerly the American Association for Retired Persons).   From 1981 to 1984, Mr. Rother was Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.  From 1977 to 1981 he served as Special Counsel for Labor and Health to Senator Jacob Javits.  Mr. Rother was graduated from Oberlin College and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. 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

Cinda Gaskins, Publisher, Unbroken Life on-line Magazine is tonight's special host. Listen as Cinda interviews attendees of the Circle of Sisters empowerment conference. The event embraces women, men, children, families, communities, churches, and entrepreneurs in their Annual Circle of Sisters engagement. Renew, Restore, Rebuild Conference. Located at the Jacob Javits Convention Center Exhibit Hall 1c, 11th Ave. between 34th and 39th St., each day is packed with renowned speakers, authors, celebrities, singers, performers and vendors that will empower, enlighten, motivate, elevate, encourage and change lives to all that attend. Rebecca Johnson, Belmont Mansion's Underground Rai

You don't need hands to be a human being, You just need life and love, Anger with my Mother is caused by myself, prank calling and egging my mother's house, How my Mother got her house, 35 sheep and 5 camcorders, I have the right to harrass her, Trying to be time-neutral, Christmas is actually is a sad time so attend my holiday lecture. Please join me for my Holiday Session in New York City at the Jacob Javits six thousand seat ballroom. Tickets are half-sold though, so good luck with that. Subscribe in Itunes Subscribe with RSS myspace.com/howdoyoufeelpodcast Produced by Mark Baratelli

This week's show from New York City comes comments about the ZDNet Digital Life show at the Jacob Javits center; Streamload...a company with a business model to address the exploding world of personal media; and a few musings about publishers...