Fighting Big Pharma

by: Shonda M. Ponder

Washington, D.C. - May 7, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- We can all agree that the cost of prescription medication is outrageous. When you can get admitted into the hospital and then find that the hospital charges you $100 for one Tylenol pill that you can buy at the store for $3.00 a bottle, there is a big problem. Something has to give somewhere.

So, we have prescription price gouging, prescription costs and prescription abuses as issues today.

I'm sure a lot of you have received a card in the mail for you to use when you go to Walmart to get your prescription filled. I'm not sure how that works, but the way I understand it is it's supposed to give you a discount of some sort. My question is, if Walmart can afford to give a card to all it's customers for a discount, then why can't Walmart just give the cheaper price, period? It doesn't make sense.

The only reason Walmart (or pick any store) is able to do things this way is because no one really pays attention, and everyone needs their prescriptions filled.

On May 1, 2019, Angie Craig's (D-MN, 2nd) bill, the CREATES Act, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. This bill would prohibit brand-name pharmaceutical companies’ current practice of blocking generic and biosimilar manufacturers from making more affordable, safe generic and biosimilar alternatives. The bill has strong bipartisan support and is backed by the AARP and Association for Accessible Medicines.

Capitalism and competition is what has made America great today. To have big pharmaceutical companies block the competition is to suppress freedom for innovation. If you don't like the competition, the proper move is to change your goal. The goal should not be to extort hard earned money from the people who support you unnecessarily. So, The Ponder supports Craig's effort.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on drug pricing, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) asked, "What if we gave the FTC the authority to look at that sort of patent thickets and decide whether there was a noncompetitive effect and provide an equitable remedy?”

“I think that would make perfect sense and that would deal with the problem here… This is an abuse of the system, and giving the FTC power to deal with it will be a great development," answered Michael Carrier, Professor Of Law at Rutgers Law School.

Giving the FTC more power, in The Ponder's view, however, only works depending on the administration. There needs to be a more stable, long-term solution.

While conservatives also are supporting a change in the high cost of prescription medication, liberal think tanks are taking action. An unprecedented and first-of-its-kind congressional score card will be the center of a new accountability push by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Social Security Works, and former Cigna Executive Wendell Potter’s Business Initiative for Health Policy — putting Big Pharma in the center of the 2020 debate. Swing state polling in key presidential states also shows voters support progressive drug-pricing policies and taking on Big Pharma. The Ponder can't wait to see which conservatives also take up the cause and how.

A Matter of Conscience

by: Shonda M. Ponder

New Boston, TX - May 5, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- On Thursday, May 2nd, President Trump announced a finalization of a rule on conscience protection in a statement during the National Day of Prayer. In his remarks, the president stated, “Just today, we finalized new protections of conscience rights for physicians, pharmacists, nurses, teachers, students, and faith-based charities. Together, we are building a culture that cherishes the dignity and worth of human life. Every child – born and unborn – is a sacred gift from God.”

The rule ensures that The Department of Health and Human Services implements the full set of tools appropriate for enforcing conscience protections passed by Congress. These federal laws protect providers, individuals, and other health care entities from having to provide, participate in, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for, services such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide.

The Conscience Protection Act has been introduced, on April 1, 2019, with 80 additional Members of Congress co-sponsoring the bill. The Conscience Protection Act would take the next step in protecting the rights of conscience for medical providers by guaranteeing a private right of action for individuals whose conscience rights have been violated, and supporting Americans in having freedom of religion and conscience in healthcare. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Senator James Lankford (R-OK) introduced one in the Senate as well.

On May 2, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced the issuance of the final conscience rule that protects individuals and health care entities from discrimination on the basis of their exercise of conscience in HHS-funded programs. Just as OCR enforces other civil rights, the rule implements full and robust enforcement of approximately 25 provisions passed by Congress protecting longstanding conscience rights in healthcare.

The final rule fulfills President Trump’s promise to promote and protect the fundamental and unalienable rights of conscience and religious liberty, a promise he made when he signed an executive order in May 2017 protecting religious liberty. In October 2017, the Department of Justice issued guidance encouraging other Departments, including HHS, to implement and enforce all relevant religious freedom laws.

As a result, in January 2018, following the launch of its new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, HHS announced the proposed conscience rule. OCR received over 242,000 public comments, and analyzed and carefully considered all comments submitted from the public on the proposed conscience regulation before finalizing it.

This final rule replaces a 2011 rule that has proven inadequate, and ensures that HHS implements the full set of tools appropriate for enforcing the conscience protections passed by Congress. These federal laws protect providers, individuals, and other health care entities from having to provide, participate in, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for, services such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide. It also includes conscience protections with respect to advance directives.

The final rule clarifies what covered entities need to do to comply with applicable conscience provisions and requires applicants for HHS federal financial assistance to provide assurances and certifications of compliance. The rule also specifies compliance obligations for covered entities, including cooperation with OCR, maintenance of records, reporting, and non-retaliation requirements.

“Finally, laws prohibiting government funded discrimination against conscience and religious freedom will be enforced like every other civil rights law.” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “This rule ensures that healthcare entities and professionals won’t be bullied out of the health care field because they decline to participate in actions that violate their conscience, including the taking of human life. Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in healthcare, it’s the law,” Severino concluded.

“I support President Trump in his remarks today and in his efforts to protect the conscience of Americans who provide health care. Just last month, I led 80 Members of Congress in introducing the Conscience Protection Act, H.R. 2014, which amends the Public Health Service Act to prevent any federal, state, or local government from penalizing or discriminating against a health care provider if the provider does not participate in highly controversial abortion practices. As a physician and lawmaker, I support conscience protection because I strongly believe that health care providers should not be forced to violate their conscience when providing care for patients, and I applaud President Trump and his administration in their efforts to support conscience protection for all Americans,” said Harris.

Doug Lamborn (R-CO, 5th) also expressed his approval, saying, "Our doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals should never be forced into performing actions that violate their conscience. Americans of faith are moved with compassion to enter the medical field, often serving the most vulnerable populations. I am proud that doctors and nurses of faith who seek to save lives, will never again be forced to end them."

Among the organizations that support the new rule is Alliance Defending Freedom. “One of the freedoms Americans have cherished most is the freedom to live according to their faith and conscience, free from government coercion. Unfortunately, ADF clients and other nurses, doctors, and health care providers have faced discrimination and even have lost their jobs because of their commitment to saving life. We commend the Trump administration and HHS for this commonsense rule that simply ensures longstanding federal conscience laws are enforced so that no American is forced to choose between violating their beliefs and serving those most in need. By ensuring that entities receiving federal funds do not violate health care entities’ and individuals’ freedom of conscience, this rule preserves diversity in the healthcare field and maintains respect for the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm," said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Kellie Fiedorek.

However, the rule addresses more than abortion. It also addresses transgender issues. This rule allows those in healthcare to refuse to assist is gender transformation services if their religion or conscience says it is wrong, as well as sterilization or assisted suicide.

ACLU calls it discrimination, saying, “Once again, this Administration shows itself to be determined to use religious liberty to harm communities it deems less worthy of equal treatment under the law. This rule threatens to prevent people from accessing critical medical care and may endanger people’s lives. Religious liberty is a fundamental right, but it doesn’t include the right to discriminate or harm others. Denying patients health care is not religious liberty. Discriminating against patients based on their gender or gender expression is not religious liberty. Medical standards, not religious belief, should guide medical care."

Rosie Phillips Davis, PhD, president of the American Psychological Association commented, “Health care providers’ religious- and conscience-based right to act according to their beliefs is already enshrined in law and needs not be expanded. This rule is likely to prevent access to reproductive health care and information, particularly for low-income and minority women, and could also prevent access to care and information for other populations, specifically lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and individuals living with HIV and AIDS. This so-called ‘conscience rule’ is flatly unconscionable.”

“Thanks to President Trump and HHS Secretary Alex Azar for overturning the Obamacare mandate that violated the religious faith and moral convictions of faith-based medical providers,” said Executive Director of the Faith and Family Coalition, Tim Head. “This new rule lifts a cloud of fear that has hung over people of faith for nearly a decade, and ensures that doctors, nurses, and other health providers will no longer be subjected to litigation, harassment, and persecution simply for expressing their religious beliefs.”

“The Conscience Rule fulfills President Trump’s promise from his 2017 Executive Order to promote and protect religious liberty for faith-based organizations to operate within the tenets of their faith without fear of government bureaucrats infringing upon their First Amendment rights,” added Head.

The National Organization of Women argue that "His conscience rule is morally bankrupt, legally indefensible and unconscionable for anyone who cares about the constitutional protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." NOW President Toni Van Pelt added that, "NOW supports a legal challenge to this blatantly political policy. We will work tirelessly to keep it from taking effect and continue to demand protection for women’s right to health care."

Opponents call the rule "discriminatory" and "dangerous." This is only true if the patient seeking these services do not have the option of choosing a healthcare provider, doctor or service from someone who does not find it offensive to perform. Judging from the number of services provided, and the success and funding of Planned Parenthood's reach, I don't think that is a problem.

Censorship on Gun Enthusiasts

by: Shonda M. Ponder

New Boston, Texas - May 4, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- There has been a lot of activity among haters of the 2nd Amendment lately. Those who claim they are there to protect and defend the Constitution seem to do everything they can to make sure that their constituents can't.

According to the Firearms Policy Coalition, Nevada is considering a dangerous gun law that will effect gun owners in the state.

AB 291 is a dangerous bill that will implement a statewide ban on rate of fire increasing devices and will also allow local governments to institute a patchwork of dangerous gun free zones. This bill has already passed through the Nevada Assembly, and is on its way to the Nevada Senate.

"If Nevada is to keep its right to bear arms then all Pro-freedom, pro-Second Amendment, Nevadans must fight to stop AB 291 in the Senate. They must make their voices heard and Take Action Today," says FPC.

In the meanwhile, The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearms industry trade association, commended Congress’s passage of the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act (H.R. 1222). The bipartisan legislation, sponsored by U.S. Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI, 3rd), Rob Bishop (R-UT, 1st) and Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA, 50th) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Companion legislation (S. 94) was previously passed by the Senate. The bill will return to the Senate for a legislative formality, but is expected to pass by unanimous consent as the bill language is identical, and be sent to President Donald Trump for enactment.

“This has been a key piece of legislation for NSSF to grow and sustain hunting and recreational target shooting that will additionally benefit wildlife conservation. We are deeply appreciative to our leaders on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of Capitol Hill for their perseverance and foresight to benefit state wildlife agencies, recreational target shooting and sustained wildlife conservation,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This is crucial legislation that will give state fish and game agencies more flexibility to use Pittman-Robertson excise taxes dollars raised from the sale of firearms and ammunition to enhance existing public shooting ranges and to build new ones to meet the growing need for additional places for target shooters to participate in their sport. Public shooting ranges provide hunters a place to sight in rifles and shotguns before hunting seasons, for people to take firearm safety and hunter education courses and, for recreational target shooters to enjoy their sport.”

All this comes in the wake of Google deciding to prohibit any advertising on its platforms that have to do with gun sales.

U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) and Congressman Greg Gianforte (R-Montana at Large) sent a letter to the CEO of Google, Mr. Sundar Pichai, demanding Google reverse its prohibition on hunting advertising.

Daines’ and Gianforte’s letter was in response to Montana’s Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) having its hunting advertisement rejected by Google. In Google’s response to RMEF, a Google employee claims the advertisement is considered “animal cruelty and deemed inappropriate to be shown on our network.”

After two hate crimes last week, one at a synagogue in Poway in California, and another at a school in Charlotte, North Carolina, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), while begging for Republicans to join her anti-2nd Amendment crusade, is proposing three pieces of legislation. An assault weapons ban, an extreme risk bill and a bill to raise the legal age to purchase assault weapons to 21, just 21 years old, which would match the existing age restriction for handguns. She claims to do this in remembrance of two Americans. Lori Gilbert-Kaye, a 60-year-old worshipping at Chabad Poway, who stepped in front of the gunman in the shooting to save others, including her rabbi, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein. The second is Riley Howell, a student at UNC Charlotte in class when the shooting broke out. He reportedly charged the gunman, pinning him down until officers arrived, very likely saving the lives of his fellow classmates and giving up his own in the process.

Feinstein failed to take into account that had either of those two heroes had a weapon for self defense, they likely would still be alive. This is what gun-free zones do, kill good guys.

Feinstein is also whining about Instagram users who have tried to buy or sell guns using the platform only to have their conversation blocked. Feinstein thinks there should be further action to censor gun enthusiasts. She and a few other Senators wrote a letter.

“…[D]espite Instagram’s ban of gun sales on its platforms, users are nonetheless able to facilitate firearm transactions by directing potential buyers to other methods of communication,” the senators wrote to Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “Unfortunately, it is not enough to simply ban such sales. Effective monitoring and the suspension of accounts in violation of these policies is essential.”

The letter was cosigned by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

That's it. Lets just get rid of all those who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights so the 2nd Amendment can go away peacefully is her line of thinking on this.

And then, finally, some Senators are considering the removal of the NRA's 501(c)(4) nonprofit status due to alleged "self dealing".

The 2nd Amendment is in danger. All it takes is for those who believe in it to keep quiet and remain complacent to let it slip away. Then, none of us will be safe from a potential (or otherwise) abusive government.

Is H.R. 9 Good for the U.S.? The Ponder takes a look....

by: Shonda M. Ponder

Washington, D.C. - May 3, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- On May 2, the House of Representatives voted on H.R. 9, Climate Action Now, a bill that would require the Trump Administration to remain in the Paris Climate Accord, establish new goals to reduce emissions and develop a plan for how the United States will meet these goals to "protect" our environment. This bill calls on the President to develop and make public a serious plan for how the United States will meet commitments to reduce pollution and remain a leader in green technology and the creation of good-paying clean energy jobs. The Paris agreement was unilaterally accepted under President Obama. H.R. 9 prohibits the use of any federal funds to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. The Bill passed by a vote of 231 to 190.

Two amendments were accepted into the final bill package. The first amendment offered by Norma Torres (D-CA, 35th) would prevent the President from using this plan to prevent states, like California, that want to set more ambitious goals to address greenhouse gas emissions. The second amendment offered by Adrianno Espaillat (D-NY, 13th) would include in the findings section that the Paris Agreement addresses the importance of climate justice, especially in relation to human rights, where communities of color are disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards and environmental health burdens.

“Texas is a leader in wind energy; we know that we can reduce our emissions and create good-paying jobs in the process,” said Allred. “It's imperative the United States join the rest of the world in addressing the climate crisis. Meeting the conditions of the Paris Agreement will help bolster our clean energy sector by working toward a healthier planet for future generations. It’s time we rise to the occasion and act," said Colin Allred (D-TX, 32).

Jodey Arrington (R-TX, 19th) is no fan of the Paris Climate Accord.

“The Paris Agreement was fundamentally flawed. It would have forced us to spend billions to subsidize the biggest polluters like India and give Russia and China a pass until 2030. Worst of all, it would have cost America hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of jobs, undermining our economic growth and penalizing the American people.

“The Paris Agreement was little more than political window dressing, but its negative effects on our economy would have been real: higher energy costs for our working families and a big wet blanket over our growing economy. Meanwhile, the United States leads the world in reducing carbon emissions – more than China and the EU combined.

“We can and must balance environmental stewardship, economic growth and energy independence if we are to maintain American environmental and economic prosperity. HR 9 would force our President to agree to a bad deal that would achieve none of the above, and I strongly oppose it," Arrington explains.

“The Paris agreement unwisely tied the hands of American economic growth while allowing the world’s largest emitters of pollution to continue unabated until at least 2030,” said Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO, 4th) who noted China’s role as the world’s largest polluter, accounting for more than half the planet’s carbon pollutants in 2017. “The Chinese government would love for the United States to adhere to this agreement which could cost the American economy over $250 billion dollars and a loss of 2.7 million jobs within the next ten years,” added Hartzler.

Jim Costa (D-CA, 16th) argues against the statement that jobs will be hurt and not created. He says, "My amendment does just that by helping create a clean energy economy that provides good-paying 21st century jobs for millions of Americans."

John R. Curtis (R-UT, 3rd) argued that, “Twice, I offered a good-faith amendment that would bring transparency to the emissions produced by all countries in the agreement, including foreign heavy polluters like China—both times it was shot down on a partisan basis. I want to ensure our efforts actually improve the environment, avoid damaging our economy, and are based on facts, not politics.”

Curtis's proposed amendment to HR 9 was voted down during the “Foreign Assistance Budget and Policy Priorities” House Foreign Affairs hearing last month. Only 3 Republican amendments were considered compared to the 26 Democrat amendments that were debated.

Rep. Curtis spoke on the House floor to outline his concerns about the costs and effectiveness of the legislation, the potential job losses in rural America, the United States innovation and technological development that have resulted in the US already leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas, and his frustration that China—the earth’s largest greenhouse gas polluter—is shown leniency.

After passing the bill, Don Beyer (D-VA, 8th) and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA, 47th) made a joint statement, in which they said, “The climate crisis is a public health issue. It is an economic issue. It is a national security issue. It is a civil rights issue. We are proud to pass the first bill in a decade to do something about it, and we expect to follow the Climate Action Now Act with further legislation.”

Brendan Boyle (D-PA, 2nd) commented on an amendment to the Bill, saying, "My amendment stands for the American leaderships that was displayed throughout the development of the Paris Agreement under the Obama Administration. The Paris Agreement, for the first time, brought all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects. The Agreement chartered a new course in the global climate effort. It essential that we retain our commitment to the Agreement.”

According to Kevin Brady (R-TX, 8th), however, “The potential fallout from the Paris Agreement is devastating – slashing the U.S. economy by $2.5 trillion, costing nearly 400,000 jobs, and drastically increasing electricity costs for the average family. By refusing to allow President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, Democrats are stifling domestic innovation and raising the cost of living for hardworking Americans. "

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA, 11th) proposed an amendment that requires the Administration to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to produce a report on the impacts of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement on U.S. workers and U.S. global economic competitiveness. The amendment was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mo Brooks (R-AL, 5th) was concerned that the bill would hurt America and helps competitor nations. "In particular, the Paris Climate Accord calls for America to give away tens of billions of dollars to other countries.[1] That’s tens of billions of dollars America does not have, has to borrow to get, and cannot afford to pay back.[2] What’s worse, pollution controls are costly," he said continuing with, “Worse yet, the Paris Climate Accord, unfairly holds America to stricter standards than the world’s worst polluters. For example, China and India, two horrific polluters, have no new air pollution control obligations until 2030, at the earliest! Contrast the abysmal environmental record of China and India with that of America! America’s carbon dioxide emissions are being cut. Between 2005 and 2017, America’s carbon dioxide emissions fell by 12.4% on an absolute basis and by 19.9% on a per capita basis![4] America did our pollution control part WITHOUT the Paris Climate Accord!”

Brooks concluded, “Finally, the economics of the Paris Climate Accord increases worldwide pollution by forcing very good pollution control plants in America to close and be replaced by plants in other countries that allow much worse pollution than we would ever allow in America. In sum, the Paris Climate Accord decreases the standard of living for Americans while increasing worldwide pollution levels. That is bad for America and worse for Mother Earth.”

Larry Bucshon (R-IN, 8th) slammed the bill, saying, "Democrats are using climate change as a political tool to strengthen Washington’s control of the economy and consumer choice, without any guarantees of actually reducing emissions, which is why I cannot support this legislation."

Bucshon claims that the bill increases energy prices for ratepayers, and burdens small businesses with regulations while giving a free pass to the world’s largest polluters, such as China, Russia, and India. He stated his solution to the problem by saying, "The right way to tackle climate change policy is by continuing to remove barriers to innovation, incentivizing more clean energy, and putting forth realistic, free-market solutions driven by the American consumer – a proven approach that has already resulted in significant emissions reductions in the United States.”

President Obama formally accepted the Paris Agreement, under the United Nations climate change treaty, in late August 2016. President Trump announced less than ten months later, in June 2017, that the United States would withdraw—following the terms of the agreement.

The United States is leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to innovation and technological development, by showing a decline in carbon emissions in 7 of the past 10 years. As stated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in their Global Energy & CO2 Status Report:

“In the United States, the emission reductions seen in 2017 were reversed, with an increase of 3.1% in CO2 emissions in 2018. Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remain around their 1990 levels, 14% and 800 Mt of CO2 below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000."

The Climate Action Tracker, a European consortium of research organizations, found that the participating nations’ commitments will not meet the temperature goals in the Paris Agreement.

The European Climate Action Network, another think tank, reported last summer that all European Union countries are off target: No single country in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet Paris Agreement goals. And those that have been making the most progress on their promises, did not make large commitments in the first place.

At the same time, we have the United Nations Emissions Gap Report, released in November 2018, which assessed the situation and reported that all these countries will have to at least triple their efforts to meet the Paris Agreement’s basic goals—if not increase their goals five-fold to meet more stringent temperature targets, regardless of the economic impacts.

These facts seem contradictory to the statement that Sean Casten (D-IL, 6th) made of Trump's withdrawel from the accord, saying, "It is economically foolish. It is economically naïve and it cedes leadership to China and others on the defining challenge of our time. That is foolhardy."

“The environment in the United States isn’t getting dramatically worse as those on the other side claim. We are increasing economic growth while simultaneously reducing emissions, a feat accomplished by free-market innovation and technological advances. We shouldn’t tie the hands of American innovators to an accord that puts other nations first and punishes the United States," says Jeff Duncan (R-SC, 3rd).

Adrianno Espaillat (D-NY, 13th) implied that climate change was racist, saying, “Communities of color are disproportionately impacted by climate change, yet are the least responsible for contributing factors and stand to lose the most if we fail to address climate change in ways that present real comprehensive solutions."

Apparently, not all the Republicans felt the same way as Bucshon and Arrington. Kathy Castor (D-FL, 14th) was appreciative of those that voted in favor of the bill, stating, "I’m thankful for the Republican members who embraced bipartisanship today and voted in favor of this bill."

Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming at large) called the bill a "sham", saying the bill would "dictate what people can buy, how they can travel, what they can eat, and how they can make a living."

Passage of the Climate Action Now Act follows the establishment of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which was created on January 9, 2019. The Select Committee is tasked with developing creative, effective solutions to prevent and reverse the climate crisis while providing strong, urgently-needed oversight and investigatory actions.

The bill will now be referred to the Senate.

Transportation and Freight Infrastructure

Today's News from the Lawmakers

AFP: Tax Hikes are the Wrong Way to Fund Roads and Bridges
Source: Americans for Prosperity
May 1, 2019
“If Congress wants to find money to modernize our roads and bridges, we encourage them to look to their own pockets – Americans have been filling them up for years. Instead of proposing a $2 trillion catch-all ‘infrastructure’ bill and asking hard-working Americans to fund it by paying more at the pump, Washington lawmakers should cut the red tape and stop wasting the tax dollars we give them.”

Read more...

Congresswoman Schakowsky To Amtrak, Trump: Invest In Our Rail Infrastructure and Employees
Source: Jan Schakowsky (D-IL, 9th)
May 1, 2019
“Rail service has a long history of spurring innovation and growth in our great nation. And once again, it has a potential to spur commerce and expansion. Instead of seizing on that opportunity, Amtrak executives and the Trump Administration are seeking drastic cuts that eliminate jobs and set the stage for even more reduction in rail service. And the rail service that does remain will see a drastic loss in quality, with the elimination of food service and even replacing some segments with bus service. President Trump promised to invest $1 trillion in our nation’s infrastructure, and yet every budget he has proposed has actually cut Federal infrastructure spending. We need robust, long-term investment in our rail systems, both for the Chicago area and our nation,” said Congresswoman Schakowsky.

Read more...

Chemical Distributors Advocate for Transportation Policy and Continued Chemical Facility Security Measures on Capitol Hill
Source: The Ponder News
May 1, 2019
More than 90 members of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) are meeting with Congressional representatives and regulatory officials today in Washington, D.C. Chemical distributors—who process, formulate, blend, re-package, warehouse, transport, and market chemical products that are essential to our daily lives—will advocate for legislation addressing the nation's truck driver shortage, for a fully-operational U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) to usher in needed freight rail reform, and for reauthorization of a critical anti-terrorism program that keeps our nation secure.

Read more...

Chemical Distributors Advocate for Transportation Policy and Continued Chemical Facility Security Measures on Capitol Hill

by: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)

Arlington, VA - May 1, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- More than 90 members of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) are meeting with Congressional representatives and regulatory officials today in Washington, D.C. Chemical distributors—who process, formulate, blend, re-package, warehouse, transport, and market chemical products that are essential to our daily lives—will advocate for legislation addressing the nation's truck driver shortage, for a fully-operational U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) to usher in needed freight rail reform, and for reauthorization of a critical anti-terrorism program that keeps our nation secure.

"In passing the Developing Responsible Individuals for a Vibrant Economy Act (DRIVE-Safe Act), Congress would be a step closer to solving the growing truck driver shortage by expanding the age for interstate drivers to 18 years old," said NACD President Eric R. Byer. "Recent estimates indicate motor carriers are lacking 50,000 truck drivers—a number only expected to increase. In 2017, chemical distributor fleets and their third-party logistics partners traveled over 415 million miles delivering products. Across the board, industries and consumers are feeling the crunch of rising truck freight costs. It's crucial that Congress takes action."

During their time on Capitol Hill, NACD members will connect with policy makers and influencers on issues impacting chemical distributors across the country. Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN), original co-sponsor of the DRIVE-Safe Act in the U.S. House of Representatives, will provide insights on the legislative playing field. The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter will also share her analysis on upcoming trends shaping policy issues.

In addition to advocating for the DRIVE-Safe Act and its two-step apprenticeship program that would give younger drivers a chance to enter the industry safely while keeping freight moving, NACD members will also revisit the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), the program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to identify and regulate high-risk chemical facilities to protect against security threats. Though CFATS was successfully renewed through April 18, 2020, the program still needs a multi-year reauthorization to allow the industry to make long-term facility investments to safeguard the nation's chemical security.

Finally, attendees will continue to advocate for a full, five-member STB. As one of the only agencies with federal oversight of freight rail, NACD members will encourage Congress to nominate and confirm STB members who will make decisions based on economic realities and founded on free market solutions.

NACD members will also have the opportunity to sit down with regulators to explain how their small businesses are impacted by federal regulations, from environmental policy to trade concerns to the truck driver shortage. They will meet with Alexandra Dunn of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brenda Smith of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Ray Martinez of the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Auction of firearms for noted outdoorsman's estate draws over 1,000 bidders

by: Schrader Real Estate and Auction Company

Columbia City, IN - May 1, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- For decades, Dwight "Boob" Goble was widely known as a legendary marksman, trapshooter and collector of fine firearms. So when Schrader Real Estate and Auction Company offered more than 375 firearms from the Goble estate's collection, the response was beyond enthusiastic.

"Mr. Goble, who died in January, was well known and loved among shooters, outdoorsmen and collectors throughout the area, and we had a huge inventory, including rare guns and vintage ammunition, with more than 1,000 bidders in all for each of the two days," said Schrader agent Phil Wolfe, who managed the event near Columbia City.

"We had 765 registered bidders online for the simulcast bidding, and the online bidders purchased 38 percent of the inventory. We had buyers in at least 25 different states, as well as one in Netherlands, who bought a Winchester 1890 12-gauge pump. Everything sold, and believe it or not, there is a lot more to come as we continue to take this collection to auction," said Wolfe.

One highlight didn't even involve the sale of a firearm, but rather a rare Daisy BB gun. "A double barrel Daisy with the original box went for $800, which is just remarkable. We also had a very rare 4-gauge shotgun, and others from L.C. Smith, Parker Brothers and others," said Wolfe.

Mental Health

Today's News from the Lawmakers

CCHR Condemns FDA's Approval of Electricity-Zapping for 'ADHD' Kids
Source: The Ponder News
May 1, 2019
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a device to zap a low-level electrical pulse through the forehead of 7-12 year olds as treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).[1] But the mental health watchdog, Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), says with concern that some psychiatrists have now turned to the FDA to approve a device that "electro-shocks children into docility."

Read more...

FDA permits marketing of first medical device for treatment of ADHD
Source: The Ponder News
April 22, 2019
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has permitted marketing of the first medical device to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The prescription-only device, called the Monarch external Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation (eTNS) System, is indicated for patients ages 7 to12 years old who are not currently taking prescription ADHD medication and is the first non-drug treatment for ADHD granted marketing authorization by the FDA.

Read more...

CCHR Condemns FDA's Approval of Electricity-Zapping for 'ADHD' Kids

by: Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Los Angeles, CA - May 1, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a device to zap a low-level electrical pulse through the forehead of 7-12 year olds as treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).[1] But the mental health watchdog, Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), says with concern that some psychiatrists have now turned to the FDA to approve a device that "electro-shocks children into docility."

The Monarch eTNS System device costs around $1,000, according to CNN. A patch placed on the forehead uses a 9-volt lithium battery stimulation that creates a "tingling sensation" on the skin between the eyebrows.[2] Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International says, "With no FDA regulation of psychiatry,[3] this latest practice of zapping a lack of focus could send a wrong message to children. There are psychiatrists that would have them believe that electricity pulsing through their brain while they sleep may help control impulsive behavior." And pediatric neurologist, Dr. Fred Baughman advises parents that there is no proof that "ADHD" behavior has a medical or neurobiological cause.[4]

Recently, the FDA also cleared the usage of electroshock treatment—up to 460 volts of electricity through the brain—for adolescents aged 13 and above with "bipolar" disorder.[5] Yet according to the FD&C Act, the "FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine."[6] As such, "How psychiatrists administer electroshock is a free-for-all license for potentially committing 'mental euthanasia' on anyone they please, including children," Eastgate adds. She called on people to sign CCHR's petition to ban ECT

Freedom of Information requests CCHR filed in seven U.S. states reveal that psychiatrists are electroshocking kids aged five and younger.[7]

It is common for psychiatrists to say they don't know how ECT "works." In a petition to the FDA Commissioner in 2016, Constitutional attorney, Jonathon Emord noted, "How ECT 'works' and even if it works is highly disputed."[8]

Nor are there clinical studies proving safety and efficacy of ECT devices, Emord says.[9] Likewise, the exact mechanism of the Monarch eTNS System and its long term effects is unknown.[10]

As Forbes pointed out: "There are nearly a dozen neurostimulation devices on the market that claim to improve cognitive function by allowing you to zap your brain with a small electrical current. But just because you can now do this at home doesn't mean it's a good idea. ECT uses electrical current in the range of 600-1000 milliamps.... But you're welcome to zap your brain with a much lighter touch of roughly 1-2 milliamps from the comfort of your couch for anywhere between $99 and $800 dollars. That is, if you don't mind leaving the state of your brain up to chance."[11]

The marketing hype fed parents for this new device is likely to go something like this, Eastgate says: The "zapping" ADHD device is a "noninvasive treatment" and less risky than cocaine-like amphetamines or stimulants currently prescribed to treat "ADHD." This avoids drug side effects like anorexia, poor growth and cardiovascular problems.[12]

Jessica Baron, writing in Forbes noted, "While it's true that the [neurostimulation] electrodes don't penetrate your head, they must produce enough current to reach the brain in order to have any effect at all. Calling these products 'noninvasive' is merely a marketing technique and a misleading one if you ask me."[13]

Researchers do not understand the effects of long-term use of brain stimulation, but say that no brain region exists in isolation. Modulating one brain area may impact on other areas.[14]

Nick J. Davis Ph.D. from the Department of Psychology, Swansea University in the UK, explains that because the brain continues to develop until the age of 20, stimulation in children and adolescents would have a stronger impact.[15]

Davis said there is evidence that enhancing one aspect of cognition may be detrimental to other cognitive faculties. "There is also the worrying possibility that electrical stimulation of the skull may induce or inhibit bone growth, an issue of particular importance in children whose cranial bones are not yet fused. This latter possibility has not been explored in human volunteers in brain stimulation experiments," Davis wrote in 2014.[16]

Davis pleaded for "calm and caution" when opting for stimulation device use in children because serious effects of transcranial stimulation include seizure, mood changes or induction of hyper- or hypo-mania.

It's a "calm and caution" the FDA ignores, Eastgate alleges. The studies of the current ADHD device have been small—about 60 children, using the device or a placebo each night for four weeks only. [17] However, Carlos Peña, Ph.D., Director, Division of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said: "This new device offers a safe, non-drug option for treatment of ADHD in pediatric patients."[18]

Dr. Peña also said that the FDA's Final Order on the ECT device classification provides information on its "safe and effective use" of ECT devices.[19]

Yet he was part of an FDA hearing in 2014 investigating the practice of aversive conditioning electrical devices to modify undesirable behavior.[20] In that case, the FDA recommended the device be banned, saying it subjected residents at the Judge Rotenberg Center in Massachusetts to "an unreasonable and substantial risk to public health."[21] For almost three decades the Center has been zapping its special-needs residents with a custom-designed electric shock machine that delivers charges of up to 41 milliamps—10 times the amperage used in most stun guns—to their legs, arms, hands, feet, fingers or torsos via electrodes on the skin.[22] In 2013, Juan Mendez, the UN's former special rapporteur on torture, concluded that the rights of students "subjected to electric shocks and physical means of restraints have been violated under the UN convention against torture."[23]

CCHR says ongoing dangerous decisions by the FDA warrant a Congressional investigation into children and others potentially being put at substantial health and mental risk.

“We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there is no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction.”— National Institute of Health (NIH) Consensus Statement

Budget

Today's News about Budget Issues

'The American people have to live within their means, so should the leaders of our nation'
Source: Chip Roy (R-TX, 21st)
April 29, 2019
Only in Washington is it considered appropriate to endlessly lift one’s borrowing limit without even a hint of shame or a plan to stop it. We should not raise the debt ceiling without a deal to spend less than the current caps and put us on a path to a balanced budget.

Read more...