Washington, D.C. - December 3, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) voted Friday for the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2943), which boosts support for America’s military, enhances national defense capabilities and provides the biggest pay raise for U.S. service members in six years. The bill authorizes the $619 billion in funding necessary to restore adequate readiness for our armed forces, protect our homeland from rapidly evolving threats and provide our troops with the resources they need to be successful.
“The Constitution demands that the federal government prioritize our national security, and the legislation we’ve passed today does just that. In America, we’re blessed with so many freedoms thanks our brave men and women in uniform. We must always ensure they’re equipped with the best training and defense capabilities in the world, and that they receive the pay they rightfully deserve for their selfless service to our country,” Ratcliffe said.
The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act includes the following notable provisions:
• Increases pay for service members by 2.1 percent and bars the president from blocking this raise
• Prevents Guantanamo Bay detainee transfers to the United States.
• Combats terrorism and radical Islamist extremists
• Reverses the drawdown on troop numbers
• Strengthens support for Israel with funds for Israeli cooperative missile defense including the Iron Dome
• Prioritizes cyber defense capabilities
Ratcliffe also praised the bill’s exclusion of any authorization for another round of base realignment and closure (BRAC) at the Red River Army Depot in Texarkana. This is consistent with his own amendment passed in the House earlier this year to prevent funds from going to BRAC, and it protects more than 5,000 jobs in the region that provide critical readiness capabilities to the Army.
The Unpopular Truth
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Rangel Applauds Passage of House Bill Encouraging Reunions for Divided Families
Washington, D.C. - December 3, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) praised the passage of H.Con.Res.40, a resolution that encourages North Korea to allow Korean Americans to meet with their family members from North Korea and calls on North Korea to take concrete steps to build goodwill that is conducive to peace on the Korean Peninsula. Introduced by Rep. Rangel with House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), the bill passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday, November 29, 2016, by a voice vote.
“More than anything else, Congress is saying today that let the people God created of the same blood, same background, same culture – let them meet. Rangel said. “This resolution lays the foundation for divided family members to meet their loved ones whom they have not been able to see for over six decades,” I could never imagine being unable to see my brother or daughter for that length of time. These Americans have every right to see their loved ones and it is our duty to help them by encouraging reunions.”
Rangel first introduced this resolution as H.Con.Res.91 in February 2014. To further raise awareness on the issue, he hosted a screening of the documentary “The Divided Families Film” at the Capitol Visitors Center about Korean Americans' search for lost relatives in North Korea.
The Korean War, which broke out on June 25, 1950, separated more than 10 million families, including some 100,000 Korean Americans. Since the first historic Korean summit in 2000, around 20 rounds of brief reunions between South and North Korean family members have taken place along the border. Unfortunately, Korean Americans impacted by the war have never been provided the same opportunity and their numbers are declining significantly.
“Despite North Korea’s provocations, the United States must remain firmly committed to the humanitarian aspects of family reunions. I am pleased to see this resolution pass before I leave office. I would also like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Chairman Ed Royce, who championed this resolution with me, as well as Divided Families USA, Council of Korean Americans, Korean American Coalition, and KAAGNY among many Korean American organizations and leaders who advocated for its passage,” Rangel added.
The resolution will now go to the Senate for approval, where it has bipartisan support from Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Mark Warner (D-VA. Once passed, separated Korean American families will be one step closer to meeting their long-lost relatives in North Korea. H.Con.Res.40 is one of the final pieces of legislation sponsored by Rangel to pass the House during his 46-year career.
“More than anything else, Congress is saying today that let the people God created of the same blood, same background, same culture – let them meet. Rangel said. “This resolution lays the foundation for divided family members to meet their loved ones whom they have not been able to see for over six decades,” I could never imagine being unable to see my brother or daughter for that length of time. These Americans have every right to see their loved ones and it is our duty to help them by encouraging reunions.”
Rangel first introduced this resolution as H.Con.Res.91 in February 2014. To further raise awareness on the issue, he hosted a screening of the documentary “The Divided Families Film” at the Capitol Visitors Center about Korean Americans' search for lost relatives in North Korea.
The Korean War, which broke out on June 25, 1950, separated more than 10 million families, including some 100,000 Korean Americans. Since the first historic Korean summit in 2000, around 20 rounds of brief reunions between South and North Korean family members have taken place along the border. Unfortunately, Korean Americans impacted by the war have never been provided the same opportunity and their numbers are declining significantly.
“Despite North Korea’s provocations, the United States must remain firmly committed to the humanitarian aspects of family reunions. I am pleased to see this resolution pass before I leave office. I would also like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Chairman Ed Royce, who championed this resolution with me, as well as Divided Families USA, Council of Korean Americans, Korean American Coalition, and KAAGNY among many Korean American organizations and leaders who advocated for its passage,” Rangel added.
The resolution will now go to the Senate for approval, where it has bipartisan support from Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Mark Warner (D-VA. Once passed, separated Korean American families will be one step closer to meeting their long-lost relatives in North Korea. H.Con.Res.40 is one of the final pieces of legislation sponsored by Rangel to pass the House during his 46-year career.
HOUSE PASSES MADE-IN-USA LEGISLATION CHAMPIONED BY REP. POLIQUIN, PROTECTING HUNDREDS OF MAINE JOBS
Washington, D.C. - December 3, 2016 (The Ponder News) --In a milestone victory for hundreds of Maine manufacturing jobs—after a hard-fought, months-long battle—the U.S. House of Representatives passed the final version of the NDAA that includes critical language pushed forward by Congressman Bruce Poliquin (ME-02) to ensure the Department of Defense (DOD) follows the law and issues American-made athletic shoes to its new recruits.
Congressman Poliquin, who wore his own red, white and blue, 100% American-made New Balance athletic shoes down to the House floor to cast his vote, released the following statement:
“This is a milestone victory for our Great State of Maine, for our families, and for 900 of the hardest working folks in the world,” said Congressman Poliquin. “This is a win that Mainers have long been waiting for. After a months-long and hard fought battle, I am absolutely thrilled that today we have finally pushed this monumental language through the House. I’m not going to let up an inch until we get this to the President’s desk, signed into law and fully implemented.”
“New Balance is proud to be the only major company that still makes athletic footwear in the United States. We are grateful that the U.S. House and Senate has again agreed that our military’s domestic purchasing requirements as stated by law need to be followed. On behalf of the hundreds of men and women in our five New England shoe factories, we want to thank Representative Poliquin for his tireless advocacy in serving the state of Maine,” said Rob DeMartini, President and CEO, New Balance.
For the past several months, Congressman Poliquin has resiliently advocated and taken strong legislative action to push the DOD to comply with the Berry Amendment, the provision which requires the Pentagon to use American-made products for recruits whenever possible.
Now, the NDAA will go to the Senate for a final vote. If passed, it will go to the President’s desk to be signed into law.
This final provision, which was maintained in the NDAA during the conference committee between the House and Senate due to strong support from Senators Susan Collins and Angus King and Congressman Poliquin, mandates that the DOD consider athletic footwear issued to military recruits as subject to the Berry Amendment, requiring the Department to treat athletic footwear like other uniform items.
The Berry Amendment is a provision in law that requires the DOD to use American-made products for new recruits whenever possible. However, since 2002 the DOD has circumvented this policy by issuing cash allowances to new recruits for training shoes, which are not required to be American-made or Berry Amendment-compliant. In 2014, the DOD agreed to change its policy and close this footwear loophole. Despite that announcement, more than two years later, the DOD has yet to actually implement it and rectify this fundamental inequity in the application of the Berry Amendment.
Timeline of Progress:
March 2016: Rep. Poliquin testifies in front of the House Armed Services Committee supporting the use of quality American products for our Military Men and Women
April 2016: Rep. Poliquin successfully pushes language to be added to the Defense bill to enforce the Berry Amendment
May 2016: Rep. Poliquin’s Language in NDAA Passes House in Landmark Victory for Hundreds of Maine Jobs
June 2016: The Senate passes their version of the NDAA with the crucial language included
June 2016: Rep. Poliquin successfully urges hundreds of his colleagues on the House Floor to vote down an amendment that would have stripped Made-in-America language
September-November 2016: The House and the Senate go to conference to hash out the differences in the two chambers’ versions of the NDAA
November 2016: The final version of NDAA—including the crucial Made-in-America language—is released and set to be voted on
December 2, 2016: The House passes the final version of the NDAA with the language included
Congressman Poliquin, who wore his own red, white and blue, 100% American-made New Balance athletic shoes down to the House floor to cast his vote, released the following statement:
“This is a milestone victory for our Great State of Maine, for our families, and for 900 of the hardest working folks in the world,” said Congressman Poliquin. “This is a win that Mainers have long been waiting for. After a months-long and hard fought battle, I am absolutely thrilled that today we have finally pushed this monumental language through the House. I’m not going to let up an inch until we get this to the President’s desk, signed into law and fully implemented.”
“New Balance is proud to be the only major company that still makes athletic footwear in the United States. We are grateful that the U.S. House and Senate has again agreed that our military’s domestic purchasing requirements as stated by law need to be followed. On behalf of the hundreds of men and women in our five New England shoe factories, we want to thank Representative Poliquin for his tireless advocacy in serving the state of Maine,” said Rob DeMartini, President and CEO, New Balance.
For the past several months, Congressman Poliquin has resiliently advocated and taken strong legislative action to push the DOD to comply with the Berry Amendment, the provision which requires the Pentagon to use American-made products for recruits whenever possible.
Now, the NDAA will go to the Senate for a final vote. If passed, it will go to the President’s desk to be signed into law.
This final provision, which was maintained in the NDAA during the conference committee between the House and Senate due to strong support from Senators Susan Collins and Angus King and Congressman Poliquin, mandates that the DOD consider athletic footwear issued to military recruits as subject to the Berry Amendment, requiring the Department to treat athletic footwear like other uniform items.
The Berry Amendment is a provision in law that requires the DOD to use American-made products for new recruits whenever possible. However, since 2002 the DOD has circumvented this policy by issuing cash allowances to new recruits for training shoes, which are not required to be American-made or Berry Amendment-compliant. In 2014, the DOD agreed to change its policy and close this footwear loophole. Despite that announcement, more than two years later, the DOD has yet to actually implement it and rectify this fundamental inequity in the application of the Berry Amendment.
Timeline of Progress:
March 2016: Rep. Poliquin testifies in front of the House Armed Services Committee supporting the use of quality American products for our Military Men and Women
April 2016: Rep. Poliquin successfully pushes language to be added to the Defense bill to enforce the Berry Amendment
May 2016: Rep. Poliquin’s Language in NDAA Passes House in Landmark Victory for Hundreds of Maine Jobs
June 2016: The Senate passes their version of the NDAA with the crucial language included
June 2016: Rep. Poliquin successfully urges hundreds of his colleagues on the House Floor to vote down an amendment that would have stripped Made-in-America language
September-November 2016: The House and the Senate go to conference to hash out the differences in the two chambers’ versions of the NDAA
November 2016: The final version of NDAA—including the crucial Made-in-America language—is released and set to be voted on
December 2, 2016: The House passes the final version of the NDAA with the language included
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Sessions Nominated to AG
Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) offered the following statement:
“Today President-elect Trump made an excellent choice for United States Attorney General by nominating Senator Jeff Sessions to serve our nation in his Administration,” said Palmer. “As a former U.S. Attorney in Mobile and Alabama’s Attorney General, as well as a United States Senator, Senator Sessions defended the Constitution and held firm to our founding principles. Over the past 20 years, Senator Sessions has proven himself to be an intelligent, trustworthy conservative in the Senate becoming a voice for millions of Americans who felt ignored by Washington. His track record of success and sound decisions make him the best possible candidate for the job. I truly believe that Senator Sessions is the right man to restore the public's confidence in our justice system.”
“Today President-elect Trump made an excellent choice for United States Attorney General by nominating Senator Jeff Sessions to serve our nation in his Administration,” said Palmer. “As a former U.S. Attorney in Mobile and Alabama’s Attorney General, as well as a United States Senator, Senator Sessions defended the Constitution and held firm to our founding principles. Over the past 20 years, Senator Sessions has proven himself to be an intelligent, trustworthy conservative in the Senate becoming a voice for millions of Americans who felt ignored by Washington. His track record of success and sound decisions make him the best possible candidate for the job. I truly believe that Senator Sessions is the right man to restore the public's confidence in our justice system.”
Pallone Introduces Legislation to Hold Big Oil Accountable for Dangerous Spills
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Frank Pallone (NJ-06) introduced two pieces of legislation to eliminate liability caps for the oil and gas industry and increase accountability for big oil companies responsible for disastrous spills. Federal law currently protects oil companies by capping their oil spill liability for economic damages at $134 million—an amount that pales in comparison to the more than $90 billion in profits the five largest oil companies enjoyed in 2014, and is easily surpassed by an oil spill as shown by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The legislation includes:
• Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2016, which eliminates the $134 million liability cap for economic damages caused by an offshore oil spill
• Big Oil Bailout Prevention Trust Fund Act of 2016 – eliminates the $1 billion per-incident cap on claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), along with the $500 million cap on OSLTF monies used for natural resource damages
“Spills by oil companies do irreparable harm to our environment, the health of wildlife and the livelihood of thousands,” said Pallone. “American taxpayers and local communities should not have to pay for the mistakes of large oil companies and left to rebuild on their own. Big Oil must take responsibility for their actions and my legislation will help ensure that they are held accountable.”
In July 2016, U.S. Sens. Bob Menendez and Cory Booker introduced companion versions of the bills in the Senate.
“Under this legislation: If you drill and you spill, then you must pay the bill. If you hurt small businesses or communities, you fix them. If you hurt someone, you make it right,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, a senior member of the Senate Banking and Finance Committees, and who introduced the Senate version of the legislation. “It is fundamentally wrong for American taxpayers and local communities to pay for the mistakes of large oil companies, who take advantage of government bailouts to avoid accountability, and bear the burden of cleaning up the environmental disasters they’ve caused. By removing the arbitrary cap on big oil companies’ liabilities, we can ensure those companies do the right thing by the American people when accidents happen.”
That current cap means an oil company responsible for a spill does not have to pay more than $134 million for economic damages, such as lost business revenues from fishing or tourism or lost tax revenues of state and local governments, unless, as in the case of BP and the Deepwater Horizon spill, the oil company was found to be grossly negligent or to violate federal law. Current law requires an oil company responsible for a spill to pay for all costs—without limit—related to mitigating or cleaning up the spill including the use of booms, cleaning up spills, rehabilitating wildlife, and skimming for oil, but arbitrarily imposes the $134 million cap on economic damages.
The legislation includes:
• Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2016, which eliminates the $134 million liability cap for economic damages caused by an offshore oil spill
• Big Oil Bailout Prevention Trust Fund Act of 2016 – eliminates the $1 billion per-incident cap on claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), along with the $500 million cap on OSLTF monies used for natural resource damages
“Spills by oil companies do irreparable harm to our environment, the health of wildlife and the livelihood of thousands,” said Pallone. “American taxpayers and local communities should not have to pay for the mistakes of large oil companies and left to rebuild on their own. Big Oil must take responsibility for their actions and my legislation will help ensure that they are held accountable.”
In July 2016, U.S. Sens. Bob Menendez and Cory Booker introduced companion versions of the bills in the Senate.
“Under this legislation: If you drill and you spill, then you must pay the bill. If you hurt small businesses or communities, you fix them. If you hurt someone, you make it right,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, a senior member of the Senate Banking and Finance Committees, and who introduced the Senate version of the legislation. “It is fundamentally wrong for American taxpayers and local communities to pay for the mistakes of large oil companies, who take advantage of government bailouts to avoid accountability, and bear the burden of cleaning up the environmental disasters they’ve caused. By removing the arbitrary cap on big oil companies’ liabilities, we can ensure those companies do the right thing by the American people when accidents happen.”
That current cap means an oil company responsible for a spill does not have to pay more than $134 million for economic damages, such as lost business revenues from fishing or tourism or lost tax revenues of state and local governments, unless, as in the case of BP and the Deepwater Horizon spill, the oil company was found to be grossly negligent or to violate federal law. Current law requires an oil company responsible for a spill to pay for all costs—without limit—related to mitigating or cleaning up the spill including the use of booms, cleaning up spills, rehabilitating wildlife, and skimming for oil, but arbitrarily imposes the $134 million cap on economic damages.
House Action To Find 21st Century Cures
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22) voted to help deliver more cures, treatments, and therapies to patients, and to bring our health care system into the 21st century. Olson voted for H.R. 34, the 21st Century Cures Act, an important bipartisan initiative that will make needed reforms, and spur medical innovation that will make real differences in people’s lives. There are currently 10,000 known diseases (7,000 of which are rare) with treatments for only 500 of them. This Conference Report passed the House by a vote of 392-26, which now heads to the Senate for action.
“It has been a hard fought battle to get this 21st Century Cures Act across the finish line,” Rep. Pete Olson said. “Passing this important, groundbreaking legislation lays the groundwork for making needed medical breakthroughs that will provide hope for patients that are in dire need of new and effective treatments. Each of us knows someone impacted by a debilitating or deadly illness. I’m proud of the work the Energy and Commerce Committee has invested in this bill, which gives us a critical opportunity to invest in the research that will result in the innovation and technological advances that improve quality of life and deliver cures to patients and peace of mind for their families.”
The 21st Century Cures Act:
Fosters innovation by providing $4.77 billion to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and $500 million to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) over 10 years.
Ensures Congressional oversight by subjecting the funding to review and reprogramming through the annual appropriations process.
Advances regulatory reform to allow private sector development of new treatments and cures.
======
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Erik Paulsen (MN-03) voted for, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed, the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of new cures and treatments. The bill brings our health care infrastructure and processes into the 21st century and further ensures our health care system meets the needs of patients and their loved ones, including investing in the Cancer Moonshot initiative led by Vice President Biden, as well as the BRAIN initiative to better our understanding of and improve treatment for diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
“This groundbreaking bipartisan initiative gives patients with deadly and critical diseases new hope,” said Congressman Paulsen. “The 21st Century Cures Act presents a generational opportunity to transform and modernize the way we treat diseases by further advancing the U.S. as a leader in medical innovation and research.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Donald M. Payne, Jr. (NJ-10) released the following statement on House passage of H.R. 34, the 21st Century Cures Act:
“The 21st Century Cures Act will address urgent public health challenges and bring treatments and cures to patients in New Jersey and across the country. While I have concerns about provisions in this bill, they are outweighed by its considerable benefits, including new funding for the Cancer Moonshot initiative, mental health reforms, and resources to combat the prescription opioid epidemic. I thank my colleagues, especially Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., for their tireless work on this legislation.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on House passage of the 21st Century Cures Act:
“The 21st Century Cures Act represents a vital step forward that will modernize and strengthen our nation’s pursuit of lifesaving treatments and cures. We are providing reforms and resources that will accelerate innovative biomedical research, especially in precision medicine, brain research, and Vice President Biden’s cancer moonshot. Also, at long last, Congress is providing the $1 billion in opioid treatment funds our communities have desperately needed to fight the epidemic of addiction that is claiming the lives of so many Americans. In addition, the legislation includes some useful improvements in mental health and substance use disorder services.
“However, the long-term success of the 21st Century Cures Act hinges on whether the Republican Congress meets its responsibility to robustly fund these commitments in the years ahead. Accelerating the development of cures and protecting the health and safety of the American people depends on fully funding the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.
“Democrats will continue to champion the robust investments in American innovation and R&D that power new miracles in medicine.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) today voted in favor of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act (H.R. 34), a once-in-a-generation, transformational bill to change the way the United States treats both physical and mental diseases. The medical innovation package will bring hope for patients and accelerate cutting-edge treatments for rare diseases. It will also include the most significant reforms to our mental health system in more than a decade. Among other things, these reforms will modernize our mental health programs, improve mental health services for children, and strengthen our Nation’s mental health reform workforce.
The 21st Century Cures Act takes an innovative approach by establishing a temporary Innovation Fund that maintains Congress’s “power of the purse,” rather than handing over spending authority to the executive branch or by using “auto-pilot” mandatory spending that is driving our $20 trillion debt. Importantly, this legislation is fully offset, meaning no net increases in federal spending and no additional burdens on the American taxpayer.
The 21st Century Cures Act passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 392 - 26. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration before continuing to the President’s desk to be signed into law.
“This bill will save and improve lives at no additional cost to the American taxpayer. It also saves money by developing cures rather than continuing to pass on the heavy cost of chronic illness to consumers through health insurance premiums,” said Representative Perry.
“The 21st Century Cures Act is a groundbreaking approach to health reform that seeks better, faster, safer and more innovative approaches to treating diseases and medical conditions like Alzheimer’s, mental health disorders, diabetes and opioid addiction that currently lack effective therapies,” said Representative Perry. “By encouraging American innovation to find faster cures, we give hope to patients and improve the quality of life for millions.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Congressman Scott Peters (CA-52), co-chair of the bipartisan congressional Life Science Caucus, helped pass the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, a game-changing $6.3 billion investment in scientific research that meets Rep. Peters’ long-held goal of increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health. The bill includes funding for the Precision Medicine Initiative, the Cancer Moonshot, and other programs that will spur discovery, improve quality of life, and boost San Diego’s innovation economy. President Obama strongly supports the 21st Century Cures Act, which is expected to be taken up by the Senate next week and signed into law before the end of the year.
After voting in favor of the 21st Century Cures Act, which passed on a broadly bipartisan 392-26 vote, Rep. Scott Peters released the following statement:
“The 21st Century Cures Act achieves a goal I have prioritized since coming to Congress – boosting funding for the National Institutes of Health – that will make America more competitive and create the jobs of the future right here in San Diego.
“There isn’t a city in America better positioned to meet the bold aspirations of the 21st Century Cures Act, or benefit from the resources it provides, than San Diego. We are the center of genomics, the center of life sciences, and the center of collaborative scientific research that makes groundbreaking discoveries and improves peoples’ lives.
“Programs like the Cancer Moonshot and the Precision Medicine Initiative – which have the potential to unlock cures that will change millions of lives – are already counting on and investing in San Diego’s world-class research institutions. And the streamlining of FDA approval processes will incentivize innovation and give patients – particularly those with life threatening or debilitating diseases – more options to manage their diseases and improve their quality of life.
“This legislation also includes desperately needed funding to confront the opioid epidemic – a scourge that has taken a heartbreaking toll on families in every community in America, including San Diego.
“I would have preferred the higher level of mandatory funding included in the version considered earlier this year, but appreciate the work that was done to come to this bipartisan compromise. The 21st Century Cures Act is still a significant investment in our scientific community that offers the potential for discovery to improve lives and expand economic opportunity. I am proud to support it, and look forward to seeing it signed into law.”
Key provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act include:
*$4.8 billion in new funding for research through the National Institutes of Health over the next decade including $1.8 billion for the Cancer Moonshot, $1.5 billion for the BRAIN Initiative, and $1.45 billion for the Precision Medicine Initiative. San Diego is the top metro area in the country for NIH research funding, receiving more than $768 million in funding in 2015.
*$1 billion in new funding over the next two years for grants to states to prevent and treat opioid abuse.
*Streamlines the FDA approval process for certain devices and drugs and establishes programs for expedited approval of medical devices that represent breakthrough technologies.
*Supports the next generation of scientists by increasing to $50,000 from $35,000 the maximum annual payments on student loans under the Public Health Service Act for young NIH researchers.
“It has been a hard fought battle to get this 21st Century Cures Act across the finish line,” Rep. Pete Olson said. “Passing this important, groundbreaking legislation lays the groundwork for making needed medical breakthroughs that will provide hope for patients that are in dire need of new and effective treatments. Each of us knows someone impacted by a debilitating or deadly illness. I’m proud of the work the Energy and Commerce Committee has invested in this bill, which gives us a critical opportunity to invest in the research that will result in the innovation and technological advances that improve quality of life and deliver cures to patients and peace of mind for their families.”
The 21st Century Cures Act:
======
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Erik Paulsen (MN-03) voted for, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed, the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of new cures and treatments. The bill brings our health care infrastructure and processes into the 21st century and further ensures our health care system meets the needs of patients and their loved ones, including investing in the Cancer Moonshot initiative led by Vice President Biden, as well as the BRAIN initiative to better our understanding of and improve treatment for diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
“This groundbreaking bipartisan initiative gives patients with deadly and critical diseases new hope,” said Congressman Paulsen. “The 21st Century Cures Act presents a generational opportunity to transform and modernize the way we treat diseases by further advancing the U.S. as a leader in medical innovation and research.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Donald M. Payne, Jr. (NJ-10) released the following statement on House passage of H.R. 34, the 21st Century Cures Act:
“The 21st Century Cures Act will address urgent public health challenges and bring treatments and cures to patients in New Jersey and across the country. While I have concerns about provisions in this bill, they are outweighed by its considerable benefits, including new funding for the Cancer Moonshot initiative, mental health reforms, and resources to combat the prescription opioid epidemic. I thank my colleagues, especially Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., for their tireless work on this legislation.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on House passage of the 21st Century Cures Act:
“The 21st Century Cures Act represents a vital step forward that will modernize and strengthen our nation’s pursuit of lifesaving treatments and cures. We are providing reforms and resources that will accelerate innovative biomedical research, especially in precision medicine, brain research, and Vice President Biden’s cancer moonshot. Also, at long last, Congress is providing the $1 billion in opioid treatment funds our communities have desperately needed to fight the epidemic of addiction that is claiming the lives of so many Americans. In addition, the legislation includes some useful improvements in mental health and substance use disorder services.
“However, the long-term success of the 21st Century Cures Act hinges on whether the Republican Congress meets its responsibility to robustly fund these commitments in the years ahead. Accelerating the development of cures and protecting the health and safety of the American people depends on fully funding the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.
“Democrats will continue to champion the robust investments in American innovation and R&D that power new miracles in medicine.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) today voted in favor of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act (H.R. 34), a once-in-a-generation, transformational bill to change the way the United States treats both physical and mental diseases. The medical innovation package will bring hope for patients and accelerate cutting-edge treatments for rare diseases. It will also include the most significant reforms to our mental health system in more than a decade. Among other things, these reforms will modernize our mental health programs, improve mental health services for children, and strengthen our Nation’s mental health reform workforce.
The 21st Century Cures Act takes an innovative approach by establishing a temporary Innovation Fund that maintains Congress’s “power of the purse,” rather than handing over spending authority to the executive branch or by using “auto-pilot” mandatory spending that is driving our $20 trillion debt. Importantly, this legislation is fully offset, meaning no net increases in federal spending and no additional burdens on the American taxpayer.
The 21st Century Cures Act passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 392 - 26. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration before continuing to the President’s desk to be signed into law.
“This bill will save and improve lives at no additional cost to the American taxpayer. It also saves money by developing cures rather than continuing to pass on the heavy cost of chronic illness to consumers through health insurance premiums,” said Representative Perry.
“The 21st Century Cures Act is a groundbreaking approach to health reform that seeks better, faster, safer and more innovative approaches to treating diseases and medical conditions like Alzheimer’s, mental health disorders, diabetes and opioid addiction that currently lack effective therapies,” said Representative Perry. “By encouraging American innovation to find faster cures, we give hope to patients and improve the quality of life for millions.”
=====
Washington, D.C. - December 1, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Congressman Scott Peters (CA-52), co-chair of the bipartisan congressional Life Science Caucus, helped pass the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, a game-changing $6.3 billion investment in scientific research that meets Rep. Peters’ long-held goal of increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health. The bill includes funding for the Precision Medicine Initiative, the Cancer Moonshot, and other programs that will spur discovery, improve quality of life, and boost San Diego’s innovation economy. President Obama strongly supports the 21st Century Cures Act, which is expected to be taken up by the Senate next week and signed into law before the end of the year.
After voting in favor of the 21st Century Cures Act, which passed on a broadly bipartisan 392-26 vote, Rep. Scott Peters released the following statement:
“The 21st Century Cures Act achieves a goal I have prioritized since coming to Congress – boosting funding for the National Institutes of Health – that will make America more competitive and create the jobs of the future right here in San Diego.
“There isn’t a city in America better positioned to meet the bold aspirations of the 21st Century Cures Act, or benefit from the resources it provides, than San Diego. We are the center of genomics, the center of life sciences, and the center of collaborative scientific research that makes groundbreaking discoveries and improves peoples’ lives.
“Programs like the Cancer Moonshot and the Precision Medicine Initiative – which have the potential to unlock cures that will change millions of lives – are already counting on and investing in San Diego’s world-class research institutions. And the streamlining of FDA approval processes will incentivize innovation and give patients – particularly those with life threatening or debilitating diseases – more options to manage their diseases and improve their quality of life.
“This legislation also includes desperately needed funding to confront the opioid epidemic – a scourge that has taken a heartbreaking toll on families in every community in America, including San Diego.
“I would have preferred the higher level of mandatory funding included in the version considered earlier this year, but appreciate the work that was done to come to this bipartisan compromise. The 21st Century Cures Act is still a significant investment in our scientific community that offers the potential for discovery to improve lives and expand economic opportunity. I am proud to support it, and look forward to seeing it signed into law.”
Key provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act include:
*$4.8 billion in new funding for research through the National Institutes of Health over the next decade including $1.8 billion for the Cancer Moonshot, $1.5 billion for the BRAIN Initiative, and $1.45 billion for the Precision Medicine Initiative. San Diego is the top metro area in the country for NIH research funding, receiving more than $768 million in funding in 2015.
*$1 billion in new funding over the next two years for grants to states to prevent and treat opioid abuse.
*Streamlines the FDA approval process for certain devices and drugs and establishes programs for expedited approval of medical devices that represent breakthrough technologies.
*Supports the next generation of scientists by increasing to $50,000 from $35,000 the maximum annual payments on student loans under the Public Health Service Act for young NIH researchers.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Rep. Norcross Takes New Actions to Support America’s Veterans
Washington, D.C. - November 30, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ, 1st) today announced new actions on behalf of America’s military veterans, supporting legislation that successfully passed the U.S. House of Representatives.
“Our veterans deserve platinum service, whether it’s their health care, education, in the workplace, or any other part of their lives—there should be no gray areas. Simply put-- they deserve the best for the service and sacrifices they’ve made for us,” said Rep. Donald Norcross (NJ-01). “These actions further ensure our veterans receive all the GI bill benefits they’re entitled to, that they’re given more options & flexibility when it comes to the health care services they receive, and give our active-duty military transitioning to the workforce greater opportunity to succeed by offering incentives to employers to hire more veterans.”
Rep. Norcross voted for passage of the following bills:
-Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans Act of 2016 or the HIRE Vets Act (H.R. 3286)
-Protecting Veterans' Educational Choice Act of 2016 (H.R. 5047)
-Ethical Patient Care for Veterans Act of 2016 (H.R. 5399)
-Veterans TRICARE Choice Act of 2016 (H.R. 5458)
-No Hero Left Untreated Act (H.R. 5600)
Rep. Norcross has championed many additional efforts on behalf of U.S. veterans in Congress. Among them, Norcross authored and introduced the Freedom of Health Care Act in 2015 and is a sponsor of the Never Again Act.
In the New Jersey Legislature, Rep. Norcross successfully championed legislation providing in-state tuition for veterans attending New Jersey’s public colleges and universities, and led efforts on a measure that authorizes a local public contract set-aside program for businesses that are owned by or that employ veterans. Both bills were signed into law in New Jersey.
Congressman Donald Norcross is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Budget Committee, and serves as Assistant Whip in the 114th Congress.
“Our veterans deserve platinum service, whether it’s their health care, education, in the workplace, or any other part of their lives—there should be no gray areas. Simply put-- they deserve the best for the service and sacrifices they’ve made for us,” said Rep. Donald Norcross (NJ-01). “These actions further ensure our veterans receive all the GI bill benefits they’re entitled to, that they’re given more options & flexibility when it comes to the health care services they receive, and give our active-duty military transitioning to the workforce greater opportunity to succeed by offering incentives to employers to hire more veterans.”
Rep. Norcross voted for passage of the following bills:
-Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans Act of 2016 or the HIRE Vets Act (H.R. 3286)
-Protecting Veterans' Educational Choice Act of 2016 (H.R. 5047)
-Ethical Patient Care for Veterans Act of 2016 (H.R. 5399)
-Veterans TRICARE Choice Act of 2016 (H.R. 5458)
-No Hero Left Untreated Act (H.R. 5600)
Rep. Norcross has championed many additional efforts on behalf of U.S. veterans in Congress. Among them, Norcross authored and introduced the Freedom of Health Care Act in 2015 and is a sponsor of the Never Again Act.
In the New Jersey Legislature, Rep. Norcross successfully championed legislation providing in-state tuition for veterans attending New Jersey’s public colleges and universities, and led efforts on a measure that authorizes a local public contract set-aside program for businesses that are owned by or that employ veterans. Both bills were signed into law in New Jersey.
Congressman Donald Norcross is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Budget Committee, and serves as Assistant Whip in the 114th Congress.
House Judiciary Democrats Press For Hearing On Trump Conflicts
Washington, D.C. - November 30, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, led by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), wrote a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) after President-elect Donald Trump’s vague announcement this morning to leave his “…great business in total…,” requesting that the Committee hold hearings to examine the federal conflicts-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President of the United States.
In their letter, the Members wrote, “Although we do not yet know the details of his proposal, this announcement raises a number of questions, including whether Mr. Trump intends to legally transfer ownership of his assets to his children, or simply allow them to manage his assets; the extent his children will continue to be involved in his Administration and whether they will be subject to an “ethics firewall;” whether businesses, foreign governments, and others will continue to able to take actions that benefit Mr. Trump and his family; and what level if any of transparency in these matters Mr. Trump will provide.”
Previously, Mr. Trump claimed that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” However, at the request of Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a non-partisan legislative agency operating out of the Library of Congress, has prepared a list of federal ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that may and should apply to Mr. Trump when he assumes office. This list includes four criminal statutes and the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In their letter, the Members cite these rules as a cause for concern.
The letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Pedro Pierluisi (D-Res.Comm.- PR), Judy Chu (D-CA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), and Scott Peters (D-CA).
The CRS memo can be found here.
Full text of the letter can be found here and below.
November 30, 2016
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Goodlatte:
As the Committee with jurisdiction of the Ethics in Government Act, we write to urge you to hold hearings immediately to examine the issue of the federal conflicts-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President of the United States.
This request is all the more urgent in light of president-elect Trump announcement this morning that he will be “leaving [his] great business” to his children, a move he felt would be “visually important.”[1]
Although we do not yet know the details of his proposal, this announcement raises a number of questions, including whether Mr. Trump intends to legally transfer ownership of his assets to his children, or simply allow them to manage his assets; the extent his children will continue to be involved in his Administration and whether they will be subject to an “ethics firewall;” whether businesses, foreign governments, and others will continue to able to take actions that benefit Mr. Trump and his family; and what level if any of transparency in these matters Mr. Trump will provide.
Noted legal experts Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyers for Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, respectively, have already expressed concerns about Mr. Trump’s inescapable business entanglements: “unless [Mr. Trump] divests ownership, he will have an interest in the foreign government payments and benefits that flow to his business daily. That creates such a serious conflict of interest that the framers of the constitution prohibited it for presidents in the emoluments clause.”[2]
The issue is particularly important given the continued cascade of reports outlining President-Elect Donald Trump’s apparent disregard for conflicts of interest he may already face.[3] Just last week, Mr. Trump denied that it is even possible for a president to have a conflict of interest.[4] An independent report shows that understanding of the law to be mistaken.
At our request, the Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of federal ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that may apply to the President-Elect when he assumes office. These rules include:
§ Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution, which prohibits the President from accepting any “emolument” from any foreign power.
§ 5 U.S.C. app. §§ 101-111, the Ethics in Government Act, which requires federal officials to make certain financial disclosures.
§ 5 U.S.C. § 3110, which restricts the President’s employment of his relatives.
§ 5 U.S.C. § 7342, which governs the receipt and disposition of gifts from foreign officials and heads of state.
§ 5 U.S.C. § 7353, which restricts the receipt of gifts by federal employees.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 201, which prohibits bribery of public officials.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 211, which prohibits the acceptance of gifts in connection with appointment to public office.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 219, which prohibits officers and employees of the United States from acting as agents of a foreign power.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 1905, which prohibits the disclosure of confidential information, including trade secrets and other proprietary information, learned by an official in the course of his or her official duties.
We have attached the CRS work product for your convenience. This memorandum makes clear that, in addition to the emoluments clause, a number of applicable conflict of interest laws that would apply to a President Trump and his family. In addition, our committee has received legislative referrals of legislation that would further expand these restrictions. We can certainly expect to receive additional legislative referrals in the future.
Donald Trump regularly boasts of the scale and global reach of his companies,[5] and he can be expected to face an array of situations in which his personal business interests are entwined with official policy matters. So far, however, he has indicated only that he will turn over day-to-day management of his holdings to three of his children, each of whom has played a role in his presidential transition, and who may continue to serve as informal advisors during his presidency.[6]
In the weeks since his election, a number of incidents have occurred which may well cross the lines of ethical behavior. Citing to just a few examples:
§ Mr. Trump met with Indian business partners who are seeking to capitalize on his victory to extend the Trump brand throughout India.[7]
§ Foreign diplomats booked rooms in Mr. Trump’s Washington D.C. hotel in an effort to curry favor with him.[8]
§ Mr. Trump reportedly encouraged the leader of a British political party to oppose offshore wind farm projects because such projects could block the views from one of Mr. Trump’s golf courses.[9]
Such conduct may also implicate the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits United States officials from accepting gifts from foreign powers without the consent of Congress.[10] There is concern that foreign governments and government-owned corporations may steer business to him, or offer him favorable business terms, in an effort to gain political influence with his administration.[11]
To avoid such inevitable conflicts, a broad range of scholars has urged President-Elect Trump to liquidate his assets. This viewpoint includes Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer,[12] Norman Eisen, President Barack Obama’s chief ethics lawyer,[13] conservative columnist Peggy Noonan,[14] and even the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.[15] It would seem that allowing his children to simply continue to operate his businesses would fall far short of these standards.
The American people should never have to question whether their president is working on their behalf or rather on behalf of his own personal interests.
For all the foregoing reasons, we ask that you schedule hearings, without delay, to examine these critical issues.
[1] Drew Harwell, Trump announces he will leave business ‘in total’ – leaving open how he will avoid conflicts of interest, Wash. Post, Nov. 30, 2016.
[2] Adam Liptak, Donald Trump’s Business Dealings Test a Constitutional Limit, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2016.
[3] See, e.g., Richard C. Paddock et al., Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President, N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 2016; Rosalind S. Helderman & Tom Hamburger, Trump’s presidency, overseas business deals and relations with foreign governments could all become intertwined, Wash. Post, Nov. 25, 2016; Donald Trump’s Conflicts of Interest, The Economist, Nov. 26, 2016.
[4] Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview: Full Transcript, N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 2016.
[5] Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview: Full Transcript, N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 2016 (“When I filed my forms with the [F]ederal [E]lection [Commission], people said, ‘Wow that’s really a big company, that’s a big company.’ It really is big, it’s diverse, it’s all over the world.”).
[6] See Editorial, The Trump Family Political Business, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 17, 2016.
[7] Editorial, Donald Trump’s Caldron of Conflicts, N.Y. Times, Nov. 25, 2016.
[8] Jonathan O’Connell & Mary Jordan, For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be, Wash. Post, Nov. 18, 2016.
[9] Danny Hakim & Eric Lipton, With a Meeting, Trump Renewed a British Wind Farm Fight, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2016.
[10] U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 8 (“no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States] shall, without Consent of Congress, accept ... any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.").
[11] See Adam Liptak, Donald Trump’s Business Dealings Test a Constitutional Limit, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2016; Ailsa Chang, Trump’s International Business Dealings Could Violate the Constitution, Nat. Pub. Radio, Nov. 22, 2016.
[12] Richard W. Painter, Trump must address conflicts of interest, CNN, Nov. 18, 2016.
[13] Richard W. Painter & Norman Eisen, Trump’s ‘blind trust’ is neither blind nor trustworthy, Wash. Post, Nov. 15, 2016.
[14] Peggy Noonan, No More Business As Usual, Mr. Trump, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 24, 2016.
[15] Editorial, The Trump Family Political Business, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 17, 2016.
In their letter, the Members wrote, “Although we do not yet know the details of his proposal, this announcement raises a number of questions, including whether Mr. Trump intends to legally transfer ownership of his assets to his children, or simply allow them to manage his assets; the extent his children will continue to be involved in his Administration and whether they will be subject to an “ethics firewall;” whether businesses, foreign governments, and others will continue to able to take actions that benefit Mr. Trump and his family; and what level if any of transparency in these matters Mr. Trump will provide.”
Previously, Mr. Trump claimed that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” However, at the request of Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a non-partisan legislative agency operating out of the Library of Congress, has prepared a list of federal ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that may and should apply to Mr. Trump when he assumes office. This list includes four criminal statutes and the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In their letter, the Members cite these rules as a cause for concern.
The letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Pedro Pierluisi (D-Res.Comm.- PR), Judy Chu (D-CA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), and Scott Peters (D-CA).
The CRS memo can be found here.
Full text of the letter can be found here and below.
November 30, 2016
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Goodlatte:
As the Committee with jurisdiction of the Ethics in Government Act, we write to urge you to hold hearings immediately to examine the issue of the federal conflicts-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President of the United States.
This request is all the more urgent in light of president-elect Trump announcement this morning that he will be “leaving [his] great business” to his children, a move he felt would be “visually important.”[1]
Although we do not yet know the details of his proposal, this announcement raises a number of questions, including whether Mr. Trump intends to legally transfer ownership of his assets to his children, or simply allow them to manage his assets; the extent his children will continue to be involved in his Administration and whether they will be subject to an “ethics firewall;” whether businesses, foreign governments, and others will continue to able to take actions that benefit Mr. Trump and his family; and what level if any of transparency in these matters Mr. Trump will provide.
Noted legal experts Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyers for Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, respectively, have already expressed concerns about Mr. Trump’s inescapable business entanglements: “unless [Mr. Trump] divests ownership, he will have an interest in the foreign government payments and benefits that flow to his business daily. That creates such a serious conflict of interest that the framers of the constitution prohibited it for presidents in the emoluments clause.”[2]
The issue is particularly important given the continued cascade of reports outlining President-Elect Donald Trump’s apparent disregard for conflicts of interest he may already face.[3] Just last week, Mr. Trump denied that it is even possible for a president to have a conflict of interest.[4] An independent report shows that understanding of the law to be mistaken.
At our request, the Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of federal ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that may apply to the President-Elect when he assumes office. These rules include:
§ Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution, which prohibits the President from accepting any “emolument” from any foreign power.
§ 5 U.S.C. app. §§ 101-111, the Ethics in Government Act, which requires federal officials to make certain financial disclosures.
§ 5 U.S.C. § 3110, which restricts the President’s employment of his relatives.
§ 5 U.S.C. § 7342, which governs the receipt and disposition of gifts from foreign officials and heads of state.
§ 5 U.S.C. § 7353, which restricts the receipt of gifts by federal employees.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 201, which prohibits bribery of public officials.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 211, which prohibits the acceptance of gifts in connection with appointment to public office.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 219, which prohibits officers and employees of the United States from acting as agents of a foreign power.
§ 18 U.S.C. § 1905, which prohibits the disclosure of confidential information, including trade secrets and other proprietary information, learned by an official in the course of his or her official duties.
We have attached the CRS work product for your convenience. This memorandum makes clear that, in addition to the emoluments clause, a number of applicable conflict of interest laws that would apply to a President Trump and his family. In addition, our committee has received legislative referrals of legislation that would further expand these restrictions. We can certainly expect to receive additional legislative referrals in the future.
Donald Trump regularly boasts of the scale and global reach of his companies,[5] and he can be expected to face an array of situations in which his personal business interests are entwined with official policy matters. So far, however, he has indicated only that he will turn over day-to-day management of his holdings to three of his children, each of whom has played a role in his presidential transition, and who may continue to serve as informal advisors during his presidency.[6]
In the weeks since his election, a number of incidents have occurred which may well cross the lines of ethical behavior. Citing to just a few examples:
§ Mr. Trump met with Indian business partners who are seeking to capitalize on his victory to extend the Trump brand throughout India.[7]
§ Foreign diplomats booked rooms in Mr. Trump’s Washington D.C. hotel in an effort to curry favor with him.[8]
§ Mr. Trump reportedly encouraged the leader of a British political party to oppose offshore wind farm projects because such projects could block the views from one of Mr. Trump’s golf courses.[9]
Such conduct may also implicate the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits United States officials from accepting gifts from foreign powers without the consent of Congress.[10] There is concern that foreign governments and government-owned corporations may steer business to him, or offer him favorable business terms, in an effort to gain political influence with his administration.[11]
To avoid such inevitable conflicts, a broad range of scholars has urged President-Elect Trump to liquidate his assets. This viewpoint includes Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer,[12] Norman Eisen, President Barack Obama’s chief ethics lawyer,[13] conservative columnist Peggy Noonan,[14] and even the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.[15] It would seem that allowing his children to simply continue to operate his businesses would fall far short of these standards.
The American people should never have to question whether their president is working on their behalf or rather on behalf of his own personal interests.
For all the foregoing reasons, we ask that you schedule hearings, without delay, to examine these critical issues.
[1] Drew Harwell, Trump announces he will leave business ‘in total’ – leaving open how he will avoid conflicts of interest, Wash. Post, Nov. 30, 2016.
[2] Adam Liptak, Donald Trump’s Business Dealings Test a Constitutional Limit, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2016.
[3] See, e.g., Richard C. Paddock et al., Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President, N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 2016; Rosalind S. Helderman & Tom Hamburger, Trump’s presidency, overseas business deals and relations with foreign governments could all become intertwined, Wash. Post, Nov. 25, 2016; Donald Trump’s Conflicts of Interest, The Economist, Nov. 26, 2016.
[4] Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview: Full Transcript, N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 2016.
[5] Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview: Full Transcript, N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 2016 (“When I filed my forms with the [F]ederal [E]lection [Commission], people said, ‘Wow that’s really a big company, that’s a big company.’ It really is big, it’s diverse, it’s all over the world.”).
[6] See Editorial, The Trump Family Political Business, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 17, 2016.
[7] Editorial, Donald Trump’s Caldron of Conflicts, N.Y. Times, Nov. 25, 2016.
[8] Jonathan O’Connell & Mary Jordan, For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be, Wash. Post, Nov. 18, 2016.
[9] Danny Hakim & Eric Lipton, With a Meeting, Trump Renewed a British Wind Farm Fight, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2016.
[10] U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 8 (“no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States] shall, without Consent of Congress, accept ... any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.").
[11] See Adam Liptak, Donald Trump’s Business Dealings Test a Constitutional Limit, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2016; Ailsa Chang, Trump’s International Business Dealings Could Violate the Constitution, Nat. Pub. Radio, Nov. 22, 2016.
[12] Richard W. Painter, Trump must address conflicts of interest, CNN, Nov. 18, 2016.
[13] Richard W. Painter & Norman Eisen, Trump’s ‘blind trust’ is neither blind nor trustworthy, Wash. Post, Nov. 15, 2016.
[14] Peggy Noonan, No More Business As Usual, Mr. Trump, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 24, 2016.
[15] Editorial, The Trump Family Political Business, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 17, 2016.
HOUSE PASSES YOHO-MURPHY 'WINGMAN ACT' TO BETTER SERVE VETERANS
Washington, D.C. - November 30, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Representative Patrick E. Murphy (FL-18) applauded House passage of the Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member Access Now (WINGMAN) Act, legislation he joined U.S. Representative Ted Yoho (FL-03) in introducing. The WINGMAN Act provides read-only access to Congressional offices working to help veterans receive the benefits they have earned.
"Representing approximately 65,000 veterans in Florida's 18th District, I have made it a top priority during my four years in office to help our brave men and women who fought for our nation receive the best service and care they have earned and deserve. The WINGMAN Act would do just that by cutting through bureaucratic red tape to reduce delays in the VA's electronic claims process," said Murphy. "It is great to see this common-sense measure pass the House with strong bipartisan support. I thank Congressman Yoho for his leadership and partnership in this effort and now call on the Senate to swiftly follow suit so this bill can be signed into law to better serve our veterans."
"I have said it before and it bears repeating, we owe our nation’s Veterans everything. They deserve quality care in a timely manner. Making them wait months for the benefits they most desperately need is unacceptable. The passage of WINGMAN will help correct this,” Yoho said. “I appreciate Rep. Murphy support and the support of our House colleagues who came together in a bipartisan effort to better the lives of all our Veterans.”
Background:
Currently, only the VA and certified Veteran Service Officers have access to a veteran’s claims files. The WINGMAN Act, which has over 130 bipartisan cosponsors, would grant read-only access for Congressional office advocates who are currently acting as a “middle man” between the VA and veterans. Responses to Congressional offices are often delayed because of the volume of requests to the VA. Furthermore, corresponding with offices to provide updates takes VA officials away from making more timely decisions on claims. Granting access to certified constituent advocates will give veterans faster responses and will reduce the number of requests for information by Congressional caseworkers to the VA.
"Representing approximately 65,000 veterans in Florida's 18th District, I have made it a top priority during my four years in office to help our brave men and women who fought for our nation receive the best service and care they have earned and deserve. The WINGMAN Act would do just that by cutting through bureaucratic red tape to reduce delays in the VA's electronic claims process," said Murphy. "It is great to see this common-sense measure pass the House with strong bipartisan support. I thank Congressman Yoho for his leadership and partnership in this effort and now call on the Senate to swiftly follow suit so this bill can be signed into law to better serve our veterans."
"I have said it before and it bears repeating, we owe our nation’s Veterans everything. They deserve quality care in a timely manner. Making them wait months for the benefits they most desperately need is unacceptable. The passage of WINGMAN will help correct this,” Yoho said. “I appreciate Rep. Murphy support and the support of our House colleagues who came together in a bipartisan effort to better the lives of all our Veterans.”
Background:
Currently, only the VA and certified Veteran Service Officers have access to a veteran’s claims files. The WINGMAN Act, which has over 130 bipartisan cosponsors, would grant read-only access for Congressional office advocates who are currently acting as a “middle man” between the VA and veterans. Responses to Congressional offices are often delayed because of the volume of requests to the VA. Furthermore, corresponding with offices to provide updates takes VA officials away from making more timely decisions on claims. Granting access to certified constituent advocates will give veterans faster responses and will reduce the number of requests for information by Congressional caseworkers to the VA.
Rep. Messer: Congress reaffirms opposition to anti-Israel action by the UN
Washington, D.C. - November 30, 2016 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Luke Messer (IN-06) issued the following statement applauding the U.S. House of Representatives’ passage of H. Con. Res 165, which affirms Congress’ opposition to any action by the UN Security Council that imposes a unilateral, one-sided solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
“The U.S. must stand up for Israel and be a voice for achieving lasting peace in the region. One-sided, force-fed solutions by the UN will only aggravate tensions. I join my colleagues in urging the Obama administration to block any unilateral action by the UN to recognize a Palestinian state or impose other anti-Israel solutions to this conflict as his term comes to end.”
The U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res 165 on Tuesday, Nov. 29.
“The U.S. must stand up for Israel and be a voice for achieving lasting peace in the region. One-sided, force-fed solutions by the UN will only aggravate tensions. I join my colleagues in urging the Obama administration to block any unilateral action by the UN to recognize a Palestinian state or impose other anti-Israel solutions to this conflict as his term comes to end.”
The U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res 165 on Tuesday, Nov. 29.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)