Archive by Author

O'Rourke: People at NRA convention 'not our enemy'

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke spoke at a pro-gun control rally outside the National Rifle Association (NRA) convention on Friday where he urged NRA supporters and the protesters to not see each other as the enemy. 

“To those who are attending the NRA convention across the street, you are not our enemies. We are not yours,” O’Rourke said. 

The NRA has been facing backlash for hosting its convention in Texas after a deadly elementary school shooting on Tuesday in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 children and two teachers. 

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) pulled out of his scheduled appearance at the event after many, including O’Rourke, said it would be insensitive for him to go. 

“We are extending our hand open and unarmed in a gesture of peace and fellowship to welcome you to join us, to make sure this no longer happens in this country,” O’Rourke said at the protest across the street from the convention. 

O’Rourke and other Democrats reupped calls for stricter gun control since the Texas school shooting and shooting at supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, N.Y., that killed ten people earlier this month. 

The former presidential candidate made headlines earlier this week when he approached Abbott during a press conference in Uvalde on the shooting.

“You are doing nothing,” O’Rourke said, addressing Abbott. “You said this was not predictable, this was totally predictable, and you choose not to do anything.”

The shootings have spurred talks in the Senate about potential gun control measures, and Republicans in the upper chamber have appeared open to discussions. However, it is uncertain if legislation will pass as a result of the talks.

“The time for you to respond and join us is now. We cannot wait any longer for you. Those who will be the victims of the next mass shooting unless we act are counting on us at this moment so please join us now or be left behind,” O’Rourke said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

After Colombia’s elections the US must be prepared to engage Petro

Gustavo Petro is going to win the first round of Colombia’s presidential elections on Sunday.  There has been plenty of coverage about why an ultimate Petro victory in a second round would be a high-risk proposition. Regardless, the U.S. should be prepared to cautiously engage the next democratically elected president of Colombia.

Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego is a former Marxist guerilla and former member of the Movimiento 19 de Abril (M-19), a group that committed terrible violent acts against innocent civilians. Petro, a Hugh Chávez admirer, has run on an anti-corruption, anti-corporatism, and pro-peace platform. He believes that there is room for “a revolution.” Petro labels himself as a Castro-Chavismo progressive leftist. Like Lula in Brazil, he has run for president several times in 2010, 2018, and now in 2022 giving Petro high name recognition. Petro was once mayor of Bogota but was removed for mismanagement.

The United States has long-term interests in Colombia, and the Colombian people get to decide who their leader is through elections. The United States and other Colombian friends have to work with whoever the Colombian people choose. Whether we like it or not, the Biden administration should take some calculated diplomatic risks with Petro if he wins.

If Petro doesn’t reach 50 percent, as is likely the case, there will be a second round for the top two vote getters. A second round will give a chance to the “anyone but Petro” forces to come together. Petro currently leads in the first round with 36 percent, while Federico “Fico” Gutiérrez, the center–right candidate, and Rodolfo Hernández, the “new politics” candidate, have 21 percent and 19 percent respectively. It would be preferable if “Fico” Gutierrez were to win in the second round, but it is unclear if he can even get to a second round.

On the basis of the historical record, Petro should not be leading the polls, but young people in Colombia have short memories.

Around 40 percent of the population is under the age of 24. Most young people were not around for the worst actions of M-19 nor even of the worst actions of the FARC nor the ELN.  Similar to Salvadoran voters 15 years ago who voted an ex-Leftist guerrilla FMLN into power, Colombia’s success allows younger voters to be tempted by a populist politician who promises things that may be too good to be true.

If one looks at the big picture, Colombia is one of the greatest development and peace success stories of the last 50 years. Colombia is a country which has made significant progress on economic, social and health metrics in the last 40 years. It has been able to bounce back from a global pandemic and is a strong net global contributor. Colombia signed a peace accord with the FARC in 2016. It became a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2020. Colombia is strong enough and generous enough that it just regularized 2 million Venezuelan refugees. Colombia is our key partner in South America.

What is to be done?

If Petro wins, President Biden should do several things right away. The administration has gone out of its way to demonstrate to the new Leftist president of Honduras, Xiomara Castro, our readiness to seek accommodation based on shared interests. They should do the same with Petro if he becomes the president-elect.

Petro admittedly has very little direct experience with the United States. It would be worthwhile to explore possible opportunities to engage and to demonstrate the value of ties with the United States to someone who may not fully appreciate all that the United States can do to help Colombia.

First, President Biden should call and congratulate the winner of the second-round election as soon as the election is called for one candidate or the other.

Second, Vice President Harris should lead a high-level delegation of Republicans and Democrats to the swearing-in of the next president of Colombia even if it is Petro.

Third, the Biden administration has not announced a new ambassador-designate to Colombia.  They should name one now. The current ambassador, Phillip Seth Goldberg, is scheduled to move to South Korea this summer. Perhaps the administration is waiting to see the outcome of the Colombian election. Historically this has been a challenging, but friendly post. Under a Petro administration, serving as U.S. Ambassador to Colombia will be a much more challenging role. We will need an ambassador with the gifts and talents of former ambassadors Anne Patterson or Bill Brownfield. Thankfully the U.S. has enjoyed decades of strong soft power engagement through several strong USAID mission directors to Colombia, including the current one, Lawrence “Larry” Sacks. Sacks is also scheduled to cycle out.

Fourth, President Biden should be prepared to offer a White House visit, but should wait to see if Petro makes early irresponsible moves. If Petro takes provocative actions, then that offer should not be made.

The U.S. partnership with Colombia has been one of the best between any two countries in the last 20 years. Rather than risk losing the mutual benefits of decades of collaboration, we should try to engage Petro and his team if he wins.

One can hope: In the last three elections, no Colombian president has won in the first round. The political landscape can be reshaped in the second round. Ideally, Fico gets to the second round and the voters of Colombia coalesce around him. If that does not happen, we need to prepare to make a good faith effort to actively engage with a president-elect Petro.

Daniel F. Runde is a senior vice president and William A. Schreyer chair in Global Analysis at CSIS. He previously worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development, the World Bank Group, and in investment banking, with experience in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats ask Apple, Google to prohibit apps from using data mining to target people seeking abortions

A group of Senate Democrats asked Apple and Google to prohibit apps available in their app stores from using data mining practices to target people seeking abortion services in letters sent to the tech giants Friday.

The senators, led by Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.), asked the companies to review and update their app store policies and practices as necessary to address concerns around allowing apps to engage in “data practices that may victimize individuals who seek or have sought abortion services.” 

The Democrats said they are concerned that anti-abortion prosecutors or other actors will try to access and leverage personal information, such as data about locations, online activity, health and biometrics, in ways that “threaten the well being of those exercising their right to choose.” 

The senators underscored the need for the updates following the leak of a draft majority opinion indicating the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, which could make abortion illegal in states across the country with restrictive laws. 

The senators said information about app users’ fertility, browser histories indicating interest in contraception or location information showing a user visited a gynecologist could become a “data trove for actors who are intent on targeting, intimidating, and harming individuals who seek abortions or individuals who simply take steps to promote their reproductive health.”

The letters were also signed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). 

Spokespeople for Apple and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The letters follow one sent by more than 40 Congressional Democrats to Google earlier this week urging the company to stop collecting and storing location data over concerns that it could be obtained by prosecutors to target individuals seeking abortion care.

Source: TEST FEED1

US must lead on decarbonizing international financing for development projects

The recent 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report offered a dire warning from the world’s top scientists about the consequences of climate inaction: Climate change is killing the planet and we are not prepared. And the truth is, we are running out of time to curb the destructive effects already seen in our communities at home and around the globe, let alone avoid the catastrophic events on the horizon.

One of the most troubling sectors where the funding for climate-destroying fossil fuels continues unchecked is international fossil fuel financing for development projects, particularly in the transportation sector. As the World Bank and International Monetary Fund leaders gathered for the Spring Meetings, clean energy advocates urged them to end their investments in transportation projects that fund internal combustion engines that burn fossil fuels. 

The numbers speak for themselves: of the World Bank’s 216 public sector transportation projects approved from 2017 through 2021, $77 billion was for projects supporting internal combustion engine vehicles and infrastructure that make the climate crisis worse. Less than $1 billion was approved for zero-emissions vehicles. 

While the transportation sector is just one sizable piece of a larger ecosystem dependent on fossil fuels — international financial institutions (IFIs) play a significant role in fueling the problem. As one of the largest shareholders at the IFIs, the U.S. has significant influence to push the institutions to end their support for fossil fuel investments, which would have a worthwhile impact on total greenhouse gas emissions. 

These uneven investments can’t continue to be the norm for the World Bank and other major financial institutions; we must pursue bold steps, both at home and through our investments abroad, to avoid the most disastrous impacts of the climate crisis. That means that our financial institutions must stop investing in the destruction of our Earth, end financing for fossil fuels, and instead invest in clean, secure, sustainable alternatives. 

And it’s more than just our environment that’s at stake. Global security depends on clean, reliable energy. We can never be energy independent if we depend on fossil fuels that tie us to a boom and bust cycle dictated by the global market, OPEC, and fossil fuel-funded autocrats like Vladimir Putin. We must not lock future generations around the world into more reliance on these dangerous fuels, and the best way to ensure that is to launch a Marshall Plan for clean energy and end the world’s planet-killing addiction to fossil fuels.

That’s why my bill with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the Sustainable International Financial Institutions Act (SIFI Act) is vital for solving our energy crisis. This legislation would advance the shift to a clean energy economy by aligning the United States’ role in the IFIs to end support of new fossil fuel activity.

President Joe Biden’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad took the bold step of requiring the U.S. Treasury Department to develop a strategy for how the voice and vote of the United States can be used in the IFIs, like the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which led to the U.S. Treasury Department’s updated energy financing guidance released last summer.

These are welcome first steps, but we need to go well beyond them if we’re going to have a chance at making meaningful progress. The U.S. is a key — if not the key — partner in these banks. Our influence can determine the direction of their investments for years to come.

The SIFI Act builds upon current U.S. policy and the updated Treasury guidance. It would require U.S. representatives at the IFIs, like the World Bank, to champion clean energy and climate change mitigation and oppose any financial or technical assistance to any country or entity to create new capacity for fossil fuel activity. It would also restrict United States’ foreign assistance to support fossil fuel activity through entities such as the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation.

These are necessary actions to ensure that our development finance institutions end support of new fossil fuel activity and instead invest in green alternatives. We cannot afford to only invest pennies in clean options while taxpayer dollars continue to disproportionately support fossil fuels. 

We must heed the warnings of scientists worldwide and call on leaders to start working now to make drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions before it’s too late for our climate and our planet. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass the Sustainable International Financial Institutions Act and continue to use our power as a leader to call on the IFIs to end financing for fossil fuels, and instead invest in clean, secure, sustainable alternatives.

Jared Huffman is the U.S. representative from California’s 2nd District.

Source: TEST FEED1

‘X’ gender designation will soon be available for New York residents

New York residents beginning in June will have the option to select a gender-neutral “X” gender marker on their driver’s licenses, birth certificates or other identification documents, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s (D) office announced Friday. Transgender New Yorkers will also be able to self-select their gender designation for the first time.

“Every person, regardless of their gender identity or expression, deserves to have an identity document that reflects who they are,” Hochul said Friday in a news release. Residents will be able to choose the “X” gender designation beginning June 24, when the state’s Gender Recognition Act goes into effect.

Under the measure, signed into law by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) last year, state-issued licenses and IDs may be amended to display M (male), F (female) or “X” gender markers upon request with “no additional documents required.” Current state law requires residents to provide a letter from a doctor stating that their preferred gender is their “predominant gender” in order to correct their identity documents.

That compares with more stringent requirements in other states that make it more difficult – and in some cases impossible – for transgender and nonbinary people to correct identity documents like driver’s licenses or birth certificates to match their gender identity.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Earlier this week, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services said transgender Montanans may not alter the sex designation on their birth certificate even if they receive gender-affirming surgery because sex is “an immutable genetic fact.” Gender, the department argued, is merely a social “construct.”

“I’m proud to live in and represent a state that respects and values the needs of these communities – particularly as queer, and especially transgender young people, have come under attack in recent months across our country,” New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who sponsored the Senate version of the Gender Recognition Act, said Friday.

“Each and every New Yorker should be recognized for who they are by their government,” he said.

New York residents with an existing driver’s license, learner’s permit or non-driver identity document may alter their gender designation through an application process available at all state Department of Motor Vehicle offices once the law takes effect, Hochul’s office said Friday. Those applying for their license, permit or non-driver ID for the first time will be able to self-select their gender as well.

New Yorkers will also have the option to change their gender designation on existing IDs online through the department’s website beginning in July.

The change comes as part of a larger statewide effort to advance LGBTQ+ rights, and Hochul earlier this year signed off on a state budget that increases funding for the Department of Health by roughly $8 million to better support LGBTQ+ people through direct health services, cultural competency training and transgender wellness initiatives.

State agencies were also recently required to provide an option for New York residents to choose the “X” gender marker on all state forms that collect gender or sex information. Under the new budget, transgender New Yorkers are able to change their name or gender designation on marriage certificates without leaving their deadnames – or their names before they transitioned – on them.

Source: TEST FEED1

Klobuchar’s revised antitrust ‘pet project’ makes the same mistakes

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced a new version of the “American Innovation and Choice Online Act” (S. 2992) late Wednesday night, the culmination of months of behind-the-scenes machinations to try to reach the 60-vote Senate threshold. 

But the latest draft is riddled with problems, and senators are focused on pocketbook issues instead of Klobuchar’s pet project. At its core, the legislation remains a massive government power grab that will give the Biden administration vast new regulatory authority to reshape the economy. Instead of working to address fundamental issues with the legislation, it appears Klobuchar made minor tweaks to exempt certain companies and industries from new mandates the act would create.

Klobuchar’s bill prohibits platform companies with a market capitalization of over $550 billion and 50 million monthly users from promoting their own “products, services, or lines of business” next to those of a competing business in a way that would “materially harm competition.” In plain English, the bill bans companies over a government-determined size from promoting their own private-label products next to name-brand products. This is not an insidious practice — Costco does this when they sell Kirkland paper towels next to Bounty paper towels. 

If a bureaucrat determines that a company has violated S. 2992, the government can levy a civil penalty of up to 10 percent of revenue. While Klobuchar slightly reduced the penalty from the original 15 percent, the fine could easily be twice the size of the profits in a low-margin industry like retail. 

As written, the bill targets four or five American technology companies and would make it far more difficult for Americans to use their popular services. It has sparked discussions about whether Amazon would be able to offer free two-day Prime shipping or sell AmazonBasics products that are often cheaper than the name brands. There are similar questions about whether Apple could pre-install apps on their products and if Google could show Maps directions or YouTube videos when searched. 

The bill raises several fundamental issues. If a business practice is bad, shouldn’t it be illegal for every business, not just a select few? Are voters clamoring for self-preferencing to be “fixed”? Does legislating via market cap open the door to future crony capitalism and sectoral regulation? Does the legislation give far too much regulatory authority to the Biden Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice? 

Instead of addressing these important questions, the newest version of S. 2992 nibbles around the edges to exempt a select few industries and companies from being whacked with new regulations. The new draft eliminates the distinction between publicly traded and privately held companies, striking the provision added during markup that would sweep in private companies over $30 billion. It also modifies the definition of an online platform to explicitly exclude broadband providers and internet service providers (ISPs). The updated draft removes “facilitating payment” language from the covered platform definition, exempting banks and credit card companies. 

The Klobuchar bill is privately roiling the Senate Democratic caucus, who see the bill as a political liability heading into the midterm elections. Vulnerable senators up for reelection want Congress to focus on pocketbook issues impacting the American people — like inflation or rising gas prices. According to Politico, one Senate aide called the bill Klobuchar’s “pet project” that had zero political payoff, saying: “We should be focused on items that will help consumers deal with rising costs…[and] nobody can figure out why it would be a priority.”  

Another Senate aide was also quoted asking, “Does the Klobuchar bill reduce rising costs in the short term for consumers? No. So why would it be a focus between now and the election?”

Prominent Democrats are publicly calling out problems with the Klobuchar bill. In a May 10 op-ed for Cyberscoop, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) came out against the antitrust bills, citing harm to his constituents and pressing national security concerns. Obama National Economic Council Director Larry Summers blasted the Biden administration’s “non-analytical” antitrust approach and said that enacting radical changes to antitrust law would “make the U.S. economy more inflationary and less resilient.” 

Public support for tech regulation is eroding as pocketbook issues weigh on the minds of American families. According to a recent Pew Research poll, just 44 percent of Americans think major technology companies need additional regulation, down from 56 percent in April 2021. A Gallup poll surveying 2,000 Americans was released with 52 percent of Americans naming inflation as their most important issue, whereas antitrust did not even rank as an issue of concern for voters. Instead of using valuable floor time to address issues Americans care about, Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)  would rather waste time on Klobuchar’s “pet project.” 

After months of waiting, the updated version of S. 2992 makes very few substantive changes that would increase the likelihood of reaching 60 Senate votes. Given the numerous clear problems, Republicans should feel no need to help Klobuchar’s bill become law before the midterm election. 

Tom Hebert is federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform and executive director of the Open Competition Center.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Trump speaks at NRA convention

Former President Trump is scheduled to speak Friday afternoon at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Houston, Texas. The convention is being held days after a mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, killed 19 children and two teachers.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are also slated to speak at the event.

Trump’s speech is set to start at 3 p.m. ET.

Watch the live video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

New York man sentenced to four years in transnational cybercrime scheme

A New York resident was sentenced on Wednesday to four years in prison for participating in a fraudulent cybercrime scheme. 

John Telusma, who pleaded guilty last year to one count of racketeering conspiracy, admitted to buying stolen or compromised credit cards and aiding members of the Infraud Organization in monetizing their fraudulent scheme.

Telusma is the latest defendant to be sentenced for this role in the Infraud scheme. According to the Department of Justice, the organization is a transnational cybercrime enterprise engaged in the sale of fraud-related goods and services, including stolen identities, compromised credit card data and computer malware. 

The organization is said to have purchased and sold more than 4 million stolen credit and debit card numbers, costing the victims of the scheme more than $568 million dollars.

Telusma, who joined the organization in 2011, was an active member who also purchased and fraudulently used compromised credit card numbers for his personal gain, according to court documents.

Last year, Infraud’s co-founder Sergey Medvedev was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Medvedev, a Russian national, pleaded guilty in 2020 to one count of racketeering conspiracy.

Source: TEST FEED1

House Oversight panel presses insurers on free birth control coverage

The House Oversight and Reform Committee is pressing major health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers on their coverage of contraceptives, saying they may not be fully complying with requirements to cover them at no cost to the patient.  

Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) sent letters to nine companies requesting information on their birth control coverage, which they are required to cover fully under Affordable Care Act (ACA) rules. 

“I am deeply troubled by reports that health plans and issuers may not be fully complying with the ACA’s requirement to cover contraceptives at no cost, potentially depriving patients of access to critically important reproductive health care,” Maloney said in a statement. “I am committed to uncovering the full extent of this problem and ensuring that every person can access the birth control that works best for them without unnecessary cost or delay.” 

She wrote that insurers are sometimes not covering contraceptives that were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration or were sometimes requiring payment for the surrounding services, such as an office visit.  

“Public reporting and information obtained by the Committee indicates that some plans and issuers, including their pharmacy benefit managers (PBM), have not been in compliance with these requirements,” Maloney wrote.  

The committee cited a report from the National Women’s Law Center, which operates a hotline where people can report problems accessing birth control through their insurance.  

“These violations leave people to pay out of pocket for the birth control they need, push them into using a method that is not right for them because of cost, or cause them to forego contraception altogether,” the report states. 

An increased spotlight has also fallen on contraceptive access recently given the expected ruling from the Supreme Court overturning the right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade. That ruling is set to be issued sometime next month.  

Maloney requests answers by June 9.  

Source: TEST FEED1