Connue pour ses tenues extravagantes, Rihanna a fait sortir de ses gonds l’organisation de défense du droit des animaux Peta. La faute à ses bottes en python…

Après son dernier passage très médiatique à Paris et ses tweets incisifs à l’encontre des français, Rihanna s’est fait de nouveaux ennemis: les militants de l’organisation Peta.

Ces derniers sont très énervés par les bottes en python que portaient la star du R’n’B lors d’une virée en boîte de nuit à la discothèque branchée Rose de Londres. « Rihanna n’a sûrement pas la moindre idée de la façon dont les serpents sont tués pour confectionner des bottes, s’insurge la Peta dans un communiqué. Ils sont souvent cloués à un arbre et écorchés vifs (…) Porter de la fourrure, c’est flippant et insensible, et ça lui donne l’air ridicule. Rihanna et Lady Gaga semblent si désespérées à vouloir être des monstres au lieu d’être reconnues pour leur talent que l’on doit se demander si elles réalisent qu’on se moque d’elles ». Après Lindsay Lohan, Lady Gaga, Mary-Kate et Ashley Olsen ou Kim Kardashian, Rihanna est donc la nouvelle… bête noire de la Peta!

Click Here: new zealand rugby team jerseys

Kopacz favourite to replace Tusk as Poland’s prime minister

After six years and ten months as leader of Poland, Donald Tusk prepares for life as president of the European Council.

Donald Tusk resigned as prime minister of Poland on Tuesday (9 September), clearing his desk of domestic issues in order to prepare to assume the presidency of the European Council on 1 December.

Poland’s president, Bronisław Komorowski, has until 25 September to nominate a successor, but Polish media report that
Komorowski has already scheduled a meeting for today (11 September) with the candidate put forward by the ruling coalition, Ewa Kopacz.

Under Poland’s constitution, the departure of a prime minister automatically triggers the collapse of the government. If nominated as prime minister, Kopacz would need to secure the support of the parliament, for herself and for her government. Kopacz had been tipped to become prime minister from the moment that the European Union’s national leaders elected Tusk to the European Council’s presidency on 30 August, and the smoothness of the succession talks within the governing coalition suggests that its slim three-seat majority will be enough to assure Kopacz’s confirmation.

Because Kopacz’s current position is outside government – she is the speaker of the lower house of parliament – there would be no automatic need for changes in the cabinet. However, Marek Sawicki, the agriculture minister, on Tuesday suggested that a “pretty
significant” reshuffle is on the cards – which would not, he suggested, affect his party, the Polish People’s Party (PSL), which currently holds the economy, labour and agriculture portfolios.

A starting point for a reshuffle among the 15 other members of the cabinet may be the portfolio for infrastructure and development, a brief which has been held by Elz˙bieta Bien΄kowska. She was last week named by Tusk as Poland’s nominee to the European Commission.

Kopacz served as health minister from 2007 to 2011, winning praise from some, including for her cautious handling of the swine-flu threat in 2009. However, she attracted criticism from others for her proposal for central registration and monitoring of pregnant women. The opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party also accuse her of having created a healthcare system for the rich.

A poll published in the newspaper Rzeczpospolita suggests that Kopacz faces wide scepticism: only 29% of those questioned expect her to be a good premier, and more than half, 53%, said she would not be. If approved, Kopacz would become the second woman to lead the country.

Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019

President TrumpDonald John TrumpDems unlikely to subpoena Bolton Ratcliffe nomination puts Susan Collins in tough spot Meet the adviser shaping foreign policy for Sanders MORE‘s campaign has filed a multimillion-dollar libel lawsuit against The Washington Post, claiming the newspaper knowingly published false claims that Trump engaged in a conspiracy with Russia concerning U.S. presidential elections.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in a Washington, D.C., federal court, comes a week after the Trump campaign filed a similar suit against The New York Times.

The lawsuit cites two Washington Post opinion pieces from June 2019, one which said that then-special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerCNN’s Toobin warns McCabe is in ‘perilous condition’ with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill’s 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE concluded that the Trump campaign “tried to conspire with” a “sweeping and systematic” attack by Russia in the 2016 election. 

ADVERTISEMENT

A second article stated “who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?”

The lawsuit, which accuses the Post of harboring “extreme bias” against the Trump campaign and Republicans generally, claims the articles will require costly efforts for the campaign to correct the record.

“The defamatory article has forced, and will force the campaign, to expend funds on corrective advertisements and to otherwise publicize the facts that it did not conspire with Russia in 2016 and is not seeking Russia’s or North Korea’s help in the 2020 election,” the lawsuit states. “The campaign was damaged in the millions of dollars, the specific amount to be proven at trial.”

The lawsuit faces long odds in court. To succeed, the campaign will have to carry the heavy burden of proving that the Post’s claims were false statements of fact, and were published with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

The Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This defamation lawsuit, like the one filed against the New York Times, is completely meritless,” said American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Brian Hauss in a statement. “Anyone who cares about the First Amendment should be troubled by the Trump campaign’s repeated attempts to punish and intimidate the president’s critics.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation found dozens of links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the probe did not establish a criminal conspiracy.

“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges,” the special counsel report concluded. 

The Trump campaign lawsuit cited specific portions of a June 13, 2019, Washington Post opinion article that described the report’s findings.

“Mueller also concluded that Trump and/or his campaign eagerly encouraged, tried to conspire with, and happily profited off of those efforts. Yet Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy,” wrote Washington Post opinion writer Greg Sargent.

Both of the Washington Post articles referred to a June 13, 2019, ABC News interview in which Trump appeared open to accepting damaging information about his political rivals from foreign countries.

“Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?” ABC News’s George StephanopoulosGeorge Robert StephanopoulosTrump campaign sues Washington Post for libel Head of HHS says ‘partisan sniping’ during coronavirus crisis is ‘unnecessary’ Biden says Sanders would have ‘great trouble’ helping Democrats keep House, win Senate MORE asked Trump in an Oval Office exchange.

Click Here: United Kingdom Rugby Jerseys

“I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, there’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, ‘we have information on your opponent.’ Oh, I think I’d want to hear it,” Trump replied.

—Updated at 5:43 p.m.

—J. Edward Moreno contributed

Explainer

How a Grexit would work

Follow these 10 easy steps.

With only a day left for Greece to produce a financial rescue proposal, a Greek exit from the eurozone has never been more likely, prompting the European Commission and economists to game out what exactly it would look like.

Probably the best analysis was a 189-page work by Roger Bootle of Capital Economics, which won them the 2012 Wolfson Prize, the second-highest award for economists after the Nobel Memorial Prize.

Events have moved on a bit since 2012, but the conclusion still stands: Leaving the euro is doable.

One original recommendation was to do it all in secret, but that obviously won’t work. The next step is to bring in capital controls and close banks, something that Greece has already done.

While capital controls would stop money from fleeing Greece, the newly-empowered Greek central bank would have to provide liquidity to Greece’s banks — now without having to ask permission from the European Central Bank.

Once drachmas are back in circulation, Capital Economics estimates that they would need to drop in value by about a fifth in order to restore Greek competitiveness, “although some overshoot still seems likely due to initial uncertainty.”

Click Here: United Kingdom Rugby Jerseys

A key issue will be what happens to Greece’s €323 billion in debt, most of it now owed to fellow EU governments and not to the private sector after a partial default in 2012.

The original recommendation was that Greece default on about half of its debt, but that is now more problematic because doing so would poison Greece’s relations with the rest of the EU. That means it would make sense to negotiate a write-down.

Another difference from 2012 is that years of austerity have actually improved Greece’s fiscal picture. Until this year’s recession, Greece was even running a surplus. After leaving the euro, the resulting downturn would probably mean a short-lived deficit, but in the end Greece might be able to finance itself after a Grexit.

In the end, Capital Economics argues that the result would be positive for Greece.

“Careful management of an exit that we still see as inevitable could yet mean that it ends up as a favorable economic development for both Greece and the rest of the eurozone,” it says.

The Senate unanimously approved legislation on Thursday that would ban the use of federal funds to purchase telecommunications equipment from companies deemed a national security threat, such as Chinese group Huawei. 

The bipartisan Secure and Trusted Telecommunications Networks Act, which the House passed in December, bans the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from giving funds to U.S. telecom groups to purchase equipment from companies deemed threats. 

The bill would require the FCC to establish a $1 billion fund to help smaller telecom providers to rip out and replace equipment from such companies, and to compile a list of firms seen as posing a threat to telecom networks. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The bill is primarily sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), ranking member Greg WaldenGregory (Greg) Paul WaldenHillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment Senate unanimously approves bill to ban purchase of Huawei equipment with federal funds Lawmakers grill Ticketmaster, StubHub execs over online ticketing MORE (R-Ore.), and Reps. Doris MatsuiDoris Okada MatsuiHillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment Senate unanimously approves bill to ban purchase of Huawei equipment with federal funds Bottom line MORE (D-Calif.) and Brett GuthrieSteven (Brett) Brett GuthrieHillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment Senate unanimously approves bill to ban purchase of Huawei equipment with federal funds Overnight Health Care: Big Pharma looks to stem losses after trade deal defeat | House panel to examine federal marijuana policies | House GOP reopens investigation into opioid manufacturers MORE (R-Ky.). 

“In today’s interconnected world, America’s wireless future depends on having networks that are secure from malicious foreign interference,” the House sponsors said in a joint statement on Thursday. “The existence of Huawei’s technology in our networks represents an immense threat to America’s national and economic security.”

“We thank our colleagues in the Senate for getting this important, bipartisan measure across the finish line and look forward to the President signing it into law,” the House sponsors added. 

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger WickerRoger Frederick WickerHillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment Senate unanimously approves bill to ban purchase of Huawei equipment with federal funds The Hill’s Morning Report – Sanders repeats with NH primary win, but with narrower victory MORE (R-Miss.), whose panel has jurisdiction over the bill, praised its passage. 

“Telecommunications equipment from certain foreign adversaries poses a significant threat to our national security, economic prosperity, and the future of U.S. leadership in advanced wireless technology,” Wicker said in a statement. “By establishing a ‘rip and replace’ program, this legislation will provide meaningful safeguards for our communications networks and more secure connections for Americans.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The legislation, if signed into law by President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Memo: Biden seeks revival in South Carolina Congress eyes billion to billion to combat coronavirus Sanders makes the case against Biden ahead of SC primary MORE, would have a major effect on rural telecom providers. The Rural Wireless Association estimated in a 2018 filing to the FCC that around 25 percent of its member companies use equipment from either Huawei or Chinese group ZTE.  

A spokesperson for Huawei pointed to concerns around the impact of the legislation on telecom providers that use the company’s equipment in a statement provided to The Hill on Thursday. 

“Unfortunately, the legislation that was just passed is considerably underfunded, would take longer than anticipated and could put at risk some of our customers, who serve the most underserved areas,” the spokesperson said. “This legislation will simply reduce the ability of broadband providers to provide the most secure network equipment and in turn hurt local consumers and businesses.”

The spokesperson added that “while the intention of this bill is to provide a robust and secure network for all Americans, if implemented the legislation passed today will fall woefully short.”

The bill’s passage comes after months of bipartisan pressure to take steps against Huawei, the largest 5G equipment provider in the world. Its critics cite concerns around a 2017 Chinese intelligence law that requires Chinese companies and individuals to participate in state-backed intelligence-gathering. 

The Department of Commerce last year added Huawei to its entity list of groups that American companies are forbidden to do business with, though Huawei’s full inclusion on the list has been delayed multiple times. 

The FCC also took steps against the company in November, when it designated Huawei as a national security threat and banned telecom groups from using FCC funds to buy equipment from Huawei. 

Huawei pushed back against the FCC for these moves, announcing in December that it was suing the agency. 

The Trump administration has also made moving away from Huawei a key priority, pressuring allied companies into doing the same.

The United Kingdom made the decision earlier this year to allow the use of Huawei in peripheral 5G networks, but not more secure networks, a move that many on Capitol Hill warned could endanger intelligence sharing between the U.S. and the U.K.

-Updated at 10:50 p.m.

The Treasury Department on Monday released early data showing a slight drop in charitable giving in the first year under President TrumpDonald John TrumpSanders poised for big Super Tuesday 5 things to watch on Super Tuesday Congress scrambles to finalize coronavirus funding, surveillance deals MORE‘s tax-cut law.

Treasury said that 501(c)(3) organizations reported $265.5 billion in gifts, contributions and grants on returns for the 2018 tax year that were processed through December 2019. That’s about 1.3 percent less than the $268.9 billion reported on 2017 tax returns processed through December 2018. Most tax changes in Trump’s law took effect for the 2018 tax year.

The giving amounts in 2018 and 2017 were both higher than they were in 2016, when organizations reported $251.6 billion on returns processed through December 2017. The gift amounts in 2016 and 2018 were each equal to 1.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in those years, while the gift amount in 2017 was equal to 1.4 percent of GDP, Treasury said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Treasury said in a news release that giving in 2018 “appeared largely unchanged from previous years.”

But stakeholders in the nonprofit sector expressed concerns, saying that Treasury’s data is in line with other studies that have shown that Trump’s tax law had a negative effect on charitable giving.

“A reduction in overall dollars is even worse when you factor in inflation. And this was just the first year under the tax law, when many individuals didn’t know how it would affect them yet,” said Rick Cohen, chief communications officer and chief operating officer at the National Council of Nonprofits. “We’d expect to see even more of a change for 2019, once people had a chance to file their taxes for the first time.” 

Steve Taylor, a senior vice president at United Way Worldwide, said that charitable giving should have grown at a rate that was equal to or greater than GDP growth in 2018, instead of declining.

“This drop in giving has real impact on the ability of all sorts of charities to help people and improve communities across the U.S.,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nicole Kaeding, a vice president at the right-leaning National Taxpayers Union Foundation, said that it’s hard to know how much Trump’s tax law is to blame for the decrease in giving in 2018.

“Individuals likely accelerated their deductions into the 2017 tax year” in order to maximize their deductions before their tax rate was lowered, Kaeding said. She added that it would be helpful for Treasury to release data from years prior to 2016 to get a better sense of the trend.

Trump’s 2017 tax law preserved the itemized deduction for charitable contributions. However, because the law increased the size of the standard deduction, fewer people are now itemizing their deductions. That has led nonprofits and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to have concerns that the law could lead to a reduction in charitable giving.

Bipartisan bills have been introduced in Congress to create a universal charitable deduction that taxpayers can take regardless of whether they itemize. 

Treasury said that the data it released on Monday only covers a portion of the nonprofits that will eventually file a return in a given tax year, and that complete data through tax year 2018 should be available after Oct. 15. The figures Treasury released for 2016 and 2017 amount to less than half of the total amount of gifts that nonprofits ultimately received in those tax years.

LATEST IN FIGHT OVER ‘SECRET SCIENCE’: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) walked back a component of one its most controversial proposal Thursday, weakening an effort that would have restricted the agency from considering scientific studies that don’t make their underlying data public.

The tweaks are not garnering support from the scientific community, however, as it expands the 2018 proposal in other ways.

The so-called “Secret Science” proposal, a nickname given when it was first pushed by former Administrator Scott PruittEdward (Scott) Scott PruittOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding EPA revamp of ‘secret science’ rule will keep limiting research, scientists say Overnight Energy: Controversial Trump adviser reportedly returning to EPA | Delta aims to be first carbon neutral airline | Dem senator gives EPA D-minus on ‘forever chemicals’ MORE, spurred over 600,000 comments, many of which criticized the agency for penning policy that would block consideration of some landmark public health research. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The administration has argued the rule is necessary for transparency, but it has struggled with how to offer a workaround for key studies that wouldn’t be able to share their data publicly without exposing subjects’ personal information.

It’s Thursday update doesn’t abandon the policy’s underlying goal, but rather than exclude some research entirely, the agency would now give preference to studies with public data.

“Other things being equal, the agency will give greater consideration to studies where the underlying data and models are available in a manner sufficient for independent validation,” EPA wrote in the new proposal. 

But the newest version of the rule would also apply this standard more broadly, covering an even wider variety of scientific research. It also expands its scope, putting the “Secret Science” principles in practice not just when EPA weighs a new regulation but also in other agency activities.

Betsy Southerland, who was director of the Office of Science and Technology at the EPA’s Office of Water under the Obama administration, said those features make the proposal worse overall by expanding its reach. 

Scientists also argue it will still favor certain research and give the administration the political power to ignore studies that conflict with their policy goals.

“They are basically going to say the studies where the data is publicly available are better than studies where the data isn’t publicly available, irrespective of how good and important the science and the evidence is,” said Andrew Rosenberg with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It’s totally not scientific and nonsensical.”

Read more about the new proposal here. 

 

HAPPY SUPER TUESDAY! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news. Please send tips and comments to Rebecca Beitsch at rbeitsch@thehill.com. Follow her on Twitter: @rebeccabeitsch. Reach Rachel Frazin at rfrazin@thehill.com or follow her on Twitter: @RachelFrazin.

 

FLIP FLOP: President TrumpDonald John TrumpDems unlikely to subpoena Bolton Ratcliffe nomination puts Susan Collins in tough spot Meet the adviser shaping foreign policy for Sanders MORE on Tuesday called on Congress to fully fund a conservation program that his budget has repeatedly sought to cut.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) uses oil and gas revenue to fund a variety of conservation efforts, such as securing land for parks. But Trump has suggested cutting its funding by as much as 97 percent year after year, including in his most recent budget proposal.

“I am calling on Congress to send me a Bill that fully and permanently funds the LWCF and restores our National Parks,” Trump tweeted. “When I sign it into law, it will be HISTORIC for our beautiful public lands. ALL thanks to @SenCoryGardner and @SteveDaines, two GREAT Conservative Leaders!”

Congress has repeatedly ignored Trump’s suggestion to slash the popular program, but they’ve also failed to get the $900 million to fully fund it. 

Last year Sens. Cory GardnerCory Scott GardnerOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding Trump calls for full funding for conservation program after slashing it in his budget The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Trump on US coronavirus risks: ‘We’re very, very ready for this’ MORE (R-Colo.) and Steve DainesSteven (Steve) David DainesOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding Trump calls for full funding for conservation program after slashing it in his budget As many as eight GOP senators expected to vote to curb Trump’s power to attack Iran MORE (R-Mont.) were part of a bipartisan effort to fully fund LCFW, but the budget ultimately included only about half the funding for the program.

Trump’s tweet proceeded an announcement from Daines and Gardner that they would seek permanent full funding for LWCF.

The story is here.

 

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER BORDER SUIT: A coalition of 19 states is suing the Trump administration over its new diversion of $3.8 billion in defense funds to the border wall, arguing that the move is unconstitutional and ignores possible environmental impacts. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“Use of these additional federal funds for the construction of a border wall is contrary to Congress’s intent and in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” said the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California on Tuesday. 

President Trump last year declared a national emergency and announced that he would reallocate Department of Defense (DOD) funds for construction of the border wall after Congress did not allocate as much money as he wanted for the project in the federal budget.

Last month, the Pentagon informed Congress that it would transfer an additional $3.8 billion to be used for the wall, with money coming from weapons programs. 

The 19 states are arguing that the new allocation is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers as well as Congress’s power of the purse. 

They also argue that the administration does not sufficiently evaluate the environmental impacts of the project and that this violates a bedrock environmental law called the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The states suing the administration are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The suit says environmental harm will particularly be caused to some of these states where the wall is being built, including “the blocking of wildlife migration, flooding, and habitat loss” in New Mexico.

ADVERTISEMENT

Read more here.

 

In other legal news…

 

NOT KIDDING AROUND: Attorneys for 21 youth climate activists are filing an appeal after a judge ruled they cannot sue the federal government for failure to act on climate change.

The activists sought a court order to force the government to phase out the use of fossil fuels, but a panel of three judges in January ruled such a decision was beyond the reach of the judicial branch. 

Lawyers are now petitioning for a ruling from all 11 judges in the 9th Circuit, arguing that reversing an earlier district court decision fails to ensure the youth activists’ right to a trial. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“In overturning the district court, the majority fundamentally changed the way our branches of our government operate, placing the president and Congress beyond the reach of judicial oversight. If this opinion stands, there will be no more constitutional checks and balances on government conduct,” Philip Gregory, a co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, argued. 

In August, two of the three judges said they did not have the power to push the government to address climate change.

Read more here.

 

URANIUM ON THE CRANIUM: Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said Tuesday that the Trump administration plans to give a boost to the uranium industry, which it has repeatedly tried to help.  

Brouillette responded “yes” to a question from Sen. John BarrassoJohn Anthony BarrassoOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding Brouillette says administration plans to give a boost to uranium producers Where do we go from here? Conservation can show the way MORE (R-Wyo.) about whether the administration is “prepared to provide immediate relief for the uranium producers.”

“[The Department of] Commerce, along with the U.S. Department of Energy, the president of the United States — all determined that the loss of leadership in the nuclear industry represented a national security concern,” he said during a hearing at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

The administration has in the past bolstered the industry including by adding uranium to a list of “critical minerals” deemed crucial to national security.

The Commerce Department has also issued a recommendation to help speed up production of all minerals on the list.

 

The committee also grilled Brouillette about Trump’s budget proposal: Brouillette defended President Trump’s proposed cuts to renewable energy in his budget request for fiscal 2021. 

“It’s kind of a who’s who of backwards policy,” said Sen. Angus KingAngus KingOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding Bipartisan commission to make 75 recommendations to defend against cyberattacks Brouillette says administration plans to give a boost to uranium producers MORE (I-Maine). “We want more efficient vehicles so let’s cut vehicle technologies by 81 percent. Or bioenergy technologies — let’s cut that by 82 percent … solar minus 76, wind minus 78.”

Brouillette, in response, said that departmental research and development was being done “complex-wide” and that in some cases, the cuts were offset by research in other areas. 

The energy chief also took heat from King and others over the proposed elimination of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).

“You did something that I didn’t think was possible, you cut something 173 percent. Now, the reason that’s possible is that you didn’t spend a significant part of the funds that were allocated by the Congress last year,” King said. “Not spending a substantial portion of the funds that Congress allocates is not following the law.”

Brouillette replied that the agency has to properly vet applicants who want to use the money for their projects.  

“It’s not just the question of getting the money and moving it out the door, it’s getting applicants on the other side that are fully qualified to receive the money,” he said.

 

A busy day for the committee… The committee also advanced James Danly’s nomination to be a commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the full Senate in a 12-8 vote. 

Read more here. 

 

ENERGY AMENDMENTS: A battle over what amendments might be considered for the Senate’s major energy package is prompting some Republican infighting.

Sens. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE (R-La.) and Tom CarperThomas (Tom) Richard CarperOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding Overnight Energy: Lawmakers clamor to add provisions to fast-moving energy bill | EPA board questions replacement of Obama-era emissions rule | Dem senator asks watchdog to investigate two EPA rules Lawmakers clamor to add provisions to fast-moving energy bill MORE (D-Del.) are pushing to add legislation to limit use of heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) in refrigerators and air conditioners.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has expressed opposition to the measure, which irked Kennedy. 

“I came up here to debate and decide not to participate in delay and stultification. And I will be very disappointed if my amendment is not allowed to be considered by the United States Senate over the objections of a very small group of people. That’s not democracy,” Kennedy told reporters Tuesday. “That’s why god made roll call votes.”

It’s not yet clear what amendments might be considered for the American Energy Innovation Act, but they are accumulating quickly, with 18 already entered into the record and several more expected.

Democrats have said they hope to add amendments that would force the bill to more directly address climate change, though an amendment from Sen. Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding Democratic senators ask DOJ watchdog to expand Giuliani probe Senate Dems blast Barr for ‘clear violation’ of duty in Stone case, urge him to resign MORE (D-Hawaii) prompting research and development goals for climate change is the first to explicitly mention the subject.

Still, she has doubts the legislation will transform into a climate bill.

“I don’t think there’s any chance that we’re actually going to have amendments that reflect the acknowledgement that climate change is upon us and we have to do something much more dramatic,” she said. 

 

ON TAP TOMORROW:

The House Natural Resources Committee will review Interior’s budget.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on reforming recycling.

House Appropriations will hold a hearing on the National Nuclear Security Administration budget.

The appropriations panel will also review the EPA’s budget, with Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerOvernight Energy: EPA revamps ‘secret science’ rule | Scientists warn rule still limits research | Trump calls for full funding for conservation program | 19 states sue over border wall funding Overnight Energy: Lawmakers clamor to add provisions to fast-moving energy bill | EPA board questions replacement of Obama-era emissions rule | Dem senator asks watchdog to investigate two EPA rules EPA board: Trump replacement of Obama-era emissions rule may not be as good for society MORE testifying.

The Senate Appropriations Committee will hold a hearing on the Interior budget with Secretary David Bernhardt.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold hearing on a number of bills dealing with national parks.

 

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY:

Rhode Island state lawmakers considering ban on ‘forever chemicals,’ the Providence Journal reports

Coal tech company’s bid to mine clears major hurdle, the Casper Star-Tribune reports

EU states call for speedy 2030 climate plan ahead of U.N. climate summit, Reuters reports

 

ICYMI: Stories from Tuesday…

19 states sue Trump administration over reallocated funding for border wall

Trump calls for full funding for conservation program after slashing it in his budget

Youth activists appeal ruling that they can’t sue government over climate change

Brouillette says administration plans to give a boost to uranium producers

Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey

Welcome to Thursday’s Overnight Health Care. 

The health care news today was dominated by the latest on the coronavirus, including a whistleblower complaint about HHS and more details on the White House team leading the response. Let’s jump right in.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

California monitoring over 8,400 people for coronavirus

California Gov. Gavin NewsomGavin Christopher NewsomPence talks coronavirus with Cuomo, Newsom, other governors Overnight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding On The Money: Stocks plummet into correction over fears of coronavirus spreading | GOP resistance to Fed pick Shelton eases | Sanders offers bill to limit tax breaks for retiring executives MORE (D) announced Thursday that 33 people in California have tested positive for coronavirus, with officials monitoring more than 8,400 people for the virus.

Newsom said during a press conference that five people who tested positive have since moved out of the state as officials deal with the spreading virus.

One of those people is from an unknown source, raising the concern that the virus is spreading among the general public for the first time in the U.S.

“We knew this was inevitable,” Newsom said.

Read more here.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

 

Whistleblower claims HHS did not train workers caring for coronavirus patients: report

A whistleblower claims the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent workers to receive the first Americans evacuated from China during the coronavirus outbreak without proper training or protective gear, The Washington Post reported Thursday. 

Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey

The complaint was reportedly filed Wednesday with the Office of the Special Counsel. 

The whistleblower is a senior HHS official based in Washington seeking federal protection after alleging they were unfairly reassigned after raising concerns about the safety of these workers, according to the Post. 

The workers did not show symptoms and were not tested for the virus, the Post reported citing the whistleblower’s lawyers. 

Read more here.

 

CDC declined to test new coronavirus patient for days, California hospital says

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initially declined to test a California patient for coronavirus because of narrow testing criteria, delaying the identification of a new possibly pivotal case, according to officials at the hospital treating the patient.

UC Davis Medical Center wrote in a memo to staff that the patient was transferred from another hospital on Feb. 19 with a suspected viral infection. The hospital requested coronavirus testing, but the CDC initially declined because the patient, who had not recently traveled to countries with outbreaks or been in contact with someone with the virus, did not meet the testing criteria.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was not until Sunday that the CDC agreed to do a test, and the results then came back on Wednesday as positive.

In a statement on Thursday afternoon, the CDC said it is concerned by the reports but said their records showed the CDC only learned of the case on Sunday, and requested specimens for testing that same day.

Read more here.

   

Pelosi, Schumer insist on guardrails for coronavirus funds

House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Overnight Energy: Murkowski, Manchin unveil major energy bill | Lawmakers grill EPA chief over push to slash agency’s budget | GOP lawmaker accuses Trump officials of ‘playing politics’ over Yucca Mountain Hillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment MORE (D-Calif.) said lawmakers are close to a bipartisan agreement on emergency funding for the coronavirus response, but Democrats are insisting on specific guardrails. 

In a joint statement, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis Schumer Sanders blasts Trump for picking ‘completely unqualified’ Pence for coronavirus response Trump passes Pence a dangerous buck Democratic mega-donor reaching out to Pelosi, Schumer in bid to stop Sanders: report MORE (D-N.Y.) said they are insisting that any emergency funding supplemental must be entirely new funding, “not stolen from other accounts.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Pelosi and Schumer said they want to ensure President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Memo: Biden seeks revival in South Carolina Congress eyes billion to billion to combat coronavirus Sanders makes the case against Biden ahead of SC primary MORE “cannot transfer these new funds to anything other than the coronavirus and fighting infectious diseases.”

Also, they said the eventual vaccine must be made affordable. 

In a press conference, Pelosi went after HHS Secretary Alex Azar for suggesting that the price of a vaccine was out of his control.

Read more here.

 

Pence taps career official to manage response

Vice President Pence on Thursday tapped longtime health official and ambassador-at-large Debbie Birx to serve as the White House coronavirus response coordinator.

ADVERTISEMENT

Birx has worked for decades in the medical field, largely focusing on combating and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. The staffing move is likely intended to appease calls from many lawmakers for the Trump administration to appoint a “czar” to oversee the federal response to the coronavirus.

“She has deep experience in coordinating across agencies,” Pence’s office said in announcing Birx’s new role. “She has worked from the research bench to the clinic, but understands the primary focus must always be to reach the individuals most in need. She will bring her infectious disease, immunologic, vaccine research and interagency coordinating capacity to this position.

Birx currently serves as the ambassador-at-large for the State Department coordinating the U.S. efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. An Obama-era appointee, she has held that role since 2014.

More on Birx here.

 

And there was some big non-virus news in the House…

 

Bill banning menthol in cigarettes divides Democrats, with some seeing racial bias

A bill that would ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes is dividing House Democrats, with some arguing it unfairly targets African Americans and could lead police to target communities of color. 

The measure, which the House will vote on Friday, is opposed by some members of the Congressional Black Caucus. House Majority Whip Rep. Jim ClyburnJames (Jim) Enos ClyburnOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Bill banning menthol in cigarettes divides Democrats, with some seeing racial bias Biden announces best day of fundraising with .2 million MORE (D-S.C.), a prominent CBC member, also has concerns with the bill, he told reporters Thursday. 

The bill, sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Rep. Donna ShalalaDonna Edna ShalalaOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Bill banning menthol in cigarettes divides Democrats, with some seeing racial bias No exceptions when it comes to our kids’ health MORE (D-Fla.), a former health secretary, is meant to reduce youth vaping rates by banning flavors like mint and mango in e-cigarettes. But it also bans flavors in all tobacco products, including menthol in cigarettes.

Congress shouldn’t “tell full-grown adults, those over 21, what they can and cannot do with a legal product,” said Rep. A. Donald McEachinAston (Donale) Donald McEachinOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Overnight Energy: Murkowski, Manchin unveil major energy bill | Lawmakers grill EPA chief over push to slash agency’s budget | GOP lawmaker accuses Trump officials of ‘playing politics’ over Yucca Mountain Bill banning menthol in cigarettes divides Democrats, with some seeing racial bias MORE (D-Va.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who also cited concerns about policing communities of color.

“I’m not a smoker, so I would never smoke. But you know, for those who do, they ought to be able to smoke what they want to smoke,” he said.

Why it matters: Research shows tobacco companies targeted African Americans in their advertising of menthol cigarettes, leading to higher rates of use compared to white people. But that’s exactly why other members of the CBC support a ban. 

“Our work to end the smoking epidemic is not simply a matter of public health,” said Rep. Ayanna PressleyAyanna PressleyOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Bill banning menthol in cigarettes divides Democrats, with some seeing racial bias Progressive Democrat confronts Rep. Cuellar at parade, calls for him to debate her: report MORE (D-Mass.), a member of the CBC, at a hearing in December.

“This is and always has been an issue of racial justice.” 

Read more here. 

 

SPONSORED CONTENT — AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION

More than one million Americans are cared for in skilled nursing centers. See how skilled care gives more patients the opportunity to return home after treatment: https://myskilledcare.org/

 

Top Trump advisers discuss GOP need to act on health care at retreat with senators 

Two top advisers to President Trump on Wednesday discussed with GOP senators the need for Republicans to lower drug prices and act on health care costs ahead of the election, according to people familiar with the meeting. 

The discussion came at a retreat for GOP senators on Wednesday, where Trump’s campaign manager Brad ParscaleBradley (Brad) James ParscaleMORE and adviser Jared KushnerJared Corey KushnerOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Trump upends controversial surveillance fight Top Trump advisers discuss GOP need to act on health care at retreat with senators MORE spoke. 

Kushner made a favorable mention of Sen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Top Trump advisers discuss GOP need to act on health care at retreat with senators McSally unveils bill to lower drug prices amid tough campaign MORE (R-Iowa) and his work on drug prices, according to a source familiar with the meeting. The White House is supporting a bill from Grassley and Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Schiff presses top intel official to declassify part of report on Khashoggi killing Top Trump advisers discuss GOP need to act on health care at retreat with senators MORE (D-Ore.) to lower drug prices, but many GOP senators have pushed back on that measure as well, warning it comes too close to “price controls.”

Much of the discussion was more general and focused on the need to act from an electoral perspective, the sources said. 

“Read the polls, for the American people it’s drug costs and price of health care overall,” Sen. Bill CassidyWilliam (Bill) Morgan CassidyOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Top Trump advisers discuss GOP need to act on health care at retreat with senators The Hill’s Morning Report — AG Barr, GOP senators try to rein Trump in MORE (R-La.) told The Hill when asked about the meeting. 

Read more here.

 

What we’re reading 

Most Coronavirus cases are mild. That’s good and bad news. (New York Times)

A single coronavirus case exposes a bigger problem: The scope of undetected U.S. spread is unknown (Stat News)

1 in 3 Americans worry about being able to afford health care, NBC News/Commonwealth Fund survey says (NBC News) 

GoodRx saves money on meds–it also shares data with Google, Facebook, and others (Consumer Reports)

 

State by state

Anti-Medicare for All ad campaign launches in South Carolina (Politico)

A 13-year-old’s death highlights Puerto Rico’s post-Maria health care crisis (Vox.com)

Abbott says the homeless need mental health care. Advocates say Medicaid expansion would help (Texas Tribune)

 

The Hill op-eds

Xi Jinping, coronavirus and the new cold war

5 ways we can prepare for coronavirus

 

Top Republicans in the House are expressing concerns over the Trump administration’s deal with the Taliban, with lawmakers cautioning the insurgents won’t live up to their end of the bargain and arguing the agreement puts the country’s national security at risk.

The disagreement marks yet another area of foreign policy where President TrumpDonald John TrumpDems unlikely to subpoena Bolton Ratcliffe nomination puts Susan Collins in tough spot Meet the adviser shaping foreign policy for Sanders MORE’s usual allies in Congress are willing to break with the president and do so publicly. 

Defense hawks, in particular, are concerned the agreement sets the stage for a full U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan within months, that thousands of Taliban prisoners could be released in the coming weeks and that enforcement mechanisms are being kept from the American public. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyOvernight Defense: Republicans sound alarm on Taliban deal | Trump speaks with Taliban leader | 19 states sue over border wall funding | Pentagon pushes back on NY Times report about coronavirus response House Republicans sound the alarm on Taliban deal Signs of trouble mar Trump deal with Taliban MORE (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 Republican in the lower chamber, has been among the most vocal critics. She has sounded alarms that the agreement lacks a disclosed verification mechanism and commitment from the Taliban to renounce al Qaeda. 

“I’ve expressed my serious concerns about the lack of verification mechanism, about the commitment and the agreement that we would go to zero and primarily about the fact that what we have here are a number of promises by the Taliban,” Cheney, whose father, Dick Cheney, was vice president at the start of the Afghanistan War, told The Hill. 

“Many of them are promises that have been made before, and I think that the decisions about American troop levels in Afghanistan have to be made based on America’s national security interests, not based on empty promises from the Taliban and an agreement that doesn’t have any disclosed verification mechanism,” she added.

Trump is hailing the deal as a major achievement and a fulfillment of his 2016 campaign pledge to end so-called endless wars. He spoke on the phone Tuesday with the Taliban’s chief negotiator, the first known conversation between a U.S. president and the Taliban since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

“We had a good conversation. We’ve agreed there’s no violence,” Trump said of his call with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who is also the co-founder of the Taliban. “We don’t want violence. We’ll see what happens. They’re dealing with Afghanistan, but we’ll see what happens.”

Under the deal signed Saturday, the U.S. military must decrease troop levels to 8,600 in 135 days. Defense Secretary Mark EsperMark EsperOvernight Defense: Republicans sound alarm on Taliban deal | Trump speaks with Taliban leader | 19 states sue over border wall funding | Pentagon pushes back on NY Times report about coronavirus response House Republicans sound the alarm on Taliban deal Pentagon calls NYT article on Esper and coronavirus response ‘dangerous and inaccurate’ MORE said Monday he gave the U.S. commander in Afghanistan approval to start drawing down within 10 days.

ADVERTISEMENT

The deal also lays out a timeline for a full U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 14 months if the Taliban lives up to its commitments. Defense officials have insisted that any drawdown below 8,600 will be “conditions based.”

In exchange for the withdrawal, the Taliban committed to “not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al Qaeda, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”

The Taliban also said it would tell its members “not to cooperate” with those who threaten the United States and prevent groups and people endangering the United States from “recruiting, training and fundraising” in its territory. 

“The Taliban has been saying the same thing for years, and in this agreement they don’t take steps to renounce al Qaeda, they don’t take steps to do many of the things that they would have to do if they were serious, and I think it’s important for us to make sure we don’t rely on empty promises from a terrorist group,” Cheney said.

The GOP has generally been in lockstep with Trump throughout his presidency, but foreign policy, and in particular U.S. troop movements, has been an area where Republicans have been willing to push back. In early 2019, when Trump tried to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and reports circulated he would try the same in Afghanistan, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution warning against a “precipitous withdrawal” in either country.

When Trump again tried to withdraw from Syria in October, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution rebuking the move.

For the Afghanistan deal, one of the most controversial aspects is a stipulation for a prisoner swap before talks begin between the Taliban and Afghan government. The deal says up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners and up to 1,000 Afghan government prisoners “will be released by March 10,” something Afghan President Ashraf Ghani quickly rejected.

“I share the concerns of President Ghani on the release of 5,000 trained terrorists,” Rep. Joe WilsonAddison (Joe) Graves WilsonOvernight Defense: Republicans sound alarm on Taliban deal | Trump speaks with Taliban leader | 19 states sue over border wall funding | Pentagon pushes back on NY Times report about coronavirus response House Republicans sound the alarm on Taliban deal Schumer reminds colleagues to respect decorum at State of the Union speech MORE (R-S.C.), who sits on both the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, told The Hill. “It’s just so dangerous and irresponsible, so I’m not in favor of the agreement.” 

To be sure, some Republicans, while wary, are saying to give the deal some time.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he has a “healthy amount of skepticism,” while Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), an Air Force veteran, similarly said he is skeptical that “we have an honorable, trustworthy people to negotiate with across the table.” 

But McCaul also said “we have to give this a chance,” while Bacon said he “applaud[s] the effort” and that the deal’s timeline provides room to see if it’s effective.

Rep. John KatkoJohn Michael KatkoOvernight Defense: Republicans sound alarm on Taliban deal | Trump speaks with Taliban leader | 19 states sue over border wall funding | Pentagon pushes back on NY Times report about coronavirus response House Republicans sound the alarm on Taliban deal The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by the APTA – Dems rally to Biden’s side on Super Tuesday Eve MORE (R-N.Y.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said he thinks engagement with the Taliban is fine but noted the deal already hit a snag over the prisoner swap.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We’ve been there for 19 years, but we can’t give away the store to do it,” he said. “So it’s kind of you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t, right? You’re damned if you do because you’re cutting a deal with the devil, but damned if you don’t because then the war just rattles on.” 

The administration has acknowledged there are annexes to the deal not being released publicly. In a briefing ahead of the deal’s signing, a senior administration official insisted the annexes “don’t contain any additional commitments by the United States whatsoever” and that they only lay out implementation and verification procedures.

As violence in Afghanistan ticked up and the Afghan government rejected the prisoner swap, Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoHouse Republicans sound the alarm on Taliban deal Trump speaks with Taliban leader, likely first call between US president and insurgent group since 9/11 Menendez, Graham lobbying European allies to open negotiations with Iran MORE fended off criticism of the deal. 

“It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the habits of old days are hard to break, and this will be a bumpy road going forward,” Pompeo said Monday night on Fox News.

Pompeo also insisted the withdrawal timeline is “fundamentally different than what the Obama administration did” because it comes within the context of the Taliban deal and that there are no “secret side deals.”

“Members of Congress will get to see the two classified implementation military elements of this, but the deal is laid out there for the world to see, and now it’s the diplomatic and military task of the United States to deliver on the president’s two commitments,” Pompeo said. 

ADVERTISEMENT

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyTrump tells Republicans he won’t extend surveillance law without FISA reforms House Republicans sound the alarm on Taliban deal Absent Sanders takes center stage at pro-Israel AIPAC MORE (R-Calif.) encouraged GOP lawmakers to review the documents, saying “you want to know all of the details before someone makes an opinion about it” during a press conference on Tuesday. 

But Cheney — who raised the issue during an unrelated Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday — said the annexes transmitted to Congress are not as strong as Pompeo framed them during interviews over the weekend.

“I will say that after reviewing the documents my concerns remain about the extent to which there’s no disclosed verification mechanism, there’s no renunciation of al Qaeda,” she told The Hill on Tuesday. “It’s still a situation where, you know, we have to ensure that our decisions are being made based on security and not empty promises.”

Sen. Ed MarkeyEdward (Ed) John MarkeyHillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Markey presses facial recognition company over Middle Eastern marketing, potential child privacy violations 5 states to watch on Super Tuesday MORE (D-Mass.) sent a letter Tuesday to Clearview AI, pressing the controversial facial recognition company over its marketing in the Middle East and potential violations of child privacy laws.

This is the second time the Massachusetts lawmaker has inquired about Clearview, which has compiled billions of photos by scraping social media platforms and has contracts with several law enforcement agencies.

The company last week admitted that its entire client list was hacked, and subsequent reporting from BuzzFeed News revealed that well over 2,000 public and private organizations have used the facial recognition technology, which matches individuals’ faces with ones in the expansive database.

ADVERTISEMENT

Reporting from earlier this month also found Clearview marketing to countries including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“Recent reports about Clearview potentially selling its technology to authoritarian regimes raise a number of concerns because you would risk enabling foreign governments to conduct mass surveillance and suppress their citizens,” Markey wrote in Tuesday’s letter to Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That.

The letter also raised concerns that Clearview may be collecting and processing images of children, which could violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a law that sets restrictions on data collection from minors.

“I have grave doubts about Clearview’s ability to protect this sensitive data in light of recent reports that hackers successfully stole Clearview’s entire client list,” Markey wrote.

Click Here: Aston Villa Shop

Markey pressed Clearview for answers on a series of questions including whether the company plans to sell its software outside of the U.S., whether identifiable images were stolen in the hack and whether it’s planning to comply with the cease-and-desist orders its received from many social media platforms. The senator asked for responses by March 24.

ADVERTISEMENT

Markey had previously sent a letter to Clearview in January asking about what organizations the company has worked with.

In Tuesday’s follow-up, he called the responses to that inquiry “unacceptable.”

The chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology also sent a letter to Ton-That Tuesday expressing concern about the recent breach.

“We are deeply concerned about recent reports that indicated Clearview AI was breached and has ‘lost its entire client list to hackers,’” chairman Rep. Eddie Bernice JohnsonEddie Bernice JohnsonHillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Markey presses facial recognition company over Middle Eastern marketing, potential child privacy violations Democratic candidates gear up for a dramatic Super Tuesday MORE (D-Texas) and ranking member Frank LucasFrank Dean LucasHillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Markey presses facial recognition company over Middle Eastern marketing, potential child privacy violations Hillicon Valley: Amazon to challenge Pentagon cloud contract in court | State antitrust investigation into Google expands | Intel agencies no longer collecting location data without warrant MORE (R-Okla.) wrote in their letter.

“Clearview AI’s work appears subject to very little government oversight, despite the serious privacy questions raised by the intended use of Clearview AI’s technology. These concerns are compounded immensely by the knowledge that the firm has now been the subject of a successful hacking operation.”

The Hill has reached out to Clearview for comment.

Updated at 4:04 p.m.