Tag Archives : Build House

Hillicon Valley — Labor union backs Microsoft-Activision merger

The Communications Workers of America sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission offering support for Microsoft’s bid to buy gaming company Activision Blizzard.

Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidance on patient privacy amid concerns about how data may be used to target people seeking abortions in states with bans or severe restrictions.  

This is Hillicon Valley, detailing all you need to know about tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. Send tips to The Hill’s Rebecca Klar, Chris Mills Rodrigo and Ines Kagubare. Subscribe here.

Union tells FTC it supports Microsoft deal 

The labor union helping to organize video game workers told the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) it supports Microsoft’s bid to buy Activision Blizzard in a letter Thursday.

• The Communications Workers of America (CWA) said it supports Microsoft’s roughly $70 billion offer to buy the game developer.
• The union backed the offer based on an agreement reached in which the tech giant will not interfere with Activision Blizzard employees’ efforts to form unions.

“Microsoft’s binding commitments will give employees a seat at the table and ensure that the acquisition of Activision Blizzard benefits the company’s workers and the broader video game labor market,” CWA President Christopher Shelton said in the letter to the FTC. 

The union, along with more than a dozen advocacy groups, raised concerns about the deal in a letter to the FTC in March. 

Read more here.  

HHS gives post-Roe privacy guidance

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released guidance about what information is protected for patients seeking reproductive health care following the Supreme Court’s decision last week to strike down Roe v. Wade.

The HHS guidance addresses the circumstance under which HIPAA privacy rules allow the disclosure of a person’s information without their authorization. The court’s decision triggered concerns from abortion rights advocates about how personal data may be used to target people seeking abortions in states with bans or severe restrictions.

• “How you access health care should not make you a target for discrimination. HHS stands with patients and providers in protecting HIPAA privacy rights and reproductive health care information,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in the announcement.
• “Anyone who believes their privacy rights have been violated can file a complaint with OCR as we are making this an enforcement priority. Today’s action is part of my commitment to President Biden to protect access to health care, including abortion care and other forms of sexual and reproductive health care.”

Democrats have pushed for greater data privacy regulation aimed at protecting people seeking abortions after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade.

MORE LAYOFFS AT TESLA

Tesla, business mogul Elon Musk’s electric car company, laid off almost 200 employees from its Autopilot team and closed its San Mateo, Calif., office.

• The layoffs, which were first reported by Bloomberg, are the latest in a string of job cuts taking place in the company after Musk told Tesla executives the company needed to stop hiring and reduce headcount by 10 percent.
• At the end of last year, Tesla had almost 100,000 employees, according to Reuters, but it is unclear how many of those employees are salaried and how many are hourly workers.
• Most of the Autopilot employees laid off Wednesday were hourly workers, which came as a surprise to many since last week Musk had outlined a plan to boost hourly jobs, Bloomberg reported.   

Read more here. 

BITS & PIECES

An op-ed to chew on: Are we ready for the Mother of All Disasters — a collision-course asteroid?

Notable links from around the web: 

Congress is trying to rein in Big Tech. This lawmaker could stand in their way. (Politico / Emily Birnbaum) 

School Surveillance Will Never Protect Kids From Shootings (Wired / Chris Gilliard) 

How mercenary hackers sway litigation battles (Reuters / Raphael Satter and Christopher Bing) 

Amazon Restricts L.G.B.T.Q. Products in United Arab Emirates (The New York Times / Karen Weise) 

🍔 Lighter click: History is amazing 

One more thing: FBI eyes ‘CryptoQueen’

The FBI has added Ruja Ignatova, known as “CryptoQueen,” to its list of Ten Most Wanted fugitives, offering up to $100,000 for information that leads to her arrest.  

Ignatova has been facing five charges including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and securities fraud since 2018 after she allegedly defrauded investors who invested in her fake cryptocurrency OneCoin out of billions of dollars.  

She launched the Bulgaria-based company OneCoin in 2014 and is believed to have defrauded investors out of more than $4 billion while she served as the company’s leader through 2017, according to an FBI release. 

Read more here. 

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Technology and Cybersecurity pages for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

The US needs an urgent refocus on health security

We live in an age of epidemics: SARS-1, bird flu, H1N1, Ebola, Zika, COVID-19, monkeypox, even a highly pathogenic avian strain of influenza threatening the U.S. poultry industry — all emerging over the last 20 years with devastating consequences to human life and economic prosperity. More than 1 million Americans have died, and counting, from the COVID-19 crisis. And yet, by the looks of it, the U.S. government reaction is by and large muted. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the failures of our current system. The national response was halting, hyper-politicized, and ineffective. It exposed massive disparities in access to effective care, gaps in our federal data collection and sharing system, and deep-seated mistrust with our political and scientific establishments. So, what are we intending to do about it?

The U.S. has set a precedent around structural reorganization and institutional innovation after crisis strikes. After World War II, the U.S. was first to modernize its military and intelligence communities for the new era with the National Security Act of 1947. After 9/11, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 addressed many of the coordination issues that hampered our ability to foresee and respond to the 9/11 attacks. We appear to have reached a similar moment worthy of national reflection today. There is a looming surge of yet more COVID-19 cases potentially coming this fall and winter, bringing more deaths and the threat of a health care system collapse. There are the known risks posed by post-COVID conditions or “long-COVID,” which affects about 30 percent of those who fall ill with COVID-19, contributing to a crisis affecting long term health that has not yet been fully contemplated. And then there are the as yet unidentified, future emerging threats leading to a category of infectious disease — unknown unknowns — as well as risks emanating from the threat of radiological, nuclear, chemical and ever present catastrophic natural disaster events.

It is clear, the U.S. government must act. Now is the time to coalesce around the ability to prepare, respond and recover from the large-scale health emergencies that threaten our future. An important step in that direction is to create a stand-alone Health Security Council, akin to the National Security Council and Domestic Policy Council, convened by the White House under executive leadership.

Health security is an interdisciplinary field of public policy that links together health care, national security, public health and emergency management with a clear focus on protecting the health of the Nation. Creation of a Health Security Council will help to coalesce the gaps that exist between these disparate fields and will demonstrate how important health systems and our public health agencies are to both our daily experience and ability to live and work through life-threatening emergencies. Doing so will acknowledge that health system preparedness, sustainability and economic viability are all key components of national preparedness, and the concentration of expertise and leadership will offer local and federal officials with a playbook on how to respond when things go awry.

In response to many of the same challenges, the UK replaced Public Health England (the U.S. government equivalent is the Department of Health and Human Services) with the UK Health Security Agency. The new agency inherited many of its original functions, such as contact tracing and genomic surveillance. In addition, the Health Security Agency was designated as the lead U.K. agency for predictive pandemic analytics and coordination with foreign governments and international bodies, establishing a single point of responsibility for these critical functions. While the initial response to the creation of the Health Security Agency was mixed, it streamlined lanes of responsibility and addressed many of the bureaucratic inefficiencies that led to failures during the pandemic itself.

In the U.S., on the other hand, health security remains a field of far-flung and poorly coordinated federal and state agencies with broadly overlapping lanes of responsibility and no clear mandate to play nice when the next pandemic or public health emergency strikes. This generates a range of surprising and disheartening policy outcomes. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot legally require states or health care providers to provide them the critical data needed to drive insights and inform the president on disease propagation in our communities.

The intelligence community, in charge of detecting threats to the nation, often does not have access to the CDC’s reports on emerging epidemics until they are public. Several agencies, from the Department of State to United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Health and Human Services (HHS), and CDC, hold responsibility for coordination with international bodies and foreign governments. CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service and its associated analytic center have a similar mission as the Department of Defense’s Global Emerging Infections Surveillance program, but there is no pre-defined touchpoint for coordination. Meanwhile, the legal authority for resource mobilization and crisis reaction is inherently local and driven by county public health commissioners, city mayors and the local and state budgetary authorities.

We need centralized and coordinated leadership. The creation of a Health Security Council within the White House is a tangible and achievable immediate next step that ought to be implemented now. It can begin the process of aligning and coordinating the disparate elements now scattered throughout U.S. government agencies and echoing a decade of recommendations for hands-on executive office leadership, tied directly to expert input and leadership. Taking this action will demonstrate the Biden administration’s commitment to making health security the priority it needs to be.

Michael Auten recently completed six years of active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps, and he is an incoming medical student at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

Dan Hanfling, MD, is an emergency physician and a national expert on health care system and public health preparedness and response. He is a member of the National Academy of Medicine’s Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Large Scale Emergencies and Disasters.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden to meet virtually with Dem governors on abortion rights

President Biden is expected to meet virtually with Democratic governors on Friday who have moved to protect access to abortion in their states in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last week to overturn Roe v. Wade.  

According to a White House official, attendees will include Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D), New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D).  

“President Biden will join from the White House, and talk with Governors whose states have moved swiftly post Dobbs decision to protect women’s reproductive health,” the White House official said.

Biden arrived back from a six-day overseas trip to Europe on Thursday afternoon. The virtual event will be his first specific engagement on abortion rights since he spoke hours after the Supreme Court ruling last week.  

The White House has been engaging with state officials over the past several weeks to discuss restrictive abortion laws and ways to protect access to abortion services.  

Friday’s event is meant to showcase actions on the state level to protect abortion rights. Newsom, for instance, recently signed legislation protecting abortion providers from liability. Hochul signed bills to protect out-of-state patients and providers from lawsuits in other states.  

The White House has faced pressure from Democrats and advocates who have been frustrated at what they see as a lack of aggressive action to protect abortion rights in the wake of the ruling overturning Roe, a nearly 50-year-old opinion that said abortion was a constitutionally-protected right.  

The Department of Health and Human Services has announced plans to protect access to abortion medication, but some Democrats have voiced support for other ideas like providing abortion services on federal land and declaring a public health emergency around abortion.  

Biden on Thursday voiced support for a carveout of the legislative filibuster so that Democrats can pass legislation codifying abortion rights, but that idea is unlikely to gain traction giving the opposition to changing the filibuster from moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).   

Source: TEST FEED1

Defense & National Security — High court sides with Biden over ‘Remain in Mexico’

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the Biden administration in its effort to end the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy.

We’ll talk about the ruling. Plus, we’ll examine U.S. preparations to send $800 million in more security aid to Ukraine.

This is Defense & National Security, your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. For The Hill, I’m Jordan Williams. Subscribe here.

Supreme Court gives Biden a win

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the Biden administration in its effort to end a Trump-era immigration policy that requires U.S. asylum-seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their applications are processed.

• The 5-4 ruling found that the administration did not violate federal immigration law when it sought to rescind the policy.
• While the justices returned the case to lower courts for additional proceedings, an October rescission by the Department of Homeland security notes it will take effect “as soon as practicable” following a decision from the court.

What the Justices said: The law “plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico during the pendency of their immigration proceedings,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. 

“The use of the word ‘may’… thus makes clear that contiguous-territory return is a tool that the Secretary ‘has the authority, but not the duty,’ to use,” he wrote. 

What was ‘Remain in Mexico?’ Under former President Trump’s 2019 policy, more than 70,000 asylum-seekers were returned from the U.S. to Mexico.

• The program, formally called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), marked an extreme departure from the previous practice of allowing those fleeing violence and persecution to cross the border and remain in the U.S. while they apply for asylum, a process that can take years to complete.
• Immigration advocates had long pleaded with both Trump and Biden to scrap the policy, noting that vulnerable migrants, who are not from Mexico and may not even be Spanish speakers, faced dangerous conditions as they waited months on end for any movement in their cases.

Another obstacle: But even as the Biden administration ends MPP, the decision may change little at the border.  

Even though it has now rescinded Title 42, courts have ruled that policy must stay in place, leaving another policy that allows for the rapid expulsion of migrants — this one blocking them wholesale from the asylum system. 

Read the full story here.

Biden tees up $800M more security aid for Ukraine

President Biden said Thursday that the U.S. plans to send an additional $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine, including advanced air defense systems and other “offensive” weapons.   

Biden disclosed the plans during a news conference following a NATO summit in Madrid, where he declared the alliance united in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

What’s in the package? Biden said the new assistance package would also include more counter-battery radars, artillery and ammunition, including ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) that the U.S. has recently supplied to the Ukrainians. Biden also predicted that other countries would send HIMARS to Ukraine.

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said earlier this week that the U.S. would be sending medium- and long-range air defense systems to Ukraine, though he declined to specify the particular system. 

‘As long as it takes:’ Asked Thursday whether Americans should be prepared for the U.S. to support Ukraine indefinitely, Biden answered: “We are going to support Ukraine as it takes.”  

“As long as it takes to in fact make sure that they are not defeated by … Russia,” Biden said. 

‘What else Biden said: On Thursday, Biden took a victory lap of sorts following the summit, saying he told Russian President Vladimir Putin before he launched a military invasion of Ukraine that doing so would strengthen NATO. 

Biden also underscored the U.S. plans to enhance its forces in Europe and commitments by other NATO members, like Germany, to bolster defense spending to meet the alliance’s target of 2 percent of gross domestic product.  

President backs F-16 sale to Turkey

President Biden on Thursday publicly backed the sale of upgraded F-16 fighter jets to Turkey and expressed optimism that Congress would approve the weapons sale.   

• Biden told reporters at a press conference following a NATO summit in Madrid that he expressed support for selling F-16s to Turkey during a one-on-one meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a day prior.
• At the same time, Biden dismissed the idea that agreeing to sell Turkey the fighter jets would represent a “quid pro quo” after Ankara agreed to relent on its objections to Finland and Sweden joining NATO.   

“I said back in December, as you’ll recall, we should sell them the F-16 jets and modernize those jets as well,” Biden told reporters. “It’s not in our interest not to do that and I indicated to them that I had not changed my position at all since December.”  

“There was no quid pro quo with that. It’s just, we should sell,” Biden continued. “I need congressional approval to be able to do that, and I think we can get that.”   

Read the full story here. 

ON TAP TOMORROW

• The Royal United Services Institute will host an event on “The War in Ukraine and Taiwan’s Defensive Planning” at 6 a.m. ET
• The American Security Project will host a “Rapid Response Briefing— Unpacking the 2022 NATO Summit” at 10 a.m. 
• The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe will host the Black Sea Security Summit at 1 p.m. 

WHAT WE’RE READING

• Five takeaways from Biden’s trip to attend G-7, NATO meetings 
• Biden: US will support Ukraine ‘as long as it takes’ to win war 

That’s it for today. Check out The Hill’s Defense and National Security pages for the latest coverage. See you tomorrow!

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

Health Care — Democrats rev up their drug pricing push

The Stanley Cup, already dented from the Colorado Avalanche’s on-ice celebration, was delivered to the wrong house. (There are worse mistakes to find on your doorstep.)

Today in health care, we’ll look at some of the small revisions Senate Democrats have made to their drug pricing plan. And Democrats are hoping to have another go at including it in a larger economic legislative package.

Welcome to Overnight Health Care, where we’re following the latest moves on policy and news affecting your health. For The Hill, we’re Peter Sullivan, Nathaniel Weixel and Joseph Choi. Subscribe here.

Revised pricing plan and a push for a larger package

A measure to lower drug prices, and President Biden’s larger economic package, are alive…for the moment.

• Senate Democrats plan to submit a revised proposal to lower prescription drug prices for a key procedural review in the coming days as they press forward with preparations for a vote on Biden’s economic package.
• Lawmakers have made some revisions to a deal to lower drug prices and plan to submit it to the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days for a review of whether it can pass muster with the chamber’s complicated rules for avoiding a Republican filibuster, a source familiar said. 

The big caveat: There is still no deal between Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on the other major pieces of the package: tax and energy policy.

Schumer has told senators that if a broader deal can be reached, the package could get a vote “as early as late July,” the source familiar said.

What’s in the proposal? There do not appear to be drastic changes to the drug pricing provisions that passed the House as part of its package in November, after a deal was reached with a group of moderate Democrats including Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

The basics: 

• Allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices for a limited subset of older drugs 
• Prevent drug companies from raising prices faster than inflation
• Cap out of pocket drug costs for seniors on Medicare at $2,000 per year 

Read more here.  

Biden calls for filibuster carveout for abortion rights

President Biden on Thursday said the Senate should carve out an exception to the 60-vote filibuster to codify abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.

“The most important thing to be clear about is I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that,” Biden said at a press conference at the NATO summit in Spain.

“And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this, requiring an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision,” Biden added.

• A change to the filibuster, which requires 60 votes in the Senate for most legislation to pass, would make it so that abortion rights or broader privacy rights like access to contraception and the right to same-sex marriage could be codified into law with a simple majority.
• The White House has so far expressed frustration with the decision, but it has offered few tangible measures to try to protect abortion access in the immediate aftermath of the ruling.

Read more here.

PFIZER ASKS FOR FULL FDA APPROVAL OF COVID PILL

Pfizer on Thursday announced it had submitted an application to receive full approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid for use in high-risk individuals.

The FDA in December issued an emergency use authorization for Paxlovid to be used as treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and children over the age of 12 who are at a high risk of developing cases that progress in severity.  

“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve and be highly unpredictable, we must remain vigilant in protecting those who are at greatest risk of getting very sick from COVID-19, as they remain vulnerable to potential hospitalization or even death,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement.

According to Bourla, recently gathered data had “reinforced” Paxlovid’s importance as an oral treatment for the coronavirus. Data from Pfizer’s Phase 2/3 studies indicated that Paxlovid reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by 88 percent when compared to placebos among non-hospitalized, high-risk patients.

Read more here.

JUDGE TO TEMPORARILY BLOCK FLORIDA’S 15-WEEK ABORTION BAN

A judge on Thursday was set to temporarily block Florida’s 15-week abortion ban one day before it was set to go into effect. 

• The law, which is not a “trigger law” like other states have set up to take immediate effect upon Roe v. Wade’s reversal, is modeled after Mississippi’s own 15-week abortion ban that was heard in front of the Supreme Court and ultimately led to the decision in Roe being overturned.
• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the plaintiffs in the complaint against Florida, confirmed to The Hill that Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper will be issuing a block on the abortion ban following a hearing on Thursday. 

What’s being blocked: The Florida law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in April, bans all abortions past 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. 

Under the law, exceptions can only be made when two physicians put in writing that an abortion is necessary to prevent death or severe physical harm to the mother, explicitly excluding potential harm to a woman’s psychological condition from that exception.

The ACLU noted in a statement that the ban will likely go into effect for a short period while the circuit court prepares its written order. 

Read more here. 

FDA: Omicron-specific boosters must target new strains

New COVID-19 booster shots should be tailored to target omicron’s BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants as well as the original strain in order to give people the broadest possible protection, U.S. regulators advised drugmakers on Thursday. 

• The announcement from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) comes two days after an agency advisory panel recommended tailoring booster shots to target the omicron variant for a fall vaccination campaign.
• The BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants now account for the majority of new infections in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  

According to the FDA, currently available vaccines have helped reduce the most serious outcomes caused by COVID-19, but the effectiveness of primary vaccination wanes over time against certain variants, including omicron. The first booster doses helped restore that protection, but the effectiveness is also waning.

The Biden administration needs to give drug makers enough time to develop and adapt the new booster in time for the fall and winter, which is why they made the decision in June. 

Timing: Moderna told FDA’s advisory committee that it will take until late October or early November to create a vaccine targeting the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants.  

Pfizer has already reported some success with a bivalent vaccine targeting the spike protein of the omicron BA.1 variant, and in a statement the company said it will have a BA.4/BA.5 vaccine ready to distribute to the world by early October 2022. 

Read more here

WHAT WE’RE READING

• Hospitals must say how much they charge for hundreds of procedures. Here’s why many don’t. (USA Today)
• Some medical debt is being removed from US credit reports (Associated Press) 
• Scientists say they’ve solved a 700-year-old mystery: Where and when Black Death began (NPR)

STATE BY STATE

• New York City’s COVID test positivity rate surpasses 10% for the first time since January (ABC News) 
• Mississippi lawmaker says 12-year-old incest victims should carry pregnancies to term (The Washington Post) 
• California will require health facilities to start sharing patient data with each other (CalMatters)

OP-EDS IN THE HILL

Drug manufacturers are root cause of high drug costs; PBMs drive costs down

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Health Care page for the latest news and coverage. See you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

Senate Democrats press Pentagon on abortion access after Supreme Court ruling

A group of Senate Democrats is pressing the Pentagon to protect abortion access following the Supreme Court’s decision last week to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the senators warn that because of the ruling, servicemembers’ rights to reproductive care are largely dependent on states, many of which either have already or are expected to prohibit or severely restrict abortions.

The lawmakers want the Pentagon to take action to protect servicemembers that allow people stationed in states where abortion is restricted to leave and establish independent advocates who can confidentially assist in accessing abortions.

“Entrusted to your care are hundreds of thousands of troops, dependents, and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians who have lost access to safe abortions and now face threats of criminal prosecution for seeking out those services,” reads the letter, which is led by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii.).

“As the leader of our military services, it falls on you to preserve the health and welfare of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Guardians,” it continues.

In addition to Hirono, Thursday’s letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), Michael Bennet (Colo.) and John Hickenlooper (Colo.).

In mid-May, Gillibrand led a similar letter with Hirono, Duckworth, Warren and Rosen pressing Austin to take action to protect servicemembers after a draft of the court’s decision was published by Politico.

The military is prohibited by federal law from performing or paying for other types of the procedure unless the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, or if it places the mother’s life at risk.

Thursday’s letter comes after Gil Cisneros, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, issued a memo on Tuesday saying the military will continue to provide abortions in specific cases consistent with federal law.

Cisneros also said that servicemembers would still be able to travel to receive and abortion, and that civilian employees can request sick leave or other forms of time off for reproductive care.

But in their letter, Hirono and her colleagues say that the memo “failed to speak to abortion access or protections for the rank and file,” adding that they “seek to better understand the implications this draconian ruling will have on Defense Department personnel.”

“The men and women who join the military sacrifice an incredible amount in order to serve their country. We owe it to these servicemembers to look after them and ensure they have the ability to continue accessing safe reproductive health care no matter where their military service sends them,” the lawmakers wrote.

“We urge you expand on the Under Secretary’s memorandum and give this request the fullest possible consideration,” they added.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kinzinger says Hutchinson has 'more courage than most in GOP'

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Thursday said former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified before the House Jan. 6 select committee this week, has “more courage than most” in the Republican Party.

Hutchinson, who previously worked as a special assistant to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, appeared before the Jan. 6 panel on Tuesday, where she answered questions under oath about what went on in the White House before, during and after the Capitol riot.

Hutchinson’s public testimony was a surprise — the committee announced the hearing 24 hours before it was slated to begin, after panel members said presentations would be put on pause until next month. Before her public testimony on Tuesday, Hutchinson spoke to select committee investigators behind closed doors four times.

Kinzinger, one of the two Republican lawmakers serving on the committee, called Hutchinson, now 26, a “hero” and “a real patriot.”

“I want to again say, Cassidy Hutchinson is a hero and a real patriot (not a faux ‘patriot’ that hates America so much they would attempt a coup.),” Kinzinger wrote on Twitter Thursday.

“Of course they will try to bully and intimidate her. But she isn’t intimidated.  More courage than most in GOP,” he added.

During an appearance on CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” Wednesday night, Kinzinger, a frequent critic of his GOP colleagues and the Republican Party, said Hutchinson was “showing far more courage than her boss, and showing far more courage than 99.8 percent of Republican members of Congress, or 100.”

Among the shocking revelations Hutchinson delivered during her public hearing was that Trump allegedly knew the crowd at his Ellipse speech was mobbed, but did not care because they were “not here to hurt me,” the ex-aide recalled the then-president saying. Trump, knowing the crowd had weapons, still directed his supporters to march to the Capitol, she said.

Hutchinson, however, is now facing scrutiny for part of her testimony pertaining to a car ride Trump took after his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Hutchinson said she was told that Trump, angry he was not allowed to go to the Capitol with his supporters, lunged for the steering wheel in the presidential vehicle he was riding in.

The ex-aide said Robert Engel, the head of Trump’s security detail, grabbed the president’s arm and instructed him to take his hand off the steering wheel.

“Trump then used his free hand to lunge at Bobby Engel,” Hutchinson told the committee.

Hutchinson said she learned of the incident from Tony Ornato, then deputy White House chief of staff. She also said Engel was in the room when Ornato was telling the story, and noted that the head of security did not refute any details.

Trump denied lunging at the Secret Service on Thursday, telling Newsmax in an interview “who would do that? I would grab a Secret Service person by the throat?”

Additionally, multiple outlets are now reporting that Ornato first heard of the alleged incident during the hearing, and that Engel and the driver of the vehicle are prepared to testify that Trump did not physically attack or assault them, or lunge at the steering wheel.

But Hutchinson is standing by her testimony, and lawmakers on the select committee are emphasizing her credibility.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the committee, told ABC News in an interview that she is “absolutely confident” in Hutchinson’s testimony.

A number of Republican figures have testified before the Jan. 6 select committee in both public and private settings, including Hutchinson, Arizona state House Speaker Rusty Bowers, former Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and members of the Trump family.

Others, however, have stonewalled the committee. Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro and former Trump White House strategist Stephen Bannon have both been indicted for contempt of Congress after they defied subpoenas from the panel.

The committee made its latest bid for cooperation on Wednesday, when it subpoenaed former White House counsel Pat Cipollone. He previously met with committee investigators in April, but did not participate in a formal recorded deposition.

Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Cheney said they were interested in hearing from Cipollone after their investigation “revealed evidence that Mr. Cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about President Trump’s activities on Jan. 6 and in the days that preceded.”

“While the Select Committee appreciates Mr. Cipollone’s earlier informal engagement with our investigation, the committee needs to hear from him on the record, as other former White House counsels have done in other congressional investigations,” they added.

Source: TEST FEED1

Professional American golfers wrong to abandon PGA for LIV Golf

American professional golfers on the PGA Tour bolting for big checks on the Saudi-backed LIV Golf League are doing themselves, their chosen sport, and the American communities that have supported them a deep disservice. And the implications go farther than the golf course. 

In the name of supposed competition and reform, they are selling themselves to the highest bidder — irrespective of that bidder’s character — reflecting a pervasive and deep-seated cultural rot in this country and in sports. Because, if a deep-pocketed sovereign with a dubious track record can target and take over an American institution like the PGA Tour that took some 100 years to build, what can it not buy? Worse yet — what are Americans not willing to sell? 

The controversy surrounds LIV, an upstart golf league backed by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF). It offers seemingly unlimited sums of “guaranteed” money to buy off players — designed purposefully to gut the PGA Tour. Keep in mind, The Saudis aren’t the Swiss. This is a repressive monarchy that — for any positive steps they take — actively discriminates, spreads anti-semitism, breeds anti-Americanism, and has a track record of funding terrorism, not the least of which was its connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Of course, many of LIV Golf’s defenders offer ham-fisted replies and moral equivocation when asked about the Saudis. “Don’t criticize them,” they say, “they are no different than anyone else making money on Saudi Arabian oil.” No one buys this rationale. We don’t want to buy oil from Saudi Arabia; the Biden administration is forcing us to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, in part because our president and his administration are carrying out an anti-American slap-dash unicorn energy policy that makes us reliant on our enemies. A real American energy policy would have us energy independent, and not begging Saudi Arabia for oil. But here we are. 

Further, yes our government engages with the Saudi government because we can partner to check the Iranians or for other geo-political purposes — but doing so doesn’t make it hypocritical to criticize the LIV. Because golfers have a choice. They are choosing Saudi money specifically over the PGA Tour because they simply want the cash.   

For example, six-time Major winner Phil Mickelson reportedly signed for $200 million just to play — and that’s before any potential wins. Two-time major winner Dustin Johnson was bought off for $120 million. Other payouts are significant and “guaranteed,” undermining the meritocracy at the core of the Tour. These are, effectively, expensive participation trophies. 

But, truly, this whole issue strikes at the heart of the soul of the game of golf itself and the core of being an American. We are supposed to have honor. We are supposed to stand alongside the folks who helped get us where we are — the old adage, “dance with the one who brung ya.” The PGA Tour — and its related endeavors — is the one who brung ya. 

For the uninformed, the PGA Tour is the premier golf league in the world. It developed out of the early years of professional golfers transitioning away from the old gentleman’s amateur game to a professional circuit in which golfers, quite literally, “followed the sun.” The tour built around community-based tournaments — many of which have been around since the early to mid 20th Century. In Texas, for example, we have the Colonial in Forth Worth and the long-standing Texas Open in San Antonio, which I proudly represent in Texas’ 21st District. 

The Tour has grown over the years in popularity — seeded by the work of Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, and Sam Snead, then developed out of the massive growth from Jack Nicklaus and Arnie’s Army, and ultimately punctuated by Tiger Woods’ explosion onto the scene. Now, it is an international operation that has poured over $2 billion into charities and communities throughout the country. It’s part of the fabric of life for millions of Americans. Even more, it has folded in development leagues — notably the Korn Ferry Tour — which operates as a proving ground more or less like a Triple-A affiliate does in Major League Baseball. 

Now, there are some fair critiques about the structure of the Tour — as with any large organization like it — but ultimately, the economics of the Tour work. Notably, however, the LIV Golf League is not built on a bunch of investors working a new idea, but on a Saudi government backed wealth fund used by Greg Norman to recruit Phil, DJ, Patrick, Sergio, Bryson, and other players to take out the Tour. And they know full well that the game of golf must compete for dollars against the MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, college sports, and all other forms of entertainment — and are perfectly fine risking the very game that made them all massively wealthy. 

This Independence Day weekend, the LIV Golf League will make its first U.S. stop out at Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club in Portland. It’s hard not to see it as a deliberate insult to the sport and to its rich American history here in the United States. That these players have a right to bolt does not make it the honorable or right thing to do.   

But honor does remain: in Tiger Woods’ decision to turn down almost a billion dollars, in Rory McIlroy’s ringing defense of the Tour, and in great young players like Jordan Spieth, and both recent PGA Champion Justin Thomas, and US Open Champion Matt Fitzpatrick, who have chosen to side with the legacy and history of the PGA Tour, one of America’s great institutions. Those who have done the right thing deserve our praise. They have acted with integrity and they are fighting to uphold values that transcend a big check.  

I’ve played the game of golf most of my life — as a kid with my dad, half-way competitively for a while in college, and now as a dad with my son. And through all of that, it’s also been great to watch the greatest players of the world carry on tradition and leave their mark on the sport through the PGA Tour. Perfect? No. Honorable and American?   

Roy represents the 21st District of Texas.

Source: TEST FEED1

Supreme Court's EPA ruling could put other regs in danger

The Supreme Court’s Thursday decision curtailing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority could hamper regulations far beyond climate.

The conservative majority in the 6-3 ruling found that an Obama-era power plant rule was not permissible since it didn’t have “clear congressional authorization.”

But legal experts say this principle could be applied elsewhere, restricting the Biden administration from imposing other regulations in areas including health and consumer protections.

“If people think the federal government should be there to ensure that Americans have a basic level of health, safety and environmental protection, they should be very worried about these decisions,” said University of Michigan law professor Nina Mendelson. 

The high court’s ruling invoked a legal philosophy called the “major questions doctrine,” which posits that regulations of substantial national significance need to have clear authorization from Congress. 

It’s not the first time the idea has popped up — it recently made an appearance in the court’s decision to block the Biden administration’s coronavirus vaccines-or-testing mandate for large employers.

But William Buzbee, a law professor at Georgetown, said that on Thursday, the Supreme Court took a new approach.

“It’s applying this doctrine more aggressively,” Buzbee said, pointing out that major questions was being used to curb the EPA’s authorities in an area where the agency actually has power and expertise. 

He called the court’s move a “power grab” that will offer “artillery” for future arguments against regulations to address new problems. 

“It now means that in …every regulatory battle, people will cite this case and this doctrine as a particular set of hurdles that agencies have to overcome,” he said. 

John Yoo, a Bush administration Justice Department official who is now a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the major questions doctrine would now be a “permanent feature and restriction on regulation” following the ruling. 

“It really is now a significant change and addition to administrative law and the way the courts are going to patrol the administrative state,” Yoo said. 

Experts said that the case could both impact litigation for existing regulations and have a chilling effect on how agencies approach rulemaking going forward.

“This makes it more difficult for agencies to regulate, unquestionably,” Mendelson said, adding that clean rules on water protections, product safety and vehicle safety are among those that Thursday’s decision may jeopardize. 

“EPA has the authority to address water pollution, but that statute, like the Clean Air Act, is written in broad terms. A future court could decide that a particular EPA regulation to protect water quality is simply too major and invalidate it as illegal,” she said.

She added that under the doctrine, regulations that deal with new problems, or that deal with existing problems in new ways, will be most at risk.

“Existing regulations are not all safe, but the primary effect will be on regulations to address new problems or regulations to take new approaches to address existing problems,” Mendelson said. 

Yoo said that another area where the doctrine could be used is to block Title IX regulations that have implications for how universities handle sexual misconduct allegations. 

“I could see this court saying, ‘Nobody in Congress thought that gave the federal government the right to establish a code of student conduct for every single school in the country,’” he said. 

Others argued, however, that the larger regulatory impacts of Thursday’s decision could be somewhat limited. 

Scott Nelson, an attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group, pointed to language in the opinion that says that such scrutiny of congressional intent should be applied in “extraordinary cases” rather than ordinary ones.

“It definitely is going to impact regulatory litigation — that is, challenges to regulation,” Nelson said. 

But, he added, “if you take the court at its word…this remains a limited doctrine to be deployed in extraordinary cases.”

The court found that Congress did not authorize the EPA to induce a shift to cleaner energy sources using the approach sought by the Obama-era clean power plan. 

That plan, which aimed to lessen climate change, would have done so through “building blocks,” including less power coming from coal plants and more from “lower-emitting” natural gas plants and “zero-emitting” renewable energy sources. 

But while the court’s ruling limits how the EPA can tackle climate change from the country’s fleet of power plants, a number of other tools remain at its disposal. 

“Several options remain to cut the fleet’s pollution including co-firing with natural gas, carbon capture and sequestration [and] efficiency improvements,” said Jay Duffy, an attorney with the Clean Air Task Force.

Source: TEST FEED1

Lawmakers target 'tech bro culture' in financial sector with diversity push

House lawmakers are looking to hold venture capital firms accountable for fostering ‘tech bro culture’ in financial technology services, with data showing that the vast majority of companies the firms invest in are owned by white men. 

Lawmakers at a House Financial Services subpanel Thursday blasted private equity firms for leaving minority and women-founded businesses behind, and discussed ways to turn the tide as capital injections into the sector continue to surge.

Venture capital investments into financial technology companies nearly doubled last year, reaching $35 billion, according to House figures. But only 1.8 percent of venture capital-backed owners were Latinx, and 1 percent were Black. And just 2 percent of venture funding went to female-only founded companies.

This gulf in funding spurred lawmakers to call for measures to increase diversity in the management and investment patterns of venture capital firms. 

Expert panelists argued that part of the problem was that the venture firms themselves are controlled disproportionately by white men.

“Due to implicit or unconscious bias, many seasoned investors do not consider people of color to be successful entrepreneurs,” said Wemimo Abbey, co-founder and co-CEO of financial technology company Esusu Financial at the hearing. “Investors tend to go invest in people they know and are comfortable with.”

One policy idea floated by lawmakers and panelists was a diversity scorecard for venture capital funds, to measure how diverse their management teams and investment patterns are. Lawmakers argued publicly grading a firm’s diversity may influence investor behavior.

“We had a grave problem in the mortgage and banking area,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.). “With the banks… we looked at the investments they were making in minority areas and then we graded them publicly… that exposure did a lot, I think.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) admitted the industry is “male-dominated” and championed the efforts to increase diversity in the financial technology sector.

“There are, of course, a lot of white males in the industry,” said Davidson. “It’s also encouraging to see the diverse folks that are involved.”

Source: TEST FEED1