Podcast appearances and mentions of john bresnahan

This week, we have a new Senate Majority Leader and are getting a clearer picture of what the next Congress will look like. But what will it do on gun policy? To answer that question, we have one of the preeminent congressional reporters on the show. Punchbowl co-founder John Bresnahan has been covering Congress for decades now. He knows all of the key players in Congress, including new Majority Leader John Thune. Bresnahan said Thune had the strongest pro-gun record of the three Senators who ran for the majority leader role. He said John Cornyn's role in negotiating the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act hurt him in the race and may even have made the difference since it was a very close vote. He argued the entire Republican Senate leadership is strongly pro-gun now. Still, Bresnahan doesn't necessarily believe there are going to be a lot of opportunities for pro-gun legislation in the next Congress. With a 53-vote majority and the filibuster likely to remain, there probably aren't any significant gun bills that can make it to President Donald Trump's desk.  However, there are other ways Congress could have a big impact on gun policy over the next eight years. He said the longest-lasting impact will likely come from judicial appointments, and he noted the GOP will probably control confirmations for all eight years of Trump's term. Special Guest: John Bresnahan.

In his first trip to Capitol Hill since the Jan. 6 attack, former President Trump met behind closed doors with congressional Republicans. They aimed to use the visit as a display of unity following Trump's conviction in his New York hush money case. Amna Nawaz discussed the busy day with John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In his first trip to Capitol Hill since the Jan. 6 attack, former President Trump met behind closed doors with congressional Republicans. They aimed to use the visit as a display of unity following Trump's conviction in his New York hush money case. Amna Nawaz discussed the busy day with John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Anna Palmer is a journalist turned startup CEO. Along with Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan, she founded Punchbowl News in January 2021, just in time for the assault on the Capitol. Punchbowl's obsessive focus on the Capitol, and business model that combines subscriptions with high-value issue advocacy ads led it to sprint out of the gates with a $10 million first year. Anna is more reticent about its current pace – I tried – but by all measures what Punchbowl is doing is working in a media environment that's shifted to favor narrower brands focused on high-value audience segments, backed by direct connections and diversified business models. “I've been in Washington journalism for almost 20 years, and I always laugh when everyone talks about Substack and the rise of newsletters,” Anna said. “It's the new hot thing. I mean, I've literally been doing newsletters for that entire time.”Some things that stand out to me about Punchbowl: It is reporter focused. I believe journalists who start media businesses create different products. Punchbowl is journalism-driven, relying on the daily grind of uncovering new information vs playing SEO or social traffic games. It has a rich niche. Issues advocacy ads are a lucrative ad category, and one where you not only mostly don't compete with Google and Facebook, but they're also your biggest clients. If only more media was like this. It has stayed lean. Punchbowl started with funding from Liontree, and it has grown quickly, but it has also resisted the temptation to expand quickly by, say, springing up operations in state capitols around the country or joining the fray at the White House. Instead it has focused on high-value areas like its expansion in financial services vertical with The Vault. It has managed to be a publication about politics without being a political publication. Many aspire to non-partisan news. Easier said than done. See the Chris Licht experiment at CNN for evidence. Punchbowl has managed to thread the needle for the most part with not being pulled into the inevitable political Rorschach test, mostly because they're obsessed with the legislative process vs the posturing of politics.

Failure to reach a debt deal sets off alarms on Wall Street and intensity on the House floor. Can the sharply divided Congress compromise when the economy itself is at stake? Join guest moderator Lisa Desjardins, Farnoush Amiri of The Associated Press, Peter Baker of The New York Times, John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News and Francesca Chambers of USA Today to discuss this and more.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy secures a win by passing his debt limit and spending cuts package in the House. Plus, President Biden announced he's running for a second term, setting the stage for a rematch against Donald Trump. Join Laura Barrón-López, Dan Balz of The Washington Post, John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News, Mario Parker of Bloomberg News and Melanie Zanona of CNN to discuss this and more.

In this weekend episode, three segments from this week's C-SPAN's Washington Journal program. First – Punchbowl News co-founder John Bresnahan discusses political reaction to a New York grand jury voting to indict former President Trump. Then, Brady's Kris Brown on this week's school shooting in Nashville and Congressional reaction to calls for more gun legislation. Plus, Independent Community Bankers of America's Rebeca Rainey on federal reaction to the SVB and Signature Bank crisis and what that means for smaller banks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With Congress coming down to the wire to keep the government open, there were questions Thursday if the $1.7 trillion spending bill would be derailed in the Senate. But it cleared the chamber and heads to the House of Representatives where a vote is expected Friday. John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News joined Judy Woodruff to discuss the developments. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

With Congress coming down to the wire to keep the government open, there were questions Thursday if the $1.7 trillion spending bill would be derailed in the Senate. But it cleared the chamber and heads to the House of Representatives where a vote is expected Friday. John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News joined Judy Woodruff to discuss the developments. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Lawmakers are working around the clock to pass a massive $1.7 trillion government funding bill before heading home for the holidays. Over 4,000 pages of legislative text were released overnight and include key spending measures for defense, Ukraine aid, disaster aid and more. John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News joined Judy Woodruff to go over the omnibus package. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Lawmakers are working around the clock to pass a massive $1.7 trillion government funding bill before heading home for the holidays. Over 4,000 pages of legislative text were released overnight and include key spending measures for defense, Ukraine aid, disaster aid and more. John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News joined Judy Woodruff to go over the omnibus package. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

After initial hesitation, a growing number of Republicans have taken to condemning former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago dinner with a white nationalist — and the tension is stretching into Capitol Hill, where Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) faces intraparty hostility to his run for Speaker. John Bresnahan, co-founder of Punchbowl News, and David Weigel, political reporter for Semafor, join Chuck to detail the state of the GOP.

Hillary and Tina cover John Conyers and Gordon Klingenschmitt. Hillary's Story In 2017 Representative John Conyers was one of the longest serving congressmen with 50 years in office. BUT when sexual harassment claims arise, his storied career ends in shame. Tina's Story Evangelical activist Gordon Klingenschmitt won a seat in the Colorado House of Representatives in 2014. BUT it's his fanatical views that spark controversy. Hillary's Story CNN Pelosi refuses to hit Conyers on sexual harassment allegations, calls him an ‘icon' (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/26/politics/pelosi-conyers-icon-mtp)--By Maegan Vazquez The New York Times John Conyers to Leave Congress Amid Harassment Claims (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/john-conyers-election.html)--by Yamiche Alcindor NPR Conyers Resigns Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/567160325/conyers-resigning-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations)--by Brian Naylor and Domenico Montanaro The Observer Battered by Sexual Harassment Allegations, John Conyers Resigns From Congress (https://observer.com/2017/12/battered-by-sexual-harassment-allegations-john-conyers-resigns-from-congress/)--By Davis Richardson Politico Conyers scandal rocks House Democrats (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/john-conyers-sexual-harassment-253977)--by John Bresnahan and Heather Caygle The Washington Post Rep. John Conyers Jr. resigns over sexual harassment allegations after a half-century in Congress (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/conyers-wont-seek-reelection-following-harassment-allegations-report-says/2017/12/05/17057ea0-d9bb-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html)--by Elsie Viebeck and David Weigel Wikipedia John Conyers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers) WXYZ MI Rep. Conyers admits to paying settlement, denies harassment allegations (https://www.wxyz.com/news/report-rep-conyers-settled-complaint-over-sexual-conduct) Photos John Conyers (https://www.ajc.com/resizer/oPZlvfAbPl9oVOjzXpPEkW2BUWI=/814x458/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/ajc/QSXGSDLMHFBEAX26BFOHRAN3VA.jpg)--by Mark Wilson via The Atlantic Journal-Constitution John Conyers and MLK Jr. (https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/blog_main_wide_580x384/public/field_image/blog-mlk-jconyers-500x280-v01.png?itok=YYudDA3D)--from Office of John Conyers via ACLU Tina's Story Americans United Colorado Religious Right Extremist Loses Election For City Council Seat (https://www.au.org/the-latest/church-and-state/articles/colorado-religious-right-extremist-loses/#)--by Rob Boston Colorado Springs lawmaker back on committee, will hold town hall Wednesday (https://gazette.com/government/colorado-springs-lawmaker-back-on-committee-will-hold-town-hall-wednesday/article_b5ca039d-379a-50ee-bab0-7daaa3d58305.html)--BY MEGAN SCHRADER The Denver Post GOP aghast at Klingenschmitt's act-of-God comment in baby's death (https://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/26/gop-aghast-at-klingenschmitts-act-of-god-comment-in-babys-death/)--by Lynn Bartels Klingenschmitt loses committee post, suspends ministry for six weeks (https://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/30/klingenschmitt-loses-committee-post-suspends-ministry-for-six-weeks/)--by Lynn Bartels The Gazette Klingenschmitt, Fornander offer 'extremes' on both ends in House District 15 race (https://gazette.com/government/klingenschmitt-fornander-offer-extremes-on-both-ends-in-house-district-15-race/article_cabcf39b-b571-55ca-90cc-23dd63526a39.html)--by Stephen Hobbs KRDO Controversial State Rep. Klingenschmitt loses state senate primary (https://krdo.com/news/2016/06/29/controversial-state-rep-klingenschmitt-loses-state-senate-primary/) Mother Jones Watchdog Group Banned from YouTube After Anti-Gay Chaplain Complains About YouTube Comments (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/watchdog-group-loses-youtube-account-after-anti-gay-chaplain-complains/)--by Tim Murphy Right Wing Watch Ted Cruz Is ‘Honored' To Have The Support Of Colorado's Demon-Hunting, Anti-Gay Exorcist State Legislator Gordon Klingenschmitt (https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/ted-cruz-is-honored-to-have-the-support-of-colorados-demon-hunting-anti-gay-exorcist-state-legislator-gordon-klingenschmitt/)--By Kyle Mantyla The Virginian Pilot Jury recommends reprimand, fine for Navy chaplain (https://www.pilotonline.com/military/article_e929de60-c506-582c-a753-7bab9751ca9f.html) Westword Eight Reasons to Give Thanks That Gordon Klingenschmitt Lost the Primary (https://www.westword.com/news/eight-reasons-to-give-thanks-that-gordon-klingenschmitt-lost-the-primary-8099758?storyPage=2)--by TEAGUE BOHLEN Meet Gordon Klingenschmitt, Exorcism-Doing, Gay-Slamming, Just-Elected State Rep (https://www.westword.com/news/meet-gordon-klingenschmitt-exorcism-doing-gay-slamming-just-elected-state-rep-6051583)--by MICHAEL ROBERTS Photos Gordon J. Klingenschmitt (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/H-Klingenschmitt.jpg/800px-H-Klingenschmitt.jpg)--photo by Donn Bruns (CC BY-SA 4.0) Klingenschmitt on Pray in Jesus Name (https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/klingenschmitt-brutal-attack-upon-pregnant-woman-is-the-curse-of-god-upon-america/)--screenshot via Right Wing Watch

Although the U.S. is not yet technically in a recession until the National Bureau of Economic Research says so, does the definition of the term "recession" matter to Americans? Plus, fellow Democrats are now praising Senator Joe Manchin for reviving the party's plan to fight climate change and cut health care costs in a $739 billion plan dubbed the "inflation reduction act," but Senator Kyrsten Sinema hasn't weighed in. And, there are fresh signs that the Department of Justice is looking into Donald Trump's role as part of their criminal probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. On today's panel: Associated Press White House Reporter Seung Min Kim, CNN White House Correspondent MJ Lee, New York Times Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Martin, Punchbowl News co-founder John Bresnahan, and CNN Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz. Hosted by CNN's Manu Raju.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Democrats and Republicans battle as the economy shrinks for the second time this year, President Biden scores key legislative victories, and the Justice Department investigates former President Trump. Jonathan Lemire of POLITICO, Ayesha Rascoe of NPR, Amara Omeokwe of The Wall Street Journal and John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News join moderator Yamiche Alcindor to discuss these stories and more.

Senate Democrats are lauding a deal on a spending package to reduce the deficit, lower health care costs, raise corporate taxes and combat climate change. It's a stunning development after more than a year of negotiations had failed to win the support of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López and John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News join Geoff Bennett to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Senate Democrats are lauding a deal on a spending package to reduce the deficit, lower health care costs, raise corporate taxes and combat climate change. It's a stunning development after more than a year of negotiations had failed to win the support of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López and John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News join Geoff Bennett to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Pres. Joe Biden met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman amid pressure to quell high gas prices as inflation soars. Carol Lee, David Ignatius and Amb. Dennis Ross discuss the outcome of the meeting. Plus: The president's remaining domestic agenda is all but dead after Sen. Joe Manchin pulls support for the latest climate and economic package. Ali Vitali reports from Capitol Hill and John Bresnahan discusses the potential impact heading into the midterms. Pete Williams has the latest on deleted texts by the Secret Service regarding January 6th and Shaq Brewster delves into Wisconsin Democrats' fight to take on Ron Johnson. Eugene Robinson, Rick Tyler and Kayla Taushe join the panel to talk the potential domestic political implications of the president's Middle East trip.

This week we have one of the top Capitol Hill reporters on the podcast. The House passed a package of gun-control bills and bipartisan discussions in the Senate have been making progress towards a deal. So, I wanted to bring on Punchbowl Co-Founder John Bresnahan to give us a breakdown of where this is all really headed. Bresnahan has been reporting on the Hill for as long as anybody, and nobody else has a better view of what's going on. He said Senators John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) are the key players. He said the two are genuinely trying to come to a deal, and the odds of a gun bill package passing the Senate are higher than they've been in years. Bresnahan said the policies that have passed the House are non-starters in the Senate. Instead, Senators are looking at other solutions. The top ideas so far are including some juvenile criminal records in the FBI background check system, "red flag" model legislation coupled with a state grant program, and expanding a mental health funding program to all states. However, Bresnahan cautioned that the real threshold for a successful bill is whether it can attract not just 60 votes but also a majority of Republican support. He said he remains skeptical something can actually get across the finish line. He's still watching to see if and when an actual written bill comes together. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss New York's new gun laws and the foiled plot by a gun-control advocate to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

This week I'm continuing a run of discussions with people operating the publications that sit at the nexus of power and politics. Punchbowl has had a successful launch as one of the new crop of publishers. Check out the episode, and if you're not already, please subscribe on Apple or Spotify. Also, please leave a rating and review if you use Apple. Washington D.C. has long been a company town, only the company in question is the sprawling federal government, its various apparatuses – and those who influence them. It's no surprise then that the once-sleepy media business around the government has become one of the most vibrant areas of growth in digital publishing. Consider:Axel Springer ponied up $1 billion to acquire Politico last August.Axios has pulled off one of the most successful early runs for a media company in its first five years, with a valuation of $430 million.The Hill was bought by Nexstar Media Group for $131 million last August.Grid News recently raised $10 million in venture funding.Add in Punchbowl, a year-old media startup founded by Politico veterans. Jake Sherman, a co-founder of Punchbowl, wrote Politico's flagship newsletter, Playbook, along with fellow co-founder Anna Palmer. (John Bresnahan, the former Congressional bureau chief for Politico, is the third co-founder.)While some digital media startups go to great pains to hang their differentiation on a new format or approach or business model, Punchbowl''s model is fairly straightforward. It is going to out-report its competition and be a must-read for those who need to keep up with the ebb and flow of legislation on Capitol Hill. While many outlets wander to focus on the White House, Punchbowl is squarely focused on the legislative branch.“We know we know the audience, we know what they're interested in, we understand the business model, we have ambitions,” said Sherman, speaking from his office at the Capitol during a week when the legislature was in recess. “We felt like we had the playbook, so to speak.”So far, so good. Punchbowl reached $10 million in revenue in its first year, with $1 million coming from subscriptions and the rest from sponsorships bought by trade groups and companies looking to get their public affairs messaging in front of those making and influencing policy. That's with a team of 10.Jake and I discussed how Punchbowl differentiates by using the Capitol as its lens, how being entrenched alongside the audience helped, and why ads and subscriptions can work well together. (Answers have been edited and condensed for clarity.)Focusing on the CapitolAs Trump and Biden have learned, the presidency's powers are limited when it comes to passing legislation that reflects the president's priorities. For Punchbowl, named after the Secret Service code name for the Capitol, the focus is on the legislative process, in particular the priorities of the leadership of both parties.“I'v

As of today, Wednesday, Congress has mostly finished its work for the year - with the debt limit, government funding and defense authorization all in hand. But there are still a few notable blank spots.John Bresnahan, co-founder of Punchbowl News, joins Chuck to talk about the unusually efficient December Congress is experiencing.

This week's episode is with Founder and CEO of Punchbowl News -- Anna Palmer.  Formerly of  Politico (Playbook &  Influence), Roll Call and a half dozen other remarkable Washington D.C. news sources, Anna has launched a new news-breaking outlet in Punchbowl News with John Bresnahan, Jake Sherman and Rachel Schindler.  And in less than a year, they've make an indelible mark in the Capitol and Inside the Beltway.  Tune in to learn how Anna got her start and how she's juggling reporting and building a news empire!

After weeks of intense negotiations, the House approved the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure in a late Friday night vote. President Biden touted the key legislative win as a "once-in-a-generation investment" that rebuilds roads, bridges, railways and water pipes. Now, Democrats must sell the bill to the country ahead of next year's midterm elections. Plus, after wins in Virginia and a closer-than-expected race in New Jersey, Republicans say education and parents' rights are winning issues for 2022. And the unemployment rate is down, the stock market is up and employers added more than half a million new jobs last month - but why do Americans think the country is in bad economic shape? On today's panel: CNN's Jeff Zeleny, Margaret Talev of Axios, NPR's Asma Khalid, John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News and Neil Irwin of the New York Times. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

There is still great journalism and excellent reporters contributing to our public square. One such newsman is Jake Sherman, co-founder of Punchbowl News, a daily news service focusing on Congress. After 11 years at Politico, Jake started Punchbowl with Anna Palmer and John Bresnahan. He also co-authored The Hill to Die On: The Battle for Congress and the Future of Trump's America, which covers the extraordinary period in politics from 2016 to 2018. We discuss what it takes to be a good reporter, what it was like to be in the Capitol on January 6th, what's happening in Congress today along with some projections for the road ahead.

There is still great journalism and excellent reporters contributing to our public square. One such newsman is Jake Sherman, co-founder of Punchbowl News, a daily news service focusing on Congress. After 11 years at Politico, Jake started Punchbowl with Anna Palmer and John Bresnahan. He also co-authored The Hill to Die On: The Battle for Congress and the Future of Trump's America, which covers the extraordinary period in politics from 2016 to 2018. We discuss what it takes to be a good reporter, what it was like to be in the Capitol on January 6th, what's happening in Congress today along with some projections for the road ahead.

Progressives are holding firm and demanding a vote on a bill full of liberal priorities before also voting on the bipartisan infrastructure plan. President Biden admits that "everybody is frustrated," but still expects both parts of his expansive agenda to eventually land on his desk. Plus, Democrats aim to continue their winning streak in Virginia in next month's gubernatorial election. But Republicans are betting that a Biden backlash could power them to an upset win. And what does Sen. Kyrsten Sinema want and why is she so eager to buck her party? On today's panel: CNN's Jeff Zeleny, Lisa Lerer of the New York Times, Politico's Laura Barron Lopez, John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

The U.S. is facing a setback in the fight against Covid-19 as the contagious Delta variant devastates largely unvaccinated communities. Now, 80% of the country lives in an area of community spread and health officials are advising Americans to mask up. Plus, is President Biden on the verge of a big win on infrastructure? The Senate is closer than ever to passing a trillion-dollar bipartisan plan. And tensions boil over on Capitol Hill over masks, January 6th, and much more. On today's panel: Eva McKend of Spectrum News, The New York Times' Jonathan Martin, John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News, Politico's Laura Barron Lopez, The Washington Post's Yasmeen Abutaleb, Brown University Medical School Associate Dean Dr. Megan Ranney.   To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

In this week's episode Lisa visits with John Bresnahan with Punchbowl News -- a new and groundbreaking news outlet in Washington, D.C.  His path to journalism is not the traditional path, but it has led to a successful and remarkable career.  Give it a listen! 

In this episode and as the world reacts to Chauvin’s verdict, Anthony is joined by John Bresnahan, co-founder of Punchbowl News to get his thoughts on the trial - and what this means for the American people and its legal system.Simon Litter, entrepreneur, philanthropist and wine expert gives his take on what wine we should be drinking this spring, its ability to connect people, and together they discuss the work of the Inside Circle Foundation - a rehabilitation program for the currently incarcerated. Finally, William D. Cohan, former investment banker, business writer and bestselling author has a conversation with Anthony reflecting on Wall Street’s glory days, and they delve into his many books, the latest ‘Four Friends: Promising Lives Cut Short’ -  and what we can expect from him next.  Follow our guests on Twitter:@bresreports @Simonwines @WilliamCohan Follow us:@moochfm @scaramucci Sign up for our newsletter at:www.mooch.fm Created & produced by Podcast Partners:www.podcastpartners.com 

The question of what happens next really moves from Minneapolis to Washington, where the issue of police reform is now in the hands of President Biden and Congress. Chuck is joined by co-founder of Punchbowl News, John Bresnahan and NBC News Capitol Hill producer and reporter, Alex Moe. Plus Bettina Boxall, staff writer at the LA Times covering water and the environment talks about water security. 

John Bresnahan has covered Congress for decades, recently as Politico’s Capitol Hill bureau chief and now as co-founder of Punchbowl News. He describes what he saw from inside the building as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol this week — and what implications the searing event could have going forward. Support this show and all of The Atlantic's journalism by subscribing at: theatlantic.com/supportus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Bresnahan, Co-Founder of Punchbowl News, calls into the John Howell show while on the scene at the Capitol Hill Protest.

In this segment, we talk all about Nancy Pelosi and what she has done to rig the Speaker of the House election in her favor. It turns out that she had a tent erected in the gallery so that quarantined members of congress could go vote for her. Though we know now that she just barely secured victory, the shameful way in which she exists just intolerable. Let's read about it! If you would like to donate to our cause please click here: https://www.americanreveille.com/american-reveille-donateEnjoy!Please follow me on Parlor at - http://ow.ly/QNma50AwfEgListen to the ARP on Spotify - http://ow.ly/gOON50zPya7Listen to the ARP on Apple Podcasts - http://ow.ly/Nlsw50zvkUTWatch on Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/c-309065Listen to the ARP on iHeartRADIO - http://ow.ly/eDYB50A7gc8Listen to the ARP on Tune In / Alexa - http://ow.ly/QOH650A7gdcPlease visit the American Reveille Podcast website http://www.americanreveille.com

Is the presidential race where the polls say it is? What might pollsters be missing this election cycle? Is there a scenario in which Biden wins the electoral college handedly and Republicans somehow hold the Senate? Polls suggest that Republican senators’ reelection odds aren’t looking too sunny in Maine, Colorado, and Arizona. But what about Republican Senator Thom Tillis in North Carolina? “Everything comes down to whether a late breaking sex scandal in North Carolina can preserve a seat that Republicans a few weeks ago thought was lost,” says Josh Kraushaar, National Journal’s senior national political columnist, on today’s episode. “Ultimately, they’re hoping on a Democratic blunder on the last month of the campaign to save the Senate.” Join Sarah, Steve and Josh for a conversation about prospective voter turnout, party infighting on both sides of the aisle, and the senators who are distancing themselves from Trump to save the Senate. Show Notes: -TheEconomist’s presidential election forecast, “Republicans learn the benefits of diversity … the hard way” by Josh Kraushaar in National Journal, “McCarthy locking up support despite fears of GOP losses” by Melanie Zanona and John Bresnahan. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last Friday, the world learned of the death of Congressman John Lewis. A civil rights icon and hero, John Lewis was known as the "conscience of the Congress," where he served for more than 30 years. In the week following his death, we’ve seen countless tributes across social media and from his colleagues on the House floor. There is a growing movement for Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge to be renamed in his honor and on Wednesday, The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced in the Senate. Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, and Congresswoman Lauren Underwood of Illinois share their remembrances and reflect on the legacy of John Lewis.  In the last year, the Congressional Black Caucus, one of the most powerful blocks in Congress, has lost three veteran members after the deaths of Elijah Cummings, John Conyers, and John Lewis. John Bresnahan, Congressional Bureau Chief at Politico, weighs in on this moment for the CBC as it sits at the forefront of the national effort to enact police reform.

Last Friday, the world learned of the death of Congressman John Lewis. A civil rights icon and hero, John Lewis was known as the "conscience of the Congress," where he served for more than 30 years. In the week following his death, we’ve seen countless tributes across social media and from his colleagues on the House floor. There is a growing movement for Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge to be renamed in his honor and on Wednesday, The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced in the Senate. Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, and Congresswoman Lauren Underwood of Illinois share their remembrances and reflect on the legacy of John Lewis.  In the last year, the Congressional Black Caucus, one of the most powerful blocks in Congress, has lost three veteran members after the deaths of Elijah Cummings, John Conyers, and John Lewis. John Bresnahan, Congressional Bureau Chief at Politico, weighs in on this moment for the CBC as it sits at the forefront of the national effort to enact police reform.

Last Friday, the world learned of the death of Congressman John Lewis. A civil rights icon and hero, John Lewis was known as the "conscience of the Congress," where he served for more than 30 years. In the week following his death, we’ve seen countless tributes across social media and from his colleagues on the House floor. There is a growing movement for Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge to be renamed in his honor and on Wednesday, The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced in the Senate. Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, and Congresswoman Lauren Underwood of Illinois share their remembrances and reflect on the legacy of John Lewis.  In the last year, the Congressional Black Caucus, one of the most powerful blocks in Congress, has lost three veteran members after the deaths of Elijah Cummings, John Conyers, and John Lewis. John Bresnahan, Congressional Bureau Chief at Politico, weighs in on this moment for the CBC as it sits at the forefront of the national effort to enact police reform.

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown - Wednesday, January 15, 20204:20 pm: John Bresnahan of Politico joins the program to discuss how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is strategizing with other Senators and the White House ahead of the impeachment trial4:35 pm: Tyler O’Neil, Assistant Editor at PJ Media, joins the program for a recap of last night’s Democratic Presidential debate6:05 pm: Boyd Matheson, Opinion Editor for the Deseret News, joins Rod for their weekly conversation about the world of politics6:20 pm: Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce President Derek Miller joins Rod to discuss a report for the United States Chamber that says Utah is facing a worker shortage with fewer than three workers available for every four open jobs

President Trump takes questions at Mar-A-Lago and impeachment is unavoidable. Senator Mitch McConnell however may like what he hears. Plus, Rudy Giuliani defends his work in Ukraine, hurls insults, and says he would love to be a part of the Senate impeachment trial. We go inside his bizarre interview with New York Magazine. And finally, we look at how the issue of impeachment is playing with undecided voters in Iowa. All this and more on a special holiday edition of "Inside Politics." Manu Raju guest hosts. Our panel: CNN's Lauren Fox and Ryan Nobles, Margaret Talev with Axios, and John Bresnahan with POLITICO. Also on the program: CNN's Kristen Holmes.

President Donald Trump has been impeached. In this episode, hear the key evidence against him presented by the witnesses called to testify in over 40 hours of hearings that took place in the "inquiry" phase of the impeachment. Using this episode, you will be able to judge for yourself how strong the case against President Trump really is as the country prepares for his Senate trial.  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD136: Building WWIII CD156: Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD202: Impeachment? Articles/Documents Article: Pelosi Says She Plans To Send Articles Of Impeachment To Senate By Claudio Grisales and Dirdre Walsh, npr, December 18, 2019 Article: Impeachment Timeline: From Early Calls To A Full House Vote by Brian Naylor, npr, December 17, 2019 Article: Ukraine and Russia agree to implement ceasefire BBC News, December 10, 2019 Article: How America’s System Of Legalized Corruption Brought Us To The Brink Of Impeachment By Brendan Fischer, Talking Points Memo, December 5, 2019 Article: Who Is Michael J. Gerhardt? Professor Made Impeachment His Specialty by Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, December 4, 2019 Article: The Betrayal of Volodymyr Zelensky by Franklin Foer, The Atlantic, December 3, 2019 Article: Eric Ciaramella: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know By Tom Cleary, heavy November 24, 2019 Article: Why Did ASAP Rocky Keep Coming Up at the Impeachment Hearing? By Aaron Mak, Slate, November 20, 2019 Article: Impeaching Trump And Demonizing Russia: Birds Of A Feather By Robert W. Merry, The American Conservative, November 19, 2019 Article: Gordon Sondland Was A Low-Profile Hotel Owner. Until He Went To Work For Trump By Jim Zarroli, npr, November 19, 2019 Article: Yovanovitch's Moment: Will Her Testimony Help Dems or the GOP? By Susan Crabtree, RealClear Politics, November 14, 2019 Article: Who Is Bill Taylor? Key Witness in the Impeachment Inquiry By Lara Jakes, The New York Times, November 13, 2019 Article: Mulvaney will not pursue court fight over subpoena By Katelyn Polantz, CNN, November 12, 2019 Article: After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine By Desmond Butler, Michael Biesecker, Stephen Braun, and Richard Lardner, AP News, November 11, 2019 Article: CNN host was set to interview Ukrainian President until scandal took shape By Caroline Kelly, CNN, November 7, 2019 Article: Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, defies subpoena in impeachment inquiry By Bart Jansen, USA Today, October 15, 2019 Article: 'Disruptive Diplomat' Gordon Sondland, a key figure in Trump impeachment furor long coveted ambassadorship By Aaron C. Davis, Josh Dawsey, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, and Michael Birnbaum, The Washington Post, October 14, 201 Article: The Sleazy Career of Kurt Volker By Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect, October 8, 2019 Article: Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed by Joe Gould and Howard Altman, Defense News, September 25, 2019 Article: After Years Of Stalling, Can Ukraine Finally Become Energy Self-Sufficient? By Todd Prince, RadioFreeEurope RadioLiberty, September 15, 2019 Transcript: Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Statement Transcript: House of Representatives Launching Impeachment Inquiry of Trump Rev, September 24, 2019 Article: Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia By Caitlin Emma and Connor O'Brien, Politico, August 28, 2019 Article: Trump kills plan to cut billions in foreign aid by John Bresnahan, Jennifer Scholtes and Marianne Levine, Politico, August 22, 2019 Article: The Complete Timeline of A$AP Rocky’s Arrest in Sweden By Isabelle Hore-Thorburn, High Snobiety, August 14, 2019 Document: Letter to Richard Burr & Adam Schiff August 12, 2019 Article: NATO is the obstacle to improving Russian-Western relations By Ruslan Pukhov, Defense News, March 28, 2019 Article: In Ukraine, A Make Believe Politician Prepares For the Presidency By Kenneth Rapoza, Forbes, March 26, 2019 Article: US staged a coup in Ukraine – here’s why and how by Chris Kanthan, Nation of Change, August 15, 2018 Article: How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine by Eric Zuesse, Strategic Culture Foundation, June 3, 2018 Article: What Did Ex-Trump Aide Paul Manafort Really Do in Ukraine? by Kenzi Abou-Sabe, Tom Winter and Max Tucker, NBC News, June 27, 2017 Article: What Exactly Did Paul Manafort Do Wrong? by Julia Ioffe, The Atlantic, March 24, 2017 Article: How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine By David Morrison, Huffington Post, October 3, 2014 Article: That time Ukraine tried to join NATO — and NATO said no By Adam Taylor, The Washington Post, September 14, 2014 Article: It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war By Seumas Milne, Guardian, April 30, 2014 Article: Facing Russian Threat, Ukraine Halts Plans for Deals with E.U. By David M. Herszenhorn, The New York Times, November 21, 2013 Article: Former Soviet States Stand Up to Russia. Will the U.S.? By Carl Gershman, The Washington Post, September 26, 2013 Article: Ukraine Says ’No’ to NATO By Kathleen Holzwart Sprehe, Pew Research Center, March 29, 2010 Article: Ukraine Faces Battle of NATO, Pro and Con By Mara D. Bellaby, The Associated Press, Washington Post Archive, June 6, 2006 Article: 'Meddling' In Ukraine By Michael McFaul, The Washington Post, December 21, 2004 Article: AFTEREFFECTS: THE LAW; American Will Advise Iraqis On Writing New Constitution By Jennifer 8. Lee, The Washington Post, May 11, 2003 Additional Resources Bill Summary: H.Res.755 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: Rudolph Giuliani Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: David Hale, U.S. Department of State Biography: George P. Kent, U.S. Department of State Biographies: Speakers’ Bios: US-Ukraine Working Group Yearly Summit IV, Center For US Ukrainian Relations Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020 Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020 State Department Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2019, CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 6157 Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 Explanatory Statement: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 State Department Hearing: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment U.S. House Committee on The Judiciary Profile: Gordon Sondland LinkedIn Profile: Kurt Volker LinkedIn Profile: Timothy Morrison LinkedIn Public Library of US Diplomacy: UKRAINE: PM YANUKOVYCH TELLS A/S FRIED: UKRAINE'S EUROPEAN CHOICE HAS BEEN DECIDED Wikileaks, November 17, 2006 USIP: About United States Institute of Peace USIP: Stephen J. Hadley United States Institute of Peace The Origins of USIP: Institute’s Founders Were Visionaries, Grass-Roots Americans, World War II Veterans United States Institute of Peace Video: Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told, YouTube, March 12, 2014 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Emerging U.S. Defense Challenges and Worldwide Threats, United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, December 6, 2019 Witnesses General John M. Keane Mr. Shawn Brimley Dr. Robert Kagan Transcript: 55:55 Robert Kagan: But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated. CNN Town Hall: Pelosi says Bill Clinton impeached for "being stupid", CNN, December 5, 2019 Speakers: Nancy Pelosi Transcript: Questioner: So, Ms, Pelosi. You resisted calls for the impeachment of president Bush in 2006 and president Trump following the Muller report earlier this year, this time is different. Why did you oppose it? Why did you oppose impeachment in the past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our president now? Pelosi: Thank you. I thank you for bringing up the question about, because when I became speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach president Bush on the strength of the war in Iraq, which I vehemently opposed. And I say it again, I said it other places. That was my wheelhouse. I was intelligence. I was a ranking member on the intelligence committee, even before I became part of the leadership of gang of four. So I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there. They had to show us, they had to show the gang of four. All the intelligence they had, the intelligence did not show that that was the case. So I knew it was a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was in my view, not a ground for impeachment. They won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think, people think that it was the right thing to do. People think Iraq had something to do with the 9/11. I mean, it's appalling what they did. But I did and I said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it forward. They had impeached bill Clinton for personal indiscretion and misrepresenting about it and some of these same people are saying, Oh, this doesn't rise to impeachment or that right there. And impeaching Bill Clinton for being stupid in terms of something like that. I mean, I love him. I think it was a great president, but being stupid in terms of that and what would somebody do not to embarrass their family, but in any event, they did Bill Clinton. Now they want me to do George this. I just didn't want it to be a way of life in our country. As far as the Muller report or there was a good deal of the academic setting and a thousand legal experts wrote a statement that said, the Muller Report impeach...is what's in there as an impeachable offense? So much of what's in the Muller report will be more clear once some of the court cases are resolved, but it wasn't so clear to the public. The Ukraine, this removed all doubt. It was self evident that the president undermined our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our elections as he violated his oath of office. There's just... That's something that cannot be ignored. Hearing: Hearing on Constitutional Framework for Impeachment, House Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, December 4, 2019 Watch on Youtube: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump Witnesses Professor Noah Feldman Professor Pamela Karlan Professor Michael Gerhardt Professor Jonathan Turley Transcript: 1:41:00 Michael Gerhardt: The gravity of the president's misconduct is apparent when we compare it to the misconduct of the one president resigned from office to avoid impeachment conviction and removal. The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon who resigned a few days later. The first article charged him with obstruction of justice. If you read the Muller report, it identifies a number of facts. I won't lay them out here right now that suggest the president himself has obstructed justice. If you look at the second article of impeachment approved against Richard Nixon, it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the FBI, IRS, and CIA to harass his political enemies. In the present circumstance, the president is engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust, placing him by the American people, by soliciting foreign countries, including China, Russia, and Ukraine, to investigate his political opponents and interfere on his behalf and elections in which he is a candidate. The third article approved against president Nixon charged that he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. In the present circumstance, the president has refused to comply with and directed at least 10 others in his administration not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas, including Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and acting chief of staff and head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney. As Senator Lindsey Graham now chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said when he was a member of the house on the verge of impeaching president Clinton, the day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury. That is a perfectly good articulation of why obstruction of Congress is impeachable. 2:02:30 Norm Eisen: Professor Feldman, what is abuse of power? Noah Feldman: Abuse of power is when the president uses his office, takes an action that is part of the presidency, not to serve the public interest, but to serve his private benefit. And in particular, it's an abuse of power if he does it to facilitate his reelection or to gain an advantage that is not available to anyone who is not the president. Noah Feldman: Sir, why is that impeachable conduct? Noah Feldman: If the president uses his office for personal gain, the only recourse available under the constitution is for him to be impeached because the president cannot be as a practical matter charged criminally while he is in office because the department of justice works for the president. So the only mechanism available for a president who tries to distort the electoral process for personal gain is to impeach him. That is why we have impeachment. 2:09:15 Norm Eisen: Professor Gerhardt, does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime? Michael Gerhardt: No, it plainly does not. Everything we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes. And again, not all crimes are impeachable offenses. We look at, again, at the context and gravity of the misconduct. 2:35:15 Michael Gerhardt: The obstruction of Congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. If you're going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. The job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. A president who says, as this president did say, I will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with your process robs a coordinate branch of government. He robs the House of Representatives of its basic constitutional power of impeachment. When you add to that the fact that the same president says, my Department of Justice cannot charge me with a crime. The president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. I don't think it's possible to emphasize this strongly enough. A president who will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry is putting himself above the law. Now, putting yourself above the law as president is the core of an impeachable offense because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody. 3:15:30 Jonathan Turley: I'd also caution you about obstruction. Obstruction is a crime also with meaning. It has elements. It has controlling case authority. The record does not establish obstruction. In this case, that is what my steam colleagues said was certainly true. If you accept all of their presumptions, it would be obstruction, but impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions. That's the problem. When you move towards impeachment on this abbreviated schedule that has not been explained to me - why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment. Fast is not good for impeachment. Narrow, fast, impeachments have failed. Just ask Johnson. So the obstruction issue is an example of this problem. And here's my concern. The theory being put forward is that President Trump obstructed Congress by not turning over material requested by the committee and citations have been made to the third article of the Nixon impeachment. Now, first of all, I want to confess, I've been a critic of the third article, the Nixon impeachment my whole life. My hair catches on fire every time someone mentions the third article. Why? Because you would be replicating one of the worst articles written on impeachment. Here's the reason why - Peter Radino's position as Chairman of Judiciary was that Congress alone decides what information may be given to it - alone. His position was that the courts have no role in this. And so by that theory, any refusal by a president based on executive privilege or immunities would be the basis of impeachment. That is essentially the theory that's being replicated today. President Trump has gone to the courts. He's allowed to do that. We have three branches, not two. You're saying article one gives us complete authority that when we demand information from another branch, it must be turned over or we'll impeach you in record time. Now making that worse is that you have such a short investigation. It's a perfect storm. You set an incredibly short period, demand a huge amount of information and when the president goes to court, you then impeach him. In Nixon, it did go to the courts and Nixon lost, and that was the reason Nixon resigned. He resigned a few days after the Supreme Court ruled against him in that critical case. But in that case, the court recognized there are executive privilege arguments that can be made. It didn't say, "You had no right coming to us, don't darken our doorstep again." It said, "We've heard your arguments. We've heard Congress's arguments and you know what? You lose. Turn over the material to Congress." Do you know what that did for the Judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. Now recently there's some rulings against president Trump including a ruling involving Don McGahn. Mr. Chairman, I testified in front of you a few months ago and if you recall, we had an exchange and I encouraged you to bring those actions and I said I thought you would win and you did. And I think it's an important win for this committee because I don't agree with President Trump's argument in that case. But that's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues in order and unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. But I can't emphasize this enough. And I'll say just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. 3:26:40 Jonathan Turley: There's a reason why every past impeachment has established crimes, and it's obvious it's not that you can't impeach on a non-crime. You can, in fact. Non-crimes had been part of past impeachments. It's just that they've never gone up alone or primarily as the basis of impeachment. That's the problem here. If you prove a quid pro quo that you might have an impeachable offense, but to go up only on a noncriminal case would be the first time in history. So why is that the case? The reason is that crimes have an established definition and case law. So there's a concrete, independent body of law that assures the public that this is not just political, that this is a president who did something they could not do. You can't say the president is above the law. If you then say the crimes you accuse him of really don't have to be established. 3:39:35 Jonathan Turley: This is one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment. I mean the Johnson record one can can debate because this was the fourth attempt at an impeachment, but this is certainly the thinnest of a modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which was is almost wafer thin in comparison, and it has left doubts - not just in the minds of people supporting president Trump - now it's in the minds of people like myself about what actually occurred. There's a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don't know, but it's not in this record. I agree with my colleagues. We've all read the record and I just come to a different conclusion. I don't see proof of a quid pro quo no matter what my presumptions, assumptions or bias might be. Hearing: Impeachment Hearing with Fiona Hill and David Holmes, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 21, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes Witnesses Dr. Fiona Hill David Holmes Transcript: 44:45 David Holmes: Our work in Ukraine focused on three policy priorities: peace and security, economic growth and reform and anti-corruption and rule of law. These policies match the three consistent priorities of the Ukrainian people since 2014 as measured in public opinion polling, namely an end to the conflict with Russia that restores national unity and territorial integrity, responsible economic policies that deliver European standards of growth and opportunity and effective and impartial rule of law, institutions that deliver justice in cases of high level official corruption. Our efforts on this third policy priority merit special mention because it was during Ambassador Yovanovitch's tenure that we achieved the hard-fought passage of a law establishing an independent court to try corruption cases. 51:00 David Holmes: It quickly became clear that the White House was not prepared to show the level of support for the Zelensky administration that we had originally anticipated. In early May, Mr Giuliani publicly alleged that Mr. Zelensky was "surrounded by enemies of the U S president" and canceled a visit to Ukraine. Shortly thereafter we learned that Vice President Pence no longer plan to lead the presidential delegation to the inauguration. The White House then whittled down an initial proposed list for the official presidential delegation to the inauguration from over a dozen individuals to just five. Secretary Perry as its head, Special Representative for Ukraine and negotiations Kurt Volker representing the State Department, National Security Council director Alex Vindman representing the White House, temporary acting Charge D'affairs Joseph Pennington representing the Embassy, and Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. While Ambassador Sondland's mandate as ambassador as the accredited ambassador to the European Union did not cover individual member states, let alone non-member countries like Ukraine, he made clear that he had direct and frequent access to President Trump and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and portrayed himself as the conduit to the President and Mr. Mulvaney for this group. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland, and Ambassador Volker later styled themselves "the three Amigos" and made clear they would take the lead on coordinating our policy and engagement with the Zelensky administration. 53:30 David Holmes: The inauguration took place on May 20th and I took notes in the delegations meeting with President Zelensky. During the meeting, Secretary Perry passed President Zelensky a list that Perry described as "people he trusts." Secretary Perry told President Zelensky that he could seek advice from the people on this list on issues of energy sector reform, which was the topic of subsequent meetings between Secretary Perry and key Ukrainian energy sector contacts. Embassy personnel were excluded from some of these later meetings by Secretary Perry's staff. 56:50 David Holmes: Within a week or two, it became apparent that the energy sector reforms, the commercial deals, and the anti-corruption efforts on which we were making progress were not making a dent in terms of persuading the White House to schedule a meeting between the presidents. 58:10 David Holmes: We became concerned that even if a meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky could occur, it would not go well. And I discussed with embassy colleagues whether we should stop seeking a meeting all together. While the White House visit was critical to the Zelensky administration, a visit that failed to send a clear and strong signal of support likely would be worse for President Zelensky than no visit at all. 58:30 David Holmes: Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine since 2014. This assistance has provided crucial material and moral support to Ukraine and its defensive war with Russia and has helped Ukraine build its armed forces virtually from scratch into arguably the most capable and battle-hardened land force in Europe. I've had the honor of visiting the main training facility in Western Ukraine with members of Congress and members of this very committee, Ms. Stefanik, where we witnessed firsthand us national guard troops along with allies conducting training for Ukrainian soldiers. Since 2014 national guard units from California, Oklahoma, New York, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have trained shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainian counterparts. 59:30 David Holmes: Given the history of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and the bipartisan recognition of its importance, I was shocked when on July 18th and office of management and budget staff members surprisingly announced the hold on Ukraine security assistance. The announcement came toward the end of a nearly two hour national security council secure video conference call, which I participated in from the embassy conference room. The official said that the order had come from the president and had been conveyed to OMB by Mr. Mulvaney with no further explanation. 1:03:30 David Holmes: The four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. I sat directly across from Ambassador Sondland and the two staffers sat off to our sides. At first, the lunch was largely social. Ambassador Sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us and we discuss topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business. During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone and I heard him announce himself several times along the lines of Gordon Sondland holding for the president. It appeared to be he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistance. And I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor changed and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speaker phone, I could hear the president's voice through the ear piece of the phone. The president's voice was loud and recognizable and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume. I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explained he was calling from Kiev. I heard president Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state President Zelensky "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So he's going to do the investigation?" and Sondland replied that "He's going to do it" adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the president. The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland's efforts on behalf of the president to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden. I can only hear Ambassador Sondland's side of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the president that the rapper was "kind of effed there and should have pled guilty." He recommended that the president "Wait until after the sentencing or we'll only make it worse", and he added that the president should let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker tape when he comes home. Ambassador Sondland further told the president that Sweden quote "should have released him on your word, but that you can tell the Kardashians you tried." 1:15:00 David Holmes: Today, this very day, marks exactly six years since throngs pro-Western Ukrainians spontaneously gathered on Kiev's independence square, to launch what became known as the Revolution of Dignity. While the protest began in opposition to a turn towards Russia and away from the West, they expanded over three months to reject the entire corrupt, repressive system that had been sustained by Russian influence in the country. Those events were followed by Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and invasion of Ukraine's Eastern Donbass region, and an ensuing war that to date has cost almost 14,000 lives. 1:17:00 David Holmes: Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. 2:00:15 David Holmes: In the meeting with the president, Secretary Perry as head of the delegation opened the meeting with the American side, and had a number of points he made. And, and during that period, he handed over a piece of paper. I did not see what was on the paper, but Secretary Perry described what was on the paper as a list of trusted individuals and recommended that President Zelensky could draw from that list for advice on energy sector reform issues. Daniel Goldman: Do you know who was on that list? Holmes: I didn't see the list. I don't know other colleagues. There are other people who've been in the mix for a while on that set of issues. Other people, Secretary Perry has mentioned as being people to consult on reform. Goldman: And are they Americans? Holmes: Yes. 4:18:15 Fiona Hill: As I understood there'd been a directive for a whole scale review of our foreign policy assistance and the ties between our foreign policy objectives and the assistance. This has been going on actually for many months. And in the period when I was wrapping up my time there, there had been more scrutiny than specific assistance to specific sets of countries as a result of that overall review. 4:21:10 Fiona Hill: I asked him quite bluntly in a meeting that we had in June of 2019. So this is after the presidential inauguration when I'd seen that he had started to step up in much more of a proactive role on a Ukraine. What was his role here? And he said that he was in charge of Ukraine. And I said, "Well, who put you in charge Ambassador Sondland?" And he said, "The president." Stephen Castor: Did surprise you when he told you that. Fiona Hill:It did surprise me. We'd had no directive. We hadn't been told this. Ambassador Bolton had never indicated in any way that he thought that Ambassador Sondland was playing a leading role in Ukraine. 4:36:30 Fiona Hill: And one of Ukraine's Achilles heel, in addition to, it's military disadvantage with Russia, is in fact, energy. Ukraine remains for now the main transit point for a Russian oil and gas and pipelines to Europe. And this has been manipulated repeatedly, especially since 2006, by the Russian government. And in fact, I mean many of you here will remember, in the Reagan era, there was a huge dispute between the United States and Europe about about whether it made sense for Europe to build pipelines from the then Soviet union to bring gas to European markets. 4:55:30 David Holmes: United States has provided combined civilian and military assistance to Ukraine since 2014 of about $3 billion plus to $1 billion - three $1 billion loan guarantees that's not...those get paid back largely. So just over $3 billion, the Europeans at the level of the European Union and plus the member States combined since 2014. My understanding and have provided a combined $12 billion to Ukraine. 5:02:05 Fiona Hill: And so when I came in Gordon Sondland was basically saying, "Well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. I have a deal here with the Chief of Staff, Mulvaney there will be a meeting if the Ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 and Burisma" and I cut it off immediately there because by this point, having heard Mr. Giuliani over and over again on the television and all of the issues, that he was asserting. By this point, it was clear that Burisma was code for the Bidens because Giuliani was laying it out there. I could see why Colonel Vindman was alarmed and he said this is inappropriate with the National Security Council. We can't be involved in this. 5:03:45 Fiona Hill: And that's when I pushed back on Ambassador Sondland and said, "Look, I know there's differences about whether one, we should have this meeting. We're trying to figure out whether we should have it after the Ukrainian, democratic, sorry, parliamentary elections, the Rada elections", which by that point I think had been set for July 21st. It must have been, cause this is July 10th at this point. And Ambassador Bolton would like to wait until after that to basically see whether President Zelensky gets the majority in the parliament, which would enable him to form a cabinet. And then we can move forward. 6:05:50 Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): Dr. Hill, turning back to you, there's been discussion about the process of scheduling the meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump, and you testified that there was hesitancy to schedule this meeting until after the Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct, yes. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And that's because there was speculation in all analytical circles, both in Ukraine and outside the Ukraine, that Zelensky might not be able to get the majority that he needed to form a cabinet, correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And you also testified that another aspect of the NSC hesitancy to schedule this meeting was based on broader concerns related to Zelensky's ability to implement anti-corruption reforms. And this was in specific relation to Ukrainian oligarchs who basically were the owner of the TV company that Mr. Zelensky his program had been a part of. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. 6:21:40 Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): One of them is headlined "After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine." The other one is titled "Wall Street Journal, federal prosecutors probe Giuliani's links to Ukrainian energy projects." Mr. Holmes. Thank you, chairman. You indicated that Secretary Perry, when he was in the Ukraine, had private meetings with Ukrainians. Before he had those private meetings, in a meeting with others, including yourself, I believe, he had presented a list of American advisers for the Ukraine energy sector. Do you know who was on that list? David Holmes: Sir, I didn't see the names on the list myself. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): Do you know if Alex Cranberg and Michael Blazer were on that list? David Holmes: I have since heard that Michael Blazer is on the list. Hearing: Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale Witnesses Laura Cooper David Hale Transcript: 45:30 Laura Cooper: I have also supported a robust Ukrainian Ministry of Defense program of defense reform to ensure the longterm sustainability of US investments and the transformation of the Ukrainian military from a Soviet model to a NATO inter-operable force. 45:50 Laura Cooper: The National Defense Authorization Act requires the Department of Defense to certify defense reform progress to release half of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or USAI funds, a provision we find very helpful. Based on recommendations from me and other key DOD advisers, the Department of Defense in coordination with the Department of State certified in May, 2019 that Ukraine had "taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability."  47:15 Laura Cooper: Let me say at the outset that I have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. 48:05 Laura Cooper: I and others at the interagency meetings felt that the matter was particularly urgent, because it takes time to obligate that amount of money. And my understanding was that the money was legally required to be obligated by September 30th to the end of the fiscal year. 49:15 Laura Cooper: I received a series of updates and in a September 5th update, I and other senior defense department leaders were informed that over a $100,000,000 could not be obligated by September 30th. 49:45 Laura Cooper: After the decision to release the funds on September 11th of this year, my colleagues across the DOD security assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to be able to ultimately obligate about 86% of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, more than they had originally estimated they would be able to. Due to a provision in September's continuing resolution, appropriating an amount equal to the unobligated funds from fiscal year 2019, we ultimately will be able to obligate all of the USAI funds. 51:04 Laura Cooper: Since my deposition, I have again reviewed my calendar, and the only meeting where I recall a Ukrainian official raising the issue with me is on September 5th at the Ukrainian independence day celebration. 51:45 Laura Cooper: Specifically, on the issue of Ukraine's knowledge of the hold or of Ukraine, asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance. My staff showed me two unclassified emails that they received from the state department. One was received on July 25th at 2:31 PM. That email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee are asking about security assistance. The second email was received on July 25th at 4:25 PM that email said that the Hill knows about the FMF situation to an extent, and so does the Ukrainian embassy. I did not receive either of these emails. My staff does not recall informing me about them and I do not recall being made aware of their content at the time. 53:04 Laura Cooper: On July 3rd at 4:23 PM they received an email from the State Department stating that they had heard that the CN is currently being blocked by OMB. This apparently refers to the congressional notification State would send for Ukraine FMF. I have no further information on this. 53:20 Laura Cooper: On July 25th a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance. Because at that time, we did not know what the guidance was on USAI. The OMB notice of apportionment arrived that day, but the staff member did not find out about it until later. I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward on USAI, but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with State regarding the FMF. 1:02:40 David Hale: We've often heard at the state department that the President of the United States wants to make sure that a foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure that it's truly in US national interests, and that we evaluated continuously to meet certain criteria that the president's established. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And since his election, is it fair to say that the president Trump has looked to overhaul how foreign aid is distributed? David Hale: Yes. The NSC launched a foreign assistance review process, sometime, I think it was late August, early September, 2018. 1:04:30 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, Ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld from it, is that correct? David Hale: Correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, was aid held withheld from Pakistan? David Hale:Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Why was aid withheld from Pakistan? David Hale: Because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the Pakistani government towards certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with United States. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And in the past year was aid also withheld from Honduras. David Hale: Aid was withheld from three States in central Northern central America, yes. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): The past year was aide withheld from Lebanon? David Hale: Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And when aid was first held withheld from Lebanon, were you given a reason why it was withheld? David Hale: No. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): So having no explanation for why aid is being withheld is not uncommon. I would say it is not the normal way that we function... Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But it does happen. David Hale: It does happen. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And is it true that when aid was being withheld from Lebanon that was at the same time aid was being withheld from Ukraine? David Hale: Correct, sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):And, you've testified that the aid to Lebanon still hasn't been released, is that right? David Hale: That is correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Alright. 1:26:05 Laura Cooper: Russia violated the sovereignty of Ukraine's territory. Russia illegally annexed territory that belonged to Ukraine. They also denied Ukraine access to its Naval fleet at the time. And to this day, Russia is building a capability on Crimea designed to expand Russian military power projection far beyond the immediate region. 1:59:40 Laura Cooper: There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces. The first is the foreign military finance system, which is a State Department authority and countries around the world have this authority. That authority is used for some of the training and equipment. There's also the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. That's a DOD authority. Unlike the State authority, the DOD authority is only a one year authority. And then third, there's an opportunity for defense sales. And that is something that we're working with Ukrainians on now so that they can actually purchase U.S. equipment. But the javelin specifically was provided under FMF initially and now the Ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelin. 2:00:35 Rep. Will Hurd (TX): And there wasn't a hold put on purchasing of equipment, is that correct? Laura Cooper: Not to my understanding, no. 2:04:15 Laura Cooper: There were two ways that we would be able to implement presidential guidance to stop obligating the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. And the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. The second is a reprogramming action that the Department of Defense would do... Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): In both of those would require congressional notice. There would be an extra step that the president would have to take to notify Congress. As far as, you know, was there ever any notice that was sent out to Congress? Laura Cooper: Sir, I did express that, that I believed it would require a notice to Congress and that then there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. 2:07:41 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But you can't say one way or another whether the inquiries in these emails were about the whole, is that fair? Laura Cooper: I cannot say for certain. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):Right, and you can't say one way or another, whether the Ukrainians knew about the whole before August 28th, 2019 when it was reported in Politico, correct? Laura Cooper: Sir, I can just tell you that it's the recollection of my staff that they likely knew, but no, I do not have a certain data point to offer you. Hearing: Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Ambassador Gordon Sondland Witness Gordon Sondland Transcript: 54:00 Gordon Sondland: As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 Election DNC server, and Burisma. 54:30 Gordon Sondland: Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. 55:00 Gordon Sondland: I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. 55:10 Gordon Sondland: I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. Still haven't to this day. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. 59:40 Gordon Sondland: During the Zelensky inauguration, on May 20th the US delegation developed a very positive view of the Ukraine government. We were impressed by President Zelensky's desire to promote a stronger relationship with the United States. We admired his commitment to reform, and we were excited about the possibility of Ukraine making the changes necessary to support a greater Western economic investment. And we were excited that Ukraine might, after years and years of lip service, finally get serious about addressing its own well known corruption problems. 1:01:15 Gordon Sondland: Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to quote, "talk with Rudy." We understood that talk with Rudy meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then as I do now, that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters. Nonetheless, based on the president's direction we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a white house visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest, or we could do as president Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. 1:12:05 Gordon Sondland: After the Zelensky meeting, I also met with Zelensky's senior aide, Andre Yermak. I don't recall the specifics of our conversation, but I believe the issue of investigations was probably a part of that agenda or meeting. 1:12:15 Gordon Sondland: Also, on July 26 shortly after our Kiev meetings, I spoke by phone with President Trump. The White House, which has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys confirms this. The call lasted five minutes. I remember I was at a restaurant in Kiev, and I have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. Again, given Mr. Giuliani's demand that President Zelensky make a public statement about investigations. I knew that investigations were important to President Trump. We did not discuss any classified information. Other witnesses have recently shared their recollection of overhearing this call. For the most part, I have no reason to doubt their accounts. It's true that the president speaks loudly at times and it's also true, I think, we primarily discussed ASAP Rocky. It's true that the president likes to use colorful language. Anyone who has met with him at any reasonable amount of time knows this well. I cannot remember the precise details. Again, the White House has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call and the July 26 call did not strike me as significant. At the time, actually, actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president's concerns. However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice President Biden or his son on that call or after the call ended. 1:14:10 Gordon Sondland: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. 1:23:10 Gordon Sondland: There was a September 1st meeting with President Zelensky in Warsaw. Unfortunately, President Trump's attendance at the Warsaw meeting was canceled due to Hurricane Dorian. Vice President Pence attended instead. I mentioned Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations. I recall mentioning that before the Zelensky meeting. During the actual meeting, President Zelensky raised the issue of security assistance directly with Vice President Pence and the vice president said that he would speak to President Trump about it. Based on my previous communication with Secretary Pompeo, I felt comfortable sharing my concerns with Mr. Yermak. It was a very, very brief pull aside conversation that happened. Within a few seconds, I told Mr. Yermak that I believe that the resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. 1:38:30 Gordon Sondland: I finally called the president, I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can't find the records and they won't provide them to me, but I believe I just asked him an open ended question, Mr. Chairman. "What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?" And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood and he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell them Zelensky to do the right thing. Something to that effect. 1:43:00 Gordon Sondland: Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. 2:06:25 Gordon Sondland: President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The aide was my own personal guess based again, on your analogy, two plus two equals four. 2:10:30 Gordon Sondland: Again, I don't recall President Trump ever talking to me about any security assistance ever. 2:44:00 Stephen Castor: Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? Gordon Sondland: No. Okay. Stephen Castor: So the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released? Gordon Sondland: No. Stephen Castor: The president never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting? Gordon Sondland: Personally, no. 3:01:10 Stephen Castor: And are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our European allies? Gordon Sondland: That I'm definitely aware of. Stephen Castor: And there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the president. Gordon Sondland: Yes, that's correct. Stephen Castor: And how do you know that wasn't the reason for the hold? Gordon Sondland: I don't... Stephen Castor: But yet you speculate that there was a link to the this announcement. Gordon Sondland: I presumed it, yes. Stephen Castor: Okay. 3:07:05 Stephen Castor: And when you first started discussing the concerns the president had with corruption, Burisma wasn't the only company that was mentioned, right. Gordon Sondland: It was generic, as I think I testified to Chairman Schiff, it was generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in Ukraine. Stephen Castor: But other companies came up, didn't they? Gordon Sondland: I don't know if they were mentioned specifically. It might've been Naftagas because we were working on another issue with Naftagas. So that might've been one of them. Stephen Castor: At one point in your deposition, I believe you, you said, "Yeah, Naftagas comes up at every conversation." Is that fair? Gordon Sondland: Probably. 3:14:55 Gordon Sondland: I think once that Politico article broke, it started making the rounds that, if you can't get a White House meeting without the statement, what makes you think you're going to get a $400 million check? Again, that was my presumption. Stephen Castor: Okay, but you had no evidence to prove that, correct? Gordon Sondland: That's correct. 3:44:10 Daniel Goldman: It wasn't really a presumption, you heard from Mr. Giuliani? Gordon Sondland: Well, I didn't hear from Mr. Giuliani about the aid. I heard about the Burisma and 2016. Daniel Goldman: And you understood at that point, as we discussed, two plus two equals four, that the aid was there as well. Gordon Sondland: That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. 5:02:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): What did Mr. Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the President of the United States? Gordon Sondland: Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before I was in touch with Mr. Giuliani directly. So this all came through Mr. Volcker and others. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): So Mr. Volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States. Gordon Sondland: Correct. 5:20:40 Rep. Michael Turner (OH): Well, you know, after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president and said it's because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says "Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid." Is that your testimony today, Mr. Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations the aid? Cause I don't think you're saying that. Gordon Sondland: I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump... Rep. Michael Turner (OH): So no one told you, not just the president...Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody - Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct? Gordon Sondland: I think I already testified. Rep. Michael Turner (OH): No, answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Cause if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong. And the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that president Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no? Gordon Sondland: Yes. Hearing: Impeachment Hearing with Ambassador Kurt Volker and National Security Aide Tim Morrison, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison Witnesses Kurt Volker Timothy Morrison Transcript: 43:20 Timothy Morrison: I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one. United States aids Ukraine and her people, so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be. 48:00 Kurt Volker: At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know, from the extensive realtime documentation I have provided, Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions. 50:20 Kurt Volker: At the time I took the position in the summer of 2017 there were major complicated questions swirling in public debate about the direction of US policy towards Ukraine. Would the administration lifts sanctions against Russia? Would it make some kind of grand bargain with Russia in which it would trade recognition of Russia seizure of Ukrainian territory for some other deal in Syria or elsewhere? Would the administration recognize Russia's claimed annexation of Crimea? Will this just become another frozen conflict? There are also a vast number of vacancies in key diplomatic positions. So no one was really representing the United States in the negotiating process about ending the war in Eastern Ukraine. 51:20 Kurt Volker: We changed the language commonly used to describe Russia's aggression. I was the administration's most outspoken public figure highlighting Russia's invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine, calling out Russia's responsibility to end the war. 54:45 Kurt Volker: The problem was that despite the unanimous positive assessment and recommendations of those of us who were part of the US presidential delegation that attended the inauguration of President Zelensky, President Trump was receiving a different negative narrative about Ukraine and President Zelensky. That narrative was fueled by accusations from Ukraine's then prosecutor general and conveyed to the president by former mayor Rudy Giuliani. As I previously told this committee, I became aware of the negative impact this was having on our policy efforts when four of us, who were a part of the presidential delegation to the inauguration, met as a group with President Trump on May 23rd. We stressed our finding that President Zelensky represented the best chance for getting Ukraine out of the mire of corruption and had been in for over 20 years. We urged him to invite President Zelensky to the White House. The president was very skeptical. Given Ukraine's history of corruption. That's understandable. He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country full of terrible people. He said they tried to take me down. In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations with Mayor Giuliani. It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new president, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view. Within a few days, on May 29th, President Trump indeed signed the congratulatory letter to President Zelensky, which included an invitation to the president to visit him at the White House. However, more than four weeks passed and we could not nail down a date for the meeting. I came to believe that the president's long-held negative view towards Ukraine was causing hesitation in actually scheduling the meeting, much as we had seen in our oval office discussion. 57:35 Kurt Volker: President Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak approached me several days later to ask to be connected to Mayor Giuliani. I agreed to make that connection. I did so because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like Mayor Giuliani, who believes such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of us support. Ukrainians believed that if they could get their own narrative across in a way that convinced Mayor Giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, Mayor Giuliani would convey that assessment to President Trump, thus correcting the previous negative narrative. That made sense to me and I tried to be helpful. I made clear to the Ukrainians that Mayor Giuliani was a private citizen, the president's personal lawyer, and not representing the US government. Likewise, in my conversations with Mayor Giuliani, I never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions, rather, the information flow was the other way. From Ukraine to Mayor Giuliani in the hopes that this would clear up the information reaching President Trump. 1:00:15 Kurt Volker: I connected Mayor Giuliani and Andriy Yermak by text and later by phone they met in person on August 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which I did not attend, Mr. Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of Ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past, and Mr. Yermak stressed that he told Mr. Giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms, and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. 1:00:45 Kurt Volker: Mr. Giuliani said he believed that the Ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with Mr. Yermak. I said, I did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position. Anyway, I followed up with Mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. 1:02:10 Kurt Volker: On August 16th, Mr. Yermak shared a draft with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. Ambassador Sondland I had a further conversation with Mr. Giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in Ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to Burisma and 2016 and again, there was no mention of Vice President Biden in these conversations. 1:02:40 Kurt Volker: Ambassador Sondland and I discussed these points and I edited the statement drafted by Mr. Yermak to include these points to see how it looked. I then discussed it further with Mr. Yermak. He said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that since Mr. Lutsenko was still officially the prosecutor general, they did not want to mention Burisma or 2016 and I agreed. And the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. These were the last conversations I had about this statement, which were on or about August 17 to 18. 1:04:00 Kurt Volker: At the time I was connecting Mr. Yermak and Mr. Giuliani and discussing with Mr. Yermak and Ambassador Sondland a possible statement that could be made by the Ukrainian president, I did not know of any linkage between the hold on security assistance and Ukraine pursuing investigatio

This week, President Donald Trump was accused of enlisting the President of Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Vice President Joe Biden. A whistleblower's complaint alleges that the White House tried to hide the transcript of the conversation between the two leaders. For many, the allegations leveled against President Trump this week broke the dam. Several Democrats from purple districts who previously had not supported impeachment decided to back an impeachment inquiry announced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday. Shortly after, an unclassified version of the whistleblower's complaint was released and the acting Director of National Intelligence went before Congress.  Purple-district Democrat, Rep. Colin Allred of Texas, joined Politics with Amy Walter to discuss what changed his mind on the impeachment inquiry.  Guests: Representative Colin Allred, Democrat, Texas-32 John Bresnahan, Congressional Bureau Chief for Politico Margaret Taylor, Senior Editor and Counsel at Lawfare Doug Heye, Republican Strategist and CNN Contributor  Joel Payne, Democratic Strategist and Former Aide to Harry Reid

Air traffic controllers in the United States are a part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) but Congress is seriously considering changing that. In this episode, we examine a plan being developed to transfer control of the nation’s air traffic to a new non-profit corporation. Also, with former FBI Directory Jim Comey’s testimony to Congress dominating the news cycle, we take a trip down memory lane to the Bush years when Jim Comey testified before Congress in one of the most riveting moments in Congressional hearing history. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Additional Reading Article: So What's the Deal with Air Traffic Control Reform? by Aarian Marshall, Wired, June 6, 2017. Article: Inspector General Reports on FAA's Efforts to Modernize the NAS by Rob Mark, Flying Mag, May 25, 2017. Article: The Wait for ATC Privatization is Over as White House Budget Emerges by Rob Mark, Flying Mag, March 16, 2017. Article: Shuster admits relationship with airline lobbyist by John Bresnahan, Anna Palmer, and Jake Sherman, Politico, April 16, 2015. Article: FAA seeks new air traffic controllers - no experience needed by Tanita Gaither, Hawaii News Now, 2014. Article: The Real Battle Over Air Traffic Control by Robert Poole and Dorothy Robyn, Reason Foundation, November 3, 2003. References Boston University: Dorothy Robyn Bio Hartzell Prop: Joseph W. Brown Bio Office of Inspector General: Calvin L. Scovel III Bio NATCA: Paul Rinaldi Bio Reason Foundation: Company FAQs Reason Foundation: Robert Poole Bio GovTrack: H.R. 4441 Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act Overview GovTrack: H.R. 4441 - Supporters vs Opponents GovTrack: H.R. 4441 - Text OpenSecrets: Rep. Bill Shuster OpenSecrets: Rep. Bill Shuster - Campaign Finance OpenSecrets: Airlines for America YouTube: James Comey testifies about Gonzales pressuring Ashcroft to OK spying Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Air Traffic Control Reform, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, May 17, 2017. Watch on CSPAN Witnesses The Honorable Calvin Scovel, III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation Joseph W. Brown, President, Hartzell Propeller, Inc. Mr. Robert W. Poole, Jr., Director of Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation Mr. Paul M. Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Assocation Ms. Dorothy Robyn, Independent Policy Analyst Timestamps & Transcripts 3:33 Chairman Bill Shuster: Today we’ll focus on the need for air traffic control reform, divesting the high-tech service, 24/7 service business, from government and shifting it to an independent not-for-profit entity. 4:20 Chairman Bill Shuster: Everyone should be reminded of what happens if we choose the status quo. It means our system will be subject to more budget constraints, sequestration, and threats of government shutdowns. Sequestration isn’t gone. In 2013 sequestration led to furloughs and reduced operations, controlled our hiring, and training suffered, and the FAA bureaucrats tried to shut down contract towers. Fiscal constraints continue to be tight, as so in the federal budget, and that’s not going to change anytime soon, and it may get worse. We continue to rely on the unstable, dysfunctional, annual appropriations cycle. We have had no stand-alone transportation appropriations bill since 2006, and over that time period, Congress has passed 42 continuing resolutions to keep government doors open. The FAA also relies on authorizing legislation, and it took Congress 23 short-term extensions over five years before it passed previous long-term FAA authorization bill. Under these conditions, the FAA bureaucracy has been trying to undertake a high-tech modernization of air traffic control system for over three decades. It’s not working, and it’s never going to work. 5:52 Chairman Bill Shuster: Some argue that the latest attempt to modernize NextGen is showing some signs of progress, but we all know any progress is incremental at best and only in locations where the FAA partnered with the private sector. And let’s remember the name NextGen was really just a rebranding of the FAA’s ongoing failed efforts to modernize the system. NextGen is just a marketing term, not an actual technology or innovation, but it sounds catchier so Congress will fund it year after year. But the bottom line is there should be far more progress by now. Money has never been the problem; Congress has provided more than $7.4 billion for NextGen since 2004. Results of the problem: according to the FAA’s own calculation, the return on the taxpayers’ 7.4 billion invested has only been about 2 billion in benefits. And we’ve still got a long way to go. According to the DOT inspector general in 2014, the projected initial cost for NextGen was $40 billion, but they’ve said it could double or triple and be delayed another decade. Over the years, the FAA has described NextGen as transformation of America’s air transportation network. They also said it will forever redefine how we manage the system. But in 2015 the National Research Council confirmed what was already becoming painfully clear. According to the NRC, the original version of NextGen is not what was being implemented. It is not broadly transformational and is not fundamental change in the way the FAA handles air traffic. Only in the federal government would such a dismal record be considered a success. 7:40 Chairman Bill Shuster: Some have proposed targeting reforms to fix the FAA’s problems, but that’s an approach we’ve already tried many, many times, starting in the 1980s. Since 1995, Congress has passed various reforms to allow the FAA to run more like a business. Procurement reform in 1995 for the FAA to develop a more flexible acquisition-management system. Additional reforms in 1995 exempt the FAA from most federal personnel rules and allow the FAA to be able to implement more flexible rules for hiring, training, compensating, and assigning personnel. Procurement reforms in 1996 developed a cost accounting system. Additional personnel reforms in 1996 allowed FAA to negotiate pay. Organizational reforms in 2000 to establish a COO position, additional forms to allow greater pay so the FAA could recruit good candidates, particularly for a COO position. Additional reform in 2000 by the executive order to create the Air Traffic Organization. Organizational reforms in 2003 to establish the Joint Planning and Development Office to better coordinate NextGen. Reforms in 2012 to establish a chief NextGen officer. Property management reforms in 2012 to allow a better process for realignment and consolidation of facilities. All have failed to result in the FAA being run more like a business. The FAA has always performed like a massive bureaucracy and will continue to. 9:33 Chairman Bill Shuster: Last year’s bill that passed out of committee will serve as a framework for new legislation, but we are open to change. We want to talk to people and get their ideas, and that’s what we hope to hear today. 9:45 Chairman Bill Shuster: Our air traffic control reform proposal will be based on the following principles: create an independent not-for-profit corporation to provide air traffic services; fund the new service provider by fees assessed for air traffic service; free the new service provider from governmental dysfunction, political interference, and the uncertainty of the federal-budget process; create a governance structure that is right sized and balanced; and a board with sole fiduciary responsibility to the organization—and I need to repeat that—fiduciary responsibility. That’s a legal term. If you’re on a board of directors in the United States and you have the fiduciary responsibility, it’s not to who appointed you to the board; it’s to the board, it’s to that organization is who you’re responsible for, and that’s the law. That’s just not some pie in the sky. People can be removed and be prosecuted if they’re not doing their fiduciary responsibilities. 11:47 Chairman Bill Shuster: Give the new service provider the ability to access financial markets, leverage private funding for multi-year capital projects needed to modernize the system. 12:35 Chairman Bill Shuster: The only way to realize these benefits is to get the government out of the way. As President Ronald Regan said, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem. And we see all over the world people turning to the private sector—whether it’s Europe or it’s Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada—look around the world: countries, governments, are looking to partner with the private sector because they see they do it better. 13:01 Chairman Bill Shuster: Since the introduction of the Air Act over a year ago, this has been an ongoing process of education and discussion. We’ve held over 130 meetings with stakeholders, including both supporters and opponents of the Air Act. We’ve had numerous meetings with members of the House, the Senate, the White House, and other committees. These meetings have been extremely productive and give us new ideas to improve the legislation. 14:20 Chairman Bill Shuster: Air traffic control is not an inherently governmental function; it’s a 24/7 technology service. For those who worry that the system is too complex, I would say this: the most complex thing in the air space is not the air traffic control system, it’s the airplane. It’s the people at Boeing and Airbus and Cessna and the people that build these aircraft—that’s the most complicated thing in the system. And the FAA already oversees those highly sophisticated private-sector aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, and flight operations at arm’s length. We don’t build airplanes today, the government does, and that’s the most complex thing in the system. 16:26 Rep Peter DeFazio: We are now on the cusp of a 21st century system that will be the envy of the world. And other experts—MITRE Corporation, others—say a massive change now, where you cleave the FAA into parts, you leave the most vital thing to our manufacturers—certification, subject to appropriations, sequestrations, and shutdowns—you leave the most vital thing that is important to the American public, which is safety and oversight of safety, subject to sequestration, shutdowns, and political meddling. The only thing that gets moved is the ATO, and the ATO would be moved and essentially effectively controlled by the airlines. I know that the airlines aren’t here today, perhaps because they haven’t looked so great recently in public, and I’d also note that the airlines themselves have had outages 36 times—major outages—36 times since 2015. I’m not aware that the national air traffic control system has had a major disruption, with exception of deliberate sabotage by a contractor who knew how to get the system and the backup system. But the airlines, on their own, with no sabotage, have managed to melt down their dispatch and their reservation systems 36 times, stranding millions of people, so they can do it better, right? 18:15 Rep Peter DeFazio: In terms of funding, the FAA has currently projected, over the next decade, to be 97% self-funded. Unfortunately, the way our colleagues around here and the budget process works, despite the fact they’re self-funded, they can be sequestered or shut down. That’s a simple, simple fix. Take it off budget, make it into a trust-funded program. They are raising the revenues. That’s a simple fix. No, we’re going to cleave it in half, put vital functions over here—still subject to sequestration shutdown—and take this one part and put it over here and say somehow they’re going to self-fund. Now, the question, of course, is, how are they going to self-fund? The airlines have told me time and time again, they hate the ticket tax, they hate the ticket tax; they say, that’s our money. I say, no, it’s not your money; I buy a ticket, I pay the tax, the tax goes to the government; it’s not your money. They say, no, no, that affects the price of the ticket and competition and everything else; it’s a horrible thing. So, if they do away with the ticket tax, there goes 70% of the revenues. Well, what are they going to put in its place? Oh, it’s going to be a per-operation charge or something; we don’t know. Congress will have no say over this. 22:11 Rep Peter DeFazio: See all that yellow? That’s the U.S. That is going to be totally ADS-B, satellite-based, in 2020, with an exception—the airlines that petitioned and been given permission from the FAA for exceptions because many of their older planes do not have modern-enough GPS systems to use the new ADS-B. The airlines again have petitioned that they have a number more years before those planes would be able to use the ADS-B system. Not the FAA, the airlines themselves. 28:38 Rep Peter DeFazio: They can set user fees. User fees, I consider to be taxes. I consider the ticket tax to be a user fee, but we can argue semantics over that. But they are going to determine how the system is funded, which is tantamount to taxation without review by the Ways and Means committee or Congress. 37:00 Joseph Brown: Now, as a pilot, 4 to 500 hours a year, my office is the cockpit; and when I fly, I find a modern system, a high-functioning system, and I’ve seen it evolve over time, right before my eyes. I find controllers that do their job well, I find easy access, and powerful technology. I can file a flight plan from my smartphone and get my proposed route back, before I get to the airport, in a text. When I take off, I have GPS navigation systems on board that allow me to fly point to point all over this country. Couple months ago, I took off out of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area and got cleared direct to Burlington, Vermont, 1300 miles ahead. And while I’m flying, I have the veil of safety brought to you by ADS-B, which is in fact deployed, giving me traffic callouts and separation cues and weather in my route of flight. And when I come in for landing, I can pick from 3,000 precision approaches, brought to me by a NextGen feature called WAAS, including at my home airport, which I value tremendously on foul-weather days. So, the bottom line for me is, NextGen is working—it works for me every day—and it’s getting stronger all the time. And from a technology standpoint, I believe we’re on the right track. 43:30 Robert Poole: Business Roundtable group began in 2011, made an initial presentation to A4A in the spring of 2012. We got a pretty cool, if not negative, reception at that point. No one wanted to restart the battles that had raged over this issue in previous decades. Everything changed in the spring of 2013, thanks to the sequester. Controller furloughs closed FAA Academy; threatened closure of 189 contract towers got everybody’s attention. In response, A4A, NATCA, and AOPA all requested new conversations with the BRT working group. And in May 2013, all three groups in the conference room at Business Roundtable agreed that an air traffic control corporation, converting the ATO into a corporation, self-funded, and out of the federal budget was the best approach. After this happened, that fall, Governor Engler and several others briefed Chairman Shuster on the proposal. This was not coming from the airlines. BRT group included a former FAA administrator, a former chief operating officer of the ATO, two former senior officials of USDOT and several consultants. Our governing model, as I said, was patterned after Nav Canada’s. Their stakeholder board represents airlines, general aviation, unions, and the government plus four other private citizens selected by the stakeholder members. 47:50 Paul Rinaldi: NATCA members guide approximately 70,000 flights per day in the United States, ensuring over 900 million passengers arrive safely at their destination every year. The United States Airspace System is considered the gold standard in aviation community, but that status is at risk. Unstable, unpredictable funding and status quo threatens it. We need a stable, reliable, predictable funding stream to operate our current system and allow for growth in the United States aviation system. 48:30 Paul Rinaldi: We also oppose any system that would put ATC in a for-profit model. In order for NATCA to consider a support of any proposal, it must meet our four core principles of reform. First, any new system must keep the safety and the efficiency of the National Airspace System the top priority. Second, any reform must protect our members’ employment relationship. This must maintain our members’ pay, benefits, retirement system, healthcare system, as well as the work rules in our contract. Third, any reform system must have a stable, predictable funding stream adequately enough to support air traffic control services, growth, new users, staffing, hiring, training, long-term modernization projects. Also, this reform must provide a stable funding stream through a transition period. Fourth, any reform must maintain a dynamic, diverse aviation system that continues to provide services to all segments of the aviation community and to all airports across America. 50:10 Paul Rinaldi: Please don’t take NATCA’s position as a need for stable, predictable funding as to mean the appropriators have not done their job. The appropriators in both chambers of Congress, on both sides of the aisles, have done their job well. The problem stems from lack of regular order we’ve been experiencing for over 10 years now. This lack of regular order has led to stop-and-go funding, many threats of shutdown, and our current staffing shortage. We’re at a 28-year low of fully certified controllers. We have 10,532 certified controllers; approximately 3,000 of them are eligible to retire at this time. 50:47 Paul Rinaldi: Unstable funding has prevented on-time implementation of NextGen modernization projects. NATCA takes pride in our role in partnering with the FAA in developing and implementing important modernization projects. We have successfully worked on many over the years. Unfortunately, all have been impacted by uncertainty of funding. If you just look at FY 2018, as we approached April 28 of this year, the FAA shifted its focus from NextGen to shutdown. We, then, received a one-week funding extension, followed by a five-month funding bill. While we’re elated over the funding bill, five months is certainly no way to plan for the future in aviation. Congress needs to pass an FAA reauthorization bill that provides stable, reliable, predictable funding. Congress should exempt the FAA employees from indiscriminate sequester cuts, otherwise we will see a hiring freeze, reduced staffing, furloughs, delays, reduced capacity, and suspension of key NextGen programs. 52:07 Dorothy Robyn: I am a policy wonk, and I’m a Democrat. I testified before some of you during the five years I spent in the Obama administration—first as the deputy under secretary of defense for Installations and Environment and then as the GSA Public Buildings commissioner, following the scandal at GSA. Previously, I spent eight years on President Clinton’s White House economic team, where, during his second term, I was the point person on aviation and air traffic control, among other issues. A policy focus I maintained after leaving the White House, first at Brookings and then as an economic consultant. The first point I want to make this morning is that corporatization of the air traffic control system is not a radical idea, nor is it a Republican idea. The Clinton administration tried unsuccessfully to do this in 1995 with its proposal to create a self-supporting government corporation—USATS—which would be run by a CEO and a board and regulated at arms’ length by the FAA. At the time, only four countries had corporatized their air traffic control system; now, more than 60 other countries have done so. 53:40 Dorothy Robyn: Air traffic control is not an inherently governmental function; it is not inherently governmental. Keeping planes safely separated is complex and safety-critical, but it is a purely operational process that follows well-established rules. Like running an airline or manufacturing a Boeing 787, air traffic control can be performed by a non-governmental entity as long as it is subject to oversight by FAA safety regulators whose job is inherently governmental. 54:50 Dorothy Robyn: Is it a monopoly? Yes, at least for now, but the telephone system was a monopoly for many years, and we didn’t have the government operate that. 55:03 Dorothy Robyn: The current arrangement is flawed on safety grounds. This is important. Echoing safety experts worldwide, ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, has long called for the air traffic control regulator to be independent of the operation it regulates in order to avoid conflicts of interest. We are one of the only industrial nations in which the same agency both regulates and operates the air traffic control system. 1:06:00 Rep Peter DeFazio: So, let’s see, if I think about it, funding, sequestration, shutdowns—that all has to do with Congress. So if we had the FAA with its current funding sources, 97% projected over the next 10 years, so just a few efficiencies would get us to 100% self-funded, without meddling, exempt them from sequestration and shutdowns, would that solve many of your concerns—I’m not saying all—but would that solve many of your concerns, Mr. Rinaldi? Paul Rinaldi: Yes. 1:07:01 Peter DeFazio: Who would be responsible if the ATC failed financially in this country? Joseph Brown: Well, that’s one of my risk calculus when I think about this problem. The day the assets move out of the public sector and into the private sector, we’ve moved the essence of the system and the people with it. And there’s no way we can spend one day without that system full functioning and healthy and thriving. And so all the financial risk accrues to the people, regardless of where that monopoly reports. DeFazio: So, too big to fail. Brown: Too big to fail is my concern. 1:10:45 Joseph Brown: First, you have to invent and deploy the technology, which has generally been the FAA’s purpose, but then the user community has to equip and in many cases change equipment to experience the benefits, and that’s exactly where we are right now, and that’s why there’s an inflection point coming up. We have ADS-B fully deployed on a nationwide basis in terms of the ground structure, but only a percentage of the aircraft flying enjoy the benefits because they are not ADS-B compliant. Likewise, that will be true of Data Comm and other technologies. So, where we are right now is the FAA has done a lot of heavy lifting, and the users have to equip. 1:12:08 Chairman Bill Shuster: I would oppose going for a for-profit organization. 1:14:08 Rep Rick Larsen: Can this system be safe and broken, or should I drive? Calvin Scovel: It is safe, of course. And that’s— Larsen: How can it be safe if it’s broken? Scovel: —certainly a big plus for the FAA. Larsen: It seems to me that there’s a fundamental argument going on here— Scovel: Yeah. Larsen: —that says we have to go to privatization because the system is broken that actually controls the airspace. And if it’s broken, I don’t know how it can be safe, and so it would support the privatization argument. However, if it can’t be safe and broken, it would seem to undermine the whole argument for privatization. Scovel: I would characterize the system currently, it certainly is safe, and the record shows that. For a number of years now, no commercial aviation fatal accidents. As far as broken, I would take issue with that characterization. I would say certainly modernization has been lagging far behind where it should be, but it’s not broken. Larsen: Well, that’s good to hear. I’ll cancel my car rental. 1:31:37 Joseph Brown: I don’t think the comparison of our national airspace and management system to Canada is anything other than an exercise in gleaning some observations, but it’s not proper to directly compare. I mean, for sure, in our system we’re driving a much more substantial portion of our economy out of the aviation sector and the airspace that supports it. I mean, we have 10 times more pilots, 50,000 flights a day—it’s a wholly different organization. So for me, when I think about Canada, I believe that they made a choice that they thought suited their purposes with the role of aviation and its infrastructure, but we’re faced with entirely different objectives here, and as far as I’m concerned, the system that we’ve been living in has done a masterful job of adjudicating all of the interests of stakeholders, all the interests of our expansive country and the states that are in it and their needs, and so I can applaud things they’ve done that have worked for their country, but I also very much applaud things we’ve done in our country. And I would take exception to one thing Ms. Robyn said, which is she characterized our system as a laggard. That is just false. We have the technology deployed in our system today that no other country can rival. We lead in our NextGen initiative. So I’m pretty proud of where we are, and by the way, I know it because I fly it. It’s not a mystery, and it’s not a theory. 1:34:15 Calvin Scovel: As you know, my office looked at the air traffic control organizations for the other four countries. And we were told by officials in those organizations that they consider part of their borrowing authority to be leveragable or to be recognized by private lenders because, ultimately, should something drastic go wrong, the government would step in behind them. I’m not representing that that would be the case here—that’s your policy call to make—I’m simply relaying what officials for other air traffic control organizations have told us about their systems. Rep Albio Sires: So, in those four countries, they were on the hook? Is that what you’re saying? Scovel: Conceivably, they may be. 1:38:50 Rep Mark Meadows: Why would you suggest that the federal government can do something more efficiently than, perhaps, private stakeholders? Joseph Brown: You know, my calculus— Meadows: Can the federal government run your business better than you do? Brown: I would hope not. Meadows: I would hope not either, so why would you suggest that they can do that here? Brown: Well, because we’re talking about a range of interests here that’s much larger than my business. I mean, my business, I get to pick my product, I get to pick my customers, I get to decide what I think the value proposition is, I get course corrected by competition— Meadows: And it’s efficient that way, right? Brown: Yeah, but the— Meadows: So what if we had stakeholders who were making the same exact decisions that you’re making, with some parameters that are out there, wouldn’t you think that that would be more efficient? Brown: Actually, you’ve outlined my top concern which is that if this organization picks their customers and picks their service level and picks their product— Meadows: But, but— Brown: —they are no longer going— Meadows: But the chairman’s— Brown: —to pay taxes on public— Meadows: —already said that that can’t happen. We have an airspace that is available to everybody. Unknown Speaker: Gentleman’s time’s expired. Meadows: Thank you for [unclear] point. Unknown Speaker: Mr. Brown, you can finish, if you wish. Brown: I believe that I’ve made my point which is that the thing about this enterprise, one of the things that I’m concerned with is that it’s a coalition of stakeholders with a shared purpose which is to serve their own ends. And the thing that I like about the federal role in our airspace today is that is adjudicates an enormous diversity of needs in this community, whether it’s the Alaskan pilot who’s flying kids to school or whether it’s my business in Ohio or air tractors in Olney, Texas, they all have a seat at the table, and this has been demonstrated in this room today. Meadows: Yeah, my time has expired. 1:49:30 Dorothy Robyn: The FAA is two hatted; it does two very different things. It regulates all aspects of aviation, and that is an inherently governmental activity. You cannot write a contract that makes it possible for the private sector to carry that out. It requires judgment calls that the private sector can’t make. It also operates in the air traffic control system. There is nothing government—that is not inherently governmental; that is operational. That is no different than when GSA goes to the private sector and has them build a building. It is not an inherently governmental activity. The idea that, yes, the regulatory part of the FFA needs help. That part needs help. I agree with Mr. Brown. The idea, though, that in order to fix that, you don’t spin off the non-governmental part; that’s illogical to me. That’s exactly what you want to do—spin off the non-inherently governmental parts so that the FAA can stick to its knitting, focus on the regulatory function. 2:23:25 Rep Lloyd Smucker: Can you explain why you believe a regulated air traffic service provider would be outside of democratic oversight? Joseph Brown: It’s my understanding that this would be empowered as a business that can effectively decide what it invests in, how much it borrows, what technologies it picks, maybe what— Smucker: But still with congressional oversight. Brown: Well, are we going to have a committee for how they spend their money and what they invest in and where they deploy pappies and vassies and where they put up the next Data Community tower? Because if we are, why would we carve it out? 2:31:00 Rep John Duncan: I chaired the aviation subcommittee for six years, from 1995 until 2001, and Speaker Gingrich asked me to hold the first hearings on the proposed air traffic control corporation—Ms. Robyn, I think, will remember that—and at that point, I think almost everybody, maybe with the exception of Mr. Poole, was opposed to it and so forth. But the chairman, Chairman Shuster’s done an amazing job and now has brought some groups and people on board that were not in favor of this proposal at the time. 3:11:34 Paul Rinaldi: September will be here before we know it. We will be looking at another possible government shutdown, and as I said in my opening statement, as we lead up to a shutdown, the FAA turns their attention from NextGen or from UAV implementation to shutdown procedures. For the last 10 years, it happens a couple times a year, and we lose this time; and it’s four or five weeks leading up to it, five weeks on the back end of it, and they’re not sure what sequester is going to bring us if we actually do get a budget and do get a bill passed or what type of cuts we’re going to have into the aviation system. Hearing: Airline Customer Service, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, May 2, 2017. Witnesses William McGee, Consumers Union Aviation Consultant Scott Kirby, United Airlines President Timestamps & Transcripts 2:34:43 Rep Dina Titus: We’ve heard all this kind of ranting about how bad the airlines are and all these unfortunate experiences, and yet pretty soon this committee is set to consider a proposal to privatize air traffic control and hand over billions of dollars’ worth of investment and assets to a private corporation that’s going to be controlled by y’all, by the airlines, and then you’ll be able to run it as you see fit. Now, I’m opposed to that for a number of reasons, primarily because of how it’s going to leave customers kind of in the lurch, but my question is, what do you have to show that means you’re going to be able to take over this corporation and do well by your customers from that angle any better than you do from your angle that you are now? For example, there’re questions like, how much is the traveler going to have to pay to this corporation; what kind of things have you done at your airline in terms of routing that might be better that you’ll do through this corporation; terms of investment and technology, management decisions; what have you done about your own scheduling? All of those questions that have seemed to be criticized today, how are they going to translate into your being able to control air traffic control system through a private board? So, maybe y’all could just tell me some of the things you’re doing that would make an argument for why you should control that aspect of airlines as well. Scott Kirby: Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. And we believe that one of the ways we can actually help our customers is through ATC privatization. The worst thing we do to our customers is the long delays and cancellations. And those lead to customer service problems, they lead to the customer that gets to McCarran and is upset, and we want to fix that. And the FAA is a fantastic partner, and they want to fix that as well, but they’re handicapped today by the model, by the model where they do annual budgets, where investing for the future and the kinds of investments we need to make for the future are hard for the FAA to do in the normal course of business in the government. And the kinds of things that we could do to make the process better is, for example, you have more sophisticated GPS technology in your car than we use on aircraft today. We have these systems, and we could fly straight-line routes, but we still fly zigzag to highways in the sky to get from Washington to Las Vegas. We could do things like continuous-descent approaches. So today we’re at 35,000 feet, we step down in each one. It’s like driving your car and slamming on the accelerator and then hitting the brake, slamming on the accelerator—and we burn gas, and we take more time. All of that could allow us to fly shorter paths and get our customers there quicker. And we believe it’s one of the best things we could do for customer service is to reform the ATC program, and one of the best ways to do that is FAA privatization, not because the FAA is doing a bad job—they do a wonderful job—but the process is designed to be difficult and particularly for making long-term investments. 3:58:43 Rep Peter DeFazio: The question would be, well, now if we give control of the air traffic system to the airlines—effective control—four seats on a 13-person board, what do you think that means for customers and efficiency? William McGee: Well, it’s going to be particularly hard felt in the high-density airports and the busiest airports in the country. Now, I mean, what you just said is obviously a critical-enough issue: 17 flights scheduled at the same time. But underlining that is another problem that hasn’t really been discussed and that is the outsourcing—and it is outsourcing; the airlines call it partnering—but outsourcing of mainline flights to regional carriers. Up until recently, I don’t know if it’s still on there, but the Regional Airline Association on its homepage posted about the fact that not only more than 50% of all domestic departures operated by regionals on behalf of major carriers, but in addition they boasted of the fact that most of the departures every morning between New York and Washington, two of the busiest airports, not just in the country but on the planet—LaGuardia and Washington National—are operated by regionals. So, we have to ask ourselves, is that the best use of those slots to use smaller aircraft on some of the highest— DeFazio: So you’re saying that just because you’ve got a small aircraft and basically, maybe, you can follow it a tiny bit more closely, a little bit more closely, but because of wake turbulence, you’re taking up, basically, a slot with 60 people on board versus a slot with 180 people on board. McGee: Absolutely. I mean, I’m rusty on some of these issues; it’s been a long time since I worked as an airline dispatcher. But the bottom line is that, as they used to say, all metal requires x amount of space between it. So whether it’s a large aircraft or a small aircraft, there are differences with wake turbulence and things like that. But the bottom line is, again, are we using—these are public resources, let’s remember. These are not airline resources. The slots, they belong to the public. They’re treated as if they were private domain—but are we using them to the best ability in many ways, not just in terms of safety and efficiency but also in terms of the carbon footprint? 4:01:50 William McGee: And I think we also want to ask, well, why would they do that? Now, the response often comes from the airlines that customers prefer high frequency to consolidating flights. But there’s also another factor that doesn’t get discussed as much and that is the competition factor. In other words, if you have scarce slots at LaGuardia and you’re trying to prevent the competition from low-cost carriers, then use more frequencies out of those airports. Again, these are the most high ensity airports that we’re talking about. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

Government shutdown ahead! On December 11th, the government is scheduled to run out of money. In this episode, hear the story of how we ended up on the brink of a shutdown (again) and what you can expect in the next few weeks (hint: A huge must-sign bill that includes lots of corporate favors). We also take a look at the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, signed into law in November, which raised the debt ceiling and set the overall budget amount for the giant government funding bill to come. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bipartisan Budget Act Outline H.R. 1314: The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 Budget Enforcement Cancelled the sequester for 2016 and 2017 Spending levels 2016: $548 billion for security, $518 billion for non-security 2017: $551 billion for security, $518 billion for non-security War spending levels ("Overseas Contingency Operations") 2016 & 2017 $59 billion for "National Defense" $15 billion for "International Affairs" Agriculture Caps the rate of return for private insurance providers at 8.9% of the premium through 2026. For context, please listen to CD062: The Farm Bill Commerce Allows robo-calls to cell phones for collecting US government debts Strategic Petroleum Reserve Orders the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 5 million barrels a year through 2022 8 million barrels in 2022 10 million barrels a year from 2023 through 2025 Pensions Increases pension fund premiums that employers must pay starting in 2017. Health Care Reduces 2016 premiums for Medicare Part B by adding a $3 surcharge for future years. Charges drug manufacturers a rebate if they increase their prices for generic drugs more than the rate of inflation. Starting on January 1, 2017, Medicare will pay the same rate for services provided in a hospital and services provided outside the hospital. Facilities that were billing as hosptitals before the enactment of this law are exempt. Repeals the automatic enrollment of employees in employer provided health insurance plans. Judicial Increases penalties for health care providers accused of fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid system. Permanently cancels $1.5 billion in the Crime Victims Fund Eliminated $746 million in civil forfeiture money from the Justice Department piggy bank. Social Security Expands "disability investigation units" with partner with local law enforcement to ensure they exist in all 50 states and all territories. Increases penalties for social security fraud Eliminates the "file and suspend" option for social security benefits Temporary extension of public debt limit Suspends the debt ceiling until March 16, 2017. Spectrum Pipeline Creates a plan for auctioning federal wireless spectrum to telecommunications corporations by January 2022. Revenue provisions related to tax compliance Changes the IRS audit rules for large corporations, hedge funds, and private equity funds. Audio Sources Hearing: Rules Committee Hearing Senate amendment to H.R. 1314, House Rules Committee, October 27, 2015. Additional Reading Article: Congress avoids government shutdown by Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh, CNN, September 30, 2015. Article: Budget Pact Raids Victims Fund by Devlin Barrett, The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2016. Article: Federal budget clears crop insurance hurdle by Wes Wolfe, The Free Press, November 3, 2015. Article: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 changes audit rules for private equity and hedge funds by Karl Fryzel and Michael Conroy, Lock Lord LLP, November 3, 2015. Article: Budget Deal Gives Debt Collectors Authority to 'Robocall' Cellphones by John Schoen, CNBC, November 5, 2015. Article: Budget deal raises stakes for false claims, civil monetary penalties by Lisa Schencker, Modern Healthcare, November 9, 2015. Article: Social Security, Medicare changes are coming with new budget law by Robert Powell, USA Today, November 28, 2015. Article: Pelosi spurns Ryan's opening bid, mulls counteroffer by Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan, Politico, December 2, 2015. Sources Report: Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of H.R. 1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Congressional Budget Office, October 28, 2015. Report: How the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 Changes Social Security Claiming Strategies Social Security Solutions, November 5, 2015. Report: What's in Store for Medicare's Part B Premiums and Deductible in 2016, and Why? by Juliette Cubanski and Tricia Neuman, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, November 11, 2015. Newsletter: Congress Takes Step Toward Site-Neutral Medicare Payments in Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, McDermott, Will & Emery, October 29, 2105. Webpage: Budget Functions Webpage: American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS by Zachary Paiker, FactCheck,org, February 7, 2014. Webpage: Priorties USA/Priorties USA Action by Rachel Finkel, FactCheck.org, March 3, 2014. Webpage: Telecom Services & Equipment: Long-Term Contribution Trends, Opensecrets.org Jen's Podcast Appearance Lions of Liberty Podcast: December 7, 2015 episode Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

A resignation, renewed "national emergencies", help for a (very) few veterans, screwing over of VA employees and Native Americans, favors for drug companies, changes to Amtrak, a veto threat and more are highlighted from a relatively calm March in Congress. In the second half of this episode, Jen discusses her plan to keep producing Congressional Dish full time, extends an invitation to hang out, reads some of your letters, and answers your questions. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Resignation Representative Aaron Schock of Illinois's 18th district resigned on March 17th, 2015 after it was discovered that he overcharged taxpayers and his campaign for miles driven on his personal car. Article: Aaron Schock resigns after new questions about mileage expenses by Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer and John Bresnahan of Politico, March 17, 2015. Article: After 'Downton Abbey' scandal, Rep. Aaron Schock to resign from Congress by Donna Cassata of AP, March 17, 2015. Article: Congressman's spending brings Schock and awe by Jake Sherman, John Bresnahan, and Anna Palmer of Poltico, February 9, 2015. Article: Taxpayers pay thousands for Rep. Schock's renovations by Paul Singer of USA Today, February 3, 2015. Article: Aaron Schock is looking for a job by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times, May 6, 2015. Executive Orders EO 13660, March 6, 2014, Ukraine EO 13288, March 6, 2003, Zimbabwe March Laws H.R. 1527: Slain Officer Family Support Act Allows contributions made to funds set up for NYPD detectives Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos to be deductible in 2014, instead of 2015. Sponsored by Hakeem Jefferies of New York 2 pages S. 535: Energy Efficiency Improvement Act Requires the Administrator of General Services to develop model commercial leasing provisions that encourage tenants and government landlords to invest together in energy efficiency measures. The model provision will be published publicly to "encourage" private sector landlords to use them. The EPA will create a "Tenant Star" program to "recognize" energy efficiency by tenants in commercial buildings. Grid enabled water heaters will have activation keys that are only given to the utility or company that operates the grid. Grid enabled water heaters will have permanent labels informing people not to buy it unless he home is enrolled in a demand response program. It will be illegal for anyone to activate a grid-enabled water heater that is not part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program. Creates a public database for researching the energy use of commercial and multifamily buildings. Sponsored by Rob Portman of Ohio 10 pages March Bills H.R. 294: "Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act" For three years, starting on October 1, 2015, the Veteran's administration can place veterans who can not live independently but want a family setting into "medical foster homes" No more than 900 veterans may have their "medical foster home" care paid for by the government Limits the amount that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs can award According to a fact sheet issued by the U.S. Census on Veteran's Day 2014, there are 957,504 veterans with a rating of 70 or higher. Sponsored by Rep. Jeff MIller of Florida 4 pages Passed 405-0 H.R. 280: Authorizes the government to take back Department of Veterans Affairs employees' bonuses Allows the government to force an employee of the Department of Veteran's Affairs to pay back bonuses they previously received. The employees can be ordered to give back their bonus if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines that it's appropriate under regulations that the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs will eventually write. The employee will be given a notice and be allowed an opportunity for a hearing conducted by another part of the Federal Government. The decision to order a bonus repayment will be final and may not be reviewed by any agency or court. The Senior Executives Association (SEA), which represents Federal executives, wrote Rep. Jeff Miller a letter in opposition to this bill. Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida 3 pages Passed by voice vote H.R. 216: Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act Requires the Veteran's Administration to create more reports Creates a 'Chief Strategy Officer' position to do the reports Prohibits any additional money for the Veterans Department to use for the extra work Sponsored by Corrine Brown of Florida 17 pages Passed by 420-0 H.R. 639: "Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act" Article: House Passes DEA Reform Bill Changing Definition of When a Drug is 'Approved', Alexander Gaffney, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society, March 17, 2015. Fact Sheet: Drug Schedules, Drug Enforcement Agency Delays the approval date of drugs until after the Department of Justice issues a final rule for the drug. Forces the Department of Justice to schedule the drug within 90 days of the final rule Allows drugs that are in the process of being evaluated to be marketed and sold Makes it easier for drugs to be tested in clinical trials by forcing the government to rule on an application within 180 days. Creates a path for extending drug patents Sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, who has taken over $928,000 from "health professionals" and $634,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. 11 pages Passed by voice vote H.R. 647 Access to Life-Saving Trauma Care for All Americans Act Reauthorizes annual grants to trauma centers, but does not adjust the total for inflation Removes the requirement that the money be used for Indian trauma centers Sponsored Michael Burgess of Texas 4 pages Passed 389-10 H.R. 648: Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act Reauthorizes funds for trauma centers, without adjusting for inflation Grants can only to to regional burn centers that meet the standards and requirements of the American Burn Association. Sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas 4 pages Passed 382-15 with all no votes coming from Republicans H.R. 284: Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Improvement Act For two years, 2017 -2019, a company that wants to bid for a Medicare equipment contract has to buy a "bid bond" that costs between $50,000 and $100,000. The companies will forfeit the bid bond if they bid below the median bid rate and don't accept the contract Contracts can not be awarded to companies that don't meet state licensure requirements. Sponsored by Rep. Pat Tiberi of Ohio 6 pages Passed by voice vote H.R. 1191: Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act Exempts volunteer firefighters and EMT's from counting towards the Affordable Care Act employer mandate. Sponsored by Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania 6 pages Passed 415-0 Was the vehicle for the bill that funded the DHS for a few days in March H.R. 233: Tenant Income Verification Relief Act Landlords would only have to verify income for fixed-income families in subsidized housing once every three years, instead of every year. Sponsored by Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado 3 pages Passed by voice vote H.R. 360: Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act If the amount of Federal funds, excluding grants, is under 49%, housing projects on Indian land will be exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act. Requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to approve or deny cost overruns within 60 days. Limits low income Indian housing grants to $650 million per year through 2019 (it was unlimited through 2013). Tribes may have to forfeit saved housing grant money that is more than three times their annual grant amount as of January 2016 A new demonstration project will allow 20 tribes to partner with private investors for housing development projects. Grant money can be used to ensure a "full return on investment" for the investors Grants for Native Hawaiian homes will go from unlimited to $13 million per year until 2019. Sponsored by Rep. Steve Pearce of New Mexico. 38 pages Passed 297-98, with most no votes coming from Republicans H.R. 1030: "Secret Science Reform Act of 2015" Prohibits the EPA from proposing or finalizing a regulation unless the research used is publicly available online and can be reproduced Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who has taken over $610,000 from the Oil and Gas industry 3 pages Passed 241-175 Veto threat H.R. 749: Amtrak Amtrak will will be funded with half a billion a year for the Northeast and a little under a billion a year for the rest of the country, for the next four years. In order to receive grant money, Amtrak will need to hire an "independent entity" to decide what routes it will provide, including establishing new routes, eliminating routes, and frequency of service. The views of the private freight companies that own our rail infrastructure will have to be taken into account Creates a pilot program to allow the private freight companies to operate passenger service instead of Amtrak on desired routes for 5 years Allows the private companies to use Amtrak's equipment Gives the private company an "operating subsidy" equal to 90% of what Amtrak receives Requires the private company's staffing plan be available to the public This program will only be available on a maximum of two intercity passenger rail routes The private company will be required to run the route as frequently as Amtrak did The private company will be guaranteed access to Amtrak's reservation system, stations, and facilities. Requires Amtrak to eliminate their operating loss on food and beverages within five years and removes Federal funding of losses. Requires Amtrak to allow private sector use of Amtrak owned right-of-way for telecommunications systems, energy distribution, and "other activities" and Amtrak will share the revenue. Creates a pilot program to allow pet dogs and cats on some Amtrak trains within a year of enactment Pets must be in a kennel and stored as carry-on baggage Pet owners will pay an extra fee Larger pets will be allowed in the temperature controlled cargo hold The program will be paid for 100% through pet owner fees Sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania 80 pages Passed 316-101, with every Democrat voting yes Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Dirty Little Secret by 54 Seconds (found on Music Alley by mevio) Snap Back to Reality by The Undercover Hippy (found on Music Alley by mevio)