Tag Archives: committee

The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Despite all the news being generated by the change of power underway in Washington, there is one story this week that deserves top priority: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.” He added, “This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily.”

This was a stunning statement that has echoed other remarks from senior US officials. He was saying that Russia directly intervened in the US election to obtain a desired end: presumably to undermine confidence in US elections or to elect Donald Trump—or both. Rogers was clearly accusing Vladimir Putin of meddling with American democracy. This is news worthy of bold and large front-page headlines—and investigation. Presumably intelligence and law enforcement agencies are robustly probing the hacking of political targets attributed to Russia. But there is another inquiry that is necessary: a full-fledged congressional investigation that holds public hearings and releases its findings to the citizenry.

If the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are digging into the Russian effort to affect US politics, there is no guarantee that what they uncover will be shared with the public. Intelligence investigations often remain secret for the obvious reasons: they involve classified information. And law enforcement investigations—which focus on whether crimes have been committed—are supposed to remain secret until they produce indictments. (And then only information pertinent to the prosecution of a case is released, though the feds might have collected much more.) The investigative activities of these agencies are not designed for public enlightenment or assurance. That’s the job of Congress.

When traumatic events and scandals that threaten the nation or its government have occurred—Pearl Harbor, Watergate, the Iran-contra affair, 9/11—Congress has conducted investigations and held hearings. The goal has been to unearth what went wrong and to allow the government and the public to evaluate their leaders and consider safeguards to prevent future calamities and misconduct. That is what is required now. If a foreign government has mucked about and undercut a presidential election, how can Americans be secure about the foundation of the nation and trust their own government? They need to know specifically what intervention occurred, what was investigated (and whether those investigations were conducted well), and what steps are being taken to prevent further intrusions.

There already is much smoke in the public realm: the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Also, Russian hackers reportedly targeted state election systems in Arizona and Illinois. Coincidentally or not, the Russian deputy foreign minister said after the election that Russian government officials had conferred with members of Trump’s campaign squad. (A former senior counterintelligence officer for a Western service sent memos to the FBI claiming that he had found evidence of a Russian intelligence operation to coopt and cultivate Trump.) And the DNC found evidence suggesting its Washington headquarters had been bugged—but there was no indication of who was the culprit. In his recent book, The Plot to Hack America, national security expert Malcolm Nance wrote, “Russia has perfected political warfare by using cyber assets to personally attack and neutralize political opponents…At some point Russia apparently decided to apply these tactics against the United States and so American democracy itself was hacked.”

Several House Democrats, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, have urged the FBI to investigate links between Trump’s team and Russia, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has done the same. According to various news reports, Russia-related probes have been started by the FBI targeting Americans associated with the Trump campaign. One reportedly was focused on Carter Page, a businessman whom the Trump campaign identified as a Trump adviser, and another was focused on Paul Manafort, who served for a time as Trump’s campaign manager. (Page and Manafort have denied any wrongdoing; Manafort said no investigation was happening.)

Yet there is a huge difference between an FBI inquiry that proceeds behind the scenes (and that may or may not yield public information) and a full-blown congressional inquiry that includes open hearings and ends with a public report. So far, the only Capitol Hill legislator who has publicly called for such an endeavor is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). On Tuesday, Graham, who was harshly critical of Trump during the campaign, proposed that Congress hold hearings on “Russia’s misadventures throughout the world,” including the DNC hack. “Were they involved in cyberattacks that had a political component to it in our elections?” Graham said. He pushed Congress to find out.

The possibility that a foreign government covertly interfered with US elections to achieve a particular outcome is staggering and raises the most profound concerns about governance within the United States. An investigation into this matter should not be relegated to the secret corners of the FBI or the CIA. The public has the right to know if Putin or anyone else corrupted the political mechanisms of the nation. There already is reason to be suspicious. Without a thorough examination, there will be more cause to question American democracy.

Excerpt from – 

The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate.

Posted in alo, Citizen, Cyber, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate.

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele Announces He Will Not Be Voting for Donald Trump

Mother Jones

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has added his name to a growing list of Republican figures disavowing Donald Trump, announcing on Thursday that he will not be voting for his party’s presidential candidate next month.

“I will not be voting for Clinton,” Steele said at the Mother Jones 40th anniversary dinner. “I will not be voting for Trump either.”

He singled out Trump’s first remarks disparaging Mexicans as rapists and criminals as the moment that party leaders such as current RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and House Speaker Paul Ryan should have stepped in to oppose Trump’s views.

“The chairman has the responsibility to provide law and order, in the sense that you want to inflect party discipline and instill party discipline where you need it,” he said, speaking from his experience as the party chair from 2009 until 2011.

He went on to describe Trump as the voice of the frustration of the “racist” and “angry” underbelly of America and noted, “I was damn near puking during the debates.”

Link:

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele Announces He Will Not Be Voting for Donald Trump

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele Announces He Will Not Be Voting for Donald Trump

London is banning dangerous trucks — and that’s great news for cyclists.

The congressman accused the Securities and Exchange Commission Thursday of unfairly targeting the oil giant by investigating whether the company disclosed its financial risks from climate change and greenhouse gas regulations to investors.

In a letter to SEC Chair Mary Jo White, Smith demands that the commission provide his committee with documents related to the Exxon probe by Oct. 13.

Smith writes that the SEC has advanced “a prescriptive climate change orthodoxy that may chill further climate change research,” which seems odd for someone who doesn’t actually believe in climate change.

Still, it’s about what we’d expect from Smith, a recipient of $680,000 from oil and gas over his career.

Smith — who, ironically, is both a climate denier and the head of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology — has used his position to aid Exxon before: He’s accused 17 state attorneys general of violating the corporation’s right to free speech by looking into allegations that Exxon has known about climate change for decades.

Why does Smith go to bat for Exxon repeatedly, despite risking political backlash? Gretchen Goldman, an analyst at Union of Concerned Scientists (one of the groups being targeted by Smith), has a theory.

“If you’re talking about climate change and doing anything to try to hold actors accountable, he wants to intimidate you.”

Follow this link: 

London is banning dangerous trucks — and that’s great news for cyclists.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Ringer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on London is banning dangerous trucks — and that’s great news for cyclists.

Republicans Just Found a New Way to Harass Scientists

Mother Jones

The congressional subcommittee investigating allegations of fetal tissue sale for profit recommended holding a company that procures tissue for medical research in contempt of Congress.

House Democrats staged a walkout to protest the vote for contempt proceedings after being overruled by Republican members of the Select Investigative Panel. “We refuse to sanction or endorse this exercise by continuing to participate,” said ranking member Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).

The small Northern California biotech firm, StemExpress, prepares human tissue and cells for biomedical researchers across the world. It specializes in isolating stem cells from donor tissue in order to expand a sample’s lifespan for research, which is important because otherwise, perfectly usable cells can be lost in transit to a lab.

Although StemExpress and CEO Cate Dyer have submitted information to comply the Select Investigative Panel, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said in her opening remarks this morning that the submission was unsatisfactory because it did not include personnel information or detailed accounting records, only summaries. Blackburn said that Dyer’s attorney responded to additional requests for information in April by saying that if the panel wanted more detailed records, it would have to issue another subpoena.

“A subpoena is not a suggestion, it is a lawful order, and a subpoena is to be complied with,” Blackburn said.

Until a year ago, the company partnered with Planned Parenthood, which provided fetal tissue for research that comprises less than 1 percent of the company’s business. Following the release last year of surreptitiously recorded videos that purported to show the sale of fetal tissue for profit, StemExpress has been the target of hundreds of threats. StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer has received personal threats, including a $10,000 bounty on her head.

In the wake of the video’s release, a congressional subcommittee launched an investigation into whether Planned Parenthood and StemExpress violated a federal statue that bans the sale of fetal tissue for profit. In February, Blackburn sent two letters to the Obama administration that requested further investigation. Those letters were not properly redacted, and the identities of several researchers and Planned Parenthood staffers were made public in attachments that came with the letters and were posted on the Select Investigative Panel’s website.

Also in February, the committee issued a subpoena to StemExpress seeking accounting and personnel records. The next month, it issued a subpoena to StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer. Dyer’s attorney, Frank Radoslovich, told STAT that Dyer has complied with the subpoena and turned over more than 1,700 pages worth of the requested information, but she is also balancing a need to protect her staff’s anonymity in the wake of violent threats.

“We have a real, legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of our employees,” Radoslovich told STAT. “We have a panel of zealots that have already proven that they will disclose or mischaracterize documents, or just flat-out make up things and attribute it to us. We can’t be put in a position to further endanger employees.”

Top Democrats are condemning the actions of the Republicans on the committee. Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) wrote a letter to full committee chairman Fred Upton accusing the panel of abusing its power, claiming it does not have the authority to hold anyone in congressional contempt without the full support of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ranking member Jan Schakowsky also decried the committee’s actions, calling it a sustained “witch hunt.”

“The McCarthyesque threat that StemExpress ‘name names’ of all employees or face congressional contempt is disgraceful,” she said in a statement. “We will fight this continued abuse of congressional authority every step of the way.”

Continue reading: 

Republicans Just Found a New Way to Harass Scientists

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Just Found a New Way to Harass Scientists

Elizabeth Warren Just Eviscerated the Wells Fargo CEO

Mother Jones

The Senate Banking Committee conducted a hearing Tuesday about the massive scandal currently engulfing Wells Fargo. The word “fraud” was used repeatedly by senators on both sides of the aisle when describing the bank’s creation of millions of unauthorized bank and credit card accounts for existing customers.

Fallout from the account scandal continues to pile up. The bank is also facing an investigation by the House Financial Services Committee, subpoenas from the Department of Justice, and at least one potential class action lawsuit.

First up at Tuesday’s Senate hearing was Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf, who was grilled by the committee for almost three hours.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren—a long-time advocate for more stringent regulation of Wall Street—tore into Stumpf, describing the unauthorized accounts as a “massive, years-long scam.” She asked Stumpf what he has done to take responsibility for his bank’s actions. “You have said repeatedly ‘I am accountable,'” she said. “But what have you done to actually hold yourself accountable? Have you resigned?”

Stumpf avoided answering the question directly, prompting Warren to repeat her question, her voice rising, at least three times.

Warren proceeded to pummel Stumpf with more questions. “Have you returned one nickel of the money you earned while this scam was going on?” she asked. Stumpf evaded the question several times. (Stumpf said earlier in the hearing that he earned $19.3 million last year.) Finally, an exasperated Warren said, “I’ll take that as a ‘no.'”

She then asked if he’d fired any members of his senior management. Stumpf initially began by describing the firing of regional branch managers, but Warren stopped him, emphasizing that her question was not about low-level leadership but about the people at the top. Again, Stumpf’s answer was no.

When Warren asked Stumpf if he knew how much the value of his bank’s stock had gone up over the time that the unauthorized accounts were created and maintained, Stumpf replied the information was in the public record. “You’re right, it is all in the public records,” Warren said, “because I looked it up.” She continued: “While this scam was going on, you personally held an average of 6.75 million shares of Wells stock.” The share price went up by about $30 in that time frame, Warren pointed out, “which comes out to more than $200 million in gains, all for you personally.”

Warren ended her speech by calling on Stumpf to resign and for both the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the CEO. Here’s an excerpt of her speech:

You know, here’s what really gets me about this Mr. Stumpf. If one of your tellers took a handful of $20 bills out of the cash drawer, they’d probably be looking at criminal charges for theft. They could end up in prison. But you squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket. And when it all blew up, you kept your job, you kept your multimillion dollar bonuses, and you went on television to blame thousands of $12-an-hour employees who were just trying to meet cross-sell quotas that made you rich. This is about accountability. You should resign. You should give back the money that you took while this scam was going on, and you should be criminally investigated.

You can watch Warren’s full questioning above.

This post has been revised.

This article – 

Elizabeth Warren Just Eviscerated the Wells Fargo CEO

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren Just Eviscerated the Wells Fargo CEO

Women Say EPA Officials Sexually Harassed Them—and Their Bosses Did Nothing

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

More than a year after troubling allegations of sexual harassment at an Environmental Protection Agency office were exposed in a congressional hearing, the agency’s watchdog says it will conduct an audit of how this office handles sexual-harassment complaints. The office under scrutiny? The same one embroiled in the Flint, Michigan, water crisis months ago.

In a letter sent in August to the EPA’s Region 5 office in Chicago, the agency’s inspector general’s office said it plans to “determine whether Region 5 managers appropriately handled allegations of sexual harassment.” The audit was first reported by the Washington Examiner.

Allegations of rampant sexual harassment in the scientific community have gained prominence in recent years, with institutions such as the University of Arizona and the University of California-Berkeley investigating science professors for alleged harassment of students. Last year, Rajendra Pachauri resigned as head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change following an accusation of sexual harassment. (Pachauri has denied the allegations.) A 2014 study found that roughly two-thirds of female scientists said they had faced inappropriate sexual pressure during field research, and one quarter said they had been sexually assaulted.

In the case of the EPA, some of the allegations stem from claims made by several whistleblowers who testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in July last year. According to two of the whistleblowers, in 2011 an intern approached Ronald Harris, the Region 5 Equal Employment Opportunity officer at the time, who helped her file an informal complaint alleging that she had been harassed by Paul Bertram, an environmental scientist then employed at the agency. “It bothered her,” said Harris in his testimony to the committee. “She was strong…She kept saying to me, ‘I just want it to stop. How do I get it to stop?'”

Carolyn Bohlen, who was Harris’ supervisor at the time of the allegations, told the committee that the harassment the intern experienced included “touching, groping her, kissing her.”

After more than a dozen attempts to contact Bertram through public records searches, former colleagues, and his former employer, he could not be reached for comment. Bertram retired from the EPA in 2011, according to the House Oversight Committee’s summary of the hearing.

Harris and Bohlen also told the committee that they had been retaliated against by their superiors after raising concerns about allegations brought by the intern and other women. In a written statement to the committee, Harris alleged that he and Bohlen were subjected to bullying and intimidation. Both have since been reassigned within the agency.

On September 1, 2015, the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to the office of the EPA inspector general requesting “a thorough investigation and finding of facts” in the wake of the allegations made at the hearing. The letter included a request to investigate “whether Region 5 managers appropriately handled allegations of sexual harassment, and whether managers retaliated against employees who raised concerns.”

The committee’s chairman, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), has been an outspoken critic of how the EPA has been run by the Obama administration, blasting the agency for issuing what he described as “unlawful” regulations aimed at combating climate change. He previously voted to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. When it comes to the issue of possible harassment and mismanagement at the agency, however, Democratic House members such as Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), have shown solidarity with the chairman in questioning certain practices at the EPA. “Perhaps, and you may not see it, but it sounds like there’s a culture problem,” Cummings said at the hearing.”At least in some of the regions, there’s a culture problem.”

In addition to the newly announced audit of the Region 5 office’s sexual harassment policies and practices, a separate EPA inspector general investigation of the specific retaliation allegations made at the hearing is still ongoing, according to a source with knowledge of the issue. A spokesman from the inspector general’s office said it is agency policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.

This isn’t the only recent controversy involving the Region 5 office. In January, Susan Hedman resigned as the Region 5 administrator, after she was criticized for not having released a report that showed high levels of lead in Flint’s drinking water. The crisis over Flint’s toxic water led to criminal charges filed against state and city employees.

The EPA has faced other recent sexual-harassment allegations as well. Three months prior to the July 2015 hearing, the committee heard testimony from EPA officials, including EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins, alleging that a high-level employee in the EPA Office of Homeland Security in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed multiple women. When senior officials in the agency were made aware of the man’s alleged conduct, they “did not take any actions” against him, according to Patrick Sullivan, an official with the inspector general’s office who testified at the April 2015 hearing.

The inspector general’s investigation found that the man, Peter Jutro, had “engaged in unwelcomed conduct” with more than a dozen women over the course of 10 years, “including touching, hugging, kissing, photographing, and making double entendre comments with sexual connotations,” according to Sullivan’s testimony before the committee.

In an email to Mother Jones, Jutro called the testimony a “vast exaggeration” and said it “contains many elements that are simply untrue.” Jutro added:

It is true that I have hugged many people, both men and women, and have done so since childhood. My parents were German Jewish refugees who detested the coldness of their former country in the 1930s and strongly encouraged this warmer behavior in me. I also learned to sometimes kiss a person on the cheek or head as a greeting or farewell. In no case was there ever a sexual component to this. I recognize in retrospect that my behavior might have made someone uncomfortable and I feel bad and embarrassed about that, but it was never my intent. There may be actual sexual harassment at EPA, but I was not a part of it.

Karen Kellen, the former president of the largest union representing EPA employees, testified at the July 2015 hearing that during a staff discussion about the sexual-harassment allegations against Jutro, “EPA senior management did not want to hear about the extent of the harassment.”

A spokeswoman for the EPA told Mother Jones in an email, “Harassment of any kind is prohibited at the EPA and will not be tolerated.”

But Chaffetz doesn’t think the agency is doing enough to deal with the issue.

“One of the most toxic environments we have is at the EPA,” he said at the July 2015 hearing. “The mission of the EPA is to protect the environment, protect the people. The problem is the EPA doesn’t protect its own employees.”

This article is from: 

Women Say EPA Officials Sexually Harassed Them—and Their Bosses Did Nothing

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Women Say EPA Officials Sexually Harassed Them—and Their Bosses Did Nothing

The Attorney General Just Gave the GOP in Congress a Nervous Breakdown

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Attorney General Loretta Lynch frustrated House Republicans Tuesday when she repeatedly said that when it came to the decision about prosecuting Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information on a private email server, she deferred to the FBI and career Justice Department prosecutors and wouldn’t share her own opinion on whether Clinton broke the law.

Lynch’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee comes a day after House Republicans formally asked the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate whether Clinton had lied to Congress last fall when she said she did not have classified information on her server. Last week, FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee about his recommendation to the DOJ to not prosecute Clinton in the matter.

House Republicans asked Lynch if she thought Clinton had broken the law when she set up a private home email system and passed classified information through it during her tenure as secretary of state. Instead, the attorney general repeatedly said her role was to take advice from the career prosecutors and the FBI before making a decision about pursuing charges. Rep. Dave Trott (R-Mich.), said his staff counted more than 70 times during Tuesday’s hearing that Lynch said she couldn’t answer or avoided a direct response to questions.

“Your refusal to answer questions regarding one of the most important investigations of someone who seeks to serve in the highest office in this land is an abdication of your responsibility,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said about halfway through the hearing. “This is a very important issue of whether or not the Justice Department is going to uphold the rule of law in this country, and I hope that with the questions that will be forthcoming now, you will be more forthcoming with answers.”

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) asked just one question before giving up, noting that other members of the committee “have summarily failed, as I just did, to get you to answer even the most reasonable and relevant question.”

The tone of the dynamic between Lynch and the Republicans was captured during questioning from Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.). He said he missed former Attorney General Eric Holder because “at least when he came here he gave us answers.” Then Collins tried to get Lynch to discuss speeding violations:

At the end of the hearing, Lynch said the DOJ had “provided unprecedented access into the thinking of the investigative team in this case. I have provided access into the process by which the department was resolving this matter, things we rarely do.”

Republicans repeatedly brought up Lynch’s June 27 meeting with former President Bill Clinton at a Phoenix, Arizona, airport that occurred just days before the FBI announced its findings and the DOJ formally moved to close the case. Lynch said the meeting led her to state publicly that she’d act on the FBI recommendations regardless of what they were, something she says she was already planning to do.

Lynch said Tuesday that she “felt it was important to do in order to make it clear to the American people that my role in this matter had been decided before I had a conversation with the former president, the conversation did not have any impact on it, and, in fact, as with every case, the team of experienced prosecutors and investigators who reviewed this diligently, thoroughly, and at great length had gone to great lengths and come up with a thorough, concise, and exhaustive recommendation, which I then accepted.”

Lynch compared the frustration of those who wanted charges against Clinton to the “frustration of people who may have a situation where they’re the victim of a crime and they’re not able to bring a case,” but she said it does not change the facts of Clinton’s case that the FBI and DOJ prosecutors determined didn’t merit criminal charges.

Democrats focused their time asking Lynch about gun violence, police killings of African Americans, the government’s surveillance of Black Lives Matter activists, immigration, and prisoner transport problems. But several also blasted their Republican colleagues’ use of the hearing to continue to talk about Clinton’s emails.

“Rome is burning, there’s blood on the street of many American cities, and we are beating this email horse to death,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), before he asked a series of questions about police killings of African Americans and asked for an investigation into the Baton Rouge Police Department.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) said he would pose a series of questions about how the decision not to prosecute was made when Comey appears before the House Homeland Security Committee next week.

Visit site: 

The Attorney General Just Gave the GOP in Congress a Nervous Breakdown

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Attorney General Just Gave the GOP in Congress a Nervous Breakdown

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As recently as two weeks ago, the food industry was preparing to place labels on food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. But if a bi-partisan deal cobbled together last Thursday in the Senate Agriculture Committee gets signed into law, widespread labeling likely won’t come to pass. Instead, food companies will have the option of disclosing GM ingredients on their products with QR codes that can be read by smartphones, accompanied by only the words “scan here for more food information”—without direct on-package mention of GMOs.

The fight centers on a Vermont law, due to go into effect on July 1, that would require labeling in that state. Rather than go through the trouble of segregating out and labeling products destined for a state with a population 626,000, many huge food companies had instead resigned themselves to labeling nationwide. In recent months Mars, General Mills, Kellogg, ConAgra and Campbell Soup all announced plans for labeling.

The looming prospect provoked a massive legislative effort, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, to pass a bill in Congress to nullify state labeling initiatives, full stop. Ever since that bill failed to gain traction in the Senate in March, Senate Ag Committee Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) began working to cobble together a compromise. Under their bill, products that contain GM ingredients will only have to include a QR code, which in-the-know consumers with smartphones can scan.

This week, Roberts and Stabenow began pushing hard for the full Senate to consider their compromise bill, reports Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich. They have industrial agriculture interests at their backs, Evich adds, noting that the American Soybean Association urged its members to email and call their senators “repeatedly until this legislation passes.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), meanwhile, has vowed to “do everything I can to defeat this legislation.”

The Senate deal is widely viewed as a defeat for labeling advocates and a victory for the seed/pesticide industry. Andrew Kimbrell, a long-time industry critic and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, denounced the bill in an emailed statement. “This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill,” he wrote. “Clear, on-package GE food labeling should be mandatory to ensure all Americans have equal access to product information.” Meanwhile, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a deep-pocketed trade group called funded by major food processors as well as agrichemical/GMO titans like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, praised it as the “commonsense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses.”

If the proposed QR-code solution passes, it will preempt Vermont’s law. Whether it will pass the full Senate and House and be signed by President Obama remains to be seen. Stabenow had opposed previous efforts to preempt state labeling laws, so getting her on board was a big step closer to putting a halt to GMO labeling.

Source:

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Posted in FF, food processor, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Seattle’s new environmental justice agenda was built by the people it affects the most

Seattle’s new environmental justice agenda was built by the people it affects the most

By on Apr 22, 2016commentsShare

So you want to find a way for your city to acknowledge and begin to repair the damage that pollution, food insecurity, and unequal access to transportation inflict on communities of color and other marginalized groups. Great — now what?

If you’re Seattle, you hold a Vietnamese karaoke night.

Other cities have begun to tackle issues of environmental justice, too, but now Seattle appears to be leading the way, both in its direct approach and in its efforts to involve voices that often go unheard. Today Mayor Ed Murray released the first results of that work, in the form of a 40-page document known as the Equity and Environment Agenda. (Notice which word comes first there.)

“Seattle’s environmental progress and benefits must be shared by all residents no matter their race, immigration status, or income level,” said Murray, speaking to press on Friday.

Sudha Nandagopal, the program manager for the city’s equity and environment initiative (and recently featured on the Grist 50 list of green leaders to watch!) led the development of the agenda by convening a group called the Community Partners’ Steering Committee. The coalition of 16 community leaders was charged with engaging communities of color and other groups disproportionately affected by environmental concerns.

“We had everything from karaoke nights to first graders drawing pictures of their favorite things to see on their way to school,” Nandagopal says. The result is “a call to action for government, non-profits, philanthropy, business, and community to work together in recognition that no single organization can reverse environmental injustice.” Nandagopal and the other authors lay out a series of policy-planning goals and strategies for integrating equity into the city’s environmental programs. For Nandagopal, that means making sure communities of color, immigrants and refugees, low-income communities, youth, and low-proficiency English speakers have their voices heard.

Portland has recently integrated equity considerations into its climate action planning. San Diego reconsidered its work in this area after environmental justice advocates criticized the city’s climate plan for its failure to prioritize neighborhoods most affected by climate change.

Seattle’s new agenda sought to avoid those kinds of shortcomings right from the start. “Historically, environmental justice has been held by community, not by government,” says Nandagopal. Getting the government approach right meant acknowledging this community ownership. “It was a question of trying to broaden how we think about environmental issues in our city and how we connect with people on a one-to-one level.”

The steering committee also held workshops with representatives from mainstream environmental organizations like the Sierra Club — not for the purpose of mainstream input per se, but rather for the sake of “alignment of analysis,” as Nandagopal phrased it.

“There’s a disconnect between how communities of color, lower-income communities, immigrants and refugees are experiencing their environmental issues and how mainstream environmentalists tend to think and talk about environmental issues,” she says. By getting the mainstream groups on board early, they would be less surprised by the type of language and strategies that appear in the final agenda.

Dionne Foster, a policy and research analyst with the advocacy group Puget Sound Sage and co-chair of the Community Partners’ Steering Committee, told Grist that the consultation process succeeded because it lent itself to a more holistic understanding of the problems at hand.

“I love data. Data’s really important,” Foster says. “But you can never get the whole story if you’re only using the numbers and not looking at peoples’ experience.”

Jamie Stroble, a steering committee member and program manager at the Wilderness Inner-City Leadership Development (WILD) program, said her approach to consultation was to engage communities where they are — not in a governmental building. That meant talking to parents at the Lunar New Year festival and holding conversations about the environment on intergenerational field trips up the Skagit River.

“We know best how to reach our communities,” says Stroble. “For the city to trust us with that and to put forward this novel idea of getting together a group of community members to inform city environmental policy — and actually feel like we had a say — I was really appreciative of the process.”

The agenda itself advocates for a four-pronged approach to environmental justice:

  1. Design environmental policies and programs that acknowledge the cumulative impacts of environmental, racial, and socioeconomic burdens, such that Seattle ensures “clean, healthy, resilient, and safe environments” for communities of color, immigrants, refugees, people with low incomes, youth, and those with limited English. This goal advocates for the development of a high-resolution environmental equity assessment.
  2. Create opportunities for “pathways out of poverty through green careers.” One strategy, for example, advocates for “support structures for people of color to lead in environmental policy/program work through positions in government and partnerships with community organizations, businesses and other environmental entities.”
  3. When crafting environmental policies and programs, ensure that affected communities have “equitable access, accountability, and decision-making power.”
  4. Center community stories and narratives and “lift up existing culturally appropriate environmental practices” during the decision-making process.

So what does action look like?

The team is still figuring that out. Going forward, the focus will shift to defining metrics and goal-posts that will measure the success of the agenda. It also offers steps that non-governmental players can take, including demographic data collection and the creation of a community-based environmental justice committee.

“At a higher level, it’s also about changing the national dynamic around this,” says Nandagopal. “There’s similar work happening in pockets around the country in different ways, but I’ve learned from a number of cities that they’re looking to Seattle to lead by example. You can be a great, sustainable city and still be equitable.”

Want to learn more about environmental justice? Check out Grist’s video below.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original post:  

Seattle’s new environmental justice agenda was built by the people it affects the most

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, ONA, organic, Oster, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Seattle’s new environmental justice agenda was built by the people it affects the most

The Congressional Hearing on Fetal Tissue Turned Nasty. Here Are the Top 5 Moments.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, a House committee formed in the wake of last summer’s Planned Parenthood sting videos, convened on Wednesday to discuss “the pricing of fetal tissue.”

This marked the fifth time Congress has held a hearing to discuss the allegations that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue for a profit—a practice that is illegal according to federal law. Last summer, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released secretly recorded, deceptively edited videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials negotiating the sale of fetal tissue. Four separate congressional hearings found no such wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. Unsatisfied, House Republicans, led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), formed this investigative panel last October to continue looking into the possibility that the women’s health provider is selling fetal tissue and breaking the law.

In addition to the four congressional hearings, 12 states have so far investigated the allegations of fetal tissue sales by Planned Parenthood and turned up no evidence of wrongdoing. In Texas, a grand jury that began with the intent of investigating Planned Parenthood instead indicted CMP’s David Daleiden, the creator of the videos, and absolved the women’s health care provider. None of these exonerations, however, has derailed this House committee. Wednesday’s hearing didn’t make much headway in separating fact from fiction, but it made for some great political theater. Here are a few highlights:

1) A fight over sources: As Blackburn was about to begin her opening statement, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) cut in to pose a fundamental question. In advance of the hearing, the committee had released a set of exhibits purporting to show that procurement companies are working with abortion clinics so both players can derive a profit from selling fetal tissue. DeGette requested that she be allowed to question the committee staff that created the packet, in large part because the sourcing for many of the most incendiary pieces of evidence—including a draft contract between a procurement company and an abortion clinic and several charts implying the growing profitability of fetal tissue procurement—is not noted anywhere in the exhibits.

Blackburn declined to make the staff available, answering that the source was the “investigative work” of the committee, as well as materials obtained through the committee’s “whistleblower portal,” a form on its website. Unsatisfied by this answer, DeGette asked the committee to exclude the use of these exhibits until their origins are ascertained. “If you won’t let me find out what the basis is for these exhibits, then I object to their use,” she said. The committee rejected her request.

2) Déjà vu: The first witness to testify was Fay Clayton, a Chicago attorney. Clayton recalled how in 2000 she represented a nonprofit that donated fetal tissue to medical researchers in a case strikingly similar to the Planned Parenthood one. In her case, a different anti-abortion group, Life Dynamics, made a video in which a former employee of the Anatomical Gift Foundation alleged that the group was selling—not donating—fetal tissue. The videos led to sensational media coverage and House hearings, until the former employee was deposed under oath. At that point, he made clear that the accusations he’d made on video were false. He was paid by Life Dynamics to say these things on camera, and he agreed to do so because he needed the money. “What was for sale wasn’t fetal tissue; it was a phony witness statement,” said Clayton at Wednesday’s hearing.

She wondered aloud why the panel has subpoenaed a number of medical researchers and health care providers, but has not subpoenaed the creator of the videos. “Unless this Select Panel is willing to put Mr. Daleiden and his associates under oath and get to the bottom of what they did, it should terminate these proceedings now and return to doing the people’s business,” Clayton concluded.

3) Internal contradictions: At the beginning of the question-and-answer session, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) sought clarification. One of the committee’s exhibits concludes that an abortion clinic incurs no costs in the process of procuring fetal tissue. But other exhibits contradict that, Nadler said, and show that the process requires employee time and equipment for drawing blood, discussing consent forms, and more—all costs that federal law considers reimbursable.

Nadler asked the panel to explain the discrepancy in their materials. Blackburn answered simply, “There is no discrepancy.” Nadler and Blackburn then went through several more rounds of back-and-forth, with Nadler repeating his question and Blackburn avoiding a direct answer, saying that the exhibits are based on the committee’s “investigatory work.” A frustrated Nadler called out her vague answers. “Can you explain how using a chart that draws conclusions that have no objective basis in fact other than your statement that somebody investigated does not violate House rules?” he asked.

4) An episode of House of Cards, and a kangaroo court: When it came time for Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) to speak, she did not mince words. “This hearing belongs in a bad episode of House of Cards,” Speier said. “In fact, this hearing is literally based on a house of cards, and the exhibits being used as a foundation are, in all likelihood, the product of a theft carried out by someone who is now under indictment in Texas.” Speier was referring to an ongoing line of questioning by various members of the panel who had asked for a clear explanation of the sourcing for the investigative panel’s exhibits. “Is this hearing really going to proceed based on stolen and misleading documents? Even Frank Underwood would be blushing at this point.”

Speier chided the committee for wasting time on this issue in pursuit of a political agenda: “This so-called committee is the very definition of a kangaroo court,” she said, “a mock court that disregards the rules of law and justice to validate a predetermined conclusion.” She also criticized the panel for expending effort on “what goes on inside a woman’s uterus” while “ignoring what happens to babies and children outside of them.” She pointed to the health implications for children in stifling fetal tissue research, and specifically to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recent research that has used fetal tissue to investigate the connection between the Zika virus and microcephaly. You can watch her incensed testimony below:

5) A shoddy investigation: After the witnesses completed their testimony, DeGette repeated her disapproval of the shoddy sourcing for the committee’s exhibits and her puzzlement as to why the committee refused to be more transparent, particularly given the severity of their allegations. “The reason I’m kind of stuck on this,” she said, “is because if people are selling fetal tissue in violation of the law, then we need to have an investigation. But we can’t have some witch hunt based off some things that were taken off of screenshots and charts created by staff.” She continued, “Even though 12 states have investigated and found there was nothing, if you want to send it to the Department of Justice for investigation, I’ll guarantee you, they won’t make up little charts with their staffs. They will get to the bottom of it with original documents, and I suggest that’s what you should do if you think there is a criminal violation.”

Visit site: 

The Congressional Hearing on Fetal Tissue Turned Nasty. Here Are the Top 5 Moments.

Posted in alo, Anchor, cannabis, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Congressional Hearing on Fetal Tissue Turned Nasty. Here Are the Top 5 Moments.