Tag: FCC

Categories
Quick Analysis

Divided Government

The United States has a divided government, split not only along party lines but across ideological ones as well. With so many crucial challenges facing the nation, is there any basis for the two sides to reasonably discuss means of reaching solutions?

Perhaps—but it will take a substantial level of will power, and a willingness to put honest representation and  the basic principles upon which America was founded above the petty politics and pandering all too prevalent currently. Here’s what must be done:

Elected officials should remember to put America first.  Yes, so much of the world’s economy, climate, and security are interconnected. But far too often, U.S. office holders act as though whatever is bad for the U.S. is good for the rest of the globe. Nonsense. The health of the planetary economy is largely dependent on the financial success and stability of the United States. That means that tax rates and regulations that hurt American businesses have negative international repercussions. Allowing Washington to act as though it was the welfare agency for the entire Earth will bankrupt the nation and detrimentally affect the entire world. Permitting unchecked, unlimited immigration will sink federal, state and local government budgets and limit job prospects for American workers.

It’s time to deal with reality. It may be comforting to pretend that threats don’t exist, but they do.  Local governments that skimp on law enforcement, and Washington’s pretense that it can cut the defense budget at a time when Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have become increasingly aggressive and well-armed is suicidal.  Using funds culled from defense and law enforcement to increase entitlements as a thinly disguised bribe to win votes at the expense of local safety and national security is a growing but disgraceful practice throughout the nation.

Facts and reality, not emotion, should be used to make important decisions. In areas such as the environment, emotions and propaganda take the place of real scientific discourse. Far too often, elected officials and candidates seem incapable of looking past these clichés, catch phrases, and emotional appeals.
It can be no accident that the Aztecs http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/09/27/dunya-5ten-buyuk-mudur/ viagra shop usa called them ‘Ahuacuatl’ or ‘testicle tree’. ALA, sometimes known as the “universal” anti-oxidant, holds the capacity to neutralize the effects of free radicals in human body to prevent the impact cheapest levitra of aging. buy generic levitra This variation depends on several factors. These medicines have generic levitra mastercard helped to remove bedroom boredom woes more efficiently.
Our elected officials—and the voters—must put country before party or race.  Far too often, inadequate candidates win elections based on their party or ethnic identification, not their abilities.  This is particularly true in areas where one party dominates substantially.  Far too often, candidates lacking the intelligence, character, or ability to adequately fulfill the duties of their office win campaigns simply because they belong to the party or race in the majority in a particular area.

America’s basic governing document—the Constitution— must be given the respect and authority it previously had.  Serious attempts to abridge or ignore key provisions, especially the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, as well as the separation of powers have taken center stage over the past several years.  That’s a dangerous precedent, threatening the very foundation of the nation.

It is time it was remembered that sovereignty rests with the American people, not the government, and especially not the bureaucracy. There has been a rapid increase in power provided to agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and The Federal Election Commission. There have also been attempts to increase the power of others such as the Federal Communications Commission. These moves are antithetical to the principals America was founded on. They are unlawful and should be rapidly reversed.

Washington’s dramatic increase in power, based largely upon deficit spending, has not produced increased prosperity, safety, or freedom. Dealing with that reality should be a bipartisan effort.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Net Neutrality as an excuse for government control

Freedom of speech, and particularly freedom on the internet, is again under attack, as the “net neutrality” issue once again flares up.  The White House now seeks to regulate the internet as though it were a public utility. Net neutrality is concept that all users of the internet should be treated equally.

The battle is between two forces, each seeking to exert control over how information is transmitted on the internet. One side seeks to provide faster access to more powerful users such as entertainment giants, (Smaller users may be forced to endure second class status and may not benefit from faster speeds in the future if the concept of “net neutrality” does not endure) and the government, which is seeking to use that attempt as a means of gaining ultimate control for Washington bureaucrats, posing a problems for the average user.

Since, blood supply is the mouthsofthesouth.com ordine cialis on line main requirement of male organ to become erect, hence its lacking stops organ showing the function. The most sold or the most used and preferred product which was seen in the market and in people was tadalafil 5mg buy. This action helps your heart and viagra sans prescription mouthsofthesouth.com blood vessels to ensure smooth blood flow to the reproductive organs. ED stands for erectile dysfunction or male impotence, the condition when a cheap levitra prescription man fails to achieve or maintain adequate amounts of blood in the penile tissues. According to a White House statement, “As the Federal Communications Commission considers new rules for how to safeguard competition and user choice, we cannot take the principle of net neutrality for granted…” The Administration does not state why it simply does not advocate for legislation mandating net neutrality, rather placing the entire technology under the thumb of the FCC.

In yet another assault on free speech, the Washington Free Beacon eported yesterday that a U.S. University conducted a study on how to delete conservative-oriented tweets from Twitter.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Attack on Free Speech

Over the past several months, numerous and unprecedented attacks on the First Amendment have endangered the most cherished American right, freedom of speech. From United Nations conferences to the White House, to the  floor of the U.S. Senate, from court rooms to City Halls, and of course the bureaucracies on the federal, state and local levels that (with questionable constitutionality) seek to regulate political campaigns, the right to open and unfettered expression has become jeopardized as never before in the American experience.

There have been various dimensions to this unprecedented assault.

Internationalization of control of the internet, brought about by President Obama’s inexplicable decision to relinquish U.S. control, has allowed totalitarian governments to come within striking distance of regulating free speech on the web. The U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union  met in Turkey in September, and continued to receive unrelenting pressure from oppressive regimes to enact censorship rules. The organization will meet again in Brazil in November of 2015.

The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) analyzed aspects of the internet governance debate. Their report noted that starting in 2003, Russia, China, and the Arab states advanced “an explicit rule-making agenda” for a more “state-controlled and monetary version of the internet.” According to Freedom House, “Broad surveillance, new laws controlling web content, and growing arrests of social-media users drove a worldwide decline in internet freedom in the past year.” The study also found that “While blocking and filtering remain the preferred methods of censorship in many countries, governments are increasingly looking at who is saying what online, and finding ways to punish them…In some countries, a user can get arrested for simply posting on Facebook or for “liking” a friend’s comment that is critical of the authorities…”

Within the U.S., attempts to bring any comments which could affect political campaigns (which, on a practical basis, involves almost all discussion of current issues) under the control of federal, state and local election commissions has been the Trojan Horse which advocates of limitations on free speech have used to abridge First Amendment rights. A  Washington Free Beacon article by Ken Vogel reported that President Obama, in an address to wealthy donors in 2012, asserted that he would be “in a very strong position” to amend the Constitution regarding campaign laws during his second term. Tying in free speech laws to campaign regulations has been a key avenue of attack for anti-First Amendment advocates.

The President’s comment was particularly ominous in light of the revelation that the Internal Revenue service targeted groups that opposed him.  It is not coincidental that Lois Lerner, the chief figure in that scandal, previously worked for the Federal Election Commission and engaged in similar outrages there.

In some jurisdictions, such as New York, regulations have been enacted placing publications of any sort which could affect a campaign under the jurisdiction by the State Board of Elections. In Wisconsin, the Government Accountability Board harasses non-leftist groups that seek to disseminate their views.

Within the U.S. Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.” The Republican minority was able to block the measure

Therefore, how to increase penile strength is by consuming zinc rich foods and avoiding hand practice. cialis properien downtownsault.org Tadalista increases the blood flow to the male organ through viagra samples neurotransmitters. Testosterone, male sexual hormone is tadalafil sample liable for the stimulation, potency and healthy erections. But prescription cialis most people do not and also do not want to have to experience in their life time. It’s not just in the sphere of campaign regulations that has seen the First Amendment jeopardized. Earlier this year, in what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission attempted to implement a so-called “research effort” entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites. The breadth of what would have been covered was a comprehensive list of what the public sees, hears, reads, or surfs. It includes television and radio broadcast content, articles printed in daily and weekly newspapers, and even what’s placed on line on the internet. In addition, a so-called “qualitative analysis of media providers” would have been included. Fortunately, the measure did not go into effect.

The FCC is increasingly seen as a potential tool by leftist advocacy groups to silence less radical opponents.  Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that law professor John Banzhaf III requested the FCC to deny a broadcast license to a radio station that didn’t comply with his attempt to eliminate the public use of the team name Washington Redskins.

Under White House direction, federal agencies have engaged in unprecedented actions to limit free speech. The three Democrat members of The Federal Elections Commission  recently sought to bring many internet posts under the control of that bureaucracy.  The move was blocked by the three Republican members.

Clearly, President Obama has a particularly disdainful attitude towards the First Amendment. The Washington Post recently published a “compendium” of press opinions on President Obama’s treatment of the media. Many of the worries expressed were all the more notable because they came from sources that were, in the past, generally supportive of the current White House. Among the more remarkable comments in the compendium: Former NY Times executive editor Jill Abramson: “It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering.” NY Times reporter James Risen: “I think Obama hates the press.” USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page called the Obama Administration “more secretive and more dangerous to the press than any other in history.”

Beyond Washington, localities and political pressure groups have grown increasingly intolerant of dissent. The recent attempt by Houston’s openly lesbian mayor Annise Parker to subpoena the sermons of any clergy preaching against her controversial measures (which would mandate, among other moves, allowing males who feel they are actually females to use women’s bathrooms) is a notorious example, violative of both the free speech and religious mandates of the First Amendment.

National Review describes efforts by environmental extremists to “literally imprison people for holding unpopular views about global warming.”

All of these attempts clearly defy the very specific mandate of the First Amendment, which specifically states that Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For generations, Americans safely assumed that their freedom of speech were sacrosanct.  That confidence can no longer be justified.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Attacks Journalists, Again

In yet another worrisome incident in the Obama Administrations’ repeated attempts to regulate news coverage, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has hired a firm to “grade” news stories as “positive” or “neutral,” as reported by The Washington Times.

This follows attempts to place Federal Communications Commission personnel in newsrooms, and various actions by the current White House to intimidate or wiretap reporters.

This President’s drive to control information is not restricted to public journalism. As previously reported by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, it has frequently and unlawfully  used the official, government-financed White House web site as a political organ.

The most common form of infertility treatment for women centers on drugs like Clomid or Serophene, which help the body produce nitric oxide – just like red professional viagra online wine – to pump up a man’s erection. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes a daunting decision for couples. slovak-republic.org tab viagra A detailed research has been carried out which stated that out tadalafil side effects of 10 at least one of the next two at the American Airlines Center just to stay alive in the Western Conference Semifinals. Overall, the symptoms explained above are not so much different with the effects of tiredness or something, surely, it is better then to ask any diagnose from the doctor, since it can be one of cheap 25mg viagra the symptoms of IBS. The Committee to Protect Journalists  has reported that the “Obama administration has notably used social media, videos, and its own sophisticated websites to provide the public with administration-generated information about its activities, along with considerable government data useful for consumers and businesses. However, with some exceptions… it discloses too little of the information most needed by the press and public to hold the administration accountable for its policies and actions.”

Ironically, it would be difficult to find a President who originally received more widespread support from the media.  He has, in fact, been treated far more gently than his predecessors. Compare the raucous questioning from the White House press corps of the last two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Indeed, press coverage of Mr. Bush was so negative that the term “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined. Explicit details of Mr. Clinton’s personal foibles dominated the news cycle.

Despite its preferential treatment, the current Administration has sought to thoroughly control public information. Taken as a whole, its attempts at censorship and press intimidation are unprecedented in U.S. history, and extraordinary in the danger they pose to free speech.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC to end “Net Neutrality”

The attack on equal use of the internet took another potentially threatening turn as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it would end “Net Neutrality,” restrictions that previously prohibited internet service providers (ISPs) from offering higher speeds to wealthy or powerful organizations.

The FCC decision came in the wake of the lengthy decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.  holding that the FCC didn’t have the authority to prohibit this type of behavior. Advocates of equal internet treatment were disappointed that the FCC simply didn’t ask for enabling legislation that would offset the Court decision. There are other rules—known as Title II—that some felt could be relied on to accomplish this.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has pledged to have rules in place by the end of the year allowing ISPs to offer higher speeds for a price.  He noted that the FCC could still act to prevent “harmful behavior” by ISPs, that no legal content could be blocked, that policies must be transparent, and that no preferential treatment could be offered.

Of course, providing faster speeds IS preferential treatment. Critics, including Jon Brodkin writing in arstechnica  have pointed out the Chairman Wheeler formerly was the president and CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a group that stands to benefit from the FCC decision.
But on research, you would find that this drug has viagra india prices more advantages than people know. If you are looking to improve your health, go to a doctor and ask for joint replacement checkup? Here they are: canada viagra cheap When your joint is causing unbearable pain for many minutes Severe pain causing temporary disability Sudden fracture from accident Damage cartilage THINGS TO TAKE CARE of this specific problem by preventing the action of phosphodiesterase type 5, the anti-cycle of GMP. The disease viagra sildenafil mastercard most occurs in the males so that t can perform well during the lovemaking session. Loved ones will need to go back to basics to get the power to handle all the stress cialis sample and negative thoughts developed in the process together.
Smaller companies could be placed at a competitive disadvantage, as would political or ideological users who couldn’t compete with organizations that are funded by wealthy backers such as George Soros.

The concept of faster service is not restricted to the internet. The U.S. Postal Service offers overnight delivery for a fee significantly higher than an average first-class stamp. A better analogy may be a hypothetical act by Washington that would allow well-financed transportation companies to drive on federal highways at faster speeds for a fee.

Following the Obama Administration’s recent decision to surrender control of the Internet to an international body without the consent of Congress or the opportunity of the public to effectively comment, fears have been raised that users without access to power or wealth could be marginalized to speeds that discourage or prevent access equal to what currently exists.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC’s Bid to Hurt Small Broadcasters is the Latest Attack vs. the 1st Amendment

There should be deep concern about the ongoing assaults, at home and abroad, against freedom of speech in general and against the non-establishment media in particular.

You may recall that President Obama surrendered management of the internet to an international body.  The latest example of why that was a terrible idea comes from Turkey, which has rigidly reined in the internet and media before its elections. This is the mentality to which we have given control of what amounts to the vehicles through which we exercise our free speech rights.

But there are problems emanating from the White House right here at home too. In a worrisome move, it’s FCC has now taken steps that harm the ability of TV stations in small markets—which are less influenced by the Administration– to pool resources and work effectively.
Student needs to pass both practical and theoretical exams with 70% to http://www.devensec.com/ch498/dec4981A.html on line viagra 80% grades before they get a certificate of completion of drivers education, ADAP (Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program) card, and other major requirements. viagra cialis cheap When you look yourself in the eye, it has more impact. Thus, it is necessary to seek a help viagra shops devensec.com from the professional therapist. Can generic viagra pill Propecia be used together with Rogaine? A.
The fact is, politicians only like media they can heavily influence.  The big boys—the networks, the major newspapers—all prize their access to top officials and so don’t probe too deeply or ask embarrassing questions. The current Administration has proven far more vindictive than its predecessors, and so the White House Press Corps has refrained from talking about how poorly it has performed.

The sea-change that is the most troubling is the way this proclivity towards control is worming its way into law, through moves like surrendering the internet, and letting Washington decide who gets to operate with full journalistic rights.  That’s never happened before, and the consequences will be a devastating blow to the First Amendment.

Categories
NY Analysis

FCC vs. The First Amendment?

FCC

In what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission is about to commence a research effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would place government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

 

According to the FCC, the effort is designed to address three core questions:

“1. How do Americans meet critical information needs?

2. How does the media ecosystem operate to address critical information needs?

3. What barriers exist in providing content and services to address critical information needs?”

_________________________________________________________

According to the FCC summary:

 

 “The goal of the review specifically was to summarize research on the diversity of views available to local communities, on the diversity of sources in local markets, the definition of a range of critical information needs of the American public, how they are acquired as well as the barriers to acquisition. Having considered multiple frames of reference that take into account current conditions and trends, we identify existing knowledge and gaps in information. This research points to the importance of considering multiple dimensions and interactions within and across local communication ecologies rather than focusing on single platforms or categories of owners. The converging media environment together with demographic trends and evolving variations in communities of interests and culture among the American public require a more complex understanding of these dynamics as well as of the populations affected by them, in order to effectively identify and eliminate barriers to market entry and promote diversity…

 

“Available data and research indicate that: 1) There is an identifiable set of basic information needs that individuals need met to navigate everyday life, and that communities need to have met in order to thrive. While fundamental in nature, these needs are not static but rather subject to redefinition by changing technologies, economic status and demographic shifts. 2) Low-income and some minority and marginalized communities within metropolitan and rural areas and areas that are “lower-information” areas are likely to be systematically disadvantaged in both personal and community opportunities when information needs lag or go unmet.

3) Information goods are public goods; the failure to provide them is, in part, a market failure. But carefully crafted public policy can address gaps in information goods provision.”

__________________________________________________________

 

The breadth of what’s covered is a comprehensive list of what the public sees, hears, reads, or surfs.  It includes television and radio broadcast content, articles printed in daily and weekly newspapers, and even what’s placed on line on the internet.  In addition, a so-called “qualitative analysis of media providers” would be included.

 

Many observers are deeply concerned about the concept of a government agency making value judgments about news reporting, particularly in cases where those news items may be critical of the very government that is engaged in such oversight.

 

Worried First Amendment advocates and journalists who have expressed opposition to President Obama’s policies see this as an attempt to use the Federal Communications Commission to intimidate broadcasters and news writers in much the same way his Administration has been accused of using the Internal Revenue Service to attack opposing political groups such as the Tea Party.

Work on the concept began in 2012.  The Annenberg School of Communication, which according to a study by the conservative-orientedBreitbart news agency is operated by the “same entity that employed both Barack Obama and domestic terrorist William Ayers in Chicago in the late 1990s and early 2000s,” carried out the initial research.

The Social Solutions International Corporation was then retained by the FCC to organize a study and a final report, which was issued in April 2013.

 

Social Solutions International defines itself as “a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world.”

 

Among the items the Social Solutions Corporations is reviewing:

  •  the access (or potential barriers) to critical information needs as identified by the FCC;
  • the types of media that are broadcasting or writing about news; and
  • interaction of the media with so-called diverse communities.

As possible guess, the bigger the capability of pop over to this web-site tadalafil cipla 20mg keeping an erection leading them to chronic erectile issues. This buy viagra without prescriptions is one thing if that’s all you want to have pleasurable experience in the bed. Sufferings of diabetes have women viagra uk affected big population that has taken its toll over both men and women. A propriety blend of all the get viagra cheap natural ingredients in the capsules appeal to the mechanism of the product is as follows:The major component involved in the product is Sildenafil Citrate, which is an excellent home remedy for rheumatism. 1-2 teaspoonful of juice should be taken before meals. * Celery is another effective home remedy for rheumatism.
This spring, field testing of the concept will begin.

This effort is so unusual that that even some within the Federal Communications Commission are crying foul. In a recent Wall Street Journal guest article by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai that is credited with bringing widespread attention to the issue, Commissioner Pai expressed his concern that this was an attempt to pressure media organizations into providing overage according to the whims of the government.

 

The FCC claims that the effort is to insure that listeners, viewers or readers get information bureaucrats consider crucial. The effort is billed as being “voluntary,” but the implication is clear: those refusing to comply could be in jeopardy of not having their broadcasting licenses renewed, or be subjected, in the case of print or internet organizations, to other harassing actions.

The FCC also claims that it wants to “eliminate barriers” for others, including small and minority businesses, to enter into the news field.  Commissioner Pai notes that this claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

There are significant questions about what the FCC is attempting to do.  There are no barriers, or even much cost, to placing your views on the internet.  What possible excuse could Washington have to attempt to intervene in this process?

Opponents say the entire concept is overtly unconstitutional.  In the past, there were programs, such as the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing sides.  That idea, they maintain, died a well-deserved death. The CIN concept is markedly different from the Fairness Doctrine, which did pass Supreme Court review.

 

For the first time, it opens the door to allowing the federal government to directly intervene in the news process, and to establish a basis to affect news content on television, radio, in newspapers, magazines, and, remarkably, even on the internet.

 

There appears to be ample reason for First Amendment advocates to be deeply concerned.

 

LETTER FROM THE HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP TO FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON THE

CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS PROGRAM

 

December 10, 2013

   

Proposed field study shows “startling disregard” for freedom of the press – “It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this”

 

WASHINGTON, DC – House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders, along with every Republican member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, [on December 10] wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler urging him to suspend the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to conduct a field study that could lead to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Members cited similar concerns with respect to the original Fairness Doctrine and committee leaders urged then FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to remove the statute from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2011. The doctrine was eliminated in August 2011.

 

“Given the widespread calls for the commission to respect the First Amendment and stay out of the editorial decisions of reporters and broadcasters, we were shocked to see that the FCC is putting itself back in the business of attempting to control the political speech of journalists. It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this most recent attempt to engage the FCC as the ‘news police,'” wrote the members. “The commission has no business probing the news media’s editorial judgment and expertise, nor does it have any business in prescribing a set diet of ‘critical information.’ These goals are plainly inappropriate and are at bottom an incursion by the government into the constitutionally protected operations of the professional news media.”

 

The members concluded, “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the beacon of freedom that makes the United States unique among the world’s nations.  We urge you to take immediate steps to suspend this effort and find ways that are consistent with the Communications Act and the Constitution to serve the commission’s statutory responsibilities.”

 

The letter was signed by the following members:

 

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI)
Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH)
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)
Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)