Maryland, Virginia senators blast move to add long-distance flights at Reagan airport

 A quartet of senators from the greater Washington area tore into a potential provision that would add a number of long-distance flight slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) panned the plan released by congressional negotiators early Monday that would add 10 slots at National Airport, or five round-trip flights, arguing the airport is already bursting at the seams. 

“We are deeply frustrated that Committee leadership with jurisdiction over the FAA Reauthorization Act — none of whom represent the capital region — have decided to ignore the flashing red warning light of the recent near collision of two aircraft at [National Airport] and jam even more flights onto the busiest runway in America,” the four senators said, pointing to a near miss that occurred at the airport nearly two weeks ago. 

“It should go without saying that the safety of the traveling public should be a higher priority than the convenience of a few lawmakers who want direct flights home from their preferred airport,” they said. “We will continue to fight against this ridiculous and dangerous provision.”

The Virginia and Maryland senators have been loudly opposing the potential provision for much of the past year. 

National Airport is considered a short-haul airport that largely limits flight distances to 1,250 miles, though there are 11 exceptions to that perimeter. Lawmakers, including many from far-flung parts of the country, have called for more flights into the nation’s capital. Many prefer flying in and out of National Airport, rather than Dulles International Airport and Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, both of which are better suited to handle long-haul flights but are farther from Washington.

Delta Air Lines, based in Atlanta, is a leading proponent of this push, while United Airlines is against it. Dulles is a United hub and would take on the brunt of those flights being siphoned off. 

Despite the negotiated deal, the Maryland and Virginia lawmakers are going to the mat to try to scrap the potential new rule. They have cited FAA statistics showing that the addition of five more round-trip flights would add more than 700 minutes of delays at the airport.

“We understand the desire of senators to shorten their commutes home, but this proposal would benefit few while impacting many, first and foremost in safety but also in delays and in reducing the economic competitiveness of smaller destinations within the perimeter,” they wrote in a letter to their colleagues. “The senators representing the region and the people who most use this airport stand uniform against a provision negotiated without us that will guarantee more unacceptable delay and compromise passenger safety.”

The FAA reauthorization push comes ahead of a May 10 deadline, marking the last significant must-pass legislative item on the congressional calendar until September, when lawmakers must fund fiscal 2025. 

The bicameral package would keep the pilot’s retirement age steady at 65 instead of raising it to 67, as well as include other items aimed at preventing aircraft collisions and boosting air traffic control staffing. 

One item that was scrapped from the package would have allowed members of Congress, judges and Cabinet members to receive security escorts if they are facing credible threats. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was a leading proponent of that provision.

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/4629616-maryland-reagan-airport-long-flights/

'US vehicle safety rules will require better automatic braking'

 With distracted driving and pedestrian fatalities on the rise, auto industry regulators believe technology can prevent hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries each year.

New rules from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will require improved automating braking systems on new cars sold in the United States by September, 2029.

These new regulations will require the systems to automatically apply brakes and prevent crashes and pedestrian impacts at higher speeds than most current systems, and to work at night as well as during the day.

Even though automatic emergency braking, or AEB, is already common on new vehicles sold in the US, these new requirements will save hundreds of lives per year, NHTSA officials said in a statement.

AEB is standard equipment on a large majority of new vehicles sold thanks to a voluntary agreement most automakers signed in 2016. Currently, AEB is used mostly to prevent rear-end collisions, a very common type of crash.

Vehicles with AEB use sensors such as radar, sonar, or cameras to detect when a vehicle ahead has slowed or stopped, or if there is an obstacle in the road. If the driver fails to respond in time or with enough braking force, AEB systems apply the brakes automatically.

While AEB may not always prevent a crash it can, at least, lessen the severity of the impact. Research by the privately funded Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed today’s AEB systems reduced rear-end collisions by about 50%.

Vehicles with pedestrian detection add sensors or cameras to recognize the presence of people walking in front of the car as it drives. Again, if the driver fails to respond, the system will automatically stop the car. And even if they don’t bring the car to a halt, they can reduce the severity of injuries to pedestrians. A recent study by the IIHS found that AEB with pedestrian detection reduced the risk of injury to pedestrians by about 30%.

Pedestrian fatalities have increased 83% since reaching a low point in 2009, according to the IIHS. Bicyclist deaths from getting hit by vehicles have increased 75% over the same period.

The new NHTSA regulations will require AEB systems that can help prevent collisions with other cars at speeds up to 62 miles an hour, and will require the car to stop before hitting pedestrians from speeds as high as 45 miles an hour. The system is also required to apply brakes at speeds up to 90 miles an hour, even if it it can’t entirely prevent a crash.

The same study found that the pedestrian detection systems in vehicles today are ineffective in low-light conditions, at high speeds, or when the vehicle is turning — so, the agency sees significant room for improvements.

The new rules will prevent as many as 360 deaths annually, according to NHTSA, and up to 24,000 injuries.

“Most new vehicles already come with AEB, and we expect that many cars and light trucks will be able to meet this standard ahead of the deadline, meaning even more lives will be saved thanks to this technology,” NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said in a statement.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/29/cars/nhtsa-auto-safety-regulations-automatic-braking/index.html

Barclays Says It’s Winning Asia Banking Business From US Firms

 

• Barclays hires 11 senior sales and traders for Asia markets
• Asia clients want to deal with non-US banks to diversify risk

Barclays Plc says it’s gaining market share in Asia from some US rivals after it hired almost a dozen senior sales and trading staff in the past year to accelerate the buildout of various business lines.

The additions include six directors for its macro unit trading currencies and rates who were hired from rivals including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. The UK bank also added two managing directors for its equity derivatives, private credit and distressed debt operations, Hossein Zaimi, head of Asia-Pacific markets, said in an interview from Hong Kong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/barclays-says-it-s-winning-asia-business-from-us-firms

Washington Announces $45 Million Subsidy For Low Income Families To Buy EVs

 Just when you thought you've already witnessed a lifetime's worth of examples of the government being excellent capital allocators with your tax money, one more shining example comes along. 

Last week it was reported that Washington Governor Jay Inslee has announced $45 million worth of subsidies that is going to allow "low income" families to purchase an electric vehicle. 

The initiative offers families the opportunity to receive financial assistance for either leasing or purchasing electric vehicles, with up to $9,000 allocated for leasing and $5,000 for purchasing, according to Must Read Alaska.

he program is open to individuals earning 300% or less of the federal poverty level and extends to both new and used EVs. Approximately 9,000 people can benefit from the grant, with the potential for either 9,000 individuals to opt for the $5,000 deal or 5,000 individuals for the $9,000 option.

“Washingtonians really get it when it comes to electric vehicles,” Inslee said at a press conference last week. 

Governor Inslee characterized the initiative as a means to "democratize EVs," emphasizing a broader goal of advancing the electrification of transportation. He expressed optimism about widespread adoption, anticipating significant participation and benefit from the program.

However, the program has faced criticism, notably from Washington Policy Center Environmental Director Todd Myers. Myers contends that the subsidies fail to effectively curb carbon emissions and represent a misallocation of taxpayer funds that could be better utilized for other environmental priorities like (we swear we are not making this up) salmon recovery.

Hey Todd, two wrongs don't make a right! But we digress. Despite the controversy, the grant funds are slated to become available to eligible low-income residents in August.

Myers wrote in a blog post: “This is one more example of how wasteful and ineffective Washington’s climate policy is."

He continued: “It also reveals the disingenuousness of claiming that climate change is an ‘existential crisis’ while wasting tens of millions of dollars on projects that do nothing to address that crisis.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/have-fun-staying-poor-washingtons-inslee-announces-45-million-taxpayer-subsidy-low-income

Tens of thousands of medical tests to now fall under federal oversight

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is revising long-standing rules to place laboratory tests under the same jurisdiction as other testing, which the agency says will help ensure better safety and efficacy.

Since 1976, the FDA has not enforced legal requirements on most laboratory developed tests (LDT) due to the Medical Device Amendments. Generally speaking, this has meant that requirements such as good manufacturing practices, premarket reviews prior to use in patients and adverse event reporting has not been enforced.

LDTs are diagnostic tests that are made and used within a single laboratory. As the FDA noted in its rule Monday, LDTs were typically manufactured in small volumes to diagnose rare diseases. At the time, the FDA’s rationale for not enforcing regulations on these tests were that they were low-risk and were employed for a small patient population.

But LDTs have grown in use over the years, as have concerns over their lack of regulatory oversight. Common LDTs today include tests for COVID-19, blood level tests and tests for drug abuse. While LDTs in the ’70’s were carried out by laboratory personnel with expertise, current-day tests now use high-tech instrumentation and software to generate results.

“Today’s LDTs are also more commonly manufactured with instruments or other components not legally marketed for clinical use and are more often used to inform or direct critical treatment decisions, to widely screen for common diseases, to predict personal risk of developing certain diseases, and to diagnose serious medical conditions such as cancer and heart disease,” the FDA said in its final rule on LDTs.

The FDA cited these factors when announcing the change.

“LDTs are being used more widely than ever before — for use in newborn screening, to help predict a person’s risk of cancer, or aid in diagnosing heart disease and Alzheimer’s. The agency cannot stand by while Americans continue to rely on results of these tests without assurance that they work,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf said in a statement.

The announcement was welcomed by some health groups.

The American Cancer Society called the change “a positive step toward ensuring uniform review of all tests intended for the same purpose.”

The move also drew blowback, however. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, blasted the decision.

“The FDA does not have the authority to unilaterally increase its regulatory jurisdiction. This rule will undermine access to essential laboratory tests, increase health care costs, and ultimately harm patients,” Cassidy said in a statement.

“During the pandemic, we saw how too much government interference and red tape delays lifesaving care to Americans. Congress needs to take action to clarify the regulatory structure for diagnostic tests.”

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4629303-medical-tests-fall-under-federal-oversight/

Senator Tells Taxpayers On Gaza Pier: "Cost Has Not Just Risen, It Has Exploded"

 An initial US Navy ship has reached Eastern Mediterranean waters off the coast of the Gaza Strip where its crew has begun constructing a floating platform for the ambitious Gaza humanitarian pier project ordered by President Biden, new satellite images published by Planet Labs show.

USNS Roy P. Benavidez is now some 5 miles from the shoreline location which serves as the base of operations, overseen by the Israeli military. The Associated Press writes that "A satellite image from Sunday by Planet Labs PBC showed pieces of the floating pier in the Mediterranean Sea alongside the vessel."

Both US and Israeli officials have voiced that they hope to have a mobile pier in place and humanitarian deliveries being offloaded via maritime routes by sometime in the first part of May.

The causeway is expected to be at a length of 550-meters (1,800 feet) and will have Israeli military protection. US Army and Navy engineers are expected to remain at sea, especially after days ago the pier site came under mortar shelling by Palestinian militants who have warned against foreign forces stepping foot inside Gaza.

A new Reuters report meanwhile indicates the pier will cost US taxpayers at least $320 million to finish. This is double the early estimates which were floated earlier this year.

"The figure, which has not been previously reported, illustrates the massive scale of a construction effort that the Pentagon has said involves about 1,000 US service members, mostly from the Army and Navy," writes Reuters.

"The cost has not just risen. It has exploded," Senator Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee, has complained.

"This dangerous effort with marginal benefit will now cost the American taxpayers at least $320 million [US dollars] to operate the pier for only 90 days," he continued.

Earlier this month, USAID director Samantha Power said that famine already exists in some parts of the Gaza Strip. WSJ has underscored this as well in its reporting last week: "Some U.S. officials have said the pier, which will float several miles off Gaza’s shore, will help get more aid into northern Gaza, where some residents are already living in famine-like conditions, according to estimates released last month by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, an international initiative tasked with assessing the risk of famine around the world."

Many government officials especially from Global South countries have highlighted Washington's contradictory approach to Gaza - on the one hand the US has been funding the Israeli military machine, sending controversial weaponry like 2,000-pound bombs, while on the other Biden has condemned the soaring civilian death toll and humanitarian catastrophe. Ironically, to some degree the United States is funding both sides of the conflict.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/senator-tells-taxpayers-gaza-pier-cost-has-not-just-risen-it-has-exploded

American people can see through Manhattan political trial against Trump

 The trial that began last week in a Manhattan courtroom is a travesty of justice. There’s no two ways around it. For the first time ever in American history, a politically elected prosecutor is trying to jail a former president and current declared candidate for that office. This prosecution, coming less than seven months before the presidential election, threatens to undermine the election and ultimately harm our democracy.

The allegations behind Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of President Trump are not new. In fact, all the key points have been known since 2018. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, pleaded guilty to charges based on these same facts five years ago. At the time, federal prosecutors determined that no one else would be charged alongside Cohen, closing the case.

Like their federal counterparts, prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office were initially skeptical of pursuing a case against Trump on these facts. Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance passed on the case. Bragg, Vance’s successor, was ready to pass too, until a volunteer prosecutor in his office named Mark Pomerantz resigned in protest and went public criticizing Bragg. Pomerantz’s scathing resignation letter was leaked to the New York Times, and he even penned a book taking Bragg to task for not being more aggressive in going after Trump. If Pomerantz couldn’t convince Bragg to bring charges in private, he would do it publicly.

Pomerantz’s book, described by one reviewer as 300 pages of “score-settling and scorn,” lays bare the political animus motivating the prosecution of Trump. Pomerantz wrote about the thrill he got from investigating Trump and noted he would have gladly paid for the opportunity to prosecute the former president. The book described how Pomerantz pushed Bragg to resurrect the so-called “zombie” case using a convoluted and unprecedented legal theory.

To get around the statute of limitations on what are ordinarily misdemeanor charges, prosecutors could bootstrap the misdemeanor allegations into felonies by alleging that the records were falsified to conceal a second (and still undefined) crime. 

Bragg ultimately succumbed to the pressure campaign, filing charges in April 2023 based on Pomerantz’s blueprint. Bragg built his case around the testimony of his star witness, Michael Cohen. But to say Cohen has a credibility problem is an understatement. Cohen has been convicted of several crimes, including lying to Congress. He’s been disbarred as a lawyer. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan described Cohen’s criminal conduct as “knowing and calculated acts — acts Cohen executed in order to profit personally, build his own power, and enhance his level of influence.” When sentencing Cohen in 2018, a federal judge called his wrongdoing “extensive” and “a veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct.”

Bragg isn’t the first Democrat to try to use Cohen to attack President Trump. In February 2019, the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee invited Cohen to testify at a hearing. In the course of just a few hours on Capitol Hill, Cohen managed to lie six separate times on matters both small and large. He lied about committing various fraudulent acts, crimes to which he pleaded guilty in federal court. Cohen’s lies were so brazen that it earned him a criminal referral to the Justice Department for perjury.

Even if one overlooked the political origins of this case, the untested legal theory and the credibility problems of the star witness, there remain other procedural irregularities that prevent President Trump from getting a fair shake. Bragg’s office declined to extend the normal courtesy to Trump of notifying him in advance of the government’s witness order. Bragg’s office obtained a gag order to bar Trump from engaging in protected political speech under the threat of criminal contempt. While Cohen is free to smear Trump in the national media, Trump must remain silent or face fines and jail time.  

Think about that. As part of a political prosecution, at the height of the presidential campaign, Democrats in New York have silenced the Republican candidate and prevented him from defending himself from these attacks. 

Alvin Bragg’s prosecution is a sad continuation of a long line of Democratic attempts to get President Trump. From the 2016 Russia hoax to the copycat political prosecutions in Atlanta and Washington going on today, Democrats have put America through eight years of turmoil all because of politics.  

Americans see through this charade. They intuitively know when someone’s getting a raw deal. They see crime in Manhattan as Bragg spends his time prosecuting a president for political reasons. They see violent criminals roaming the streets and local businesses shutting down because it’s unsafe. Americans are smarter than Democrats give them credit for. Americans understand that politics is why President Trump is on trial. 

Jim Jordan is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and represents Ohio’s 4th District, Nicole Malliotakis represents New York’s 11th District and Jeff Van Drew represents New Jersey’s 2nd District.

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4629463-american-people-can-see-through-manhattan-political-trial-against-trump/