Tag Archives: committee

Benghazi Committee Passes 700-Day Milestone

Mother Jones

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

House Democrats pointed out today that the Select Committee on Benghazi has now been cranking along for 700 days. Steve Benen comments:

To put this in context, the 9/11 Commission, investigating every possible angle to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the country, worked for 604 days and created a bipartisan report endorsed by each of the commission’s members….Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-S.C.) Benghazi panel has also lasted longer than the investigations into the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President Kennedy, the Iran-Contra scandal, Church Committee, and the Watergate probe.

What Steve fails to acknowledge, of course, is that Benghazi is far more important than any of these other events. So naturally it’s going to take longer. I’m guessing that 914 days should just about do the trick.

Jump to original:  

Benghazi Committee Passes 700-Day Milestone

Posted in alo, alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Benghazi Committee Passes 700-Day Milestone

This New Bill Could Make Trump and Cruz’s Anti-Refugee Dreams a Reality

Mother Jones

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

Following the terrorist attacks at a subway station and airport in Brussels on Tuesday morning, GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz renewed their calls for Syrian refugees and other immigrants to be banned from entering the United States.

“We need to immediately halt the president’s ill-advised plan to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz said during a Tuesday press conference in Washington, DC. “Our vetting programs are woefully insufficient.”

“I would close up our borders,” Trump said on Fox News. “Look at Brussels, look at Paris.”

This time, they may have some backing in Congress. After the terrorist attacks in Paris last November, more than 30 states mounted efforts to ban the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their communities—issuing executive orders, proposing state-level legislation, and even filing lawsuits. These efforts failed because the Constitution mandates that immigration policy be set by the federal government. Now Congress is considering a bill that would tweak federal law to make this sort of refugee obstructionism a whole lot easier.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act, paving the way for a vote on the House floor. The bill, co-authored by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), would give state and local governments the opportunity to reject the resettlement of refugees in their communities—as was proposed by more than half of states after Paris—and it would shift the responsibility from the president to Congress of setting an annual ceiling on the number of refugees. The ceiling is currently at 85,000 refugees, after a September 2015 order from President Barack Obama, but Congress could set it as low as 60,000 refugees and block the president from raising it without congressional approval. In September 2015, Obama pledged that the United States would take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016.

The measure would also allow “recurrent background security checks” of US refugees, a provision that critics say amounts to “continual surveillance” of refugees. It would also delay how soon refugees can obtain their permanent green cards—changing it from one year after their arrival to three years. The bill also requires that the Department of Homeland Security prioritize claims from refugees who fear persecution based on their religion, as opposed to those who face persecution due to other circumstances, like their race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. Religious persecution would be an unlikely claim for most Syrian refugees coming to the United States: the vast majority of them are Muslim, and Sunni Muslims are Syria’s religious majority. This is one way the bill “clearly discriminates against Muslims as the intended target,” said the Rev. John McCullough, president of the Church World Service, on a press call with reporters last week.

In advance of the House Judiciary Committee vote last week, 234 organizations—including the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and the American Immigration Lawyers Association—sent a letter to Congress opposing the legislation. They noted “the current vetting process for refugees is incredibly rigorous and includes screening by U.S. federal law enforcement and national security agencies.” Giving state and local governments a veto on refugee resettlement, they wrote, wouldn’t enhance security and would instead “codify discrimination against refugees.” They concluded: “It is simply un-American to treat persecuted individuals, who want nothing more than to start a new life in safe and welcoming communities, as criminals.”

The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Labrador, a former immigration lawyer, is convinced that current vetting processes aren’t sufficient for screening refugees from Syria. “Compared to countries where US intelligence has strong footing, many current refugees are coming from failed states such as Syria, where there is very little US intelligence presence,” he said when introducing the bill before the House Judiciary Committee last week. “The simple fact is that we do not know who these people truly are.”

If the bill reaches the Senate, it will face an uphill battle. Following the Paris attacks in November 2015, the House passed another piece of legislation that would have effectively halted the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States. In January, the Senate blocked the measure.

Read more: 

This New Bill Could Make Trump and Cruz’s Anti-Refugee Dreams a Reality

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This New Bill Could Make Trump and Cruz’s Anti-Refugee Dreams a Reality

Ben Carson’s Super-PAC Is Still in It to Win It

Mother Jones

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

Ben Carson’s presidential campaign may be nearing its end, but don’t tell his biggest fans, who are still out in force at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual confab just outside Washington, DC.

On Wednesday, Carson announced that he’d be skipping Thursday’s Republican debate and that he didn’t “see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results.” He promised more news at his CPAC speech scheduled for Friday afternoon.

But in the basement exhibition hall at the Gaylord National Harbor Hotel, Beth Trivett was still handing out Ben Carson 2016 car decals and “I Like Ben” buttons. Trivett was manning the booth for the 2016 Committee, the main super-PAC backing Carson’s campaign. “The brilliant doctor generally has a plan,” Trivett told me when I asked if it was dispiriting to be campaigning for Carson right before he likely ends his presidential run.

Still, while upbeat about Carson in general, Trivett didn’t have nice things to say about the shape the presidential race had taken this year. “We all saw the media and parties literally lynch this brilliant man,” she said, pointing over her shoulder to a cardboard cutout of Carson.

There’s already been some talk that Carson could try his hand at another political run—perhaps for Marco Rubio’s Senate seat in Florida. But Trivett, who was working with the group before Carson even entered the race, wasn’t sold on that idea. “We drafted him specifically to be the president,” Trivett said. “This was for POTUS. POTUS is still my preference.”

More:

Ben Carson’s Super-PAC Is Still in It to Win It

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ben Carson’s Super-PAC Is Still in It to Win It

Meet Bernie’s Ragtag Band of Congressional Supporters

Mother Jones

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

Following his decisive loss to Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, Bernie Sanders landed a mixed bag of surprise endorsements: one from a notoriously volatile hedge fund manager-turned-congressman, who is under investigation for potential ethics violations, and the other from a rising star of the Democratic party.

On Monday morning, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) announced his support online in a blog post titled “I Feel the Bern.” Grayson, a super-delegate who is serving his third term in the House, said that a recent online poll he conducted showed 86 percent support for Sanders (this number is at odds with national polls, which show Sanders down 7.5 percent against Hillary Clinton as of Monday).

While the Sanders campaign thanked Grayson, his support may not be doing it any favors. Grayson has been in favor of regulating Wall Street, but raised eyebrows with his decision to continue running a hedge fund while he served in the House of Representatives. That decision prompted an ongoing House Committee on Ethics inquiry and a searing New York Times investigation published earlier this month, which alleged that during difficult economic times he paid attention to the hedge fund at the expense of his congressional duties. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has urged Grayson to drop his bid for the Florida Senate seat. Grayson denies any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Sunday resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee to endorse Sanders (as chairwoman, she was not allowed to support a candidate). In a filmed speech posted to her official YouTube account, Gabbard said, “I cannot remain neutral any longer. The stakes are just too high…We can elect a president who will lead us into more interventionist wars of regime change, or we can elect a president who will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.”

Gabbard’s decision follows a public squabble with DNC leadership last year after she appeared on MSNBC calling for more Democratic presidential debates. The DNC had faced criticism for limiting the number of televised debates, which was seen as a ploy to protect Hillary Clinton’s candidacy from the insurgent Sanders’ campaign.

These two unexpected endorsements nearly double the ranks of elected lawmakers supporting Sanders—he still only has 5. Clinton, meanwhile, has racked up more than 200, including 12 governors and a host of former Congressional colleagues.

Sanders thanked both Grayson and Gabbard for their endorsements.

Continue reading:  

Meet Bernie’s Ragtag Band of Congressional Supporters

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, Gandhi, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet Bernie’s Ragtag Band of Congressional Supporters

Republicans want to open up millions of acres of public lands to logging and mining

Republicans want to open up millions of acres of public lands to logging and mining

By on 25 Feb 2016commentsShare

Federal lands management has been in the news ever since a group of outlaws decided to occupy a wildlife refuge in Oregon weeks ago. Well, even though the armed standoff came to a (relatively) peaceful end earlier this month and the militiamen and women have take their rightful place in federal custody, Republicans in Congress taken up their cause.

Two bills proposed Thursday by House Committee on Natural Resources Republicans Don Young of Alaska and Raúl Labrador of Idaho would allow state governors to lease millions of acres of national forests for logging. Labrador’s bill would also let industry bypass federal restrictions that protect air, water, and endangered species.

You’d think the Committee on Natural Resources would be in favor of saving those natural resources, but no.

“The natural resources committee is pretty radicalized at this point,” Bobby McEnaney, senior lands analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told The Guardian. “The fact that they would react to what’s happened in Oregon to advance an agenda to take land from the federal government is seriously tone deaf. Most of this committee didn’t condemn the actions at Malheur, so this is not completely unexpected. The agenda here is being driven by oil, gas and timber industries. The Republicans are interested in a deregulation race to zero.”

There is, however, one Republican who is actually to the left of the establishment on public lands: Donald Trump.

Now, before you reconsider your vote, Trump isn’t some kind of closet environmentalist — the man is a climate-change denier after all. But Trump does seem to have a soft spot in his cold, dark heart for America’s public lands. Why? Because they’re great. “We have to be great stewards of this land,” Trump said at the Las Vegas Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show in January. “This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land.”

Lord, help us: We actually agree with Donald Trump.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Source article – 

Republicans want to open up millions of acres of public lands to logging and mining

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans want to open up millions of acres of public lands to logging and mining

The FBI Says Its Fight With Apple Is Just About One Phone. Police and Prosecutors Say Otherwise

Mother Jones

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

The war between Apple and the FBI over the iPhone used by Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooters, hinges mostly on one major question: Is the court order telling Apple to help the FBI unlock Farook’s iPhone an isolated case, or is it just the start of a new method for the government to guarantee access to anyone’s device?

Apple, which is fighting the order to unlock Farook’s phone, says complying with it would be just the tip of the iceberg. “The order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government, and we simply don’t know where that would lead us,” Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote in a letter to customers on Sunday. “Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking?” Privacy groups and most tech experts agree with Cook.

But the FBI insists no such thing will happen, saying it is only seeking access to Farook’s phone and no one else’s. “The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message,” FBI Director James Comey wrote in a post responding to Cook on Lawfare, a prominent national security blog, on Sunday. “We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it. We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land.”

Yet high-profile supporters of the FBI’s case have said the precedent is what’s important. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a prominent advocate for more law enforcement access to encrypted data, wrote in USA Today last week that “the iPhone precedent in San Bernardino is important for our courts and our ability to protect innocent Americans and enforce the rule of law. While the national security implications of this situation are significant, the outcome of this dispute will also have a drastic effect on criminal cases across the country.”

Comey and other law enforcement officials have repeatedly stressed how widespread they believe their encryption problem is. Both terrorists and criminals increasingly use encryption to communicate, they say, meaning the government’s ability to detect them and stop crimes or attacks is getting dramatically worse. And that problem extends well beyond big terrorism cases like San Bernardino and into everyday police work. “I’d say this problem…is actually overwhelmingly affecting law enforcement,” Comey told Burr’s committee last week, “because it affects cops and prosecutors and sheriffs and detectives trying to make murder cases, car accident cases, kidnapping cases, drug cases. It has an impact on our national security work, but overwhelmingly this is a problem that local law enforcement sees.”

Cyrus Vance Jr., the district attorney for the borough of Manhattan in New York City, often highlights how many cases are supposedly impossible to make because suspects use encryption—and said on Sunday he’d put the Apple precedent to more widespread use, forcing companies to help unlock the phones of suspects in the future. “As the encryption debate zeroes in on the cowardly terrorist acts committed in San Bernardino, we should also remember that Apple’s switch to default device encryption affects virtually all criminal investigations, the overwhelming majority of which are handled by state and local law enforcement,” he said last week in calling for Congress to pass a law mandating backdoors. Burr and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have pledged to introduce such a bill in Congress.

State and local officials around the country back Vance. The Intercept compiled a collection of quotes from local law enforcement officials that run counter to Comey’s claim that the Apple case will provide only one-time access. As Matt Rokus, the deputy chief of the Eau Claire, Wisconsin, police put it, “The Apple case is going to have significant ramifications on us locally.”

Visit link:

The FBI Says Its Fight With Apple Is Just About One Phone. Police and Prosecutors Say Otherwise

Posted in Anchor, Casio, Citizen, Cyber, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The FBI Says Its Fight With Apple Is Just About One Phone. Police and Prosecutors Say Otherwise

Did Ted Cruz Leak Classified Information? Then So Did a Former NSA Chief.

Mother Jones

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

A testy exchange between Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz at Tuesday’s Republican debate turned on Wednesday into a question of whether Cruz accidentally leaked classified information in public. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Wednesday that his office was looking into whether Cruz had revealed any secrets as he defended his yes vote on a National Security Agency reform bill earlier this year.

Neither Burr nor his office specified what information Cruz may have revealed, but it’s widely believed to be Cruz’s claim that the USA Freedom Act, an NSA reform bill passed in May, would actually expand the reach of intelligence. Whether or not the information is classified, however, it was already known to the public, thanks to government officials including Michael Hayden, the retired Air Force general who ran both the CIA and the NSA during his career.

Rubio attacked Cruz for voting for USA Freedom, which ended the NSA’s mass collection of phone records and replaced it with a system that requires the NSA to get a federal judge’s approval to get data from phone companies. Cruz responded that the new system would actually make more records open to the NSA. “The old program covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers to search for terrorists,” he said. “The new program covers nearly 100 percent.”

That lines up with what Hayden said during an appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation on March 30, 2014, when Hayden appeared on the show with former CIA deputy director Michael Morell and others to discuss national security issues. Morell was a member of a panel convened in 2013 by President Barack Obama to review intelligence collection, and that group recommended the end of bulk metadata collection in favor of the new system. Hayden agreed with the move for the same reasons Cruz gave. “Over time, the percentage of overall billing records the NSA was retrieving got smaller and smaller,” he told host Bob Schieffer. “Michael Morell’s panel pointed out that they’re only getting about a third, if that, just because of changes in technology. The NSA gets to query the data…in an exhaustive way, not that one-third they’ve formerly gotten.”

The Washington Post cited unnamed US government officials in an article in February 2014 who made the same claim of a 30 percent collection rate as Cruz, noting that “the government is taking steps to restore the collection—which does not include the content of conversations—closer to previous levels.”

The information may still be classified: Making a secret public doesn’t change its classified status as far as the government is concerned. But if Cruz supposedly put national security at risk over his comments last night, he was far from the first to do so.

Update, 12/16/15, 4:55 pm: Sens. Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday afternoon that “the Committee is not investigating anything said during last night’s Republican Presidential debate.”

Originally posted here:  

Did Ted Cruz Leak Classified Information? Then So Did a Former NSA Chief.

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did Ted Cruz Leak Classified Information? Then So Did a Former NSA Chief.

Disgraced Ex-Iowa State Senator Testifies Against Ron Paul Aides

Mother Jones

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

In late 2011, then-Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson had committed to backing Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign in the run-up to the 2012 Iowa caucuses. But Sorenson was getting irritated with Bachmann and felt he owed the Ron Paul campaign something. After all, he testified in an Iowa courtroom Thursday, many of Paul’s campaign staffers had previously worked for the National Right to Work Committee, an anti-union group with close ties to the Paul family, and they had supported Sorenson’s political aspirations with money and manpower.

In the days after Christmas 2011, Sorenson said, the Paul campaign pressured him to switch sides, and after he asked for money to change his endorsement, a Paul operative stuffed a $25,000 check into the hands of Sorenson’s wife.

Read our April feature on the Paul family scandal here.

Sorenson’s testimony came during the trial of two Paul family political operatives: Jesse Benton, who is married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter, was chairman of the 2012 presidential campaign and operated a super-PAC backing Rand Paul in the 2016 race. Dimitri Kesari, who gave Sorenson’s wife the $25,000 check, is a longtime National Right to Work Committee and Paul family associate.

While paying for Sorenson’s endorsement violated Iowa Senate rules, it is not illegal under federal law for a presidential campaign to do so. Prosecutors say Kesari and Benton crossed the line when they allegedly tried to cover up the payments to Sorenson. Benton faces one count of making false statements to federal investigators. His attorneys argue that he didn’t know much about the deal with Sorenson and did not lie when he told investigators he knew nothing about the scheme. Kesari, on the other hand, faces a slew of charges, including conspiracy, campaign finance charges, and obstruction of justice.

In court, Sorenson recalled making the decision to switch his endorsement.

“I’m sorry for what I’m about to do,” Sorenson testified that he told a friend on the Bachmann campaign after revealing to him and others on Bachmann’s campaign that the Paul camp had offered him money to switch sides. Then, he said, he drove to a Paul event, where he was eagerly greeted by Kesari, who ushered him inside, where Benton and others on the campaign were waiting. Sorenson testified he was led over to meet Benton.

“I remember specifically asking Jesse if they would take care of me,” Sorenson testified, when asked whether he arrived at the Paul event with the expectation of being paid to change his endorsement. The response from Benton, according to Sorenson, was “You’re bleeding for us—we’ll take care of you.”

Later that night, Sorenson said that Kesari took his cellphone away to prevent him from talking to the media or anyone else about his reasons for switching sides. “I was a wreck,” Sorenson recalled.

Bachmann publicly accused Sorenson of taking money to switch sides—it was later revealed that Sorenson was paid by Bachmann’s campaign first—and the morning after his decision, Sorenson said Kesari, Benton, and others counseled him on how to handle the situation and prepped him on how to address the media.

Sorenson pleaded guilty last fall in federal court to charges that he helped the campaign hide the payments. On Wednesday, Ron Paul testified, stating that he didn’t approve of endorsements and certainly wouldn’t have wanted his campaign to pay for one.

Besides Sorenson’s and Paul’s testimony, prosecutors have introduced dozens of emails and financial records showing that the Paul campaign funneled money to Sorenson via a third party—a company in Maryland that did no work for the campaign but was paid for “audio-visual” work and then turned around and paid Sorenson. The payments are not in dispute, but defense attorneys for Kesari and Benton have argued that they are a normal part of politics and that there was no crime in the way they were reported.

Sorenson will return to the witness stand tomorrow.

Link:  

Disgraced Ex-Iowa State Senator Testifies Against Ron Paul Aides

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Disgraced Ex-Iowa State Senator Testifies Against Ron Paul Aides

The Not-So-Great Moments of One of the Guys Still Running for Speaker

Mother Jones

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

When Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suddenly dropped out of the running for House Speaker Thursday, it wasn’t immediately clear who was the odds-on pick to succeed outgoing House Speaker John Boehner. But there were two contenders who remained in the race: Reps. Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Daniel Webster of Florida. And some eyes turned quickly to Utah’s Jason Chaffetz, who is perhaps the more prominent of the pair and who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

McCarthy’s surprising self-defenestration, though, did not immediately boost Chaffetz’s chances; other names were quickly floated by House Republicans and pundits. Yet the story of Chaffetz’s rise from kicker on the Brigham Young University football team to a speaker contender is an intriguing tale, in which he has hit several rough spots. A small sampling:

Continue Reading »

Originally from:  

The Not-So-Great Moments of One of the Guys Still Running for Speaker

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Not-So-Great Moments of One of the Guys Still Running for Speaker

Watch These Dudes in Congress Tell Planned Parenthood How to Protect Women’s Health

Mother Jones

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

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards appeared today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in the most recent congressional hearing examining the use of taxpayer funds by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This was Richards’ first appearance before Congress. She had not been invited to participate in either of the two hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee earlier in the month, in the wake of the heavily edited and controversial videos released by anti-abortion activist David Daleiden.

Planned Parenthood receives approximately $450 million annually in federal funds, nearly all of which are reimbursements for women’s health services from programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to Planned Parenthood, last year 41 percent ($528.4 million) of its revenue came from government health services grants and reimbursements.

“The question before us is: Does this organization—does Planned Parenthood—really need a federal subsidy?” said House Oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). “Every time we spend a federal dollar, what we’re doing is pulling money out of somebody’s pocket and we’re giving it to somebody else. What I don’t like, what I don’t want to tolerate, what I don’t want to become numb to is wasting those taxpayer dollars.”

Here are some of the recurring themes from the hearing that attempted to answer his question.

1. Her salary is too high: Chaffetz spent much of his allotted time interrogating Richards about her $590,000 annual salary, which he characterized as “exorbitant.” She corrected him, saying her annual salary is actually $520,000. (Female nonprofit CEOs still make markedly less than male CEOs. In 2013, for example, Laurance Hoagland Jr., chief investment officer of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, made $2.5 million, and John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society, made $2.1 million.) Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) responded angrily to this inquisition. “The entire time I’ve been in Congress, I’ve never seen a witness beaten up and questioned about their salary,” she said. “Ms. Richards heads a distinguished organization providing health care services to millions of Americans. I find it totally inappropriate and discriminatory.”

2. Her apology was self-incriminating: Several times, Richards was subjected to loud, often aggressive mansplaining about when it is and is not appropriate to issue an apology. Members were referring to a video that PPFA released days after the first sting video in which Richards said, “Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the sting video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) repeatedly asked Richards to justify this. “Why did you apologize?” he asked over and over again. “You can’t have it both ways. If nothing was done wrong, why did you apologize? You don’t apologize if she didn’t say anything that was wrong.”

Richards explained that her apology was more about the setting of the discussion. “I spoke with Dr. Nucatola, and it was inappropriate to have a clinical discussion in a nonconfidential, nonclinical setting,” Richards said. “It was that she used bad judgment to have a clinical discussion in a nonclinical setting.” The conversation in the sting video was over lunch and wine.

3. Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms: Republican critics of PPFA were also upset that Planned Parenthood clinics don’t provide mammogram services, despite the fact that radiology centers usually offer them because Medicaid reimbursements can’t come close to covering their operational costs. This point seemed to be lost on committee members who considered the lack of mammography as evidence that Planned Parenthood did not really provide women’s health services. Richards explained that when she goes to see her general practitioner and she gets a breast exam, she is referred to a radiologist to get a mammogram. Centers that depend on Medicaid reimbursement are often unable to pay for the equipment and radiologists’ salaries. New 3-D mammography technology is even more expensive. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) saw this as evidence that Planned Parenthood fell short in providing acceptable women’s health services: “Do you acknowledge that community health centers offer a broader range of services, including mammograms?” To this, Richards replied, “I’m not an expert on what all community health centers provide.”

4. Taxpayer dollars are paying for abortions: The repeated expressions of outrage by Republicans over “taxpayer dollars” being used for abortion services was, according to committee member Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.), “exhausting.”

“I know my colleagues are more intelligent than this,” Lawrence said. “This is not a lump sum we give Planned Parenthood. It is a reimbursement.”

Under federal law, no taxpayer dollars are allocated to abortion services. PPFA has submitted its tax filings and reimbursement records, and so far there has been no evidence that it violated this law. That did not stop Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) from expressing concern that “taxpayer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide that are aberrant services in the view of many taxpayers.”

5) Planned Parenthood provides too many abortions: Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) does not understand how the 327,000 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2014 amount to only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services. Meadows claimed it was more like 12 percent. But as Richards explained, some patients visit more than once, and for multiple services, bringing the percentage down substantially.

And as my colleague Kevin Drum reported, Chaffetz used a chart from anti-abortion group Americans United for Life that incorrectly claimed that Planned Parenthood’s breast examinations have trended radically downward in recent years, while abortion services have substantially risen. In fact, cancer screenings have declined because, as Richards said, “some of the services, like pap smears, dropped in frequency because of changing medical standards about who should be screened and how often.” Abortion rates for Planned Parenthood have only increased about 2 percent per year since 2006.

6) Planned Parenthood is in cahoots with President Barack Obama: Toward the end of the nearly six-hour hearing, Jordan asked Richards about the internal workings of her staff. “Since the videos, has anyone from HHS, CMS contacted you?” Richards replied that because she has a big staff, she can’t answer that with 100 percent confidence. “Has the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch contacted Planned Parenthood?” Jordan persisted. “Has anyone from the Justice Department contacted Planned Parenthood since the videos surfaced? There are potentially four federal crimes committed here, and all I’m asking is, has the Justice Department contacted you?” Richards repeated that she could not answer his questions with any certainty.

Jordan then escalated his attack. “Have you had any conversations with the president of the United States?” he asked. “Since the videos have surfaced, how many times have you been to the White House? How many times have you been to the White House since Mr. Obama’s been president?” Richards again said she couldn’t be sure, but Jordan was ready with an answer. “Our count shows that you, your board members, and senior staff have been to the White House 151 times in six and a half years.”

Investigations are also ongoing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and in the House Judiciary Committee. So far, no wrongdoing has been found. Six state investigations that were triggered by the videos have also been closed after finding no evidence that Planned Parenthood violated law.

A subpoena has been issued to anti-abortion activist Daleiden for his investigative materials, and according to Chaffetz, they have been received but not yet opened or examined.

Link: 

Watch These Dudes in Congress Tell Planned Parenthood How to Protect Women’s Health

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch These Dudes in Congress Tell Planned Parenthood How to Protect Women’s Health