Podcasts about senate judiciary subcommittee

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they review Mollie's testimony about the censorship-industrial complex to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and discuss how The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg ended up in a sensitive Signal chat between some of President Donald Trump's cabinet. Mollie and David also respond to listener mail about Adolescence and share their thoughts on Severance.If you care about combatting the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they review Mollie’s testimony about the censorship-industrial complex to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and discuss how The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg ended up in a sensitive Signal chat between some of President Donald Trump’s cabinet. Mollie and David also respond […]

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they review Mollie's testimony about the censorship-industrial complex to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and discuss how The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg ended up in a sensitive Signal chat between some of President Donald Trump's cabinet. Mollie and David also respond to listener mail about Adolescence and share their thoughts on Severance.If you care about combatting the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

On Nov. 19, 2024, Adam testified in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law on Chinese cyber threats to critical infrastructure. This was the first time he publicly spoke about LIMINAL PANDA, a China-nexus state-sponsored threat actor that has been targeting telecommunications organizations since at least 2020. LIMINAL PANDA is a newly named adversary, but CrowdStrike has been tracking its activity for over three years. It uses custom tools and demonstrates extensive knowledge of telco networks, including the connections between providers. And it's not alone: There are multiple adversaries targeting telcos, with good reason — the access they grant, and the data they possess, is a gold mine for threat actors. But LIMINAL PANDA's activity does more than showcase why critical infrastructure is a valuable target. It also represents how Chinese cyber activity has evolved since the mid-2000s, when it mostly involved “smash and grab” operations. Now, China has refined its espionage operations to conduct subtle and advanced attacks targeting critical infrastructure entities around the world. In this episode, Adam and Cristian dig deep into the discovery of LIMINAL PANDA, the maturation of Chinese cyber operations and the scary consequences of telco-focused cyberattacks. Adam shares more about his congressional testimony and the value of keeping government officials informed on adversary activity. Come for Adam and Cristian's Thanksgiving recipes, and stay for a deep-dive on this evolving nation-state threat, in this episode of the Adversary Universe podcast. Read Adam's testimony here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/big-hacks-and-big-tech-chinas-cybersecurity-threat

Alvaro Bedoya was sworn in May 16, 2022 as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. President Joe Biden named Bedoya to a term that expires on Sept. 25, 2026.Bedoya was the founding director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University Law Center, where he was also a visiting professor of law. He has been influential in research and policy at the intersection of privacy and civil rights, and co-authored a 2016 report on the use of facial recognition by law enforcement and the risks that it poses to privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights. He previously served as the first Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law after its founding in 2011, and Chief Counsel to former Senator Al Franken, of Minnesota. Prior to that, he was an associate at the law firm WilmerHale.

Benjamin Ayanian is a contributor and Innovation Fellow at Young Voices, an organization for young, pro-liberty commentators. He has been published in Newsweek, the Star Tribune, Yahoo News, and more. Benjamin joins JT to discuss While some congressional testimonies are just an opportunity for partisans to score political points, there are other testimonies that are worth taking seriously. OpenAI CEO and ChatGPT creator Sam Altman's recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law was one worth attention. Our politicians invited a leader in Artificial Intelligence (AI) to instruct them on how to regulate his company's industry.

Tonya Robinson serves as Vice Chair and General Counsel – Legal, Regulatory and Compliance at KPMG LLP, is a member of the firm's management committee, and serves as the Secretary to KPMG's Board of Directors. Before joining KPMG in 2017, Tonya served as the Acting General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), overseeing nearly 600 professionals. Prior to her federal agency service, Tonya was Special Assistant to President Obama for Justice and Regulatory Policy at the White House. Prior to her service at the White House, Tonya was a partner at the law firm WilmerHale LLP where she worked on a range of litigation matters, including the ground-breaking University of Michigan affirmative action cases. She left Wilmer to work as counsel to then-Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs. Among her community and philanthropic activities, Tonya serves on the Board of Directors for the National Women's Law Center. Tonya holds a B.A. in Public Policy Studies and a Certificate in Women's Studies from Duke University, a post-graduate degree in African Studies from the University of Cape Town, and has a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law. Connect with Tonya Robinson on LinkedIn Shout-out: Today's Diversity Leader Shout-out goes to Monya M. Bunch Battle, Esq., Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at WilmerHale Music: Vente by Mamá Patxanga is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States ⁠License⁠ Amor Y Felicidad by SONGO 21 is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International ⁠License⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/si-suite/message

Tonya Robinson serves as Vice Chair and General Counsel – Legal, Regulatory and Compliance at KPMG LLP, is a member of the firm's management committee, and serves as the Secretary to KPMG's Board of Directors. Before joining KPMG in 2017, Tonya served as the Acting General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), overseeing nearly 600 professionals. Prior to her federal agency service, Tonya was Special Assistant to President Obama for Justice and Regulatory Policy at the White House. Prior to her service at the White House, Tonya was a partner at the law firm WilmerHale LLP where she worked on a range of litigation matters, including the ground-breaking University of Michigan affirmative action cases. She left Wilmer to work as counsel to then-Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs. Among her community and philanthropic activities, Tonya serves on the Board of Directors for the National Women's Law Center. Tonya holds a B.A. in Public Policy Studies and a Certificate in Women's Studies from Duke University, a post-graduate degree in African Studies from the University of Cape Town, and has a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law. Connect with Tonya Robinson on LinkedIn Shout-out: Today's Diversity Leader Shout-out goes to Monya M. Bunch Battle, Esq., Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at WilmerHale Music: Vente by Mamá Patxanga is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States ⁠License⁠ Amor Y Felicidad by SONGO 21 is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International ⁠License⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/si-suite/message

Hosts: Leah Murray and Derek Brown We begin the show with something we are getting to hear more and more about, Artificial Intelligence. Today, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee began a hearing on oversight and rules for artificial intelligence. ABC News Technology Reporter Mike Dobuski joins the show to discuss what was talked about at the hearing.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hosts: Leah Murray and Derek Brown Artificial Intelligence Front And Center On Capitol Hill We begin the show with something we are getting to hear more and more about, Artificial Intelligence. Today, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee began a hearing on oversight and rules for artificial intelligence. ABC News Technology Reporter Mike Dobuski joins the show to discuss what was talked about at the hearing. Artificial Intelligence & Utah Utah is also looking at how to manage the new rise of Artificial Intelligence. We speak with Senator Kirk Cullimore on his AI group, and how they are looking into this new technology and how to regulate it. Self-Defense Or Road Rage? The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the first appellate challenge involving a 2021 self-defense law. KSL Legal Analyst Greg Skordas joins the show to discuss the case, and why it could make the new law unconstitutional. Migrant Processing Centers Are Overloaded Last week, Title 42 ended, and there was an expectation of a surge on the border from migrants, but it hasn't really happened. Ali Bradley, NewsNation Border Correspondent, joins us to talk about the situation at the border, and how cartels are influencing the migrants crossing the borders. Utah's Special Session Preview Tomorrow, Utah legislators will convene for a special session called by Governor Cox. Yesterday, two new items were added to the agenda. Representative Ryan Wilcox joins us to tell the story of why this could help first responders. Will Pollster Get 2024 Right? Professional pollsters are hoping they can get 2024 right if Donald Trump is the Republican Nominee. Jason Perry, Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics calls in to discuss polling, and why the Trump factor has made polling hard in the last couple of elections. Controlling What Kids Have Access To We are seeing new laws around the country restricting what is taught in the classroom and what type of books kids are allowed to read. Derek and Leah discuss some of these laws, and whether we are heading in the right direction. Do You Feel Pressure To Tip? A new poll by Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics looks at how Utahns feel about tipping. Many say they feel pressure to tip, and that it has become an expectation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are many ways to make a career engaging with competition law. Guest Mark Meador, Deputy Chief Counsel for Antitrust and Competition Policy to Senator Mike Lee, has forged a unique path working on and off the Hill. What exactly does antitrust counsel to a United States Senator do? Mark discusses the various functions of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights and his own work. Listen to this episode to hear his unique perspective on working with competition law and policy. With special guest: Mark Meador, Deputy Chief Counsel for Antitrust and Competition Policy to Senator Mike Lee Related Links: Senate Judiciary subcommittees landing page Senator Lee press Hosted by: Christina Ma and Matt Michaloski

When the New York Times built on previous reporting in Politico and Rolling Stone  about an evangelical christian ministry that sought to sell access to and influence Supreme Court Justices with fancy dinners and donations, the Hobby Lobby leak dominated the headlines. But there is so much more to this story. To discuss how the headlines fit into a larger narrative of dark money and a captured court, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Senator Whitehouse is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights and co-author of The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture the Supreme Court. See also: The Supreme Court Ethics and Recusal Transparency Act.  Want a behind-the-scenes look at how we create the show? Check out Slate's Pocket Collections for research and reading lists, as well as additional insights into how we think about the stories behind the episodes.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When the New York Times built on previous reporting in Politico and Rolling Stone  about an evangelical christian ministry that sought to sell access to and influence Supreme Court Justices with fancy dinners and donations, the Hobby Lobby leak dominated the headlines. But there is so much more to this story. To discuss how the headlines fit into a larger narrative of dark money and a captured court, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Senator Whitehouse is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights and co-author of The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture the Supreme Court. See also: The Supreme Court Ethics and Recusal Transparency Act.  Want a behind-the-scenes look at how we create the show? Check out Slate's Pocket Collections for research and reading lists, as well as additional insights into how we think about the stories behind the episodes.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When the New York Times built on previous reporting in Politico and Rolling Stone  about an evangelical christian ministry that sought to sell access to and influence Supreme Court Justices with fancy dinners and donations, the Hobby Lobby leak dominated the headlines. But there is so much more to this story. To discuss how the headlines fit into a larger narrative of dark money and a captured court, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Senator Whitehouse is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights and co-author of The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture the Supreme Court. See also: The Supreme Court Ethics and Recusal Transparency Act.  Want a behind-the-scenes look at how we create the show? Check out Slate's Pocket Collections for research and reading lists, as well as additional insights into how we think about the stories behind the episodes.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on decriminalizing cannabis at the federal level earlier this week. While it's always great to see a discussion happening at this level, it's also frustrating to see how there are challenges on the prohibition side for anything comprehensive to make its way into these discussions.On this episode Cy and Emily discuss some of the lowlights and highlights around the state of affairs for cannabis decriminalization and eventually full legalization at the Federal level. If you love what we're doing here on the High Rise, then think about leaving us a review or share it with all your friends—we'd be very happy if you did!https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/decriminalizing-cannabis-at-the-federal-level-necessary-steps-to-address-past-harmshttps://www.marijuanamoment.net/house-debates-bipartisan-marijuana-research-bill-with-vote-expected-imminently-before-heading-to-the-senate/

Immigrant-origin students constitute one of the fastest growing populations of students on American campuses, and now make up over a quarter of all students. Add to this large number the almost 1 million international students from other countries, and it suddenly becomes clear why we need to have conversations about higher education AND immigration. There is no better time to talk about these issues than this month of June which is celebrated as Immigrant Heritage Month in the U.S., and June 20 is celebrated as World Refugee Day. June 15 2022 was also the 10-year anniversary of the DACA (Deferred Action for Children Arrivals) program that provides temporary protection to young people who were brought to the US as children. To address these issues, this episode features Dr. Miriam Feldblum, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a group whose membership comprises over 500 presidents and chancellors of U.S. colleges and universities who have come together to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform on their campuses. Miriam previously served in faculty and senior leadership roles at Pomona College and Caltech, and has been a Nonresident Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. Episode Themes: Mid-June 2022 saw major news and developments around higher education and immigration. Miriam shares highlights from the Presidents' Alliance's recent work with DACA, immigrant-origin, refugee and international students Why U.S. campuses need a comprehensive approach to immigration In an ideal world, what would immigration reform for immigrant and international students look like? Three much-needed solutions. Miriam's pivot from a long career in academia, and her journey to co-founding a nonprofit focused on higher education and immigration What draws Miriam to immigration issues at the personal, professional, and practical level, especially as a second-generation immigrant and as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor The outlook and vision for the Presidents' Alliance as its membership and work continues to expand Miriam is an avid reader and shares her recommendations for summer reading, both nonfiction and fiction Resources from the episode: A sign-on statement of support of refugee students and scholars DACA's precarious future: A conversation with legal experts and advocates Statement for the record for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety Hearing on Immigration and Higher Education Streets of Gold: America's untold story of immigration

Athulya Rajakumar, a Documented Dreamer who recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and Border Safety, takes us through the unique struggle of Documented Dreamers and the legislation that can make it better.

Antitrust enforcement is one of the most pressing issues facing America today. Google reportedly controls 90 percent of the search engine market, and Big Pharma has hiked drug prices up, making health care almost impossible to access for many. Senator Amy Klobuchar is leading the charge against monopolies. As Minnesota's senior senator, she has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights. Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age draws from her experience in the Senate, along with history, to give readers a comprehensive view of how monopolies have changed over the years and how the government has adapted to it. Senator Klobuchar explores today's Big Pharma and what she calls its price-gouging, tech, television, content, and agriculture communities and how a marketplace with few players can hurt consumer prices and stifle innovation. Join us as Senator Amy Klobuchar talks about the fascinating history of the antitrust movement, shows us what led to the present moment, and offers achievable solutions to prevent monopolies, promote business competition, and encourage innovation. SPEAKERS Amy Klobuchar U.S Senator (D-MN); Author, Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age; Twitter @amyklobuchar In Conversation with Sheera Frenkel Technology Reporter, The New York Times; Co-Author, An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination; Twitter @sheeraf In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on January 26th, 2022 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Antitrust enforcement is one of the most pressing issues facing America today. Google reportedly controls 90 percent of the search engine market, and Big Pharma has hiked drug prices up, making health care almost impossible to access for many. Senator Amy Klobuchar is leading the charge against monopolies. As Minnesota's senior senator, she has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights. Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age draws from her experience in the Senate, along with history, to give readers a comprehensive view of how monopolies have changed over the years and how the government has adapted to it. Senator Klobuchar explores today's Big Pharma and what she calls its price-gouging, tech, television, content, and agriculture communities and how a marketplace with few players can hurt consumer prices and stifle innovation. Join us as Senator Amy Klobuchar talks about the fascinating history of the antitrust movement, shows us what led to the present moment, and offers achievable solutions to prevent monopolies, promote business competition, and encourage innovation. SPEAKERS Amy Klobuchar U.S Senator (D-MN); Author, Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age; Twitter @amyklobuchar In Conversation with Sheera Frenkel Technology Reporter, The New York Times; Co-Author, An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination; Twitter @sheeraf In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on January 26th, 2022 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week’s episode of Stay Tuned, “Monopoly Isn't a Game” Preet answers listener questions about the importance of keeping ongoing investigations under wraps, and the recent news that former White House Counsel Don McGahn has struck a deal to testify before Congress. Then, Preet interviews Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar about her new book, Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age and the work that she’s doing as Chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights.  Don’t miss the bonus for CAFE Insiders, where Senator Klobuchar discusses the antitrust proposal she unveiled in February.  We have a new podcast! Each Tuesday, historians Heather Cox Richardson & Joanne Freeman will help us make sense of the week’s news through the historical lens and share resonant anecdotes from the American past. The first episode of “Now & Then” comes out Tuesday, June 1st. Just search and follow “Now & Then” on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts!   Thank you so much for your support in the recent Webby Awards voting. We’re excited to announce that we won the People’s Voice Webby Award for Best News & Politics Podcast Episode for our February 2020 episode with former Lead House Impeachment Counsel Dan Goldman. We couldn’t have done it without your votes! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Everyone who uses Facebook, Google, and Twitter has probably noticed the disappearance of posts and the appearance of labels, especially during the 2020 election season. In this episode, hear the highlights from six recent House and Senate hearings where executives from the social media giants and experts on social media testified about the recent changes. The incoming 117th Congress is promising to make new laws that will affect our social media experiences; these conversations are where the new laws are being conceived.  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CD196: The Mueller Report CD186: National Endowment for Democracy Articles/Documents Article: President Trump’s latest claims about Wis. absentee ballots debunked by election officials WTMJ-TV Milwaukee, November 24, 2020 Article: Don’t Blame Section 230 for Big Tech’s Failures. Blame Big Tech. By Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 16, 2020 Article: Biden, the Media and CIA Labeled the Hunter Biden Emails "Russian Disinformation." There is Still No Evidence. By Glenn Greenwald, November 12, 2020 Article: Ad Library - Spending Tracker: US 2020 Presidential Race Facebook, November 3, 2020 Article: What’s the deal with the Hunter Biden email controversy? By Kaelyn Forde and Patricia Sabga, Aljazeera, October 30, 2020 Article: Congress Fails to Ask Tech CEOs the Hard Questions By Elliot Harmon and Joe Mullin, Electronic Frontier Foundation, October 29, 2020 Article: With the Hunter Biden Expose, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than The Actual Story, by Matt Taibbi, TK News, October 24, 2020 Article: Read the FBI's letter to Sen. Ron Johnson The Washington Post, October 20, 2020 Article: DNI Ratcliffe: Russia disinformation not behind published emails targeting Biden; FBI reviewing, by Kevin Johnson, USA Today, October 19, 2020 Article: Twitter changes its hacked materials policy in wake of New York Post controversy By Natasha Lomas, Tech Crunch, October 16, 2020 Article: Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad By Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, New York Post, October 14, 2020 Article: The Decline of Organic Facebook Reach & How to Adjust to the Algorithm By Sophia Bernazzani, HubSpot, May 3, 2020 Article: Facebook launches searchable transparency library of all active ads By Josh Constine, TechCrunch, March 28, 2019 Article: MAERES Alumna Nina Jankowicz Awarded Fulbright-Clinton Fellowship to Ukraine SFS, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, June 21, 2016 Article: Organic Reach on Facebook: Your Questions Answered By Brian Boland, Facebook for Business, June 5, 2014 Article: NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program The Washington Post, October 4, 2013 Additional Resources General Guidelines and policies: Distribution of hacked materials policy, Twitter, October 2020 Business Help Center: Fact-Checking on Facebook Facebook Business Business Help Center: Rating Options for Fact-Checkers Facebook Business Commit to transparency — sign up for the International Fact-Checking Network's code of principles, IFCN Code of Principles Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Electronic Frontier Foundation Mission Statement: OUR MISSION Open Markets About News Media Alliance Leadership News Corp Clint Watts Foreign Policy Research Institute About FPRI Foreign Policy Research Institute Nina Jankowicz Wicszipedia Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Breaking the News: Censorship, Suppression and the 2020 Election, Senate Judiciary Committee, November 17, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: [30:50] Jack Dorsey: We were called here today because of an enforcement decision we made against New York Post, based on a policy we created in 2018. To prevent Twitter from being used to spread hacked materials. This resulted in us blocking people from sharing a New York Post article, publicly or privately. We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread. Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours. We informed the New York Post of our air and policy update and how to unlock their account by deleting the original violating tweet, which freed them to tweet the exact same content and news article again. They chose not to, instead insisting we reverse our enforcement action. We do not have a practice around retro actively overturning prior enforcement's, since then it demonstrated that we needed one and so we created one we believe is fair and appropriate. [35:13] Mark Zuckerberg: At Facebook, we took our responsibility to protect the integrity of this election very seriously. In 2016, we began to face new kinds of threats and after years of preparation, we were ready to defend against them. We built sophisticated systems to protect against election interference, that combined artificial intelligence, significant human review, and partnerships with the intelligence community, law enforcement and other tech platforms. We've taken down more than 100 networks of bad actors, we're trying to coordinate and interfere globally, we established a network of independent fact checkers that covers more than 60 languages. We made political advertising more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else, and including TV, radio and email. And we introduced new policies to combat voter suppression and misinformation. Still, the pandemic created new challenges, how to handle misinformation about COVID and voting by mail, how to prepare people for the reality, the results would take time, and how to handle if someone prematurely declared victory or refused to accept the result. So in September, we updated our policies again to reflect these realities of voting in 2020. And make sure that we were taking precautions given these unique circumstances. We worked with local election officials to remove false claims about polling conditions that might lead to voter suppression. We partnered with Reuters and the national election pool to provide reliable information about results. We attach voting information to posts by candidates on both sides and additional contexts to posts trying to de legitimize the outcome. We lock down new political ads and the week before the election to prevent misleading claims from spreading when they couldn't be rebutted. We strengthened our enforcement against militias and conspiracy networks like QAnon to prevent them from using our platforms to organize violence or civil unrest altogether. I believe this was the largest election integrity effort by any private company in recent times. [40:50] Jack Dorsey: We have transparency around our policies, we do not have transparency around how we operate content moderation, the rationale behind it, the reasoning. And as we look forward, we have more and more of our decisions of our operations moving to algorithms, which are, have a difficult time explaining why they make decisions, bringing transparency around those decisions. And that is why we believe that we should have more choice in how these algorithms are applied to our content, whether we use them at all so we can turn them on or off and have clarity around the outcomes that they're projecting and how they affect our experience. [45:39] Mark Zuckerberg: We work with a number of independent organizations that are accredited by the Poynter Institute. And they include Reuters, the Associated Press. AJans France presse, United States, USA Today, factcheck.org, Science Feedback, PolitiFact, Check Your Fact, Leadstories and the Dispatch in the United States. [48:54] Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do both of you support change to 230? Reform of Section 230? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator I do. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Thank you. [54:10] Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): How many times is Steve Bannon allowed to call for the murder of government officials before Facebook suspends his account? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as you say, the content in question did violate our policies and we took it down. Having a content violation does not automatically mean your account gets taken down. And the number of strikes varies depending on the amount and type of offense. So if people are posting terrorist content or child exploitation content, then the first time they do it, then we will take down their account. For other things. It's multiple, I'd be happy to follow up afterwards. We try not to disclose these... Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Will you commit to taking down that account? Steve Bannon? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, that's not what our policies would suggest that we should do in this case. [1:07:05] Jack Dorsey: What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it. So our intention is to create clear policy, clear enforcement that enables people to feel that they can express themselves on our service, and ultimately trust it. Sen. John Cornyn (TX): So it was a business decision. Jack Dorsey: It was a business decision. [2:56:34] Mark Zuckerberg: We do coordinate on and share signals on security related topics. So for example, if there is signal around a terrorist attack or around child exploitation imagery or around a foreign government, creating an influence operation, that is an area where the companies do share signals about what they see. But I think it's important to be very clear that that is distinct from the content moderation policies that we or the other companies have, where once we share intelligence or signals between the companies, each company makes its own assessment of the right way to address and deal with that information. [3:59:10] Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): I don't know what it what are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump's use of your platforms after he stops being president it? Will he still be deemed newsworthy? And will he still get to use your platform to spread this misinformation? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, let me clarify my last answer. We are also having academic study, the effective of all of our election measures and they'll be publishing those results publicly. In terms of President Trump and moving forward. There are a small number of policies where we have exceptions for politicians under the principle that people should be able to hear what their elected officials are saying and candidates for office. But by and large, the vast majority of our policies have no newsworthiness or political exception. So if the President or anyone else is spreading hate speech, or inciting violence, or posting content, that delegitimizes the election or valid forms of voting, those will receive the same treatment is anyone else saying those things, and that will continue to be the case Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): Remains to be seen. Jack Dorsey: So we do have a policy around public interest, where for global leaders, we do make exceptions in terms of whether if a tweet violates our terms of service, we leave it up behind an interstitial, and people are not allowed to share that more broadly. So a lot of the sharing is disabled with the exception of quoting it so that you can add your own conversation on top of it. So if an account suddenly becomes, is not a world leader anymore, that particular policy goes away. [4:29:35] Sen. Marsha Blackburn (TN): Do you believe it's Facebook's duty to comply with state sponsored censorship so it can keep operating doing business and selling ads in that country? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator in general, we try to comply with the laws in every country where we operate and do business. Hearing: BIG TECH AND SECTION 230 IMMUNITY, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, October 28, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Sundar Pichai, Alphabet Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: [10:10] Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): In policing, conservative sites, then its own YouTube platform or the same types of offensive and outrageous claims. [45:50] Jack Dorsey: The goal of our labeling is to provide more context to connect the dots so that people can have more information so they can make decisions for themselves. [46:20] Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): I have a tweet here from Mr. Ajit Pai. Mr. Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. And he recounts some four tweets by the Iranian dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which Twitter did not place a public label on. They all four of them glorify violence. The first tweet says this and I quote each time 'the Zionist regime is a deadly cancerous growth and a detriment to the region, it will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.' That's the first tweet. The second tweet 'The only remedy until the removal of the Zionist regime is firm armed resistance,' again, left up without comment by Twitter. The third 'the struggle to free Palestine is jihad in the way of God.' I quote that in part for the sake of time, and number four, 'we will support and assist any nation or any group anywhere who opposes and fights the Zionist regime.' I would simply point out that these tweets are still up, Mr. Dorsey. And how is it that they are acceptable to be to be there? Alan, I'll ask unanimous consent to enter this tweet from Ajit Pai in the record at this point that'll be done. Without objection. How Mr. Dorsey, is that acceptable based on your policies at Twitter? Jack Dorsey: We believe it's important for everyone to hear from global leaders and we have policies around world leaders. We want to make sure that we are respecting their right to speak and to publish what they need. But if there's a violation of our terms of service, we want to label it and... Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): They're still up, did they violate your terms of service? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We did not find those two violate our terms of service because we consider them saber rattling, which is, is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries. Speech against our own people, or a country's own citizens we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm. [59:20] Jack Dorsey: We don't have a policy against misinformation. We have a policy against misinformation in three categories, which are manipulated media, public health, specifically COVID and civic integrity, election interference and voter suppression. [1:39:05] Sen. Brian Schatz (HI): What we are seeing today is an attempt to bully the CEOs of private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential candidate, by making sure that they push out foreign and domestic misinformation meant to influence the election. To our witnesses today, you and other tech leaders need to stand up to this immoral behavior. The truth is that because some of my colleagues accuse you, your companies and your employees of being biased or liberal, you have institutionally bent over backwards and over compensated, you've hired republican operatives, hosted private dinners with Republican leaders, and in contravention of your Terms of Service, given special dispensation to right wing voices, and even throttled progressive journalism. Simply put, the republicans have been successful in this play. [1:47:15] Jack Dorsey: This one is a tough one to actually bring transparency to. Explainability in AI is a field of research but is far out. And I think a better opportunity is giving people more choice around the algorithms they use, including to turn off the algorithms completely which is what we're attempting to do. [2:15:00] Sen. Jerry Moran (KS): Whatever the numbers are you indicate that they are significant. It's a enormous amount of money and an enormous amount of employee time, contract labor time in dealing with modification of content. These efforts are expensive. And I would highlight for my colleagues on the committee that they will not be any less expensive, perhaps less than scale, but not less in cost for startups and small businesses. And as we develop our policies in regard to this topic, I want to make certain that entrepreneurship, startup businesses and small business are considered in what it would cost in their efforts to meet the kind of standards to operate in a sphere. [2:20:40] Sen. Ed Markey (MA): The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they're leaving too many dangerous posts up. In fact, they're amplifying harmful content so that it spreads like wildfire and torches our democracy. [3:04:00] Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Between the censorship of conservative and liberal points of view, and it's an enormous disparity. Now you have the right, I want to be very clear about this, you have every single right to set your own terms of service and to interpret them and to make decisions about violations. But given the disparate impact of who gets censored on your platforms, it seems that you're either one not enforcing your Terms of Service equally, or alternatively, to that you're writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints. [3:15:30] Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Okay for both Mr. Zuckerberg and Dorsey who censored New York Post stories, or throttled them back, did either one of you have any evidence that the New York Post story is part of Russian disinformation? Or that those emails aren't authentic? Did anybody have any information whatsoever? They're not authentic more than they are Russian disinformation? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We don't. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): So why would you censor it? Why did you prevent that from being disseminated on your platform that is supposed to be for the free expression of ideas, and particularly true ideas... Jack Dorsey: we believe to fell afoul of our hacking materials policy, we judged... Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): They weren't hacked. Jack Dorsey: We we judge them moment that it looked like it was hacked material. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): You were wrong. Jack Dorsey: And we updated our policy and our enforcement within 24 hours. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Mr. Zuckerberg? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as I testified before, we relied heavily on the FBI, his intelligence and alert status both through their public testimony and private briefings. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Did the FBI contact you, sir, than your co star? It was false. Mark Zuckerberg: Senator not about that story specifically. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Why did you throttle it back. Mark Zuckerberg: They alerted us to be on heightened alert around a risk of hack and leak operations around a release and probe of information. And to be clear on this, we didn't censor the content. We flagged it for fact checkers to review. And pending that review, we temporarily constrained its distribution to make sure that it didn't spread wildly while it was being reviewed. But it's not up to us either to determine whether it's Russian interference, nor whether it's true. We rely on the fact checkers to do that. [3:29:30] Sen. Rick Scott (FL): That's becoming obvious that your that your companies are unfairly targeting conservatives. That's clearly the perception today, Facebook is actively targeting as by conservative groups ahead of the election, either removing the ads completely or adding their own disclosure if they claim that didn't pass their fact check system. [3:32:40] Sen. Rick Scott (FL): You can't just pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed on your platform an expect to keep immunity granted by Section 230. News Clip: Adam Schiff on CNN, CNN, Twitter, October 16, 2020 Hearing: MISINFORMATION, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND `INFODEMICS': STOPPING THE SPREAD ONLINE, Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, October 15, 2020 Watch on Youtube Hearing Transcript Witnesses: Dr. Joan Donovan: Research Director at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School Nina Jankowicz: Disinformation Fellow at the Wilson Center Cindy Otis: Vice President of the Althea Group Melanie Smith: Head of Analysis, Graphika Inc Transcript: 41:30 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): And I should acknowledge that we're pretty careful. We understand that we shouldn't be in the business of fighting misinformation that's probably inconsistent with the First Amendment. So what do we do? We ask that it be outsourced to people that we otherwise are pretty critical of like Mark Zuckerberg, and Jack Dorsey, we say you do it, which strikes me as a pretty lame way to address what may or may not be a problem. 42:00 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Miss Jankowicz said that misinformation is dismantling democracy. I'm skeptical of that. And that will be my question. What evidence is that is out there that this is dismantling democracy, I don't mean that millions of people see QAnon I actually want to see the evidence that people are seeing this information, and are in a meaningful way, in a material way, dismantling our democracy through violence or through political organizations, because if we're going to go down that path, I need something more than eyeballs. So I need some evidence for how this is dismantling our democracy. And secondly, if you persuade me that we're dismantling our democracy, how do we get in the business of figuring out who should define what misinformation or disinformation is? Nina Jankowicz: To address your first question related to evidence of the dismantling of democracy. There's two news stories that I think point to this from the last couple of weeks alone. The first is related to the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And the social media platforms played a huge role in allowing that group to organize. It allowed, that group to, it ceded the information that led them to organize and frankly, as a woman online who has been getting harassed a lot lately, lately, with sexualized and gender disinformation, I am very acutely aware of how those threats that are online can transfer on to real world violence. And that make no mistake is meant to keep women and minorities from not only participating in the democratic process by exercising our votes, but also keeping us from public life. So that's one big example. But there was another example just recently from a channel for in the UK documentary that looked at how the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica data to selectively target black voters with voter suppression ads during the 2016 election. Again, this is it's affecting people's participation. It's not just about fake news, stories on the internet. In fact, a lot of the best disinformation is grounded in a kernel of truth. And in my written testimony, I go through a couple of other examples of how online action has led to real world action. And this isn't something that is just staying on the internet, it is increasingly in real life. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I don't have a lot of time. Do you think that both examples that you offered up Gov the plot to kidnap governor, the governor of Michigan, and your other example passed the but for test? I mean, this country probably got into the Spanish American War over 130 years ago because of the good works of William Randolph Hearst. So how do we, we've had misinformation and yellow journalism and terrible media and voter suppression forever. And I understand that these media platforms have scale that William Randolph Hearst didn't have. But are you sure that both of those examples pass the buck for they wouldn't have happened without the social media misinformation? Nina Jankowicz: I believe they do, because they allow the organization of these groups without any oversight, and they allow the targeting the targeting of these messages to the groups and people that are going to find the most vulnerable and are most likely to take action against them. And that's what our foreign adversaries do. And increasingly, it's what people within our own country are using to organize violence against the democratic participation of many of our fellow citizens. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Okay, well, I'm out of time I would love to continue this conversation and pursue what you mean by groups being formed quote, without oversight, that's language I'd like to better understand but I'm out of time, but I would like to continue this conversation into, well, if this is the problem that you say it is, what do we actually do about it? Hearing: ONLINE PLATFORMS AND MARKET POWER, PART 2: INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, July 16, 2020 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Adam Cohen: Director of Economic Policy at Google Matt Perault: Head of Global Policy Development at Facebook Nate Sutton: Associate General Counsel for Competition at Amazon Kyle Andeer: Vice President for Corporate Law at Apple Timothy Wu: Julius Silver Professor of Law at Columbia Law School Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at Yale School of Management Stacy Mitchell: Co-Director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance Maureen Ohlhausen: Partner at Baker Botts LLP Carl Szabo: Vice President and Gneral Counsel at NetChoice Morgan Reed: Executive Director at the App Association Transcript: [55:15] Adam Cohen: Congresswoman we use a combination of automated tools, we can recognize copyrighted material that creators upload and instantaneously discover it and keep it from being seen on our platforms. [1:16:00] Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Do you use consumer data to favor Amazon products? Because before you answer that, analysts estimate that between 80 and 90% of sales go to the Amazon buy box. So you collect all this data about the most popular products where they're selling. And you're saying you don't use that in any way to change an algorithm to support the sale of Amazon branded products? Nate Sutton: Our algorithms such as the buy box is aimed to predict what customers want to buy, apply the same criteria whether you're a third party seller, or Amazon to that because we want customers to make the right purchase, regardless of whether it's a seller or Amazon. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): But the best purchase to you as an Amazon product. Nate Sutton: No, that's not true. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): So you're telling us you're under oath, Amazon does not use any of that data collected with respect to what is selling, where it's on what products to inform the decisions you make, or to change algorithms to direct people to Amazon products and prioritize Amazon and D prioritize competitors. Nate Sutton: The algorithms are optimized to predict what customers want to buy regardless of the seller. We provide this same criteria and with respect to popularity, that's public data on each product page. We provide the ranking of each product. [3:22:50] Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: As is detailed in the report that I submitted as my testimony, there are a number of characteristics of platforms that tend to drive them toward concentrated markets, very large economies of scale, consumers exacerbate this with their behavioral biases, we don't scroll down to the second page, we don't. We accept default, we follow the framing the platform gives us and instead of searching independently, and what that does is it makes it very hard for small companies to grow and for new ones to get traction against the dominant platform. And without the threat of entry from entrepreneurs and growth from existing competitors, the dominant platform doesn't have to compete as hard. If it's not competing as hard, then there are several harms that follow from that. One is higher prices for advertisers, many of these platforms are advertising supported, then there's higher prices to consumers who may think that they're getting a good deal by paying a price of zero. But the competitive price might well be negative, the consumers might well be able to be paid for using these platforms in a competitive market. Other harms include low quality in the form of less privacy, more advertising and more exploitative content that consumers can't avoid. Because, as Tim just said, there isn't anywhere else to go. And lastly, without competitive pressure, innovation is lessened. And in particular, it's channeled in the direction the dominant firm prefers, rather than being creatively spread across directions chosen by entrance. And this is what we learned both from at&t and IBM and Microsoft, is that when the dominant firm ceases to control innovation, there's a flowering and it's very creative and market driven. So the solution to this problem of insufficient competition is complimentary steps forward in both antitrust and regulation. Antitrust must recalibrate the balance it strikes between the risk of over enforcement and under enforcement. The evidence now shows we've been under enforcing for years and consumers have been harmed. [3:22:50] Stacy Mitchell: I hope the committee will consider several policy tools as part of this investigation. In particular, we very much endorse the approach that Congress took with regard to the railroads, that if you operate essential infrastructure, you can't also compete with the businesses that rely on that infrastructure. [3:45:00] Morgan Reed: Here on the table, I have a copy of Omni page Pro. This was a software you bought, if you needed to scan documents. If you wanted to turn it into a processor and you could look at it in a word processor. I've also got this great review from PC World, they loved it back in 2005. But the important fact here in this review is that it says the street price of this software in 2005 was $450. Now, right here, I've got an app from a company called Readdle, that is nearly the same product level has a bunch of features that this one doesn't, it's $6. Basically now consumers pay less than 1% of what they used to pay for some of the same capability. And what's even better about that, even though I love the product from Readdle, there are dozens of competitors in the app space. So when you look at it from that perspective, consumers are getting a huge win. How have platforms made this radical drop in price possible? Simply put, they've provided three things a trusted space, reduced overhead, and given my developers nearly instant access to a global marketplace with billions of customers, before the platforms to get your software onto a retail store shelf. companies had to spend years and thousands of dollars to get to the point where a distributor would handle their product, then you'd agree agree to a cut of sales revenue, write a check for upfront marketing, agree to refund the distributor the cost of any unsold boxes and then spend 10s of thousands of dollars to buy an end cap. Digging a little bit on this, I don't know how many of you know or aware that the products you see on your store shelf or in the Sunday flyer aren't there because the manager thought it was a cool product. Those products are displayed at the end of an aisle or end cap because the software developer or consumer goods company literally pays for the shelf space. In fact, for many retailers the sale of floor the sale of floor space and flyers makes a huge chunk of their profitability for their store. And none of this takes into consideration printing boxes, manuals, CDs, dealing with credit cards if you go direct translation services, customs authorities if you want to sell abroad in the 1990s it cost a million dollars to start up a software company. Now it's $100,000 in sweat equity. And thanks to these changes, the average cost for consumer software has dropped from $50 to three. For developers. Our cost to market has dropped enormously and the size of our market has expanded globally. [3:48:55] Stacy Mitchell: I've spent a lot of time interviewing and talking with independent retailers, manufacturers of all sizes. Many of them are very much afraid of speaking out publicly because they fear retaliation. But what we consistently hear is that Amazon is the biggest threat to their businesses. We just did a survey of about 550 independent retailers nationally, Amazon ranked number one in terms of being what they said was the biggest threat to their business above, rising healthcare costs, access to capital, government, red tape, anything else you can name. Among those who are actually selling on the platform, only 7% reported that it was actually helping their bottom line. Amazon has a kind of godlike view of a growing share of our commerce and it uses the data that it gathers to advantage its own business and its own business interests in lots of ways. A lot of this, as I said, comes from the kind of leverage its ability to sort of leverage the interplay between these different business lines to maximize its advantage, whether it's promoting its own product because that's lucrative or whether it's using the manufacturer of a product to actually squeeze a seller or vendor into giving it bigger discounts. [3:53:15] Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND): When we recognize, I come from very rural area, the closest, what you would consider a big box store is Minneapolis or Denver. So and so when we're talking about competition, all of this I also think we've got to remember, at no point in time from my house in Dickinson, North Dakota have I had more access to more diverse and cheap consumer products. I mean, things that often would require a plane ticket or a nine hour car ride to buy can now be brought to our house. So I think when we're talking about consumers, we need to remember that side of it, too. Hearing: EMERGING TRENDS IN ONLINE FOREIGN INFLUENCE OPERATIONS: SOCIAL MEDIA, COVID–19, AND ELECTION SECURITY, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 18, 2020 Watch on Youtube Hearing transcript Witnesses: Nathaniel Gleicher: Head of Security Policy at Facebook Nick Pickles: Director of Global Public Policy Strategy and Development at Twitter Richard Salgado: Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security at Google Transcript: [19:16] Nathaniel Gleicher: Facebook has made significant investments to help protect the integrity of elections. We now have more than 35,000 people working on safety and security across the company, with nearly 40 teams focused specifically on elections and election integrity. We're also partnering with federal and state governments, other tech companies, researchers and civil society groups to share information and stop malicious actors. Over the past three years, we've worked to protect more than 200 elections around the world. We've learned lessons from each of these, and we're applying these lessons to protect the 2020 election in November. [21:58] Nathaniel Gleicher: We've also been proactively hunting for bad actors trying to interfere with the important discussions about injustice and inequality happening around our nation. As part of this effort, we've removed isolated accounts seeking to impersonate activists, and two networks of accounts tied to organize hate groups that we've previously banned from our platforms. [26:05] Nick Pickles: Firstly, Twitter shouldn't determine the truthfulness of tweets. And secondly, Twitter should provide context to help people make up their own minds in cases where the substance of a tweet is disputed. [26:15] Nick Pickles: We prioritize interventions regarding misinformation based on the highest potential for harm. And the currently focused on three main areas of content, synthetic & manipulated media, elections and civic integrity and COVID-19. [26:30] Nick Pickles: Where content does not break our rules and warrant removal. In these three areas, we may label tweets to help people come to their own views by providing additional context. These labels may link to a curated set of tweets posted by people on Twitter. This include factual statements, counterpoint opinions and perspectives, and ongoing public conversation around the issue. To date, we've applied these labels to thousands of tweets around the world across these three policy areas. [31:10] Richard Salgado: In search, ranking algorithms are an important tool in our fight against disinformation. Ranking elevates information that our algorithms determine is the most authoritative, above information that may be less reliable. Similarly, our work on YouTube focuses on identifying and removing content that violates our policies and elevating authoritative content when users search for breaking news. At the same time, we find and limit the spread of borderline content that comes close but just stops short of violating our policies. [53:28] Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. Gliecher, you may or may not know that Facebook is headquartered in my congressional district. I've had many conversations with Sheryl Sandberg. And I'm still puzzled by the fact that Facebook does not consider itself a media platform. Are you still espousing that kind of position? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, we're first and foremost a technology company. We may be a technology company, but it's your technology company is being used as a media platform. Do you not recognize that? Congresswoman, we're a place for ideas across the spectrum. We know that there are people who use our platforms to engage and in fact that is the goal of the platform's to encourage and enable people to discuss the key issues of the day and to talk to family and friends. [54:30] Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): How long or or maybe I should ask this when there was a video of Speaker Pelosi that had been tampered with - slowed down to make her look like she was drunk. YouTube took it down almost immediately. What did Facebook do and what went into your thinking to keep it up? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman for a piece of content like that, we work with a network of third party fact checkers, more than 60 3rd party fact checkers around the world. If one of them determines that a piece of content like that is false, and we will down rank it, and we will put an interstitial on it so that anyone who would look at it would first see a label over it saying that there's additional information and that it's false. That's what we did in this context. When we down rank, something like that, we see the shares of that video, radically drop. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But you won't take it down when you know it's false. Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, you're highlighting a really difficult balance. And we've talked about this amongst ourselves quite a bit. And what I would say is, if we simply take a piece of content like this down, it doesn't go away. It will exist elsewhere on the internet. People who weren't looking for it will still find it. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But it you know, there will always be bad actors in the world. That doesn't mean that you don't do your level best to show the greatest deal of credibility. I mean, if YouTube took it down, I don't understand how you couldn't have taken down but I'll leave that where it lays. [1:40:10] Nathaniel Gleicher: Congressman, the collaboration within industry and with government is much, much better than it was in 2016. I think we have found the FBI, for example, to be forward leaning and ready to share information with us when they see it. We share information with them whenever we see indications of foreign interference targeting our election. The best case study for this was the 2018 midterms, where you saw industry, government and civil society all come together, sharing information to tackle these threats. We had a case on literally the eve of the vote, where the FBI gave us a tip about a network of accounts where they identified subtle links to Russian actors. Were able to investigate those and take action on them within a matter of hours. [1:43:10] Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I tend to be kind of a First Amendment absolutist. I really don't want Facebook telling me what's true and what's not true mainly because most statements are some combination of both. [1:44:20] Nathaniel Gleicher: Certainly people are drawn to clickbait. They're drawn to explosive content. I mean, it is the nature of clickbait, to make people want to click on it, but what we found is that if you separate it out from the particular content, people don't want a platform or experience, just clickbait, they will click it, if they see it, they don't want it prioritized, they don't want their time to be drawn into that and all emotional frailty. And so we are trying to build an environment where that isn't the focus, where they have the conversations they want to have, but I agree with you. A core piece of this challenge is people seek out that type of content wherever it is. I should note that as we're thinking about how we prioritize this, one of the key factors is who your friends are the pages and accounts that you follow and the assets that you engage with. That's the most important factor in sort of what you see. And so people have direct control over that because they are choosing the people they want to engage. Hearing: ONLINE PLATFORMS AND MARKET POWER, PART 1: THE FREE AND DIVERSE PRESS, Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, June 11, 2020 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: David Chavern: President of the News Media Alliance Gene Kimmelman: President of Public Knowledge Sally Hubbard: Director of Enforcement Strategy at the Open Markets Institute Matthew Schrurers: Vice President of Law and Policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association David Pitofsky: General Counsel at News Corp Kevin Riley: Editor at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Transcript: [55:30] David Chavern: Platforms and news organizations mutual reliance would not be a problem, if not for the fact that the concentration among the platforms means a small number of companies now exercise an extreme level of control over the news. And in fact, a couple of dominant firms act as regulators of the news industry. Only these regulators are not constrained by legislative or democratic oversight. The result has been to siphon revenue away from news publishers. This trend is clear if you compare the growth in Google's total advertising revenue to the decline in the news industry's ad revenue. In 2000, Google's US revenue was 2.1 billion, while the newspaper industry accounted for 48 billion in advertising revenue. In 2017, in contrast, Google's US revenue had increased over 25 times to 52.4 billion, the newspaper industry's ad revenue had fallen 65% to 16.4 billion. [56:26] David Chavern: The effect of this revenue decline in publishers has been terrible, and they've been forced to cut back on their investments in journalism. That is a reason why newsroom employment has fallen nearly a quarter over the last decade. One question might be asked is if the platforms are unbalanced, having such a negative impact on the news media, then why don't publishers do something about it? The answer is they cannot, at least under the existing antitrust laws, news publishers face a collective action problem. No publisher on its own can stand up to the tech giants. The risk of demotion or exclusion from the platform is simply too great. And the antitrust laws prevent news organizations from acting collectively. So the result is that publishers are forced to accept whatever terms or restrictions are imposed on them. [1:06:20] Sally Hubbard: Facebook has repeatedly acquired rivals, including Instagram and WhatsApp. And Google's acquisition cemented its market power throughout the ad ecosystem as it bought up the digital ad market spoke by spoke, including applied semantics AdMob and Double Click. Together Facebook and Google have bought 150 companies in just the last six years. Google alone has bought nearly 250 companies. [1:14:17] David Pitofsky: Unfortunately, in the news business, free riding by dominant online platforms, which aggregate and then reserve our content has led to the lion's share of online advertising dollars generated off the back of news going to the platforms. Many in Silicon Valley dismissed the press as old media failing to evolve in the face of online competition. But this is wrong. We're not losing business to an innovator who has found a better or more efficient way to report and investigate the news. We're losing business because the dominant platforms deploy our news content, to target our audiences to then turn around and sell that audience to the same advertisers we're trying to serve. [1:15:04] David Pitofsky: The erosion of advertising revenue undercuts our ability to invest in high quality journalism. Meanwhile, the platforms have little if any commitment to accuracy or reliability. For them, a news article is valuable if viral, not if verified. [1:16:12] David Pitofsky: News publishers have no good options to respond to these challenges. Any publisher that tried to withhold its content from a platform as part of a negotiating strategy would starve itself of reader traffic. In contrast, losing one publisher would not harm the platform's at all since they would have ample alternative sources for news content. [1:36:56] Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): So Miss Hubbard, let me start with you. You were an Assistant Attorney General for New York State's antitrust division. You've also worked as a journalist, which online platforms would you say are most impacting the public's access to trustworthy sources of journalism? And why? Sally Hubbard: Thank you for the question. Congresswoman, I think in terms of disinformation, the platforms that are having the most impact are Facebook and YouTube. And that's because of their business models, which are to prioritize engagement, engaging content because of the human nature that you know survival instinct, we tend to tune into things that make us fearful or angry. And so by prioritizing engagement, these platforms are actually prioritizing disinformation as well. It serves their profit motives to keep people on the platforms as long as possible to show them ads and collect their data. And because they don't have any competition, they're free to pursue these destructive business models without having any competitive constraint. They've also lacked regulation. Normally, corporations are not permitted to just pursue profits without regard to the consequences. [1:38:10] Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly declined to interfere, as Facebook and Google have acquired would be competitors. Since 2007, Google has acquired Applied Semantics, Double Click and AdMob. And since 2011, Facebook has acquired Instagram and WhatsApp. What do these acquisitions mean for consumers of news and information? I think sometimes antitrust is seen and regulation is seen as something that's out there. But this has very direct impact for consumers. Can you explain what that means as these companies have acquired more and more? Sally Hubbard: Sure, so in my view, those, of all of the acquisitions that you just mentioned, were illegal under the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers that may lessen competition. Looking back, it's clear that all of those mergers did lessen competition. And when you lessen competition, the harms to consumers are not just high prices, which was which are harder to see when in the digital age. But its loss of innovation is loss of choice, and loss of control. So when we approve anti competitive mergers, consumers are harmed. [1:55:48] Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL): Section 230, as I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected by others, would say that if a technology platform is a neutral public platform, that they enjoy certain liability protections that newspapers don't enjoy, that Newscorp doesn't enjoy with its assets. And so does it make the anti competitive posture of technology platforms more pronounced, that they have access to this special liability protection that the people you represent don't have access to? David Chavern: Oh, absolutely. There's a huge disparity. Frankly, when our contents delivered through these platforms, we get the liability and they get the money. So that's a good deal from that end. We are responsible for what we publish, we publishers can and do get sued. On the other hand, the platforms are allowed to deliver and monetize this content with complete lack of responsibility. Hearing: Election Interference: Ensuring Law Enforcement is Equipped to Target Those Seeking to Do Harm, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 12, 2018 Watch on C-SPAN Witnesses: Adam Hickey - Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Kenneth Wainstein - Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP Prof. Ryan Goodman - New York University School of Law Nina Jankowicz - Global Fellow at the Wilson Center Transcript: [9:00] Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): We know that Russia orchestrated a sustained and coordinated attack that interfered in our last presidential election. And we also know that there’s a serious threat of more attacks in our future elections, including this November. As the United States Intelligence Community unanimously concluded, the Russian government’s interference in our election—and I quote—“blended covert intelligence operations, such as cyber activity, with overt efforts by the Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social-media users or trolls.” Over the course of the past year and a half, we’ve come to better understand how pernicious these attacks were. Particularly unsettling is that we were so unaware. We were unaware that Russia was sowing division through mass propaganda, cyber warfare, and working with malicious actors to tip scales of the election. Thirteen Russian nationals and three organizations, including the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency, have now been indicted for their role in Russia’s vast conspiracy to defraud the United States. Hearing: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, October 31, 2017 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow Transcript: [2:33:07] Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

DAVID GOLDMAN, Author of How Civilizations Die, Best known for his series of essays in the Asia Times under the pseudonym Spengler: The need for the US to produce their own semiconductors President Trump's executive order on American medicine production How to incentivize American investors DIANA WEST, Nationally syndicated columnist, Blogs at Dianawest.net, Author of Death of the Grown Up, American Betrayal, and Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy: The importance of a recent Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Antifa Why don't Democrats denounce Antifa? The bias of America's justice department JEFF NYQUIST, Has written for Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, SierraTimes, Financial Sense and Epoch Times, Author of the book Origins of the Fourth World War and The New Tactics of Global War : The potential of California, Washington and Oregon succeeding from the United States How would this succession impact US national security? RICK BERMAN, President of Berman and Company, a Washington, DC-based public affairs firm: Rick's new website, chinaownsus.com Chinese influence on American media Microsoft's connections with the Chinese Communist Party

PHILIP HANEY, Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Official, an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration into U.S. government positions of authority, was intensely focused on Islamic terrorists and the operations of their cell groups here in the U.S. as the subject matter expert for DHS on terrorism. He spoke out on Fox News broadcasts and before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight Hearings entitled: "Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combatting Terrorism" following his forced departure from the department by the Obama team. Hear PHILIP HANEY, the kindest, most thoughtful man I have ever known, my late fiance, address this country through the electronic media and government bodies.... See: https://www.facebook.com/TheDeniceGaryShow/videos/1034564693590468/

Yemen: Most of us don't know where that is but we Americans have been participating in a war there since 2015. In a surprise move, the 116th Congress recently put a resolution on President Trump's desk that would LIMIT our participation in that war. In this episode, learn about our recent history in Yemen: Why are we involved? When did our involvement start? What do we want from Yemen? And why is Congress suddenly pursuing a change in policy? In the second half of the episode, Jen admits defeat in a project she's been working on and Husband Joe joins Jen for the thank yous. 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 CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD131: Bombing Libya CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? Additional Reading Article: Hurricane Michael upgraded to a Category 5 at time of U.S. landfall, NOAA, April 19, 2019. Article: US carries out first airstrikes in Yemen in nearly 3 months by Ryan Browne, CNN, April 1, 2019. Article: The assassination of Jamal Khashoggi by Joyce Lee and Dalton Bennett, The Washington Post, April 1, 2019. Article: Trump revokes Obama rule on reporting drone strike deaths, BBC News, March 7, 2019. Article: US carried out 36 airstrikes in Yemen last year by Andrew Kennedy, The Defense Post, January 7, 2019. Article: See no evil: Pentagon issues blanket denial that it knows anything about detainee abuse in Yemen by Alex Emmons, The Intercept, January 7, 2019. Report: Senate bucks Trump's Saudi approach by Jeff Abramson, Arms Control Association, January/February 2019. Article: Saudi strikes, American bombs, Yemeni suffering by Derek Watkins and Declan Walsh, The New York Times, December 27, 2018. Article: The wooing of Jared Kushner: How the Saudis got a friend in the White House by David D. Kirkpatrick, Ben Hubbard, Mark Landler, and Mark Mazzetti, The New York Times, December 8, 2018. Report: Saudi lobbyists bout 500 nights at Trump's DC hotel after 2016 election by John Bowden, The Hill, December 5, 2018. Article: Hidden toll of US drone strikes in Yemen: Nearly a third of deaths are civilians, not al-Quaida by Maggie Michael and Maad al-Zikry, Military Times, November 14, 2018. Article: Jamal Khashoggi's friends in Washington are in shock by Scott Nover, The Atlantic, October 12, 2018. Report: Catastrophic Hurricane Michael strikes Florida Panhandle, National Weather Service, October 10, 2018. Article: Yemen's President Hadi heads to US for medical treatment, Aljazeera, September 3, 2018. Article: Bab el-Mandeb, an emerging chokepoint for Middle East oil flows by Julian Lee, Bloomberg, July 26, 2018. Report: YEM305: Unknown reported killed, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, March 29, 2018. Article: Yemen: Ex-President Ali Abdullah Saleh killed, Aljazeera, December 10, 2017. Article: In Yemen's secret prisons, UAE tortures and US interrogates by Maggie Michael, AP News, June 22, 2017. Report: Yemen: UAE backs abusive local forces, Human Rights Watch, June 22, 2017. Article: What we know about Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11 by Simon Henderson, Foreign Policy, July 18, 2016. Report: Yemen: Background and U.S. relations by Jeremy M. Sharp, Congressional Research Service, February 11, 2015. Article: How al Qaeda's biggest enemy took over Yemen (and why the US government is unlikely to support them) by Casey L. Coombs and Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, January 22, 2015. Report: Yemen protests erupt after fuel price doubled, Aljazeera, July 30, 2014. Article: U.S. charges saudi for 2002 oil tanker bombing by MAREX, Feburary 6, 2014. Report: "Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda": The civilian cost of US targeted killings in Yemen, Human Rights Watch, October 22, 2013. Article: Yemen: Opposition leader to be sworn in Saturday by Reuters, The New York Times, December 7, 2011. Article: Yemen's Saleh signs deal to give up power by Marwa Rashad, Reuters, November 23, 2011. Article: Yemen's leader agrees to end 3-decade rule by Kareem Fahim and Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, November 23, 2011. Article: Yemeni president's shock return throws country into confusion by Tom Finn, The Guardian, September 23, 2011. Article: Yemen: President Saleh 'was injured by palace bomb', BBC News, June 23, 2011. Article: Government in Yemen agrees to talk transition by Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, April 26, 2011. Article: Hundreds take to streets in Yemen to protest by Faud Rajeh, The New York Times, February 16, 2011. Article: U.S. plays down tensions with Yemen by Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, December 17, 2010. Article: Cables depict range of Obama diplomacy by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 4, 2010. Article: Yemen's drive on Al Qaeda faces international skepticism by Mona El-Naggar and Robert F. Worth, The New York Times, November 3, 2010. Article: Op-Ed: The Yemeni state against its own people by Subir Ghosh, Digital Journal, October 11, 2010. Roundtable Summary: Reform priorities for Yemen and the 10-Point agenda, MENAP, Chatham House, February 18, 2010. Article: As nations meet, Clinton urges Yemen to prove itself worthy of aid by Mark Landler, The New York Times, January 27, 2010. Article: After failed attack, Britain turns focus to Yemen by John F. Burns, The New York Times, January 1, 2010. Resources Congress.gov: S.J.Res.54 - A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress Govtrack: S.J.Res. 7: A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by ... Congress IMF.org: Gulf Cooperation Council Countries Middle East Institute: Addressing the Crisis in Yemen: Strategies and Solutions Open Knowledge Repository: Leveraging Fuel Subsidy Reform for Transition in Yemen US Dept. of Treasury: International Monetary Fund Sound Clip Sources House Proceedings: Yemen Resolution Debate, 116th Congress, April 4, 2019. Congressional Record Sound Clips: 1:06:30 Rep. Michael McCaul (TX):This resolution stretches the definition of war powers hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. Specifically, it reinterprets U.S. support to these countries as ‘‘engagement in hostilities.’’ This radical reinterpretation has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. This precedent will empower any single Member to use privileged war powers procedures to force congressional referendums that could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries around the world. 1:14:30 Rep. Barbara Lee (CA): Yes, Madam Speaker, I voted against that 2001 resolution, because I knew it was open-ended and would set the stage for endless wars. It was a blank check. We see this once again today in Yemen. We must repeal this 2001 blank check for endless wars. Over the past 18 years, we have seen the executive branch use this AUMF time and time again. It is a blank check to wage war without congressional oversight. 1:21:30 Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): My motivation for this bill is very simple. I don’t want to see 14 million Yemenis starve to death. That is what Martin Griffith had said at the U.N., that if the Saudis don’t stop their blockade and let food and medicine in, within 6 months we will see one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the world. Senate Floor Proceedings: Yemen Resolution Debate, 115th Congress, 2nd Session, December 12, 2018. Congressional Record Pt. 1 Congressional Record Pt. 2 Sound Clips: 7:09:00 Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): Finally, an issue that has long been a concern to many of us—conservatives and progressives—is that this war has not been authorized by Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. Article I of the Constitution clearly states it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to send our men and women into war—Congress, not the President. The Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of this country, gave the power to declare war to Congress—the branch most accountable to the people—not to the President, who is often isolated from the reality of what is taking place in our communities. The truth is—and Democratic and Republican Presidents are responsible, and Democratic and Republican Congresses are responsible—that for many years, Congress has not exercised its constitutional responsibility over whether our young men and women go off to war. I think there is growing sentiment all over this country from Republicans, from Democrats, from Independents, from progressives, and from conservatives that right now, Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility. 7:14:45 Sen. Bob Corker (TN): I have concerns about what this may mean as we set a precedent about refueling and intelligence activities being considered hostilities. I am concerned about that. I think the Senator knows we have operations throughout Northern Africa, where we are working with other governments on intelligence to counter terrorism. We are doing refueling activists in Northern Africa now, and it concerns me—he knows I have concerns—that if we use this vehicle, then we may have 30 or 40 instances where this vehicle might be used to do something that really should not be dealt with by the War Powers Act. 7:49:06 Sen. Todd Young (IN): We don’t have much leverage over the Houthis. We have significant leverage over the Saudis, and we must utilize it. 7:58:30 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): The Sanders-Lee resolution is, I think, fundamentally flawed because it presumes we are engaged in military action in Yemen. We are not. We are not engaged in military action in Yemen. There has been a lot of discussion about refueling. I don’t see any stretch of the definition that would say that falls into that category. 8:01:00 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): Saudi Arabia is an important Middle Eastern partner. Its stability is vital to the security of our regional allies and our partners, including Israel, and Saudi Arabia is essential to countering Iran. We all know that. We know how tenuous things are in that part of the world. We don’t have that many friends. We can’t afford to lose any of them. 8:04:30 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): It is important to note some-thing that we take for granted in the region—this now long-term detente that has existed between the Gulf States and Israel, which did not used to be something you could rely on. In fact, one of the most serious foreign policy debates this Senate ever had was on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia back in the 1980s. The objection then was that by empowering Saudi Arabia, you were hurting Israel and Israeli security. No one would make that argument today because Saudi Arabia has been a good partner in trying to figure out a way to calm the tensions in the region and, of course, provide some balance in the region, with the Iranian regime on the other side continuing to this day to use inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric about the future of Israel. So this is an important partnership, and I have no interest in blowing it up. I have no interest in walking away from it. But you are not obligated to follow your friend into every misadventure they propose. When your buddy jumps into a pool of man-eating sharks, you don’t have to jump with him. There is a point at which you say enough is enough. 8:06:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): Muhammad bin Salman, who is the Crown Prince, who is the effective leader of the country, has steered the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia off the rails. Folks seem to have noticed when he started rounding up his political opponents and killing one of them in a consulate in Turkey, but this has been ongoing. Look back to the kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime Minister, the blockade of Qatar without any heads-up to the United States, the wholesale imprisonment of hundreds of his family members until there was a payoff, the size of which was big enough to let some of them out. This is a foreign policy that is no longer in the best interests of the United States and cannot be papered over by a handful of domestic policy reforms that are, in fact, intended to try to distract us from the aggressive nature of the Saudis’ foreign policy in the region. 8:08:15 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): I am appreciative that many of my colleagues are willing to stand up for this resolution today to end the war in Yemen. I wish that it weren’t because of the death of one journalist, because there have been tens of thousands who have died inside Yemen, and their lives are just as important and just as worthwhile as Jamal Khashoggi’s life was, as tragic as that was. But there is a connection between the two, which is why I have actually argued that this resolution is in some way, shape, or form a response to the death of Jamal Khashoggi, for those who are primarily concerned with that atrocity. Here is how I link the two: What the Saudis did for 2 weeks was lie to us, right? In the most bald-faced way possible. They told us that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate, that he had gotten out of there alive, that they didn’t know what happened, when of course they knew the entire time that they had killed him, that they had murdered him, that they had dismembered his body. We now know that the Crown Prince had multiple contacts all throughout the day with the team of operatives who did it. Yet they thought we were so dumb or so weak— or some combination of the two—that they could just lie to us about it. That was an eye-opener for a lot of people here who were long-term supporters of the Saudi relationship because they knew that we had trouble. They knew that sometimes our interests didn’t align, but they thought that the most important thing allies did with each other was tell the truth, especially when the truth was so easy to discover outside of your bilateral relationship. Then, all of a sudden, the Saudis lied to us for 2 weeks—for 2 weeks—and then finally came around to telling the truth because everybody knew that they weren’t. That made a lot of people here think, well, wait a second—maybe the Saudis haven’t been telling us the truth about what they have been doing inside Yemen. A lot of my friends have been supporting the bombing campaign in Yemen. Why? Because the Saudis said: We are hitting these civilians by accident. Those water treatment plants that have been blowing up—we didn’t mean to hit them. That cholera treatment facility inside the humanitarian compound—that was just a bomb that went into the wrong place, or, we thought there were some bad guys in it. It didn’t turn out that there were. It turns out the Saudis weren’t telling us the truth about what they were doing in Yemen. They were hitting civilian targets on purpose. They did have an intentional campaign of trying to create misery. I am not saying that every single one of those school buses or those hospitals or those churches or weddings was an attempt to kill civilians and civilians only, but we have been in that targeting center long enough to know—to know—that they have known for a long time what they have been doing: hitting a lot of people who have nothing to do with the attacks against Saudi Arabia. Maybe if the Saudis were willing to lie to us about what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, they haven’t been straight with us as to what is happening inside Yemen, because if the United States is being used to intentionally hit civilians, then we are complicit in war crimes. And I hate to tell my colleagues that is essentially what the United Nations found in their most recent report on the Saudi bombing campaign. They were careful about their words, but they came to the conclusion that it was likely that the Saudi conduct inside Yemen would amount to war crimes under international law. If it is likely that our ally is perpetuating war crimes in Yemen, then we cannot be a part of that. The United States cannot be part of a bombing campaign that may be—probably is— intentionally making life miserable for the people inside of that country. 8:14:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): There is no relationship in which we are the junior partner—certainly not with Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia can push us around like they have over the course of the last several years and in particular the last several months, that sends a signal to lots of other countries that they can do the same thing—that they can murder U.S. residents and suffer almost no consequences; that they can bomb civilians with our munitions and suffer no consequences. This is not just a message about the Saudi relationship; this is a message about how the United States is going to interact with lots of other junior partners around the world as well. Saudi Arabia needs us a lot more than we need them, and we need to remind folks of that over and over again. Spare me this nonsense that they are going to go start buying Russian jets or Chinese military hardware. If you think those countries can protect you better than the United States, take a chance. You think the Saudis are really going to stop selling oil to the United States? You think they are going to walk away from their primary bread winner just because we say that we don’t want to be engaged in this particular military campaign? I am willing to take that chance. We are the major partner in this relationship, and it is time that we start acting like it. If this administration isn’t going to act like it, then this Congress has to act like it. 8:44:15 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Many of my colleagues will argue—in fact some of them have argued just within the last few minutes—that we are somehow not involved in a war in Yemen. My distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, came to the floor a little while ago, and he said that we are not engaged in direct military action in Yemen. Let’s peel that back for a minute. Let’s figure out what that means. I am not sure what the distinction between direct and indirect is here. Maybe in a very technical sense—or under a definition of warfare or military action that has long since been rendered out- dated—we are not involved in that, but we are involved in a war. We are co-belligerents. The minute we start identifying targets or, as Secretary James Mattis put it about a year ago, in December 2017, the minute we are involved in the decisions involving making sure that they know the right stuff to hit, that is involvement in a war, and that is pretty direct. The minute we send up U.S. military aircraft to provide midair refueling assistance for Saudi jets en route to bombing missions, to combat missions on the ground in Yemen, that is our direct involvement in war. 8:48:00 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Increasingly these days, our wars are high-tech. Very often, our wars involve cyber activities. They involve reconnaissance, surveillance, target selection, midair refueling. It is hard—in many cases, impossible—to fight a war without those things. That is what war is. Many of my colleagues, in arguing that we are not involved in hostilities, rely on a memorandum that is internal within the executive branch of the U.S. Government that was issued in 1976 that provides a very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of the word ‘‘hostilities.’’ It defines ‘‘hostilities’’ in a way that might have been relevant, that might have been accurate, perhaps, in the mid-19th century, but we no longer live in a world in which you have a war as understood by two competing countries that are lined up on opposite sides of a battlefield and engaged in direct exchanges of fire, one against another, at relatively short range. War encompasses a lot more than that. War certainly encompasses midair refueling, target selection, surveillance, and reconnaissance of the sort we are undertaking in Yemen. Moreover, separate and apart from this very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of ‘‘hostilities’’ as deter- mined by this internal executive branch document from 1976 that contains the outdated definition, we our- selves, under the War Powers Act, don’t have to technically be involved in hostilities. It is triggered so long as we ourselves are sufficiently involved with the armed forces of another nation when those armed forces of another nation are themselves involved in hostilities. I am speaking, of course, in reference to the War Powers Act’s pro- visions codified at 50 USC 1547(c). For our purposes here, it is important to keep in mind what that provisions reads: ‘‘For purposes of this chapter [under the War Powers Act], the term ‘introduction of United States Armed Forces’ includes the assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.’’ In what sense, on what level, on what planet are we not involved in the commanding, in the coordination, in the participation, in the movement of or in the accompaniment of the armed forces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-led coalition in the civil war in Yemen? 9:57:15 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): In March of this year, I led a letter to the Department of Defense with my colleague Senator JACK REED of Rhode Island, along with many of our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stating our concern regarding U.S. support for Saudi military operations against the Houthis in Yemen and asking about the DOD’s involvement, apparently without appropriate notification of Congress, and its agreements to provide refueling sup- port to the Saudis and the Saudi coalition partners. We were concerned that the DOD had not appropriately documented reimbursements for aerial re- fueling support provided by the United States. Eight months later—just days ago— the Department of Defense responded to our letter and admitted that it has failed to appropriately notify Congress of its support agreements; it has failed to adequately charge Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for fuel and refueling assistance. That admission 8 months after our inquiry is a damning indictment. These errors in accounting mean that the United States was directly funding the Saudi war in Yemen. It has been doing it since March of 2015. Video: Trump: Khashoggi case will not stop $110bn US-Saudi arms trade, The Guardian, October 12, 2018. Donald Trump: I would not be in favor of stopping from spending $110 billion, which is an all-time record, and letting Russia have that money, and letting China have that money. Because all their going to do is say, that's okay, we don't have to buy it from Boeing, we don't have to buy it from Lockheed, we don't have to buy it from Ratheon and all these great companies. We'll buy it from Russia and we'll buy it from China. So what good does that do us? Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Middle East, House Foreign Affairs Committee, C-SPAN, April 18, 2018. Witnesses: David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Wess Mitchell: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Sound Clips: 18:00 David Satterfield: We all agree, as does the Congress, that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unacceptable. Last month, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates provided $1 billion to Yemen's humanitarian response appeal, and this complements the US government pledge of $87 million and more than $854 million contributed since beginning of fiscal year 2017. 19:45 Wess Mitchell: Turkey is a 66 year member of the NATO alliance and member of the defeat ISIS coalition. It has suffered more casualties from terrorism than any other ally and hosts 3.5 million Syrian refugees. It supports the coalition through the use of Incirlik air base through its commitment of Turkish military forces against Isis on the ground in (Dibick? al-Bab?) And through close intelligence cooperation with the United States and other allies. Turkey has publicly committed to a political resolution in Syria that accords with UN Security Council. Resolution 2254. Turkey has a vested strategic interest in checking the spread of Iranian influence and in having a safe and stable border with Syria. Despite these shared interests, Turkey lately has increased its engagement with Russia and Iran. Ankara has sought to assure us that it sees this cooperation as a necessary stepping stone towards progress in the Geneva process, but the ease with which Turkey brokered arrangements with the Russian military to facilitate the launch of its Operation Olive Branch in Afrin district, arrangements to which America was not privy, is gravely concerning. Ankara claims to have agreed to purchase, to, to purchase the Russian S 400 missile system, which could potentially lead to sanctions under section 231 of CAATSA and adversely impact Turkey's participation in the F-35 program. It is in the American national interest to see Turkey remains strategically and politically aligned with the west. Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Yemen, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, April 17, 2018. Witnesses: Robert Jenkins: Deputy Assistant Administrator at USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, & Humanitarian Assistance David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Robert Karem: Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Nominee and former Middle East Adviser to Vice President Cheney Sound Clips: 9:30 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Well, Yemen has always faced significant socioeconomic challenges. A civil war, which began with the Houthis armed takeover of much of the country in 2014 and their overthrow of Yemen's legitimate government in January 2015, has plunged the country into humanitarian crisis. 17:25 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our first witness is acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Ambassador David Satterfield. Ambassador Satterfield is one of the most distinguished, one of our most distinguished diplomats. He most recently served as director general, the multinational force and observers in the Sinai peninsula and previously served as US Abassador to Lebanon. 17:45 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our second witness is Robert Jenkins, who serves as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for USA ID Bureau for Democracy, conflict and humanitarian assistance. Mr. Jenkins, recently mark 20 years at USAID and previously served as the Director of Office of Transition Initiatives. 18:15 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our third witness is Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Robert Kerem. Prior to his Senate confirmation last year, Mr. Karem served as National Security of Staff of Vice President Cheney and then as National Security Advisor to the House, majority leader's Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy. 20:15 David Satterfield: US military support serves a clear and strategic purpose to reinforce Saudi and Mrid self defense in the face of intensifying Houthi and Iranian enabled threats and to expand the capability of our Gulf partners to push back against Iran's regionally destabilizing actions. This support in turn provides the United States access and influence to help press for a political solution to the conflict. Should we curtail US military support? The Saudis could well pursue defense relationships with countries that have no interest in either ending the humanitarian crisis, minimizing civilian casualties or assisting and facilitating progress towards a political solution. Critical US access to support for our own campaign against violent extremists could be placed in jeopardy. 30:00 Robert Karem: Conflict in Yemen affects regional security across the Middle East, uh, and threatens US national security interests, including the free flow of commerce and the Red Sea. Just this month, the Houthi, his attack to Saudi oil tanker and the Red Sea threatening commercial shipping and freedom of navigation and the world's fourth busiest maritime choke point, the Bab el Mandeb. 32:00 Robert Karem: The Defense Department is currently engaged in two lines of effort in Yemen. Our first line of effort and our priority is the fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS in Yemen, two terrorist organizations that directly threaten the United States, our allies and our partners. To combat AQIP, AQAP, and ISIS, US forces in coordination with the UN recognized government of Yemen are supporting our regional key counter terrorism partners in ongoing operations to disrupt and degrade their ability to coordinate, plot and recruit for external terrorist operations. Additionally, US military forces are conducting airstrikes against AQAP and ISIS in Yemen pursuant to the 2001 a authorization for the use of military force to disrupt and destroy terrorist network networks. Our second line of effort is the provision of limited noncombat support to the Saudi led coalition in support of the UN recognized government of Yemen. The support began in 2015 under President Obama and in 2017 president Trump reaffirmed America's commitment to our partners in these efforts. Fewer than 50 US military personnel work in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi led coalition advising and assisting with the defense of Saudi territory, sharing intelligence and providing logistical support, including aerial refueling. 35:45 Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): Mr. Karem. I'm gonna Start with you. Um, in regards to the US military assistance that we give to the kingdom, you said that is to embolden their capacity and to reduce noncombatant casualties. Last March, the CENTCOM commander General Votel stated that the United States government does not track the end results of the coalition missions. It refills and supports with targeting assistance. So my question to you is, how do you determine that we are effectively reducing the non combatant casualties if we don't in fact track the results of the kingdoms military actions? Robert Karem: Senator, thank you. Um, it's correct that we do not monitor and track all of the Saudi aircraft, um, uh, a loft over Yemen. Uh, we have limited personnel and assets in order to do that. Uh, and CENTCOM's focus is obviously been on our own operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Syria. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand that, but my question is, our stated mission is to reduce noncombat and casualties. If we don't track, how do we determine that? Robert Karem: So I think one of our stated missions is precisely that. Um, there are multiple ways that I think we do have insight into, uh, Saudi, uh, targeting behavior. Um, we have helped them with their processes. Um, we have seen them implement a no strike list. Um, and we have seen their, their, their uh, capabilities, uh, improved. So the information is based upon what the Saudis tell you, how they're conducting the mission rather than the after impact of the mission. I think our military officers who are resident in Saudi Arabia are seeing how the Saudis approach, uh, this, this effort that took getting effort. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): But you know, obviously the proof is in the results and we don't know whether the results are, there are not fair statement. Robert Karem: I think we do see a difference in how the Saudis have operated in Yemen, how they operate. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand how they operate but we don't know whether in fact that's been effective. The United Nations Security Council panel of experts on Yemen concluded in recent reports that the cumulative effect of these airstrikes on civilian infrastructure demonstrates that even with precaution, cautionary measures were taken, they were largely inadequate and ineffective. Do you have any information that disagrees with that assessment? Robert Karem: Senator, I think the assessment of, uh, our central command is that the Saudi, uh, and Emirati targeting efforts, uh, have improved, um, uh, with the steps that they've taken. We do not have perfect understanding because we're not using all of our assets to monitor their aircraft, but we do get reporting from the ground on what taking place inside Yemen. 40:15 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): Ambassador Satterfield. I guess some people when they think about our strategy might question the idea of our strategy. You know, if your son was shooting off his pistol in the back yard and doing it indiscriminately and endangering the neighbors, would you give hmi more bullets or less? And we see the Saudis acting in an indiscriminate manner. They've bombed a funeral processions, they've killed a lot of civilians. And so our strategy is to give them more bombs, not less. And we say, well, if we don't give him the bomb, somebody else will. And that's sort of this global strategy, uh, that many in the bipartisan foreign policy consensus have. We have to, we have to always be involved. We always have to provide weapons or someone else will and they'll act even worse. But there's a, I guess a lot of examples that doesn't seem to be improving their behavior. Um, you could argue it's marginally better since we've been giving them more weapons, but it seems the opposite of logic. You would think you would give people less where you might withhold aid or withhold a assistance to the Saudis to get them to behave. But we do sort of the opposite. We give them more aid. What would your response be to that? David Satterfield: Senator, when I noted in my remarks that progress had been made on this issue of targeting, minimizing or mitigating civilian casualties, that phrase was carefully chosen into elaborate further on, uh, my colleagues remarks, uh, Robert Karem. We do work with the Saudis and have, particularly over the last six to nine months worked intensively on the types of munitions the Saudis are using, how they're using, how to discriminate target sets, how to assure through increased loiter time by aircraft that the targets sought are indeed clear of collateral or civilian damage. This is new. This is not the type of interaction… Sen. Rand Paul (KY): And yet the overall situation in Yemen is a, is a disaster. David Satterfield: The overall situation is extremely bad. Senator. Sen. Rand Paul (KY): I guess that's really my question. We had to rethink...And I think from a common sense point of view, a lot of people would question giving people who misbehave more weapons instead of giving them less on another question, which I think is a broad question about, you know, what we're doing in the Middle East in general. Um, you admitted that there's not really a military solution in Yemen. Most people say it's going to be a political solution. The Houthis will still remain. We're not going to have Hiroshima. We're not going to have unconditional surrender and the good guys win and the bad guys are vanquished. Same with Syria. Most people have said for years, both the Obama administration and this administration, probably even the Bush administration, the situation will probably be a political solution. They will no longer, it's not going to be complete vanquished meant of the enemy. We're also saying that in Afghanistan, and I guess my point as I think about that is I think about the recruiter at the station in Omaha, Nebraska, trying to get somebody to sign up for the military and saying, please join. We're going to send you to three different wars where there is no military solution. We're hoping to make it maybe a little bit better. I think back to Vietnam. Oh, we're going to take one more village. If we take one more village, they're going to negotiate and we get a little better negotiation. I just can't see sending our young men and women to die for that for one more village. You know the Taliban 40% in Afghanistan. Where are we going to get when they get to 30% don't negotiate and when we it, it'll be, it'll have been worth it for the people who have to go in and die and take those villages. I don't think it's one more life. I don't think it's worth one more life. The war in Yemen is not hard. We talk all about the Iranians have launched hundreds of missiles. Well, yeah, and the Saudis have launched 16,000 attacks. Who started it? It's a little bit murky back and forth. The, the Houthis may have started taking over their government, but that was a civil war. Now we're involved in who are the good guys of the Saudis, the good guys or the others, the bad guys. Thousands of civilians are dying. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation. I think we need to rethink whether or not military intervention supplying the Saudis with weapons, whether all of this makes any sense at all or whether we've made the situation worse. I mean, humanitarian crisis, we're talking about, oh, we're going to give my, the Saudis are giving them money and I'm like, okay, so we dropped, we bomb the crap out of them in this audience. Give them $1 billion. Maybe we could bomb last maybe part of the humanitarian answers, supplying less weapons to a war. There's a huge arms race going on. Why do the Iranians do what they do? They're evil. Or maybe they're responding to the Saudis who responded first, who started it? Where did the arms race start? But we sell $300 billion a weapons to Saudi Arabia. What are the Iranians going to do? They react. It's action and reaction throughout the Middle East. And so we paint the Iranians as the, you know, these evil monsters. And we just have to correct evil monster. But the world's a much more complicated place back and forth. And I, all I would ask is that we try to get outside our mindset that we, uh, what we're doing is working because I think what we're doing hasn't worked, and we've made a lot of things worse. And we're partly responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.  48:30 David Satterfield: The political picture on the ground in Yemen has changed radically with the death, the killing of a Ali Abdullah Saleh, uh, with the fragmentation of the General People's Congress. All of that, while tragic in many of its dimensions, has provided a certain reshuffling of the deck that may, we hope, allow the United Nations to be more effective in its efforts. 1:05:45 Sen. Todd Young (IN): Approximately how many people, Mr. Jenkins require humanitarian assistance in Yemen? David Jenkins: 22 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): What percent of the population is that? David Jenkins: Approximately 75% was the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance increase from last year. It increased by our, we're estimating 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how much has it increased? David Jenkins: About 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Okay. How many are severely food insecure? David Jenkins: 17.8 million. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many children are severely malnourished? David Jenkins: 460,000 Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many people lack access to clean water and working toilets? David Jenkins: We estimate it to be around 16 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Does Yemen face the largest cholera outbreak in the world? David Jenkins: It does. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many cholera cases have we seen in Yemen? David Jenkins: A suspected over a 1 million cases. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how many lives has that cholera outbreak claim? David Jenkins: Almost 2100. 1:46:00 Robert Jenkins: I do know that the vast majority of people within that, the majority of people in need, and that 22 million number live in the northern part of the country that are accessible best and easiest by Hodeidah port, there is no way to take Hodeidah out of the equation and get anywhere near the amount of humanitarian and more importantly, even commercial goods into the country. Hearing: Violence in Yemen, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North America, C-SPAN, April 14, 2015. Witnesses: Gerald Feierstein: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Former Ambassador to Yemen (2010-2013) Sound Clips: 1:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): On September 10th of last year, President Obama announced to the American public his plan to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL. While making his case for America's role in the fight against ISIL, the president highlighted our strategy in Yemen and held it up as a model of success to be emulated in the fight against ISIL. Yet about a week later, the Iran backed Houthis seized control of the capital and the government. Despite this, the administration continued to hail our counter-terror operations in Yemen as a model for success, even though we effectively had no partner on the ground since President Hadi was forced to flee. But perhaps even more astonishingly in what can only be described as an alarmingly tone deaf and short sighted, when Press Secretary Ernest was asked at a press briefing if this model was still successful after the Yemeni central government collapsed and the US withdrew all of our personnel including our special forces, he said yes, despite all indications pointing to the contrary. So where do we stand now? That's the important question. President Hadi was forced to flee. Saudi Arabia has led a coalition of over 10 Arab nations and Operation Decisive Storm, which so far has consisted of airstrikes only, but very well could include ground forces in the near future. 4:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): Iran has reportedly dispatched a naval destroyer near Yemen in a game of chicken over one of the most important shipping routes in the Gulf of Aden. This area is a gateway between Europe and the Middle East and ran was not be allowed to escalate any tensions nor attempt to disrupt the shipping lanes. 13:30 Rep. David Cicilline (NJ): I think it's safe to say that the quick deterioration of the situation in Yemen took many people here in Washington by surprise. For many years, Yemen was held up as an example of counter-terrorism cooperation and it looked as if a political agreement might be achieved in the aftermath of the Arab spring. The United States poured approximately $900 million in foreign aid to Yemen since the transition in 2011 to support counter-terrorism, political reconciliation, the economy and humanitarian aid. Now we face a vastly different landscape and have to revise our assumptions and expectations. Furthermore, we risk being drawn deeply into another Iranian backed armed conflict in the Middle East. 17:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Following the deposition of Yemen's longtime autocratic Saleh in 2011, the US supported an inclusive transition process. We had national dialogue aimed at rebuilding the country's political and governmental institutions and bridging gaps between groups that have had a long history of conflict. Yemen's first newly elected leader, President Hadi made clear his intentions to cooperate closely with the United States. 18:00 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Yemen, the poorest country on the peninsula, needed support from the international community. The United States has long viewed Yemen as a safe haven for all Qaeda terrorists, and there was alarming potential for recruitment by terrorist groups given the dire economic conditions that they faced. In fact, the US Department of Homeland Security considers al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate, most likely the al Qaeda affiliate, most likely to attempt transnational attacks against the United States. 18:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): While the national dialogue was initially viewed as successful, the process concluded in 2014 with several key reforms still not completed, including the drafting of the new constitution. The Hadi government had continued to face deep opposition from Yemen's northern tribes, mainly the Shiite Iranian backed Houthi rebels, over the past year. The Houthis, in coordination with tribes and military units still loyal to Saleh, began increasing their territorial control, eventually moving in to Sanaa. Saleh had long been thought to have used his existing relationship to undermine the Hadi government. Houthis are well trained, well funded, and experienced fighters, having fought the Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia in 2009. 23:15 Gerald Feierstein: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to review recent developments in Yemen and the efforts that the United States is undertaking to support the government of Yemen under president Rabu Mansour Hadi and the Saudi led coalition of Operation Decisive Storm, that is aimed at restoring the legitimate government and restarting the negotiations to find peaceful political solutions to Yemen's internal conflict. 26:45 Gerald Feierstein: To the best of our understanding, the Houthis are not controlled directly by Iran. However, we have seen in recent years, significant growth and expansion of Iranian engagement with the Houthis. We believe that Iran sees opportunities with the Houthis to expand its influence in Yemen and threatened Saudi and Gulf Arab interests. Iran provides financial support, weapons training, and intelligence of the Houthis and the weeks and months since the Houthis entered Sanaa and forced the legitimate government first to resign and ultimately to flee from the capitol, we have seen a significant expansion of Iranian involvement in Yemen's domestic affairs. 27:30 Gerald Feierstein: We are also particularly concerned about the ongoing destabilizing role played by former President Saleh, who since his removal from power in 2011 has actively plotted to undermine President Hadi and the political transition process. Despite UN sanctions and international condemnation of his actions, Saleh continues to be one of the primary sources of the chaos in Yemen. We have been working with our Gulf partners and the international community to isolate him and prevent the continuation of his efforts to undermine the peaceful transition. Success in that effort will go a long way to helping Yemen return to a credible political transition process. 42:00 Gerald Feierstein: From our perspective, I would say that that Yemen is a unique situation for the Saudis. This is on their border. It represents a threat in a way that no other situation would represent. 52:30 Gerald Feierstein: I mean, obviously our hope would be that if we can get the situation stabilized and get the political process going again, that we would be able to return and that we would be able to continue implementing the kinds of programs that we were trying to achieve that are aimed at economic growth and development as well as supporting a democratic governance and the opportunity to try to build solid political foundations for the society. At this particular moment, we can't do that, but it's hard to predict where we might be in six months or nine months from now. 1:10:00 Gerald Feierstein: When the political crisis came in Yemen in 2011, AQAP was able to take advantage of that and increase its territorial control, to the extent that they were actually declaring areas of the country to be an Islamic caliphate, not unlike what we see with ISIL in Iraq and Syria these days. Because of our cooperation, primarily our cooperation with the Yemeni security forces, uh, we were able to, uh, to defeat that, uh, at a significant loss of a life for AQAP. Uh, as a result of that, they changed their tactics. They went back to being a more traditional terrorist organization. They were able to attack locations inside of, uh, inside of Sanaa and and elsewhere. But the fact of the matter is that, uh, that we, uh, were achieving a progress in our ability to pressure them, uh, and, uh, to keep them on the defensive as opposed to giving them lots of time. And remember in 2009 in 2010, uh, we saw AQAP mount a fairly serious efforts - the underwear bomber and then also the cassette tape effort to attack the United States. After 2010, uh, they were not able to do that, uh, despite the fact that their intent was still as clear and as strong as it was before. And so a while AQAP was by no means defeated and continue to be a major threat to security here in the United States as well as in Yemen and elsewhere around the world, nevertheless, I think that it was legitimate to say that we had achieved some success in the fight against AQAP. Unfortunately what we're seeing now because of the change in the situation again, inside of Yemen, uh, is that we're losing some of the gains that we were able to make, uh, during that period of 2012 to 2014. That's why it's so important that we, uh, have, uh, the ability to get the political negotiation started again, so that we can re-establish legitimate government inside of Sanaa that will cooperate with us once again in this fight against violent extremist organizations. 1:16:45 Rep. Ted Yoho (FL): How can we be that far off? And I know you explained the counter-terrorism portion, but yet to have a country taken over while we're sitting there working with them and this happens. I feel, you know, it just kinda happened overnight the way our embassy got run out of town and just says, you have to leave. Your marines cannot take their weapons with them. I, I just, I don't understand how that happens or how we can be that disconnected. Um, what are your thoughts on that? Gerald Feierstein: You know, it was very, it was very frustrating. Again, I think that, if you go back to where we were a year ago, the successful conclusion of the National Dialogue Conference, which was really the last major hurdle and completion of the GCC initiative, Houthis participated in that. They participated in the constitutional drafting exercise, which was completed successfully. Uh, and so we were in the process of moving through all of the requirements of the GCC initiative that would allow us to complete successfully the political transition. I think there were a combination of things. One, that there was a view on the part of the Houthis that they were not getting everything that they wanted. They were provoked, in our view, by Ali Abdullah Saleh, who never stopped plotting from the very first day after he signed the agreement on the GCC initiative. He never stopped plotting to try to block the political transition, and there was, to be frank, there was a weakness in the government and an inability on the part of the government to really build the kind of alliances and coalition that would allow them to sustain popular support and to bring this to a successful conclusion. And so I think that all through this period there was a sense that we were moving forward and that we believed that we could succeed in implementing this peaceful transition. And yet we always knew that on the margins there were threats and there were risks, and unfortunately we got to a point where the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh, my personal view is that they recognized that they had reached the last possible moment, where they could obstruct the peaceful political transition that was bad for them because it would mean that they wouldn't get everything that they wanted, and so they saw that time was running out for them, and they decided to act. And unfortunately, the government was unable to stop them. Hearing: Targeted Killing of Terrorist Suspects Overseas, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, C-SPAN, April 23, 2013. Sound Clips: 44:30 Farea al-Muslimi: My name as you mentioned, is Farea al-Muslimi, and I am from Wessab, a remote village mountain in Yemen. I spent a year living with an American family and attended an American high school. That was one of the best years of my life. I learned about American culture, managed the school basketball team and participated in trick or treat and Halloween. But the most exceptional was coming to know someone who ended up being like a father to me. He was a member of the U S Air Force and most of my year was spent with him and his family. He came to the mosque with me and I went to church with him and he became my best friend in America. I went to the U.S. as an ambassador for Yemen and I came back to Yemen as an ambassador of the U.S. I could never have imagined that the same hand that changed my life and took it from miserable to a promising one would also drone my village. My understanding is that a man named Hamid al-Radmi was the target of the drone strike. Many people in Wessab know al-Radmi, and the Yemeni government could easily have found and arrested him. al-Radmi was well known to government officials and even local government could have captured him if the U.S. had told them to do so. In the past, what Wessab's villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences had. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time. What violent militants had previously failed to achieve one drone strike accomplished in an instant. 1:17:30 Farea al-Muslimi: I think the main difference between this is it adds into Al Qaeda propaganda of that Yemen is a war with the United States. The problem of Al Qaeda, if you look to the war in Yemen, it's a war of mistakes. The less mistake you make, the more you win, and the drones have simply made more mistakes than AQAP has ever done in the matter of civilians. News Report: Untold Stories of the underwear bomber: what really happened, ABC News 7 Detroit, September 27, 2012. Part 1 Part 2 Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Yemen, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, July 19, 2011. Witnesses: Janet Sanderson: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Daniel Benjamin: State Department Counterterrorism Coordinator Sound Clips: 21:00 Janet Sanderson: The United States continues its regular engagement with the government, including with President Ali, Abdullah Saleh, who's currently, as you know, recovering in Saudi Arabia from his injuries following the June 3rd attack on his compound, the acting president, Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the opposition, civil society activists, and others interested in Yemen's future. We strongly support the Gulf Cooperation Council's initiative, which we believe would lead to a peaceful and orderly political transition. The GCC initiative signed by both the ruling General People's Congress party and the opposition coalition, joint meeting parties. Only president Saleh is blocking the agreement moving forward and we continue to call on him to sign the initiative. 22:30 Janet Sanderson: While most protests in Yemen have been peaceful over the last couple of months, there have been violent clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators and between protesters and government security forces and irregular elements using forced to break up demonstrations. The United States is strongly urged the Yemeni government to investigate and prosecute all acts of violence against protesters. 27:00 Janet Sanderson: We strongly believe that a transition is necessary, that an orderly, peaceful transition is the only way to begin to lead Yemen out of the crisis that it has been in for the last few months. 34:30 Daniel Benjamin: Really, I just want to echo what ambassador Sanderson said. It is vitally important that the transition take place. 1:02:15 Daniel Benjamin: The the view from the administration, particularly from a DOD, which is doing of course, the lion's share of the training, although State Department through anti-terrorism training is doing, uh, uh, a good deal as well, is that the Yemenis are, uh, improving their capacities, that they are making good progress towards, uh, being, able to deal with the threats within their border. But it is important to recognize that, uh, uh, our engagement in Yemen was interrupted for many years. Uh, Yemen, uh, did not have the kind of mentoring programs, the kind of training programs that many of our other counter-terrorism partners had. Um, it was really when the Obama administration came into office that a review was done, uh, in, in March of, uh, beginning in March of 2009, it was recognized that Yemen was a major challenge in the world of counter terrorism. And it was not until, uh, December after many conversations with the Yemenis that we really felt that they were on-board with the project and in fact took their first actions against AQAP. This, as you may recall, was just shortly before the attempted, uh, December 25th bombing of the northwest flight. So this is a military and a set of, uh, Ministry of Interior that is civilian, uh, units that are making good progress, but obviously have a lot to learn. So, uh, again, vitally important that we get back to the work of training these units so that they can, uh, take on the missions they need to. Press Conference: Yemen Conference, C-SPAN, January 27, 2010. Speakers: David Miliband - British Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State Abu Bakr al-Kurbi - Yemeni Foreign Minister Sound Clips: 3:30 David Miliband: And working closely with the government of Yemen, we decided that our agenda needed to cover agreement on the nature of the problem and then address the, uh, solutions across the economic, social, and political terrain. Five key items were agreed at the meeting for the way in which the international community can support progress in Yemen. First, confirmation by the government of Yemen, that it will continue to pursue its reform agenda and agreement to start discussion of an IMF program. The director of the IMF represented at the meeting made a compelling case for the way in which economic reform could be supported by the IMF. This is important because it will provide welcome support and help the government of Yemen confront its immediate challenges. 11:45 Hillary Clinton: The United States just signed a three year umbrella assistance agreement with the government of Yemen that will augment Yemen's capacity to make progress. This package includes initiatives that will cover a range of programs, but the overarching goal of our work is to increase the capacity and governance of Yemen and give the people of Yemen the opportunity to better make choices in their own lives. President Saleh has outlined a 10 point plan for economic reform along with the country's national reform agenda. Those are encouraging signs of progress. Neither, however, will mean much if they are not implemented. So we expect Yemen to enact reforms, continue to combat corruption, and improve the country's investment in business climate. 15:45 Abu Bakr al-Kurbi: This commitment also stems from our belief that the challenges we are facing now cannot be remedied unless we implement this agenda of reforms and the 10 points that her exellency alluded to because this is now a priority number of issues that we have to start with, and I hope this is what will be one of the outcomes of this meeting. 16:30 Hillary Clinton: One of the factors that's new is the IMF's involvement and commitment. the IMF has come forward with a reform agenda that the government of Yemen has agreed to work on. 24:30 Hillary Clinton: We were pleased by the announcement of a cease fire, um, between the Saudis and the Houthis. That should lead, we hope, to broader negotiations and a political dialogue that might lead to a permanent, uh, end to the conflict in the north. It's too soon to tell. The Daily Show with John Stewart: Terror 2.0 by Yemen - Sad Libs, CC.com, January 6, 2010. The Daily Show with John Stewart: Terror 2.0 by Yemen, CC.com, January 4, 2010. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

This week, we saw Georgetown University students vote to force each attendee of the school to pay $27.20 each semester extra in tuition for a "reparation fund" for 200-year-old slave trades that happened in the early 1800s. We will talk about this university idiocy, Ilhan Omar's vile 9/11 comments, and a recent hearing on Capitol Hill in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, where Twitter & Facebook executives were grilled on their unfair censorship of conservative voices.

Few people understand the state of our national security as well as Janet Napolitano and Joe Biden. Napolitano, former Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary and the first appointed by President Obama, has written about the subject in her new book,"How Safe Are We?" She spoke with Vice President Joe Biden, who—in addition to being Barack Obama's Vice President— chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and sat on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security. “Homeland security is not only the job of the secretary or of the 240,000 professionals who work for the department,” says Napolitano, “it is everyone’s responsibility.”

  The National Endowment for Democracy is a private foundation - that receives millions of our tax dollars - that pays groups to work to change the governments of other countries. In this episode, hear highlights from a hearing during which the president of this creepy organization and the presidents of two organizations that it funds - which are controlled entirely by members of the Republican and Democratic parties - will give you some insight into what kind of work they are doing manipulating information and interfering in elections in other countries around the world. 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 CD175: State of War CD172: The Illegal Bombing of Syria CD167: Combating Russia NDAA 2018 LIVE CD117: Authorization for Limitless War CD113: CISA is Law CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? Main Hearing Hearing: Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World, Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, June 14, 2018. Full Hearing Transcript Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Carl Gershman: National Endowment for Democracy: President Daniel Twining: International Republican Institute: President Kenneth Wollack: National Democratic Institute: President Timestamps & Transcripts 15:35 Representative Edward Royce (CA): At home, we must maintain the decades-old bipartisan consensus that democracy is a core element of U.S. foreign policy. That is why it’s important to have the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and the National Democratic Institute here today, and that’s why it’s important that Congress continues to adequately fund these institutions.   24:30 Representative Edward Royce (CA): I’m pleased to welcome our distinguished guests here on the panel, including Mr. Carl Gershman, who has served as president of the National Endowment for Democracy since its founding in 1984. He’s a long-time friend of this committee. He’s respected worldwide for his work, especially in his efforts to help peaceably end the Cold War and transition countries from behind the Iron Curtain to democracy, and he’s done this through nongovernmental action. Before his time at NED, he was the senior counselor to the United States representative to the United Nations, where he worked on international human rights issues.   25:21 Representative Edward Royce (CA): Mr. Daniel Twining is the president of the International Republican Institute, and previously he served as the counselor and director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. He also worked here in Congress. He worked here as a foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain.   25:45 Representative Edward Royce (CA): And we have Mr. Kenneth Wollack. He is president of the National Democratic Institute, and he has co-edited the Middle East Policy Survey and written regularly on foreign affairs for the Los Angeles Times.   27:26 Carl Gershman: I’d call your attention, for example, to some recent events, among them the remarkable democratic transition in Gambia; the fall of the corrupt Zuma government in South Africa; the stunning victory of democracy in Malaysia, and the freeing of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim; the equally stunning triumph of democracy in Armenia; and the successful local elections in Tunisia that are, in my view, a decisive step forward in the Arab world’s first democracy. These are just a few of the examples that I could give of recent democratic advances. There is Slovakia, interesting developments in Ethiopia. Even in a country like Uzbekistan, we can see some glimmerings of some opening.   31:07 Carl Gershman: Other examples include the support that NED has given in Ukraine to the Anti-Corruption Action Center that has tirelessly led the campaign for the establishment of an independent anti-corruption court. And I’m pleased to report that just last week the Ukrainian parliament at long last approved legislation to create such a court.   37:25 Daniel Twining: In Europe, the Kremlin is deploying a sophisticated information-warfare campaign to undermine democratic institutions, erode citizen trust in democracy, and wedge apart the transatlantic alliance. This form of warfare is particularly insidious—this political warfare—because it uses core features of democracy against us—exploiting our free media, manipulating false information, undermining confidence in electoral systems. IRI’s Beacon Project is engaged in a big line of work to leverage our relationships for European political parties and civil-societies groups to track Russian misinformation, including in many local languages, and then to coordinate political responses to that.   31:46 Carl Gershman: The last example is the nonpartisan training conducted by four NGOs in Tunisia of new candidates who participated in last month’s local elections. Of the 235 individuals who were trained, 112 won seats, and 25 were at the heads of their electoral lists.   41:46 Kenneth Wollack: Authoritarian regimes are using digital tools to advance their interests, including electoral espionage and the dissemination of disinformation, to skew electoral outcomes, disrupt democratic discourse, discredit democratic institutions, and fuel ethnic and social divisions. NDI has responded by providing cybersecurity support; assisting efforts of civic, media, and political groups to detect, expose, and combat this information; and conducting new types of public-opinion research to identify populations that are most susceptible to Russian disinformation and develop messages that can build resilience. In cooperation with IRI and NED, NDI is helping to launch a new effort with democracy groups, civil-society organizations, civic-tech partners, political parties, and a global network of four million citizen election monitors to interact more regularly with the technology companies.   44:23 Kenneth Wollack: Ukrainians can point to concrete achievements in recent years. These include the emergence of new political parties that have national reach and are focused on citizens they represent rather than on oligarchs who would finance them. Brought together by NDI in partnership with the European Parliament, party factions in the Rada are overcoming deep fragmentation to agree on procedures that will make it easier to build consensus around reforms. In NDI programs alone, more than 45,000 citizens have engaged directly in the national reform process and reaching more than 1.3 million citizens through the media.   45:05 Kenneth Wollack: Another story of democratic resilience is unfolding in Syria. In northern Syria, citizen groups are prioritizing community needs, and local administrative councils are responding by providing critical services. Fifty NDI governance advisors are working each day in 34 locations to advise citizen groups and administrative councils, and bringing them together to solve problems.   49:19 Carl Gershman: But you’ve got to build a defense against it, and a lot of the groups that we helped stop fake news Ukraine and other groups like that are being able to identify fake information. We have a dialogue—a very ongoing dialogue—with the Internet companies to take down a lot of incitement, a lot of fake news. We’re connecting our grantees with the Internet companies. We have groups like Bellingcat, which is an investigative journalist group. They use open-source information. But they’ve identified the Russian general who provided the missile that shot down the Malaysian airliner.   51:30 Kenneth Wollack: But this a daily fight on the ground. Representative Edward Royce (CA): A social media fight? Wollack: Yes. To give you one example, the Democratic Party of Serbia, two weeks before the local elections, the Russians—presumably the Russians—had hacked their Facebook page, put horrible content on it. The hackers then contacted Facebook, told them to look at the site. Facebook immediately took down the Facebook page. Now, the party didn’t know who to contact. They had no contact with Facebook. They were able to contact us. Our office in Silicon Valley managed to reach the Facebook executives. They immediately took it down.   54:04 Representative Eliot Engel (NY): The budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 requested a $67 million for NED, which is a 60 percent cut from the amount which is $170 million that Congress has appropriated yearly since FY ’16.   54:59 Carl Gershman: I mean, there are, obviously, two fundamental problems with the OMB budget request for fiscal 2019: the amount and separating us from the four institutes. And both of these are devastating. I don’t even want to get into now what we would have to cut. They’re devastating—utterly devastating. It would virtually kill the whole program.   58:22 Daniel Twining: But in Malaysia, IRI’s been working with the opposition there since 2002. Malaysia was essentially a one-party majoritarian state. The ruling party had ruled since 1957. It had gerrymandered all the districts, given itself every advantage. But in this last election a month ago, the opposition won for the first time in 60-something years, and that was an example of playing the long game, right? We, the United States, supported a democratic opposition that is now in charge of this very strategic country right there on the front lines of the South China Sea, right there on the front lines of the Islamic world’s intersection with the rest of Asia, and that’s good for America.   1:09:12 Representative Gregory Meeks (NY): And Mr. Gershman, I’m a former board member at NED, so I’ve seen firsthand the work that you and your dedication and the bipartisan board of NED collectively working together to try to make sure that we have a better world for all of us.   1:12:20 Kenneth Wollack: Our engagement is not to spread falsehoods. It’s not to create fake news. It’s not to try to disrupt the process. It’s not to try to spur conflict in countries. What we’re trying to do is promote the principles, values, processes, and institutions that are enshrined in an intergovernmental organization. And our work is to try to help people engage in the political process.   1:16:34 Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA):... did we or did we not involve ourselves heavily to undermine the democratically elected government of Yanukovych in Ukraine? And what did it bring us? It brought us turmoil and conflict—that if we’d have waited and let that government be elected, because of its flaws unelected, we would not be in this situation today where the world is more likely to go into conflict because of that. I don’t believe the Russians would’ve invaded Ukraine had we not arrogantly involved ourselves to overthrow that democratically elected government in Ukraine.   1:18:39 Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA): So, I’ve had my say. I know I’m making everybody mad at me, but I had to say it.   1:25:59 Representative Brad Sherman (CA): And I want to turn our attention to Yerevan and Armenia. NED has allocated $1.3 million last year. Now we’ve seen a real move toward democracy. Are you going to do more, given the fluid situation there? Carl Gershman: Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Sherman. Yes. The answer is yes. Our board, which meets later this week, is making Armenia what we call a country eligible for contingency funds, which are funds set aside for new situations and, obviously, what’s happened in Armenia is very, very new. And we—I think there are several priorities that have to be addressed. There are going to be quick elections that have been called in Armenia, and those elections have to have integrity to them to give legitimacy to the current Pashinyan government. There is a parliament that oversees this, and government officials are really new to the governing game. The system has been controlled by a centralized authority for a number of years and so a lot of training is going to have to be necessary for some of the new government officials. And then, finally, there’s going to be a big information war, the kind of issue raised by Congressman Royce, and it is very essential in this period—and this is what the groups that we help are doing—is to get people reliable and independent information so they don’t make the judgments based upon the disinformation that is going to be promoted by the forces that have just been removed from power.   1:49:40 Representative Karen Bass (CA): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to welcome my colleagues from NED and IRI and NDI. And I’m a member of the NED board, for my colleagues that are here on the committee, and I have to say the work that NED does around the world is really tremendous.   2:07:52 Representative Ted Poe (TX): Globally, what do you personally see is the number-one entity that is a threat to democracy worldwide? Is it China? Is it Russia? Is it North Korea? Is it ISIS? Is it Iran? Pick one. Pick the one you think is the threat. Carl Gershman: China. Rep. Poe: China. Gershman: China. Rep. Poe: Mr. Twining. Daniel Twining: China. Rep. Poe: Mr. Wollack. Kenneth Wollack: Russia. Rep. Poe: Russia. Russia and China.   2:35:00 Carl Gershman And I think it should not be forgotten: NED was created as an independent institution so that even when you have problems, whatever the problems are with the executive branch, our work continues consistently. And I think that was a brilliant idea, and it’s in the National Endowment for Democracy Act adopted by the Congress by Dante Fascell in 1983, and I think it was brilliant to give the NED that kind of independence so that we can go forward, regardless of what the policies of the executive branch are at any particular time.   2:47:46 Carl Gershman: I take pride in the fact that when we make grants to groups abroad, I take pride that it’s with American taxpayer money. We try to protect that money. We try to make sure that every single dollar is spent well. But I take pride in the fact that that’s a demonstration of the support coming from the American people. Sound Clip Sources News Interview: The Rules-Based International Order Created by the U.S. is Being Torn Apart by the U.S., CNN, June 10, 2018. 2:30 Sen. Diane Feinstein I mean we have helped support this whole Democratic Atlantic community and more or less forged it into a single entity. And I’ve been very proud of that as an American. Speech: Madeleine K. Albright Gives Keynote Remarks at 2018 Albright Luncheon, National Democratic Institute, YouTube, May 10, 2018. 10:50 Madeline Albright We are employing every tool at our disposal from the use of focus groups to the collection of more accurate data, to connections made through social media, to the design of election observer missions, to the drafting of model laws, to partnerships with regional bodies and the United Nations, to the mobilization of public opinion from around the equator and from pole to pole. Discussion: Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden, Council on Foreign Affairs, January 23, 2018. Speakers: Joe Biden Richard Haass - President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Hearing: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN, November 1, 2017. Witnesses: Kent Walker Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett Twitter Acting General Counsel 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that.   1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, “RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Hearing: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation , Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, October 31, 2017. Witnesses Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel  Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel  Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That’s the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We’ve made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That’s right.   Hearing: Subcommittee Hearing - The Collapse of the Rule of Law in Venezuela, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 19, 2017. Witness Luis Almagro Secretary General of the Organization of American States 07:15 Senator Marco Rubio: I also know this, and I do not speak for the president, but I’ve certainly spoken to the president, and I will only reiterate what he has already said, and I’ve been saying this now for a number of days: it is my—I have 100% confidence that if democracy is destroyed once and for all in Venezuela on the 30th in terms of the Maduro regime, the president of the U.S. is prepared to act unilaterally in a significant and swift way. And that is not a threat; that is the reporting of the truth. Confirmation Hearing: Defense Secretary Nominee General James Mattis Says Russia is Trying to Break NATO, US Senate, C-SPAN, January 12, 2017. John McCain: For seven decades, the United States has played a unique role in the world. We’ve not only put America first, but we’ve done so by maintaining and advancing a world order that has expanded security, prosperity, and freedom. This has required our alliances, our trade, our diplomacy, our values, but most of all, our military for when would-be aggressors aspire to threaten world order. Hearing: U.S. Strategy Against ISIS, Senate Armed Services Committee, C-SPAN, December 9, 2015. 2:28:14 Sen. Lindsey Graham Here’s what I’ve done. I make an offer to our president that I believe this war is going to go on for a long time after his presidency; I believe that they’re going to go wherever they can on the planet and that we should stop them wherever necessary; and when it comes to means, we should not limit this commander in chief or any other commander in chief when it comes to means. Speech: Gov. Howard Dean - DemTools 2.0 Launch, NDI's DemTools Launch Event, December 9, 2015. 9:55 Howard Dean I’m incredibly proud to be a member of the board of NDI, which is an incredibly sophisticated organization that does not shrink from bringing democracy to any corner of the Earth, including some we’re not allowed in. We get there anyway. Speech: Sen. Tom Cotton Says US Should Shoot Down Russian Planes Over Syria, YouTube, October 1, 2015. Conference: Is the United States at a Crossroads? Domestic and Global Dimensions, Wilson Center, May 15, 2015. 15:35 Jane Harmon Ukraine. You and I were there together. Madeline lead the delegation - of course she did - for the National Democratic Institute, which she chairs and the International Republican Institute was also there during the first Ukraine election in May of last year. And among other things we met with the presidential candidates including Poroshenko and Tymoshenko and we tooled around in Kiev and I also went to Odessa to see how the voting was going. Speech: Senator Dan Sullivan's Maiden Floor Speech, US Senate, C-SPAN, January 27, 2015. 9:05 Sen. Dan Sullivan If the executive branch continues to dither on America’s economic future, Congress can and should act to expe- dite such projects. That is what we are doing with Keystone, and that is what I will be pressing the Congress to do for Alaska’s and America’s next great en- ergy infrastructure project—the Alas- ka LNG project—which will create thousands of jobs and provide clean and affordable energy to Americans and our allies for decades. Speech: Vice President Joe Biden Opens 2014 NDI Democracy Award Dinner, National Democratic Institute, December 11, 2014. 32:40 Vice President Joe Biden That’s why in Ukraine, working alongside groups like NDI, with your leadership, we’re providing to the Ukrainians, as we had to the Iraqi’s, personnel from each of our departments teaching them how to literally, as I said, write a budget, expertise from our Justice Department, teaching them the tools that are available to ensure that the court systems are free and transparent. We’re helping Ukrainian officials develop laws and regulations that will establish anti-corruption institutions within the government, enable authorities to combat corruption more effectively. Our militaries are working together to improve Ukrainian capacity to provide it’s own defense and a military system that meets the standards of democracies, while providing security assistance to counter Russian aggression. Speech: Thomas A. Daschle's Speech to NDI's 30th Anniversary Dinner, National Democratic Institute, December 16, 2013. 1:30 Tom Daschle Like many of you, - by the mission of NDI. The realization that we have had one focus now for 3 decades. And that focus is very simply to empower people to be able to govern themselves more effectively. That’s what we try to do. Speech: Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Speech, Virginia Military Institute, C-SPAN, October 8, 2012. 17:25 Mitt Romney Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts. Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. We led. News Interview: CIA Admits Orchestrating Syrian Coup of March 1949, BBC Interview, 1967. Additional Reading Article: Who will fix Facebook? by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, November 26, 2018. Article: US, Ukraine in 'close discussion' for new lethal arms by Joe Gould, Defense News, November 18, 2018. Article: Facebook purge: Here is the list of pages deleted by Facebook by Patrick Brown, The Western Journal, October 13, 2018. Biography: George Catlett Marshall, United States General, by Forrest C. Pogue, Encyclopedia Britannica, last updated October 12, 2018. Article: Anti-Media shut down by Facebook and Twitter by Caitlin Johnstone, The Anti-Media, October 11, 2018. Article: Facebook purged over 800 U.S. accounts and pages for pushing politcal spam by Elizabeth Dwoskin and Tony Romm, The Washington Post, October 11, 2018. Article: Facebook tempts political backlash with massive purge of 810 pages and accounts by Rhett Jones, Gizmodo, October 11, 2018. Article: The survivors of the Rohingya Genocide by Jason Motlagh, Rolling Stone, August 9, 2018. Article: John McCain passes the torch at the International Republican Institute by Josh Rogin, The Washington Post, August 3, 2018. Article: Exclusive: IMF backs Ukraine anti-corruption court plan by Marc Jones, Reuters, July 25, 2018. Article: Ukraine anti-corruption court law needs amending - IMF chief by Reuters, June 19, 2018. Article: Independent candidates get most votes in Tunisia's municipal election by Tarek Amara, Reuters, May 8, 2018. Article: Trump is gutting the National Endowment for Democracy, and that's a good thing by Stephen Kinzer, The Boston Globe, March 14, 2018. Article: The Trump administration wants to dismantle Ronald Reagan's 'infrastructure of democracy' by Josh Rogin, The Washington Post, March 4, 2018. Article: House Foreign Affairs Chairman Royce announces retirement by Bridget Bowman, Roll Call, January 8, 2018. Article: What the United States did in Indonesia by Vincent Bevins, The Atlantic, October 20, 2017. Article: Is John McCain's pick to lead the International Republican Institute a strike against Donald Trump? by Timothy J. Burger, Town & Country Magazine, August 10, 2017. Article: Confront authoritarianism by defending democratic values by Carl Gersham , Journal Sentinel Online, October 22, 2016. Article: Russia adds International Republican Institute to growing list of "undesirable organizations", International Republican Institute, August 18, 2016. Article: Bernie Sanders is exactly right: The media is an arm of the ruling class of this country by Brian Hanley, Huffpost, March 28, 2016. Article: Pro-democracy nonprofit is banned in Russia by Ivan Nechepurenko, The New York Times, March 11, 2016. Article: Evil internet bill CISPA is back from the dead, cleverly titled CISA by Kelly Weill, Daily Beast, October 28, 2015. Article: National Endowment for Democracy is first 'undesirable' NGO banned in Russia by Alec Luhn, The Guardian, July 28, 2015. Article: Former Soviet states stand up to Russia. Will the U.S.? by Carl Gershman, The Washington Post, September 26, 2013. Article: Russia wields hard power over Armenia by Anne Applebaum, The Washington Post, September 20, 2013. Article: Covert plan for Panama may be wrong message to send the opposition, The Los Angeles Times, August 14, 1988. Article: U.S. assembled a force in 1964 for possible use in Brazil coup by David Binder, The New York Times Archives, December 30, 1976. Article: Oil discovery in Brazil expected to aid economy, The New York Times Archives, December 9, 1964. Resources About Page: International Monetary Fund, Destruction and Reconstruction (1945-1958), Cooperation and Recovery: The Marshall Plan About Page: German Marshall Fund About Page: National Democratic Institute - Who We Are Archived Form: National Endowment for Democracy For 990 (2002-2015) Board of Directors: International Republican Institute Board of Directors: National Democratic Institute Board of Directors: National Endowment for Democracy Donation Page: National Endowment for Democracy FAQs: International Republican Institute - Who We Are Joint Statement: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019, p. 406 Project Info: The Beacon Project, International Republican Institute Web Page: Democracy Assistance is Not Election Meddling: Distinguishing Support from Sabotage Letter: United States Senators to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, December 20, 2017 OpenSecrets: Sen. Dan Sullivan - Alaska Website: Albright Stonebridge Group Website: Bellingcat YouTube Channel: National Democratic Institute Visual Resources Tweet: @ElliotHiggins February 6, 2017 Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

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

If there's one way to describe Alvaro Bedoya besides hard working, it's that he's passionate. Nowhere is that more evident than in his work on the surveillance of minority populations, a passion fueled by Bedoya's time as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. It was during that time that the Snowden revelations hit, and Bedoya was baffled by the ways in which minority populations were being surveilled and the lack of voices speaking up against that. Three years ago, Bedoya, who's now executive director of the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law, launched a daylong conference called The Color of Surveillance, which brought to the stage activists, scholars and artists from impacted minority populations to discuss the widespread impact government surveillance has had on their communities and what they're doing to combat it. This year's conference, July 19, will focus government surveillance on religious minorities. It's free and open to the public. 

Meeting recorded on Wednesday, January 31, 2018

The Internet plays an essential role in our modern society and yet the way the Internet will be governed is still unclear. In anticipation of an impending Federal Communications Commission vote to reverse the so called “net neutrality” regulation implemented during the Obama administration, we look at the law which the FCC is trying to enforce. We also examine our current lawmaker’s plans for Internet governance by listening to highlights of three hearings featuring testimony from lawyers from Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills H.R. 3989: Amend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 S. 652 (104th): Telecommunications Acto of 1996 Additional Reading Article: House foreign surveillance turf war heats up as law sunset nears by Daniel R. Stoller, Bloomberg, December 1, 2017. Article: Colorado warns families to be prepared in case congress doesn't come through on CHIP funding by Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner, November 27, 2017 Article: Congress confronts jam-packed December with shutdown deadline looming by Mike Debonis and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, November 26, 2017 Article: States prepare to shut down children's health programs if congress doesn't act by Colby Itkowitz and Sandhya Somashekhar, The Washington Post, November 23, 2017. Article: Here's how the end of net neutrality will change the internet by Klint Finley, Wired, November 22, 2017. Article: What is net neutrality? by Aaron Byrd and Natalia V. Osipova, NY Times, November 21, 2017. Article: Will the Telecommunications Act get a much-needed update as it turns 21? by Richard Adler, Recode, February 8, 2017. Article: Cable tv price increases have beaten inflation every single year for 20 years by Nathan McAlone, Business Insider, October 31, 2016 Article: 20 years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rekindling Congress's political will by Stuart N. Brotman, The Hill, February 8, 2016. Article: The city that was saved by the internet by Jason Koebler, Motherboard, October 27, 2016. Article: This was 1995: A pop culture snapshot by Patricia Garcia, Vogue, September 1, 2015. Article: Why your internet prices are bound to go up by Brian Fung, Washington Post, July 23, 2015. Report: In a nutshell: Net neutrality, CBS News, March 1, 2015. Report: AT&T buys DirectTV for $48.5 billion by Roger Yu, USA Today, May 18,2014. Article: Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules by Brian Fung, Washington Post, January 14, 2014. Article: Legal gymnastics ensue in oral arguments for Verizon vs. FCC by Jennifer Yeh, Freepress, September 10, 2013. Report: Comcast completes NBC Universal merger, Reuters, January 29, 2011. References Bill Resources: H.R.1555 Communications Act of 1995 Bill Roll Call: H.R. 3989 Vote Roll Call FCC Resources: Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mission Statement: AIPAC - America's Pro-Israel Lobby Network Map: Community Networks Publication: Public Law 104 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Publication: The USA Liberty Act Report: Akamai's State of the Internet 2017 Report: FCC Fact Sheet Support Page: AT&T HBO Channels Visual References Cable Prices vs. Inflation, 1995-2015 Sound Clip Sources Senate Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (Senate Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I’ve seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I’d be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I’m not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It’s something like that. Stretch: It’s a small number by comparison, sir. 2:19:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (AR): Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian Intelligence Services? Sean Edgett: We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government. Cotton: So you will apply the same policy to our Intelligence Community that you apply to an adversary’s intelligence services. Edgett: As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently. Cotton: This reminds me of the old line from the Cold War, of one who did not see a distinction between the CIA and the KGB on the other hand, because the KGB officer pushed an old lady in front of an oncoming bus, and the CIA officer pushed the old lady out from the path of the oncoming bus, because they both go around pushing old ladies. I hope that Twitter will reconsider its policies when it’s dealing with friendly intelligence services in countries like the United States and the U.K. as opposed to adversarial countries like Russia and China. House Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (House Social Media) Witnesses: Kent Walker - Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 39:05 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ): Social-media platforms have the responsibility of striking a balance between removing false information and preserving freedom of speech. Can you give us some brief detail of how each of your companies plan to target perceived false news while protecting the robust political discourse? Kent Walker: Let me take that because that was the sort of next stage to my answer to Mr. Shift’s question. We are taking a number of different steps beyond advertising to focus on fake news. We are working to improve our algorithms, to provide additional guidance and training to the Raiders who provide quality feedback for us, and to look at a wider variety of signals to improve the ranking of authentic and genuine news on our sites and to demote sites that we feel are deceptive or misleading. We are also making broader use of fact-check labels, working with third parties, for both Google Search and Google News. And when it comes to advertising, we’ve taken steps to disallow advertising on sites that misrepresent their nature or purpose, and to add to our policies around or against hate speech, incitement of violence, and the like. Colin Stretch: I would group our efforts with respect to false news into three buckets. First, we find that most false news is financially motivated, and we’re making efforts to disrupt the financial incentives. That, we think, will make a big dent in it. Second, we’re looking to stop the spread of it. So when we have information that’s been disputed by independent fact-checkers, we limit the distribution and we alert users who are attempting to share it that it has been disputed. And third, we’re engaged in a number of user-education efforts to help, particularly around the world, users approach some of the content they see with a more discerning eye. Sean Edgett: We’re tackling this challenge in a few ways, and I think the way this was characterized is correct: it’s a balance between free speech and what’s real and what’s false. And we often see there’s a lot of activity on the platform to correct false narratives, and one of those things, for example, is the text-to-vote tweets that we turned over to you, which we took off our platform as illegal voter suppression. The number of tweets that were counteracting that as false and telling people not to believe that was, like, between eight and 10 times what we saw on the actual tweets. But we’re working on the behavior. That’s where we’re focused right now. We’ve had great strides in focusing on that for things like terrorism and child sexual exploitation. We’re trying to figure out how we can use those learnings to stop the amplification of false news or misinformation, and think we’re making great strides there, but it’s a definite balance. We also have work we’ve done, just like my peers, around ads transparency that, I think, is going to help educate the consumer about who’s paying for an ad, what else they’re running, what they’re targeting, what they’re after—especially around electioneering ads, who’s paying for it, how much they’re spending. We are also working with third parties. We have a Trust and Safety council of experts, academics, around the world who are helping us think through the things that we’re trying to employ to tackle these issues and how they will impact the debate and free speech on our platform. So we’re working hard on this, but it’s a challenge. 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that. And I also want to just say that I think it’s ridiculous that a foreign entity can buy a political ad with rubles but can’t give a political contribution to me—a Russian person can’t give me a political contribution. There seems to be some legislation that needs to be had here, is all I’m saying. 1:16:05 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): Let’s look at unpaid content for a second. Sometimes these fake accounts are pulled down, but the fake story takes the false claims of widespread voter fraud, for example, generated by these accounts have spread thousands of thousands of times, often picked up by legitimate news accounts. What do you do to flag that? What do you sense is your responsibility? And before any of you answer, let me just notice this, that if we’re asking is, are we still in this situation? As of just a short time ago—and I’m talking about when this meeting started—on Twitter, if you clicked on the hashtag “NYCTerroristAttack,” which is “trending,” marked with a red button saying “live,” the top tweet links to an Infowars story with the headline, “Imam: I Warned De Blasio About New York City Terror; He was Too Busy Bashing Trump.” This is a real-time example of when we talk about this information being weaponized. How quickly can you act, and what’s your responsibility to set the record straight so that the people who saw this know that it’s fake news and at least at some point in time it can’t keep spreading like some sort of virus through legitimate world? Sean Edgett: That’s something we’re thinking about all the time because it’s a bad user experience, and we don’t want to be known as a platform for that. In your example, in for instance, the system self-corrected. That’s not—that shouldn’t be the first tweet you see anymore. It should be a USA article, the last time I checked. Quigley: But you saw this. Edgett: USA Today. At lunch I did, yeah, and I also saw the system correct it. Quigley: Can you give me a really good guess on how long it was top? Edgett: We can follow up with you and your staff on that, and I don’t have the stat in front of me. Quigley: Yeah. Edgett: So I don’t know. But we are, like we said earlier, trying to balance free speech with making the information you see on the system—especially around trends that we direct you to, so if you’re clicking on a hashtag, we want to make sure you’re seeing verified accounts and accurate information and reporting. Sometimes it doesn’t work as we intended. We learn from those mistakes and tweak and modulate going forward. Quigley: Beyond the correction, do you have a responsibility to flag something as “this was fake news”? Edgett: We see our users do that a lot. We’re an open, public platform with respect to journalists and other organizations who point these things out. You may have seen that on this instance, for example. Quigley: Yeah, if someone’s breaking the law, you’ve got to feel like you have a responsibility to do something about that. It’s not—as you said, this is a—with this extraordinary gift, this platform of free expression, comes the responsibility you all talked about. So, if you know something’s illegal, you know you have the responsibility to do something. At what point does this become something where you can’t just correct it; you’ve got to say to the public, this isn’t true. Edgett: Right. And we take swift action on illegal content, illegal activity, on the platform. A good example of this is the text to vote, voter suppression tweets that we’ve turned over to this committee. We saw swift action of the Twitter community on disputing those claims; and Twitter actively tweeted, once it discovered these things were on the platform, to notify our users that this was fake information, that you could not, in fact, vote by tweet, and pointing people to a tool that would allow them to find their nearest polling place. That tweet— Quigley: Is this [unclear] because that was illegal activity, or is this—if something’s just fake, do you think you have an equal responsibility? Edgett: We took that down because it was illegal voter suppression. We are actively working on, how do we balance what is real and fake, and what do we do in the aftermath of something being tweeted and re-tweeted, like you said, and had people even seen it and how do we make sure that they’re seeing other view points and other facts and other news stories. Quigley: Do you have a policy right now where if you know something’s out there that’s not true, of saying so? Edgett: We do not. We have a policy that fosters the debate on the platform. We have a policy that takes down a lot of that content because it comes from automated malicious accounts or spammers. That stuff we’re removing and acting on as quickly as we can. Quigley: And I understand how you’re trying to distinguish that, but the fact is if something’s fake, it doesn’t matter if it’s from a fake account or some bot or something. If it’s just not true and it’s wildly obvious, before it goes viral and gets picked up legitimate, you must feel like you have some responsibility. Edgett: We are—we are deeply concerned about that and figuring out ways we can do it with the right balance. 1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, “RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Kent Walker: Thank you, Congresswoman. We’ve heard the concerns, and we spoke briefly about this previously. We recognize that there’re many concerned about RT’s slanted perspective. At the same time, this is an issue that goes beyond the Internet to cable, satellite television and beyond. We have carefully reviewed RT’s compliance with our policies. We’ve not found violations of our policies against hate speech and incitement to violence and the like. Speier: It’s a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker. The Intelligence Community—all 17 agencies—says it’s an arm of one of our adversaries. Walker: And we agree that— Speier: I would like for you to take that back to your executives and rethink continuing to have it on your platform. Walker: Yes. We agree that transparency’s important for all of these different sources of information. We are working on additional ways to provide that for all government-funded sources of information, including Al Jazeera and a range of government organizations. 2:05:27 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): Is it constitutionally protected to utter an intentionally false statement? Colin Stretch: So, it depends on the context, but there is recent Supreme Court precedent on that. On Facebook— Gowdy: On which side: that it is or is not? Stretch: That it is, in most cases, protected. However, on Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false. We do recognize that false news is a real challenge. The way in which we’re addressing it is by trying to disrupt the financial incentives of those who are profiting from it, which is where most of it comes from. Most of this, most of the fake-news problem is coming from low-quality websites that are trying to drive traffic on every side of every issue, and by disrupting the financial incentives, we’re able to limit the distribution. We’re also trying to make sure that users do know when a story has been disputed by a neutral third party and alerting users to that fact— I’ll stop. I’ll stop there. Gowdy: Well, I’m smiling only because on the last break a couple of my colleagues and I were wondering who those neutral fact-checkers are, and I really do appreciate your desire to want to have a neutral fact-checker. If you could let me know who those folks are, I’d be really grateful, because people in my line of work might take exception with the neutrality of some of the fact-checkers. So, if I understand you correctly, the authenticity of the speaker is very important; the accuracy of the content, less so. Stretch: That’s how we approach it. That’s exactly right. Gowdy: All right. For the life of me, I do not understand how a republic is served by demonstrably, provably, intentionally false information. And I get it, that you don’t want to be the arbiter of opinion—I don’t want you to be, either—but today’s not Thursday, so if I say it is, I swear I don’t understand how my fellow citizens benefit from me telling them something that is demonstrably false, and I am saying it with the intent to deceive. I just—for the life of me, I don’t get it, but I’m out of time. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation; October 31, 2017 (Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That’s the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We’ve made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That’s right. 52:15 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA): Mr. Salgado, why did Google get preferred status to Russia Today, a Russian propaganda arm, on YouTube? Richard Salgado: There was a period of time where Russia Today qualified really because of algorithms to participate in an advertising program that opened up some inventory for them, subjective standards around popularity and some other criteria to be able to participate in that program. Platforms or publishers like RT drop in and out of the program as things change, and that is the case with RT. They dropped out of the program. Feinstein: Well, why didn’t you revert RT’s preferred status after the ICA came out in January 2017? It took you to September of 2017 to do it. Salgado: The removal of RT from the program was actually a result of, as I understand it, is a result of some of the drop in viewership, not as a result of any action otherwise. So, there was nothing about RT or its content that meant that it stayed in or stayed out. 2:03:15 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So, Mr. Stretch, you said that there are 150 people at Facebook just focused on the content of what’s on your platform. How many people do you have, Mr. Edgett, at Twitter to concentrate on the content and ferretting out the kind of content that would be deemed unacceptable, divisive? I realize there are a lot of First Amendment— Sean Edgett: Right. Hirono: —complicated issues, but how many people do you have? Edgett: Well, we harness the power of both technology, algorithms, machine learning to help us, and also a large team of people, that we call our Trust and Safety team and our User Services team, it’s hundreds of people. We’re at a different scale than Facebook and Google, obviously, but we’re dedicating a lot of resource to make sure that we’re looking at user reports about activity on the platform that they think is violent or activity on the platform they think is illegal, and prioritizing that accordingly. Hirono: So, you have fewer people than Facebook. Facebook has 150; you said you have hundreds. Edgett: Yeah, we have hundreds— Hirono: Hundreds. Edgett: —across User Services and Trust and Safety, looking at the issues of content on the platform. Hirono: What about you, Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: Google has thousands of people. There’s many different products, and different teams work on them, but internally we’ll have thousands of people working on them. We also get a good deal of leads on content that we need to review for whether it’s appropriate or not that come from outside the company as well. Hirono: You have thousands of people just focused on the content— Salgado: On various types of content. Hirono: —as Mr. Stretch indicated to us that he has at Facebook? You have thousands of people dedicated? Salgado: We have thousands of people dedicated to make sure the content across our—and remember, Google has many different properties within it—but, yes, the answer is we have thousands that look at content that has been reported to us as inappropriate. Hirono: So, in view of that, Mr. Stretch, do you think 150 people is enough people? Stretch: Senator, to be clear, the 150 people I mentioned earlier is people whose full-time job is focused on addressing terrorism content on Facebook. In terms of addressing content on the site generally, we have thousands. And indeed, we have a Community Operations team that we announced earlier this year that we were going to be adding additional thousands to the several thousands that are already working on this problem every day. Hirono: I think it’s pretty clear that this is a whole new sort of use, or misuse, of your platform, and you may have various ways to address terrorist content, but this is a whole other thing. 2:32:10 Clint Watts: Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social-media companies must work to immediately confirm real humans operate accounts. The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits that come from the anonymous replication of accounts that broadcast high volumes of misinformation. Reasonable limits on the number of posts any account can make during an hour, day, or week should be developed and human-verification systems should be employed by all social-media companies to reduce automated broadcasting. 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. 2:44:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Watts, you’ve been a U.S. Army infantry officer, you’ve been an FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, you’ve been executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and you’ve been a consultant to the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and National Security Branch, so you clearly take American national security very seriously. It is, and has been, your life’s work. So, when you say, ”The Kremlin disinformation playbook,” which we’re talking about here, “will also be adopted by authoritarians, dark political campaigns, and unregulated global corporations who will use this type of social-media manipulation to influence weaker countries; harm less-educated, vulnerable populations; and mire business challengers,” you’re not just talking about the Russian election-manipulation operation getting worse and having to be contained. You’re talking about it as if it’s a technology that other bad actors can adopt and have it metastasized entirely into new fields of dissimulation, propaganda, and so forth. Clint Watts: Yes. Whitehouse: Correct? Watts: Everybody will duplicate this if they don’t believe in the rule of law, if they want to destroy democracies from the inside out. Anyone with enough resources and time and effort, if they put it against us, they can duplicate this. I could duplicate it if I chose to. Whitehouse: So, if we don’t stop it now, it’s going to get exponentially worse. Watts: Yes. And I think the one thing that we should recognize is even in the U.S. political context, if we don’t put some sort of regulation around it, if bodies like this don’t decide how we want American politics to work, everybody will be incentivized to use this same system against their political opponents, and if you don’t, you will lose. 2:51:35 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): The First Amendment implications of all of this concern me as well. I mean, what’s fake news? What do you think fake news is? Clint Watts: Fake news, over the years since I’ve been involved and talking about this, is any news the other side doesn’t like, doesn’t matter what side it is. Kennedy: That’s right. Michael Smith: Senator, if I may. I’m teaching undergrads a course at Georgia State University this semester titled Media, Culture, and Society; and we’re about to start classes focused on fake news later this week. I would submit that fake news might best be defined as deliberate mis- or disinformation, which is tailored or engineered to achieve a particular outcome in the way of behaviors, to persuade perceptions in a manner that lead to behaviors such as perhaps a vote for or against somebody. Kennedy: Well, that’s a good definition, but I’ll end on this: in whose opinion? Watts: But I think there are parameters that we could come around. I mean, reporting versus opinion is a key point of it. I think also in terms of fact versus fiction, I’ve actually set up rating systems on foreign media outlets before the U.S. Government’s paid me to do that, you know, in the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee: FCC Oversight; October 25, 2017 Witnesses: Ajit Pai: FCC Chairman 14:00 Rep. Greg Walden: Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that passion here on both sides. And I’ve been continuing my efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage in the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point. Love to see that change, by the way. Door remains open. We’re willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and establish a federal framework in statute for providing certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem. I don’t think we need Title II to do that. 1:31:45 Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH): Voice-activated virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are becoming an increasingly popular consumer gateway to the Internet. Some day soon they might even become consumer-preferred interface with the Internet, leaving the age of the desktop Google Search behind. You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition, the consumers’ access to other Internet content is limited or completely blocked. It’s the question of, who answers Siri’s question when you ask Siri something? Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this? Ajit Pai: Congressman, under our current Internet regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers. 1:36:12 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Will you commit to us that you’ll apply or consider applying broadcast-transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if not, why not? Ajit Pai: Congresswoman, thank you for the question. As I under— Eshoo: Uh-huh, you’re welcome. Pai: As I understand the law— Eshoo: Uh-huh, mm-hmm. Pai: —there is no jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license, for example, that allows the FCC to a certain jurisdiction. Eshoo: But what about those that have a license and carry them? Do you have—doesn’t the FCC have any say so in that, or is this, as the Intelligence Community said, that they are a principle international propaganda outlet? So are they just going to operate in the United States no matter what? Pai: Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have currently a jurisdictional hook for taking and doing an investigation of that kind. If you’re privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified information that suggests that there might be another agency that has, obviously, a direct interest in the issue—and we’re, obviously, happy to work with them—but at the current time, as I’ve been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor under the Communications Act do we have the ability to— Eshoo: Well, First Amendment applies to free speech in our country. It doesn’t mean that the Kremlin can distribute propaganda in our country through our airwaves. I just—I don’t know if you’re looking hard enough. 1:40:05 Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY): In 2013, and I was one of the households affected by this, there was a carriage dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable. And CBS blocked Time Warner Cable Internet customers from viewing its shows online through a CBS.com website. So I couldn’t get any of CBS or SHOWTIME or any of that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner Cable was our cable provider and Internet service provider, you couldn’t go to CBS.com—it was blocked. Or SHOWTIME to watch any of the shows that was coming out. And that was when some new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find that. But some members of Congress said, bring this up, and I think Chairwoman Clyburn was acting chairwoman at the time and said that she didn’t believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene in this situation. And Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a similar case? Ajit Pai: Congressman, I think the legal authorities have not changed to the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a party is acting in bad faith in the context of retransmission dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absence to such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we couldn’t take further action. Guthrie: But currently the Title II, open Internet, is still in effect. Is that—how would that affect it? Pai: Oh, currently, yes. Just to be clear, I should have added was well then, our Internet regulations would not apply to that kind of content to the extent you’re talking about, the blocking of online distribution of [unclear]. Guthrie: Because it only applies to the service provider, not to the content provider? Pai: That is correct, sir. Federal Communications Commission: Open Internet Rules; February 26, 2015 (Open Internet Rules) Witnesses: Agit Pai: FCC Commissioner 38:05 Ajit Pai: For 20 years, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Democratic president and Republican Congress enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market “unfettered by federal and state regulation.” And dating back to the Clinton administration, every FCC chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves. But today the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct to direct where Internet service providers, or ISPs, make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have serviced so well over the past two decades, it is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC itself made just last May. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only: President Obama told us to do so. Barack Obama: I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. Pai: On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this order’s fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. And given this order’s many glaring legal flaws, they’ll have plenty of fodder. 40:46 Ajit Pai: This order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have. Accordingly, I dissent. 1:03:15 Ajit Pai: And I’m optimistic that we will look back on today’s vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, but I do believe its days are numbered. Telecommunications Bill Signing: February 8, 1996 (Bill Signing) 4:59 Vice President Al Gore: I firmly believe that the proper role of government in the development of the information superhighway is to promote and achieve at every stage of growth, at every level of operation, at every scale, the public interest values of democracy, education, and economic and social well-being for all of our citizens. If we do not see to it that every project, every network, every system addresses the public interest at the beginning, then when will it be addressed? How can we expect the final organism to express these values if they are not included in its DNA, so to speak, at the beginning? For that reason, in 1993, on behalf of the president, I presented five principles that the Clinton administration would seek in any telecommunication reform legislation: private investment, competition, universal service, open access, and flexible regulations. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 12, 1995 (Conference) 22:15 Rep. Rick Boucher: In the very near future, most homes are going to have two broadband wires that will offer the combination of telephone service and cable TV service. One of those will have started as a telephone wire; the other will have started as a cable television wire. The programming that is affiliated with the owners of those wires obviously is going to be available to consumers in the homes, but other programmers may very well be denied access. And if access to other programming is denied, consumers will be deprived of video offerings to which they should be entitled. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 6, 1995 (Conference) 27:14 Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL): No one has a right to give pornography to children. While we have not previously criminalized this area on the federal level, it’s necessary to do so now. This is because of the advent of the Internet, which enables someone in one location to instantly send or make available pornography to children in every city in America. Children don’t have the right to buy pornography in any store in America, yet some would argue there’s a right to give it to them free, delivered to their home by computer. Telecommunications Act Conference: Telecommunications Reform Act of 1995; October 25, 1995 8:58 Sen. John McCain: I believe the Senate bill in its present form is far too regulatory. Any bill that gives 80 new tasks to the Federal Communications Commission, in my view, does not meet the standard that we have set for ourselves of trying to allow everyone to compete in a deregulated—in an environment that is changing so quickly that none of us predicted five years ago that it would look like it is today. And today we have no idea what the industry will look like in five years. 32:00 Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN): One thing that does please me is when I think about one of the last renaissance of electricity, electricity goes to the big cities and leaves out the rural areas, and then we have to come up with the REMCs. When we move America to the World Wide Web, though, we’re not allowing cherry-picking and to move to the great resources in the big cities, but the rural areas will be included in the World Wide Web. And so I congratulate both of you to making sure that that happens, that some of the strength of this country lies in the heart of America, and I think that’s pretty exciting. House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance: Telecommunications Act Part 1; May 11, 1995 1:25:36 Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO): Unlike the case for telephone service, every American household has access to at least one, and soon many more, competitive video providers today. The case simply has not yet been made that the federal government has a duty to do anything other than provide for access to alternative in the case of a purely entertainment service like the upper tier of cable. We have provided that access. We will expand that access in this bill. It is time we focus on the real issues addressed by 1555, the building of advanced broadband networks and the benefits that it will bring to all Americans. House Energy & Commerce Committee: Cable Television Deregulation; February 2, 1994 Witnesses: Bill Reddersen - Bell South Corporation Senior Vice President Jeffery Chester - Center for Media Education Executive Director Edward Reilly - President of McGraw-HIll Broadcasting 7:27 Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): As telephone companies are able to offer cable TV service inside their telephone-service areas, they’ll have the financial incentive to deploy the broadband technology that will facilitate the simultaneous transport of voice and cable TV service and data messages, building out the infrastructure, creating the last mile of the information highway, that distance from the telephone company’s central office into the premises of the user homes and businesses throughout the nation. 24:36 Bill Reddersen: It is our goal to have you pass legislation this year that enables us to deploy a second broadband network that will compete effectively with cable and bring consumers new and innovative educational healthcare information and entertainment services. 25:12 Bill Reddersen: However, unless you eliminate the competitive advantages this bill confers upon cable companies, our industry will not be able to compete effectively against companies that already have a dominant, if not monopoly, position in programming markets, nor will the bill encourage telephone companies to make or continue the substantial investments required for widespread development of broadband networks. Cable companies are formidable competitors and do not need protection. Cable is a 21-billion-dollar-a-year-gross business, passing over 90% of U.S. homes. According to a recent survey, only 53 out of over 10,000 cable systems compete against a second cable operator. Cable has vertically integrated and diversified into multi-billion-dollar programming and communications businesses. Cable companies and the emerging cable telco alliances clearly do not need protection from telephone companies that currently have no video programming market share, virtually no broadband facilities to the home, and little or no operational experience in the video marketplace. 37:55 Jeffrey Chester: While we share the goal of this committee that every community be served by at least two wires, there are no guarantees that this will be achieved in the near future, even with the proposed legislation. We are also troubled by the unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions taking place in the media industries. Serious concerns are raised by the emergence of new media giants controlling regional Bell operating companies, cable systems, TV and film studios, newspapers, broadcasting properties, and information service providers. Without federal intervention, control of the nation’s media system will be in the hands of fewer and less-accountable companies, possessing even more concentrated power. 40:45 Bill Reddersen: Just as we have established private librar—public libraries—and public highways, we need to create public arenas in the electronic commons in the media landscape. A vibrant telecommunication civic sector will be an essential counterbalance to the commercial forces that will dominate the information superhighway. 2:24:38 Bill Reddersen: The common carrier requirements of this legislation are essentially, if executed the way they have in the telephone industry, the second model that you articulated, and that is that if additional capacity was required and someone shows up, we build. Okay? That is the fundamental premise underlying common carrier regulation. 2:30:04 Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH): Does it really matter if BellSouth builds the wire, the limitless wire, or the cable industry builds the limitless wire if indeed it is essentially a limitless technology that is open to everyone who wants to sell his or her product, including Mr. Reilly, on that particular technology? If you have the common carrier status and you have the ability to deliver your programming, is it really relevant whether BellSouth owns the wire or Mr. Angstrom owns the wire, and if it is indeed relevant, why is it relevant, Mr. Reilly? Edward Reilly: Well, it’s relevant in any instance where the company that owns the wire is also engaged in the programming business at all. If someone is prepared to build a wire and agree that they would never want to be in the programming business, and that we were given very strong safeguards— Oxley: Why is that a problem? Reilly: Well, because we end up inevitably competing with our programming— Oxley: Of course you do. Reilly: —against someone who owns both the wire and the programming content that goes on that wire. Reilly: Why is it relevant, though, if BellSouth owns the wire and you’ve got limitless access and limitless capacity, why does it make any difference that the people who supposedly own the wire are competing against you? They’re competing head to head. You are simply paying the same shelf space for your product as the owner of the product that’s providing that kind of service. Oxley: Well, we have—we believe that there is ample opportunity in that type of environment for a number of anti-competitive activities that would certainly damage our ability to try and be an equal player. Where we get positioned on the wire, what comes up when the menu first comes up, how the billing is organized—there’s a whole host of issues that go along with owning the wire and setting up the infrastructure that can create a significant competitive advantage to someone who chooses to use that for their own program service. 2:38:47 Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA): I think the key for us here is to guarantee that there are comparable providers of services and how they get it to us, as long as it’s comparable and we have choice and all people have access to it. If we guarantee that kind of policy for America, we don’t much have to worry about the risk. Consumers take over from there as long as we guarantee, if we do have common carriage on a line, that the owner of the line can’t discriminate; can’t play games with the competitors who own that line; that you can’t play bottleneck games, as publishers are complaining about in the other bill we’re going to debate pretty soon on MMJ; that, in fact, there’s fairness on the playing field. Here’s a question for you in regard to that fairness: If the telephone companies or the utility companies can in fact do what you can’t do—produce their own programs and send them over those lines, even if we restrict them in the number of channels they can use, which I really have a problem with, as Mr. Boucher does—are we going to make sure that the same provisions of program access apply to those producers of programs that we’ve applied to the cable producers? You raised the issue in your testimony. You talked about the problems we had in cable where they own both the software and the hardware—in essence, the content and the conduit—and the problems consumers had as a result of that. Are we going to require the cable companies make 75% of their channels available to competitors? Are we going to require that the utility companies, when they build lines, fiber optic lines, are going to be similarly required to make access available to their competitors? If we’re talking about a real competitive world here, are we going to build a world where some have obligations others don’t have? Some must carry and some don’t? Some must give access to their programs to competitors, as cable is now required to do because of the bill we successfully passed over the president’s veto last year, and over cable’s objection? Are we going to make that same requirement now available—enforced upon other competitors who build wires, or who build some other systems, who decide to deliver it under some particle-beam technology we haven’t dreamed of yet, or the satellite delivery systems that are coming into play? Are we going to create some real equality in this competition, that’s going to give consumers comparable choices? That’s the key word to me—comparable choices. Are we going to do that? Or are we going to dictate the technology, confine you to so many channels, not require you to carry what others have to carry, put requirements on one competitor—the cable company can get on the telephone company’s lines, but the telephone company can’t get on the cable system’s line? Come on. It seems to me if we’re going to build policy that gets consumers real, comparable choices out there, we have to answer all those questions. Video: What the world looks like without net neutrality Video: Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tongight with John Oliver Special Thanks! To Adam Hettler for performing The Most Dangerous time of the Year! See more of Adam here! Background music for The Most Dangerous Time of the Year. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

Download the latest FREE Turn Up the Night podcast with Kenny Pick, Raine, Joe & Pete! This episode features special coverage of the first hearing from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism regarding Russian Interference in Democracies. It's a head-full but amusing & worthwhile!

Meeting recorded on Thursday, April 28, 2016

Meeting recorded on Wednesday, February 24, 2016

9 AM - 1 - Politico's Josh Gerstein talks about his story: "Clinton campaign trains fire on House Benghazi panel". 2 - Tim Sandefur testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in Washington DC; More debate stuff. 3 - The News with Marshall Phillips. 4 - ; Final Thoughts.

1 - Politico's Josh Gerstein talks about his story: "Clinton campaign trains fire on House Benghazi panel". 2 - Tim Sandefur testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in Washington DC; More debate stuff. 3 - The News with Marshall Phillips. 4 - Rand Paul is live streaming his day for some reason; Final Thoughts.

Meeting recorded on Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Meeting recorded on Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The Social Network Show welcomes Ann M. Harkins, President and CEO of the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) for the kickoff of Crime Prevention Month which takes place every October. This is the first show in a series with the NCPC. October is Crime Prevention Month and the National Crime Prevention Council works the entire month to raise awareness of crime and the importance of crime prevention. On today's episode, Ann Harkins shares the mission statement of the NCPC, and describes the various programs that they offer. During Crime Prevention Month this year, the NCPC will be working with four partners to get four messages out to the public. The four partners this year are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Not in Our Town; FINRA Investor Education Foundation; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Each week in October, the NCPC will be discussing a different theme on The Social Network Show. Ann M. Harkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Crime Prevention Council In September of 2009, Ann M. Harkins, Esq. became the President and Chief Executive Officer of the non-profit National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC). NCPC symbolized by McGruff The Crime Dog® and his signature “Take A Bite Out Of Crime®” slogan, conducts public education training, technical assistance and manages public service advertising to help people keep themselves, their families and their communities safe from crime. Prior to this role, Ms. Harkins served as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer overseeing the day-to-day operations of the National Crime Prevention Council. Before joining NCPC in 2006, she was executive director of CASA of the Eastern Panhandle and coordinated West Virginia Summits on Homeland Security in 2003 and 2006. From 2001 to 2003, she served as Deputy Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Senate where she was chief operating officer of the 800-person administrative office and a senior Senate advisor after the 2001 terrorist and anthrax attacks. Before that, she held many public policy positions, including chief of staff for Attorney General Janet Reno, U.S. Department of Justice, and chief counsel, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law. Ms. Harkins has a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and an M.A. in Latin American History and a B.A. in History from The Catholic University of America.

Today we look at the US Prison Industrial Complex and its use of solitary confinement. We focus in the first hour on the case of the Angola 3 and Robert H. King, celebrated Humanitarian, Author, Activist and Doctor of Letters, who is the only free member of A3 with the death of Herman Wallace late last year, freed after 42 years in solitary confinement. Albert Woodfox remains inside and Tuesday, March 3, was the launch of Amnesty International's Campaign to free him http://blog.amnestyusa.org/tag/angola-3/  Dr. Angela A. Allen-Bell, Assistant Professor of Legal Analysis & Writing at Southern University Law Center, Baton Rouge, joins us to speak about her paper: Reassessing Solitary Confinement II: The Human Rights, Fiscal, and Public Safety Consequences, Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights -Written Testimony (Feb. 25, 2014). Esther A. Vicente joins us to talk about Caribbean Basin Institute for Education and Culture which is hosting a fundraiser March 6. We close with a prerecorded interview with actresses: Lizan Mitchell, Petronia Paley and Harriett D. Foy about their roles in Marcus Gardley's "The House that Will Not Stand," at Berkeley Rep through March 23, 2014. www.berkeleyrep.org   Music: Kim Nalley, "I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to Be Free," "Mira Como Te Qui," Avery Sharpe, "Son of Mine (from Ain't I a Woman). 

981- Present Editor/Publisher of Privacy Times Since 1981, I have been Editor/Publisher of Privacy Times, a biweekly, Washington-based newsletter that reports on privacy and information law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The newsletter ranges from 8-12 pages, 23 issues per year. Thus, I have researched, written, edited and published many articles on Congressional and State legislative actions, judicial opinions, industry trends and actions, executive branch policies and consumer news as they related to the FCRA. 1992 - Present Expert Witness Qualified by the federal courts in FCRA and identity theft cases. (Complete list attached). I have read extensive deposition testimony by credit bureau and credit grantor personnel. This is significant because CRAs and credit grantors do not openly discuss or publish information on their procedures and practices for handling personal data, and the best (and possibly only) sources for finding candid descriptions of CRAs' and credit grantors' procedures and practices in relation to credit reporting data are the depositions of CRA and credit grantor employees in FCRA litigation. 1998 - Present Privacy Expert Consultant, U.S. Social Security Administration Regularly review policies and practices in relation to the collection, use and disclosure of personal data and Social Security numbers and provide feedback and recommendations. 2002 - 2004 Member, Experian Consumer Advisory Council Along with other Council members, I provide an outsider's view on credit reporting, marketing and other privacy issues. July - October 2002 Consultant to U.S. Postal Service Working with the USPS's Chief Privacy Officer, I assisted in reviewing and editing the re-write of the USPS's Privacy Act notices, with an emphasis on "Plain English." Recent Testimony Before Congress & The FTC "Identity Theft: Recent Developments Involving the Security of Sensitive Consumer Information," Senate Banking Committee, March 15, 2005 "The Accuracy of Credit Report Information and the Fair Credit Reporting Act;" Senate Banking Committee, July 10, 2003 "The Role of FCRA in the Credit Granting Process," House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit, June 12, 2003 "Database Security: Finding Out When Your Information Has Been Compromised," Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, Nov. 4, 2003 Fighting Fraud: Improving Information Security," House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit, and Oversight, April 3, 2003 "Information Flows: The Costs and Benefits to Consumers and Businesses of The Collection and Use of Consumer Information," Federal Trade Commission, National Workshop, June 18, 2003 Books Credit Scores and Credit Reports: How The System Really Works, What You Can Do (Privacy Times, 2004) Your Right To Privacy: A Basic Guide To Legal Rights In An Information Society (2nd Edition, Southern Illinois University Press, 1990), (Includes a chapter on credit reporting) Former Secrets: Government Records Made Public Through The Freedom of Information Act (Campaign For Political Rights, 1982) International Lectures 24th International Conference of Data Protection & Privacy Commissioners (Cardiff, Wales - Presentation published in conference proceedings, 2002) The 23rd International Conference of Data Protection Commissioners (Paris, La Sorbonne - Presentation published in conference proceedings, 2001) The 22nd Annual Conference on Data Protection (Venice, Italy -- 2000) The 16th Annual Conference on Data Protection (The Hague, The Netherlands -- 1994). In the 1980s, served as an expert consultant to both the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Privacy Commissioner of Australia. Presentations/Instruction At Recent CLE & Professional Seminars "The New FACT Act: Challenge & Opportunity," Privacy & American Business, Feb. 9-10, 2004 "Understanding the FACT Act And The Impact of Multi-Agency Rulewriting Process," Glasser LegalWorks, Sept. 28-29. 2004 "12th Annual National Conference," National Credit Reporting Association, Nov. 10-12, 2004 "Advanced Consumer Litigation," Texas Bar CLE, Feb. 10-11, 2005 "Financial Privacy Litigation," (Impact of FACT Act), Practicing Law Institute, February 28- March 1 (New York City) Professional Societies Past President and Board Member, American Society of Access Professionals www.accesspro.org Industry Certification FCRA Certification, National Credit Reporting Association (www.ncrainc.org). Media In addition to being a paid consultant and special guest on CNN's IMPACT news in 1996, I am quoted regularly by major and small newspapers (including The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek and Money Magazine), regarding issues of privacy generally and the privacy implications of consumer reporting specifically. I have appeared on ABC Nightline and World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, CNN News Watch, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, various local affiliates, and such shows as the Oprah Winfrey Show and Geraldo, regarding a wide range of privacy issues. Education Bachelor of Arts, Columbia College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. (1979) Evan Hendricks P.O. Box 302 Cabin John, MD 20818 (301) 229 7002 (301) 229 8011 [fax) www.privacytimes.com

Senator Amy Klobuchar will be leading the charge in Congress as the legislature interrogates the power of big tech, and potentially takes action to restrain it. She's the new Chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, so it's in her hands now.Klobuchar and I spoke this past week ahead of the first hearing she held to kick the off process. And rather than simply writing the conversation up, which I did on the Big Technology newsletter this week, I wanted to make it available for you to listen to, in full. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/big-technology-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy