apgov

Trump signs massive budget deal after Congress votes to reopen government

(CNN)President Donald Trump signed a major budget deal into law early Friday morning, hours after Congress voted to end a brief government shutdown overnight.

The House of Representatives voted 240-186. The GOP-controlled chamber needed help from House Democrats to clear the bill, and 73 Democratic members gave it. Sixty-seven House Republicans voted against the plan.
The colossal bill, which lawmakers have been negotiating for months, is a game-changing piece of legislation, clearing the decks for Congress in dealing with major spending issues as well as doling out disaster relief money and hiking the debt ceiling which was set to be reached next month.
The Senate approved the measure earlier on Friday morning. The federal government briefly shuttered for the second time in less than a month overnight, after Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul prevented the deal from passing Thursday.
The shutdown came just weeks after Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including Paul, refused to support the last continuing resolution, causing a shutdown that lasted a weekend. The effects from the overnight shutdown were expected to be minimal.
Trump tweeted that the bill, which gives the Pentagon an additional $165 billion, was a “big victory” for the US military. But he said Hill Republicans were “forced to increase spending” in order to attract Democratic votes.
There was uncertainty about the timing of Trump’s signing, and the Office of Personnel Management, which manages the federal workforce, still had an alert on its website early Friday morning that stated that due to a “lapse in appropriations, federal government operations vary by agency.”
Just how many Democrats would come on board was a key question up until the final moments, as liberals were unhappy about the bill not addressing immigration and conservatives oppose the increased spending.
After the vote succeeded in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell kept his word to move to open an immigration debate next week. The majority leader moved to call a vote Monday to proceed to an unrelated House bill that will serve as a vehicle for a process unlike the Senate has seen in recent memory, where senators will be able to offer a number of amendments on competing immigration proposals to see which ones will secure the 60 votes needed to advance. But that will only happen if the House passes the continuing resolution later Friday morning.

Drama but success

In the end, the votes were there — but that didn’t prevent heightened drama leading up to the vote. Democrats intensified their efforts to communicate they would hold firm in an effort to pressure Republicans to offer a commitment for a floor vote on immigration.
The overall deal also does not address immigration, a key sticking point for many Democrats, but it does increase spending caps by $300 billion for the Pentagon and domestic priorities, a crucial incentive for getting enough votes from both parties.
Leading up to the vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urged her members to vote against the bill but also urged them to hold their votes back, forcing Republicans to show their strength.
That strategy provided several minutes of heightened drama on the House floor, as Republicans looked nervously up at a board that displays votes by member’s name and the yes votes hung around 150.
But then a few Democrats began to signal their caucus to put their votes in with time ticking down, and the chamber grew quiet as the no votes and yes votes began pouring in.
It remained unclear Friday morning whether that effort would be enough, however, to placate an angry base about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy being left out of the deal after months of pressing to have it included.
Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a key Democratic voice for immigrants and immigration reform, acknowledged to reporters shortly before the vote that there remained little to no venues for Democrats to use their leverage on DACA after this deal, though members would not give up.
After the vote, Pelosi vowed that the fight to protect undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation was not over.
“I’m greatly disappointed that the Speaker does not have the courage to lift the shadow of fear from the lives of these inspiring young people,” Pelosi said in a statement, referring to House Speaker Paul Ryan. “When we protect the Dreamers, we honor the highest ideals of America. Their patriotism, their perseverance, their optimism are an inspiration that stirs the conscience of our entire nation.”

What’s in the bill?

The massive two-year budget deal proposed by Senate leaders Wednesday raises budget caps by $300 billion in the next two years, increases the debt ceiling and offer up nearly $90 billion in disaster relief for hurricane-ravaged Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico.
About $165 billion would go to the Pentagon and $131 billion to non-defense programs.
“Our members who are focused on the military are very happy where we landed with that,” Ryan told Hewitt on his radio show in reference to the defense spending caps.
The debt ceiling will be raised by the appropriate amount until March 2019.

Exact spending would be left to the appropriations committees, but included in the funding is $10 billion to invest in infrastructure, $2.9 billion for child care and $3 billion to combat opioid and substance abuse.
The bill also keeps the government running until late March.

Paul amendment holds up Senate vote

Paul took to the Senate floor many times Thursday refusing to agree to move up the time for a vote in the chamber on the bill, which requires unanimous consent from all 100 senators. In doing so, Paul forced the vote procedurally to occur after 1 a.m. ET on Friday, after government funding expired.
Paul slammed his colleagues for “hypocrisy” and lack of fiscal restraint, as well as a lack of a fair and open process.
“There is probably a lot of blame to go around for the Republicans who are advocating for this debt,” Paul said to CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront. “But I would say, really, primarily, this is coming from Congress. Leadership in Congress in both the House and Senate has decided to move forward. But the funny thing is you know so often in the media we hear ‘we want you to work together.’ They are are working together but working together to spend a ton of money.”
Republican leaders say Paul wanted a vote on an amendment that is critical of the overall agreement but leaders couldn’t give him that vote even if they wanted to, because it requires consent from all senators.
The proposal also represents a sharp change in tone for Republicans who under President Barack Obama railed strongly for fiscal austerity and warned about a ballooning national debt, and are now in effect removing barriers to spending previously put in place in part by leaders from their own party.
The Senate’s Majority whip sounded a bit frustrated by the holdup. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said he didn’t know how long it would take to resolve the issue and said there are other procedural steps Paul could take to get a vote that leaders were talking to him about.
“Sen. Paul has some concerns he wants to be able to voice,” Cornyn told reporters. “We’re trying to work with him to help get that done.”
Cornyn pointed out, “It takes unanimous consent to get an amendment.”
“If we get one amendment up, you can imagine other people are going to have amendments,” he said. “You can essentially accomplish the same thing by a point-of-order and get a vote. He doesn’t need consent to do that. So that’s an alternative we’re going to suggest to him and work with him on.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, criticized Paul on Twitter.
“It appears ‘General’ @RandPaul is at it again. He just called for the immediate withdrawal of all forces from Afghanistan as a way to give the US military a pay raise,” Graham tweeted. “Fortunately, only ‘General’ Paul — and the Taliban – think that’s a good idea.”
This story has been updated and will continue to be updated with additional developments.

Source: US Government Class

Front-end license plates proposed for New Mexico vehicles

Santa Fe New Mexican – What do you have on the front of your car?

New Mexico is one of 19 states that does not require a front license plate, leaving room for plenty of custom plates bearing the names of automotive dealers, the brands of carmakers, the logos of sports teams and universities and all manner of slogans.

Plenty of New Mexicans do not have anything at all affixed to their front bumper.

But the state’s dubious distinction as having the country’s highest rates of automotive theft and property crime is leading legislators to rethink that long-running policy.

The House Transportation Committee approved legislation earlier this week that would require vehicle owners to get license plates for their front bumpers, with some exceptions.

Backers argue House Bill 158 would make it easier for law enforcement to identify vehicles.

But the bill, which also is backed by companies involved with the production of license plates, may also raise concerns about encouraging the proliferation of speed cameras or red light cameras and cause some New Mexicans to peer under their vehicle’s front bumper to make sure they have a place to attach another license plate.

“It is going to be an inconvenience,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Patricio Ruiloba, a Democrat and former Albuquerque Police Department officer. “But in my law enforcement career, I always wondered why we aren’t a two-plate state.”

License plate numbers can be a big help in investigating crimes, he said.

In an analysis for lawmakers, the Department of Public Safety said that in many instances, vehicles used to commit a crime are unidentifiable due to the position of the vehicle or its direction of travel.

Another plate provides another opportunity for witnesses or law enforcement to better identify a vehicle at the scene of a crime or crash, the analysis said.

“That information is invaluable,” Ruiloba said.

House Bill 158 would raise the vehicle registration fee by $2 starting July 1, raising an estimated $2.2 million per year to defray the cost of issuing front-end license plates.

And Ruiloba is sponsoring a separate bill, House Bill 157, that would require New Mexicans replace their license plates every eight years.

But the additional plate would not be required until 2022, and there would provide an exception for older, classic vehicles.

Aside from police, however, the measure’s biggest supporter may be 3M.

The Minnesota-based company manufactures materials for license plates, such as the reflective stickers designed to prevent counterfeiting and the sheeting that allows states to create plates with multicolor graphics.

And the firm has undertaken something of a campaign across the country for laws requiring front-end license plates.

It has launched the website frontplate.org to track and promote legislation state by state requiring front-end license plates.

The company also has lobbied against proposals in other states to scrap the requirement for two plates.

In fact, some states are considering going New Mexico’s way and requiring only one plate.

Iowa legislators are mulling just such a bill this year, and Vermont policymakers have considered getting rid of the front-end license plate to save the state money.

In some states, automotive dealers have been opposed to requiring front-end license plates, pointing out that some new vehicles are shipped without a place for license plates on the front bumper.

Meanwhile, requiring two plates has not only raised concerns about costs but also concerns about civil liberties.

Front-end license plates can be key for boosting the effectiveness of automated license plate readers, red-light cameras and fee collection systems on tollways.

Still, in a year when lawmakers have made crime a priority, Ruiloba’s proposal could pique interest. It passed the House Transportation Committee without opposition and heads next to the House Judiciary Committee.

Contact Andrew Oxford at 505-986-3093 or aoxford@sfnewmexican.com. Follow him on Twitter at @andrewboxford.

Source: US Government Class

Pelosi Held House Floor in Advocacy of ‘Dreamers’ for More Than 8 Hours

New York Times – Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, took the House floor at 10:04 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday, intent on speaking about the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers.

Eight hours and seven minutes later, she quit talking.

Her marathon monologue — highly unusual for the House, which has no equivalent to the Senate filibuster — appears to have set the record for the longest continuous speech in the chamber, dating to at least 1909, according to the House historian. It tied up the House into the evening, delaying debate on a bill intended to spur competition in the mortgage market.

It also demonstrated, yet again, why Ms. Pelosi, 77, of California, remains one of the most enduring — and to many, infuriating — figures in Washington.

“I am reminded that there are members who come to this great chamber to make speeches, and there are those who come to make laws,” an irritated-sounding Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said when Ms. Pelosi wrapped up. “When it comes to speeches, I would note that the Gettysburg Address came in at two minutes, and Americans may think it had greater eloquence.”

Ms. Pelosi’s speech came as Republicans were scrambling to pass legislation to keep the government open. A short-term funding bill expires at midnight Thursday.

Ms. Pelosi’s talk was quickly called the “DACA-Buster” on Twitter. (Twitter users also noted, in admiration, that Ms. Pelosi never removed her four-inch heels.)

In holding the floor for more than eight hours, Ms. Pelosi took advantage of the House’s so-called magic-minute rule, which permits the majority leader, the minority leader and the House speaker to talk as long as they like. According to the House historian, she beat a record set by Representative Champ Clark of Missouri, who spoke for 5 hours and 15 minutes in 1909 to protest a tariff overhaul.

Ms. Pelosi read heart-rending testimonies from Dreamers who had written their representatives about their lives. There was Andrea Seabra, who is serving in the Air Force, and whose father was a member of the Peruvian Air Force. There was Carlos Gonzalez, who once worked as an aide to former Representative Michael M. Honda, Democrat of California. And there was Al Okere, whose father was killed by the Nigerian police after articles he wrote criticizing the Nigerian government appeared in a newspaper.

At one point, perhaps running out of stories, Ms. Pelosi suggested she might turn to the Bible. “Perhaps I should bring my rosary, blessed by the pope,” she said.

An estimated 690,000 young undocumented immigrants have been protected under DACA, and roughly 1.1 million more are eligible but did not apply. When Mr. Trump suspended the program in September, he gave Congress six months to come up with a replacement. Democrats and their allies had hoped to use the must-pass spending bill to carry legislation to protect the Dreamers.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, has promised an open debate in the Senate on immigration legislation, with senators of both parties allowed to offer amendments, if a deal is not reached by Thursday. Ms. Pelosi is calling on Speaker Paul D. Ryan to make a similar commitment in the House.

“Our basic request is to honor the House of Representatives, give us a chance to have a vote on the floor,” she said as she wound down her talk on Wednesday night.

But a spokeswoman for Mr. Ryan, choosing her words carefully, suggested he had no intention of conducting a freewheeling House debate. “Speaker Ryan has already repeatedly stated we intend to do a DACA and immigration reform bill — one that the president supports,” she said

Immigrants’ rights advocates, meanwhile, are furious — not only with Republicans but also with Democrats for failing to exercise their leverage to ensure that the Dreamers would not be left behind.

“We want a negotiated solution that’s part of this spending bill, not a vague promise of floor action after it,” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrants’ rights group. “We’re disappointed that a deal was cut without us, and we’re on the outside looking in, and we’re going to ask Democrats and Republicans who care about Dreamers to vote no.”

Correction: February 7, 2018
An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of an immigrant who once worked as an aide to former Representative Michael M. Honda. He is Carlos Gonzalez, not Gonzales.

Source: US Government Class

Senate leaders announce two-year budget deal

(CNN) – Senate leaders unveiled a massive two-year budget deal Wednesday, a major victory for both parties that could prevent a government shutdown at the end of this week and increase the federal government’s spending. But the plan still needs to pass the House, where it’s already facing strong headwinds.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled the deal with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor, which would boost military and non-defense spending by $300 billion over the next two years as well as add more than $80 billion in disaster relief. About $160 billion would go to the Pentagon and about $128 billion would to non-defense programs. The agreement also includes aid to respond to recent natural disasters.

The key outlying issue appears to be for how long to hike the debt ceiling, which the US is expected to hit next month, though the exact parameters were still being negotiated when the deal was announced.

“I am pleased to announce that our bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on defense spending and other priorities have yielded a significant agreement,” McConnell said in his announcement.

Later Wednesday, the Senate still plans to vote on the House-passed standalone defense funding bill, which is expected to fail at a procedural vote. Then senators take up the House-passed budget continuing resolution. The cloture vote on that is expected to be Thursday, at which point they’ll strip the House language, and replace it with the Senate language.

While that bill is expected to pass easily in the Senate, the House will be a tougher sell. The caps deal will likely need Democratic support and some Democrats have been emphatic that they don’t want to agree to raise budget caps until they have assurances that recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program will be protected. There’s no sign indication from congressional negotiators that that will be the case.

Debt limit timing is a sticking point

Some form of a debt ceiling increase will be in the final deal, two sources with direct knowledge tell CNN. What’s being worked out is the timing. The White House has been pushing for an increase that would last two years. Congressional negotiators have been pushing for a less aggressive version.

Asked about the debt ceiling parameters, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, replied, “Apparently that has not been closed out. Some discussion of that remains.”

Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who is also a member of GOP Senate leadership, said he expected the plan to include a debt increase of one year, or until March 2019. He said he expects it to pass the House because of the amount of defense spending included.

The House holds the next fight

Conservatives in the House are expected to balk at a deal that raises spending by $300 billion over the next two years, meaning Democrats are expected to be needed to pass this plan.

Just before the deal was formally made public, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California announced she was opposed to it, and while she didn’t encourage her caucus to vote “no,” her statement raises questions about whether there will ultimately be enough Democratic support in the House to pass the bill.

“This morning, we took a measure of our Caucus because the package does nothing to advance bipartisan legislation to protect Dreamers in the House,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Without a commitment from Speaker Ryan comparable to the commitment from Leader McConnell, this package does not have my support.”

At the same time McConnell was on the floor, House Speaker Paul Ryan was telling his members behind closed doors that the agreement has been reached, according to a member in the room. Before it was announced, Republican members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus loudly panned the increased spending as fiscally irresponsible and warned it would add to burgeoning deficits.

The House passed a short-term spending bill Tuesday night aimed at keeping the government open. That bill also included a full year of funding for defense spending. Now that a caps deal has been made, Senate leaders are expected to strip out the full year of funding for defense, attach the caps deal and hope the House can pass their breakthrough bill.
Deal clears the deck for Capitol Hill

The deal would clear the deck for Congress. If the spending numbers are agreed to, lawmakers could concentrate on tackling other issues like immigration and infrastructure rather than careening from one budget crisis to the next. The bill would also provide long overdue disaster funding for Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico months after hurricanes devastated homes, infrastructure and coastlines there.

Raising the budget caps has been on the table for months but has always been entangled with the contentious immigration debate. Pelosi’s statement reveals the deep schisms within the Democratic Party between those willing to show some flexibility now after a three-day shutdown and those who are dug in on immigration.
This story has been updated and will continue to update with new developments.

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh, Ashley Killough and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.

Source: US Government Class

New Mexico may become the first state in the nation to make students apply for college

CNN – Students in New Mexico would have to apply to a college or commit to some other post-graduation plan in order to graduate from high school, under a bill working its way through the state’s legislature.
If it became law, New Mexico would be the first state in the nation to require its students to spell out what they’re doing after high school.
“Requiring students to do that would be unique in the nation; no other state in the nation has done that,” said Jennifer Zinth, director of high school and STEM for the Education Commission of the States, an education policy think tank based in Colorado.
 
The bill states that high school juniors would have to file a plan showing they’re applying for admission to a college, taking steps to enter the military or preparing for an internship or apprenticeship.
The plan would be filed with the high school principal and the student’s parents and guidance counselor would have to sign off on it.

New Mexico, at 71%, has the second-worst high school graduation rate in the country, the Albuquerque Journal reported, citing data from the US Department of Education. The bill’s sponsors hope the bill will spur an uptick in that number.
But does requiring students to file such plans really push them to the graduation finish line? Zinth told CNN it may make a positive difference in how many students graduate, but she cautions states need to be aware of unintended consequences and the hurdles it may produce for students and their families.

“It’s one of those wait and see moments,” said Zinth, who wrote about the pros and cons of requiring students to fill out college applications in a report for the Education Commission of the States in 2014. “It may work for some students, but there’s some things New Mexico would have to think about.”

Zinth said schools in New Mexico and other states considering such a move would need to beef up their guidance counselor staffs and offer students more help in filling out applications, because the applications would probably not be of very high quality without proper guidance.

“It would really be beneficial for students to get some assistance on that to make sure the essays are high quality,” she said.
Schools would also need to make sure that students are properly matched with the college that best suits them. When schools don’t pay attention to that, Zinth said, a lot of lower-income students end up in community colleges when they actually are good candidates for competitive, four-year institutions.

And finally, Zinth said states need to think about financial aid if students are accepted to college.
“Applications are but one challenge. Completing financial aid applications is the other. Without assistance with financial aid forms, even middle-income students under application-for-all policies may apply and be accepted to institutions they are unable to afford,” she wrote in her 2014 report.

Starting in 2020, Chicago will require high school students to provide evidence that they have a plan after graduation: either acceptance to college or a gap-year program, a trade apprenticeship, military enlistment or a job offer.

Source: US Government Class

State of the Union – Fact Check

ABC News CNN

Fact check No. 1

TRUMP CLAIM: “We enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.”

OUR TAKE: False

WHY: The recently enacted tax bill is the 12th largest as a percentage of the GDP and the fourth largest in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1918.

This is a claim the president has repeatedly made, but analyses of the current tax law and previous legislation show that’s not the case.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law at the end of last year comes with a $1.5 trillion price tag, and according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent bipartisan public policy organization, it ranks as the 12th largest tax cut as a percentage of GDP and fourth largest in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1918. If the plan is extended, the group estimates the bill would cost $2.2 trillion, making it the eighth largest tax cut as a percentage of GDP and fourth largest in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1918.

The tax cut signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 was the largest since 1918 — reducing federal revenues by 2.9 percent of GDP, according to the Treasury Department.

The president also claimed roughly 3 million workers have received bonuses stemming from the tax cuts. That figure appears to come from a conservative political advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, which recently wrote based on anecdotes, “At least 3 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses.”

— Arlette Saenz

Fact check No. 2

TRUMP CLAIM: “We have eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration.”

OUR TAKE: It’s complicated

WHY: Information available from the Office of Management and Budget only goes back to 1995.

Trump has definitely taken an aggressive approach to eliminating regulations. Federal agencies withdrew 635 rules between fall 2016 and fall 2017, according to the Office of Management and Budget. But it’s difficult to verify if he has eliminated more than any administration in history because similar numbers for previous administrations are not readily available. Some of the Trump administration’s proposals are still going through the process or held up by legal challenges. It’s not even possible to check if the Trump administration has rolled back more regulations than Reagan, who also emphasized deregulation, because information available from the Office of Management and Budget only goes back to 1995.

— Stephanie Ebbs

Fact check No. 3

TRUMP CLAIM: “We are now an exporter of energy to the world.”

OUR TAKE: Mostly spin

WHY: The U.S. has exported energy — from crude oil to natural gas to coal — for a long time.

Continuing a longstanding trend, energy exports did tick up slightly during the first 10 months of the Trump administration, from 11.5 quadrillion BTU (standard unit of measurement) in January to October 2016 to 14.6 quadrillion BTU in January to October 2017. But the U.S. has exported energy — from crude oil to natural gas to coal — for a long time. And America is still a net importer, and has been since the 1950s — meaning the U.S. still imports more energy than the nation exports. (A report from the Energy Information Administration projects the U.S. will likely become a net exporter by 2026.)

— Erin Dooley

Fact check No. 4

TRUMP CLAIM: “Unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low. Something I’m very proud of. African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history.”

OUR TAKE: Lacking context

WHY: The figures have been on a downward trend for years.

The president’s assertion that first-time claims for unemployment benefits recently hit a 45-year low is true. But the president’s claims about African-American and Latino unemployment rates are lacking context.

The African-American unemployment rate is at a record low of 6.8 percent — but has steadily declined since reaching 16.8 percent in 2010. The Latino unemployment — currently at 4.9 percent — reached a record low of 4.8 percent earlier this year. In 2009, it sat at 13 percent. The current unemployment rate sits at 4.1 percent a record low after reaching as high as 10 percent in 2009. These unemployment figures are according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the economy is faring well under Trump’s watch, he can’t solely take credit for the change in unemployment rates as these figures have been consistently decreasing for years.

— Arlette Saenz

Fact check No. 5

TRUMP CLAIM: “Working with the Senate, we are appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution as written, including a great new Supreme Court justice, and more circuit court judges than any new administration in the history of our country.”

OUR TAKE: True

WHY: The Senate confirmed 12 of Trump’s circuit court nominees in his first year in office — far more than his recent predecessors.

Trump has broken records with his confirmation of circuit court judges. In his first year in office, the Senate confirmed 12 of his circuit court nominees — a figure far greater than his recent predecessors. Today, another appellate court judge was confirmed by the Senate.

Anne Joseph O’Connell, a University of California, Berkley, professor who studies presidents’ judicial nominations, has assembled data on judicial appointments made by recent presidents. During President Barack Obama’s first year in office, three of his circuit court nominees were confirmed while President George W. Bush saw six of his picks approved by the Senate in his first year. President Bill Clinton had three appeals court judges confirmed in his first year while five of President George H.W. Bush’s circuit court nominees were confirmed in his first 12 months.

Last year, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted the president had confirmed the most circuit court judges in the history of the country.

 

— Arlette Saenz

Fact check No. 6

TRUMP CLAIM: “The coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated very close to 100 percent of the territory just recently held by these killers in Iraq and in Syria and in other locations as well.”

OUR TAKE: True

WHY: The State Department reported in December that ISIS had lost 98 percent of the territory it once held specifically in Iraq and Syria.

The State Department reported in December that ISIS had lost 98 percent of the territory it once held specifically in Iraq and Syria at the height of its so-called caliphate after suffering a string of defeats in Iraq and then Syria. The coalition is fighting the last ISIS fighters in their remaining towns and slices of territory in eastern Syria.

But the threat from the terror group remains, and has largely morphed into cells in Iraqi and Syrian cities. In addition, the group has expanding globally, from the Philippines to West Africa.

The offensive against ISIS began under Obama, but Trump did accelerate it by giving more authority to field commanders. According to the State Department, 50 percent of all the territory ISIS has lost has been taken from them in the last 11 months.

— Conor Finnegan

Fact check No. 7

TRUMP CLAIM: “Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. This vital reform is necessary not just for our economy, but for our security, and our future.”

OUR TAKE: False

WHY: Citizens and green card holders can petition for immediate family, not an unlimited number of family members.

U.S. citizens can petition for certain family members to receive either a green card or visa — a spouse, minor children, sons and daughters, parents, or siblings. Green card holders can petition for a spouse, minor child, or unmarried son or daughter to also become a permanent resident. And refugees or asylum seekers can apply for a spouse or minor child to also obtain that refugee or asylum status.

Still, after applying there is a long wait list for all applicants besides spouse, parent or minor child. As of November, nearly 4 million people are waiting to get off the list, according to the State Department. Once someone gets to the front of the line, he or she must pass the required background checks and meet requirements for admission.

— Conor Finnegan

Fact check No. 8

TRUMP CLAIM: “For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities. They have allowed millions of low-wage workers to compete for jobs and wages against the poorest Americans. Most tragically, they have caused the loss of many innocent lives.”

OUR TAKE: Mostly spin

WHY: A 2016 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small.

The president here is implying that lax immigration laws and enforcement have led to increased crime, but a 2015 study by the pro-immigrant American Immigration Council found that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime.

This held true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education.

A 2017 CATO Institute study found that legal and illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Although, the study’s numbers did not represent the total number of immigrants who can be deported under current law or the complete number of convicted immigrant criminals who are in the U.S., but merely those incarcerated.

In 2017, on a typical day, there were 19,828 Border Patrol agents patrolling the borders with 654 miles of U.S.-Mexico border pedestrian and vehicle primary fencing. In fiscal year 2017, Customs and Border Protection officers and Border Patrol agents arrested 20,131 criminal aliens, and another 10,908 individuals who were wanted by law enforcement authorities.

On the economy, a 2016 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small. It also found that there is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. However, the report also found that, to the extent that negative impacts occur, they are most likely to be found for those who have not completed high school — who are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills.

— Geneva Sands

Fact check No. 9

TRUMP CLAIM: “In recent weeks, two terrorist attacks in New York were made possible by the visa lottery and chain migration. In the age of terrorism, these programs present risks we can just no longer afford. It is time to reform these outdated immigration rules and, finally, bring our immigration system into the 21st century.”

OUR TAKE: Mostly spin

WHY: Both men entered the country legally through the two programs President Trump mentioned and were not radicalized until years after they arrived in the U.S.

Trump is referencing the two terror attacks in New York last fall: On Halloween, Sayfullo Saipov is accused of ramming a truck onto a bike lane and pedestrian walkway, killing eight and injuring 12; and in December, Akayed Ullah is accused of detonated a pipe bomb in a botched attack at the New York Port Authority.

Saipov entered through the diversity visa lottery program in 2010, allegedly carrying out his terror attack seven years later. New York law enforcement authorities said he was radicalized after he moved here, with 90 videos and 3,800 images of ISIS propaganda found on his phone. Ullah legally came to the U.S. from Bangladesh in 2011 through his uncle, who had immigrated here years prior. He passed through background checks then and wasn’t radicalized until at least 2014, according to the criminal complaint against him. His alleged attack was six years after he first came to the U.S.

— Conor Finnegan

Fact check No. 10

TRUMP CLAIM: “Last year, Congress also passed, and I signed, the landmark VA Accountability Act. Since its passage, my administration has already removed more than 1,500 VA employees who failed to give our veterans the care they deserve.”

OUR TAKE: Mostly spin

WHY: The law was enacted in June, by that time 500 of the 1,500 Veterans Affairs employees removed from their jobs for poor performance had already been fired under a previous system.

About 1,500 VA employees have been fired since January 2017, but 500 of them were removed prior to June, when the VA Accountability Act was enacted. The law makes it easier to remove VA employees for poor performance or disciplinary reasons. It streamlined the previous appeals system that allowed employees to challenge the reasons for their dismissal, a process that could drag on for extended periods of time.

— Luis Martinez

Fact check No. 11

TRUMP CLAIM: “Last year, the FDA approved more new and generic drugs and medical devices than ever before in our history.”

OUR TAKE: True

WHY: The FDA approved 1,027 generic drugs in FY 17, a “record number,” according to Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

Despite the president’s boast, however, it’s worth pointing out that fiscal year 2017 began in October 2016, which includes the last few months of the Obama administration.

The agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research also approved 46 so-called novel drugs, the highest number in at least a decade, and a record 95 “novel” devices in 2017. New drugs included cancer therapies and medications to treat infectious diseases and neurological disorders.

— Erin Dooley and Dan Childs

Fact check No. 12

TRUMP CLAIM: “We slashed the business tax rate from 35 percent all the way down to 21 percent, so American companies can compete and win against anyone else, anywhere in the world. These changes alone are estimated to increase average family income by more than $4,000.”

OUR TAKE: It’s complicated

WHY: It’s a bold prediction, based on economic estimates that are far from uniform.

This claim that the corporate tax cuts alone will save the American family $4,000 on average mimic a questionable estimate the Trump administration’s Council of Economic Advisers released in a memo last fall.

The memo said, “The average household would, conservatively, realize an increase in wage and salary income of $4,000.” That estimate is predicated on the assumption that the American worker pays a majority of the corporate rate. But many leading economists disagree with that notion, arguing the tax burden is spread between the workers, shareholders and owners.

According to Forbes magazine, leading tax policy analysis firms including the Tax Policy Center, the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the American worker pays only between one fifth to a quarter of the corporate tax. Because so many economists disagree with Trump’s claim, ABC News conservatively rates the statement as “complicated.”

Other changes to the tax code could save families money in other ways, depending on their income and state of residence.

— Justin Fishel

Tax cuts

“Just as I promised the American people from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.”

FACT CHECK: FALSE

In fact, the Trump tax cuts are the eighth largest in history.

This claim has been fact-checked in the past. The Washington Post deemed it a 4-Pinocchio whopper.

The Post measured the tax cut as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), in order to take inflation adjustments out of the equation. Assuming the growth that Mr. Trump anticipates, the Post calculated that the tax cut would be 0.9 percent of GDP.

That puts his tax cut squarely behind President Barack Obama’s 2010 tax cut, which was 1.31 percent of GDP. Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut was the biggest at 2.89 percent of GDP. — Kate Rydell

Immigration

“The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age. That covers almost three times more people than the previous administration covered. Under our plan, those who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States over a 12-year period.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE, AS FAR AS CAN BE DETERMINED

It’s unclear exactly how many immigrants Mr. Trump’s proposed immigration framework would affect, so his claim is impossible to rate with certainty.

The White House has said his proposal to provide a pathway to citizenship to immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children by their parents amounts to 1.8 million. If that figure is correct — and it’s virtually impossible to say if it is — then Mr. Trump’s claim is true.

U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services said that as of Sept. 4, 2017, there were 689,800 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which former President Barack Obama established in 2012. Three times that figure would amount to a little more than 2 million individuals, and Mr. Trump said “almost.” — Kathryn Watson

Drugs and the border

For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities. They’ve allowed millions of low-wage workers to compete for jobs and wages against the poorest Americans. Most tragically, they have caused the loss of many innocent lives.”

FACT CHECK: PARTLY TRUE, INCONCLUSIVE

The president has been making versions of this statement since his campaign. On the claim about illegal immigrants causing the loss of “many” innocent lives, PolitiFact has pointed out that the statement is so vague that sure, it’s bound to be true, but it doesn’t really say much. University of California, Irvine criminology professor Charis Kubrin points out that it’s about as accurate as saying “thousands of Americans have been killed by men.”

It is true that drugs are coming in through the southern border, though. Politifact says that even though Asia is the source of heroin for most of the rest of the world, “nearly all the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.”

An April 2017 Pew Research Center report says the U.S. civilian workforce includes 8 million unauthorized immigrants, accounting for 5 percent of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work, according to separate Pew Research Center estimates. With so many millions, the New York Times points out there’s a range in which that’s the case — they are both taking the jobs nobody wants, as their defenders would have you believe, and they are taking American jobs and resources, as the White House and Republican hardliners believe. — Katiana Krawchenko

Family immigration

“Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.”

FACT CHECK: FALSE

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a U.S citizen can petition for a spouse; unmarried children under 21; sons and daughters, married and/or over 21; parents, if you are 21 and over; and siblings, if you are 21 and over. A green card holder can petition for spouses, unmarried children under 21, and an unmarried son or daughter of any age. — Ellee Watson

Regulations

“In our drive to make Washington accountable, we have eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration in the history of our country.”

FACT CHECK: PARTIALLY TRUE, BUT INCOMPLETE METRIC 

The Washington Post has taken a look at this claim, which the president has made before.

“Trump may have grounds to brag,” the Post found, “but his claim cannot be easily verified. There is no reliable metric on which to judge his claim — or to compare him to previous presidents.”

The modern regulatory state didn’t really begin until Nixon, and since the 1970s, the Post points out that there have been periods when entire segments of the economy were deregulated — airline and trucking, for instance, in the 1970s and 1980s. And those acts had greater impact on the economy than rolling back individual rules.

But on the number of regulations withdrawn, Mr. Trump’s claim can be determined using figures from an OMB database for President Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and five years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Over the course of these presidencies, the database shows the following numbers for withdrawn regulations:

  • Clinton: 1,824
  • Bush: 2,632
  • Obama: 1,814
  • Trump: 469

Of course, Mr. Trump’s presidency has barely begun. Narrowing the range to what he suggests– “in our first year” — his claim adds up:

  • Bush: 181
  • Obama: 156
  • Trump: 469

— Katiana Krawchenko

Health care

“We repealed the core of the disastrous Obamacare. The individual mandate is now gone. Thank heaven.”

FACT CHECK: FALSE

The individual penalty of $695 is still in effect for the uninsured in 2018. The mandate dies in 2019. — Maggie Dore

Employee bonuses

“Since we passed tax cuts, roughly 3 million workers have already gotten tax cut bonuses — many of them thousands and thousands of dollars per worker. And it’s getting more every month, every week.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE, BUT… 

Americans for Tax Reform, a pro-GOP group, has been keeping track of this by aggregating a bunch of companies’ press releases. The group claims 285 companies and at least 3 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses.

But Obama economic adviser Larry Summers has thrown cold water on this methodology, arguing that firms are raising wages because the labor market is tight. He called it “a gimmick” in an interview a few days ago on CNBC’s “Squawk Alley.”

“That’s a very common device. If you want to give somebody some money but you don’t want to promise it to them on a continuing basis, you frame it as a bonus,” Summers  said. “Look, the corporate tax cuts are going to be forever. If the firms really believe this had to do with corporate tax cuts, why aren’t they committing to bonuses forever?” — Maggie Dore and Katiana Krawchenko

Pharmaceutical drugs

“To speed access to breakthrough cures and affordable generic drugs, last year the FDA approved more new and generic drugs and medical devices than ever before in our country’s history.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE, BUT THIS HAS BEEN A TREND FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS

For the full year of 2017, according to the FDA commissioner, the FDA approved a record number of generic drugs. Fortune magazine has tracked drug approvals, and reported earlier this month that U.S. drug approvals hit a 21-year high last year. Forty-six novel medicines were greenlighted, Fortune noted, which was twice the number of the previous year.

But the rapid rate of generic drug and medical device approvals is not new and has on the rise for a couple of years, going back to at least 2015, during the Obama administration. — Allyson Ross Taylor

Guantanamo Bay and terrorism

“In the past, we have foolishly released hundreds and hundreds of dangerous terrorists, only to meet them again on the battlefield — including the ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi, who we captured, who we had, who we released.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE

The director of National Intelligence (DNI) reported that as of Jan. 15, 2017, 208 people released from Guantanamo Bay are confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorist activity. The vast majority were released under the Bush administration.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, was detained at a U.S.-run facility during the height of the Iraq War before he founded the terrorist group. al-Baghdadi was never held in Guantanamo Bay, however.

One-hundred and twenty-one detainees released from Guantanamo Bay are confirmed to have re-engaged in terrorist activity, and 87 other Guantanamo detainees who were released are suspected of doing so. — Andy Triay

ISIS

“One year later, I’m proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated very close to 100 percent of the territory just recently held by these killers in Iraq and Syria and in other locations, as well. But there is much more work to be done. We will continue our fight until ISIS is defeated.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE,

This claim is accurate as of Jan. 1, 2018, according to the Defense Department.

Army Lt. Gen. Paul E. Funk II, who is the commanding general on the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve for the campaign against ISIS, said “more than 98 percent of the land once claimed by the terrorist group has been returned to the people.” — Jack Turman

America’s standing abroad

“As we rebuild America’s strength and confidence at home, we are also restoring our strength and standing abroad.”

FACT CHECK: DEBATABLE

In terms of strength, America certainly projected military might abroad, dropping the largest bomb in its arsenal for the first time in 2017 on a target in Afghanistan, and launching missile attacks on military targets in Syria.

However, the State Department also issued a worldwide safety warning to American citizens in December after Mr. Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. It was the first time such a warning had been issued since the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003.

In terms of standing abroad, the 2018 edition of Edelman’s annual trust barometer showed trust in the U.S. declining by 9 percentage points since their 2017 report, the steepest decline ever measured. By way of contrast, trust in China increased by the biggest proportion globally. — Markham Nolan

Opioid addiction

“These reforms will also support our response to the terrible crisis of opioid and drug addiction. Never before has it been like it is now. It is terrible. We have to do something about it. In 2016, we lost 64,000 Americans to drug overdoses — 174 deaths per day; 7 per hour. We must get much tougher on drug dealers and pushers if we are going to succeed in stopping this scourge.” 

FACT CHECK: PARTLY TRUE

Yes, 64,000 Americans died in 2016 from opioid overdoses according to the CDC.

But what the president doesn’t mention is that since he took office, the number of deaths has continued to rise. From June 2016 to June 2017 the number of overdose deaths increased by 16 percent, to 66,817.

While the president refers to drug pushers and drug dealers, 80 percent of  heroin users developed their addiction because of a previous addiction to prescription opioids, according to the federal government.

There has been no movement so far by the federal government on any major funding for drug treatment. — Laura Strickler

Judges

“Working with the Senate, we are appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution as written, including a great new Supreme Court Justice, and more circuit court judges than any new administration in the history of our country.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE

Mr. Trump has nominated 12 circuit court judges who have been successfully confirmed by the Senate, more than any other president since circuit courts were created in 1891. Barack Obama got three through the Senate in his first year. — Gaby Ake

The VA

“Last year, Congress also passed, and I signed, the landmark VA Accountability Act. Since its passage, my administration has already removed more than 1,500 VA employees who failed to give our veterans the care they deserve. And we are hiring talented people who love our vets as much as we do.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE

The VA says 1,470 employees were dismissed in 2017, with another 526 so far in 2018. — Maggie Dore

Tax savings

“A typical family of four making $75,000 will see their tax bill reduced by $2,000, slashing their tax bill in half.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE, FOR NOW

Business Insider estimated the tax savings for a family of four with an annual income of  $75,000 will save $2,244. Under the previous law, they would have paid $3,983.

However, the Joint Committee on Taxation says down the road, by 2027, families making $50,000 to $75,000 per year will be paying more in taxes. Meanwhile, households earning $1 million per year would see their average tax rate decline to 30.4 percent in 2019, and they’d still be better off than they are now by 2027, paying an average rate of 31.7 percent, rather than the 32.1 percent under current law. — Kate Rydell

Apple investments

“Apple has just announced it plans to invest a total of $350 billion in America, and hire another 20,000 workers.”

FACT CHECK: TRUE

Apple announced on Jan. 17 that it will build a second corporate campus and hire 20,000 workers in a $350 billion, five-year commitment. — Kate Rydell

Energy

“We have ended the war on American energy, and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal. We are now very proudly an exporter of energy to the world.”

FACT CHECK: PARTIALLY TRUE

Mr. Trump has made a similar claim before. If by “now” he means the U.S. has only now just begun exporting energy, that is false. The U.S. has been exporting coal, and it is true that the U.S. is a net exporter of coal — that is, that it exports more coal to other countries than it imports. By the end of 2017, the U.S. had also become a net exporter of natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

But the U.S. is not yet a net exporter of energy sources overall. The EIA projects the U.S. could become a net exporter of energy around 2026. — Julia Kimani Burnham

Iran

“When the people of Iran rose up against the crimes of their corrupt dictatorship, I did not stay silent.”

FACT CHECK: MOSTLY TRUE

While thousands of protesters took to the streets in Iran a few weeks ago, Mr. Trump tweeted, and the White House released a paper statement. There was, however, not an on-camera statement.

The Treasury Department issued related sanctions, and the State Department made strong comments but basically did nothing. Still, this is arguably more than Obama publicly did in 2009 when protesters were shot in streets of Tehran. — Margaret Brennan and Gaby Ake

American ingenuity

“America is a nation of builders. We built the Empire State Building in just one year. Isn’t it a disgrace that it can now take 10 years just to get a minor permit approved for the building of a simple road?”

FACT CHECK: MOSTLY TRUE

The Empire State Building was structurally complete 410 days after demolition began on the Waldorf Astoria, which previously occupied the site on which it now stands. There were 577 days between the beginning of demolition and the official opening date.

Mr. Trump’s claims about it taking 10 years to get a permit approved for a simple road suffers from a lack of data, and the Washington Post has also critiqued previous comparisons of this nature, pointing out that previous comparisons of this nature do not compare like with like. Mr Trump is contrasting the swift construction time of a pre-planned project which may have taken years to come to fruition with the planning time it takes to bring a project to the construction phase. — Markham Nolan

 

 

 

 

Source: US Government Class

State of the Union 7:00 pm – Extra Credit

Join the State of the Union online discussion. Login to your class account and participate in the class discussion as the President  give the State of the Union. Credit will be based on the length of time you participate in the discussion. Be sure to make a comment when you login in so that your entry time can be noted. Your exit time will be base on the time of your last comment.

Source: US Government Class

Burger King explains net neutrality with a $26 Whopper

CBS News – Burger King is serving up its own hot take on a regulatory showdown that has enflamed the U.S., using a Whopper. Their flame-broiled target: the Trump administration’s dismantling of net neutrality.

Burger King’s new ad has become a sensation, with more than a million views on YouTube and it’s lighting up Twitter.  In the ad customers, whom the restaurant says are real, are told they will be charged different prices for a Whopper, based on speed, or MBPS (making burgers per second). Prices range from $5 to $26.

And the customers grow increasingly furious in an art-imitating-life display that mocks new internet rules that have led to wide-scale protests, even death threats.

There’s even a jab at Ajit Pai, who heads the federal commission that voted last month to eliminate net-neutrality protections for the internet (hint: look for the colossal Reese’s coffee mug).

In December, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was among the commissioners who voted to overturn “net neutrality,” the regulations ensuring that internet service providers such as AT&T (T), Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon (VZ) treat all websites and online content equally.

The vote was highly charged, reflecting the public controversy over whether to preserve or eliminate the Obama-era rules. Last month, a University of Maryland poll found more than four out of five respondents opposed repealing net neutrality, with Republicans almost as likely as Democrats to agree that the regulation should remain in place.

Nevertheless, the commission’s three Republican members voted to unravel the 2015 net neutrality rules, outweighing its two Democratic members, who voted against the measure. In casting the deciding vote, Pai said, “The sky is not falling, consumers will remain protected.”

Repealing the Obama-era rules allows internet service providers a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit or charge more for faster speeds.

The FCC decision has led to a fierce pushback by consumers, law enforcement and major corporations.

Last week, a group of attorneys general for 21 states and the District of Columbia sued to block the rules. So did Mozilla, the maker of the Firefox browser, public-interest group Free Press and New America’s Open Technology Institute. Others may file suit as well, and a major tech-industry lobbying group that includes Google has said it will support litigation.

This week, Montana became the first state to bar telecommunications companies from receiving state contracts if they interfere with internet traffic or favor higher-paying sites or apps.

Source: US Government Class

Allstate CEO: Self driving cars ahead, so what happens to the insurance industry?

FoxNews Business – Self-driving cars, already underway to revolutionizing the auto industry, could be on the road as soon as 2020, leaving experts to wonder how the inevitable overhaul could affect the insurance business.

Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Geico’s parent company Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), has already warned that the surge of autonomous vehicles will likely decimate the insurance business.

But, Allstate (ALL) CEO Tom Wilson told FOX Business’ Liz Claman Opens a New Window. at the Consumer Electronics Show Opens a New Window. in Las Vegas that he sees an opportunity for growth. The company currently insures 240 million cars, and that transition to self-driving is going to take “a long time,” he said. In the meantime, the company is trying to re-center its focus by expanding insurance options to digital safety, like cell phone damage or online cyberattacks.

“Obviously, fewer accidents and fewer people dying is a good thing,” he said. “And so we’re kind of leaning into it. But it’s going to take a long time before we get there.”

Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

And, good news for consumers: Wilson predicted that insurance will be cheaper since companies will know more about how the car drives, and fewer accidents and fewer deaths means there’s less to fix.

However, if there is an accident involving an autonomous vehicle, the question of who’s at fault remains in legal limbo: Is it the car manufacturer, the software producer, or the person who owns the car? Most likely, Wilson said, a lawyer would investigate the claim to find who was at fault — which would probably be either the manufacturer or the software producer.

“Seems unlikely to me that the owner of the vehicle, unless they did something to the car to make it not safe, would get sued,” he said. “It’s really going to be the large companies that make this.”

Source: US Government Class