US Congress sanctions companies and governments working on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany

(December 18, 2019) The US Congress has passed sanctions on companies and governments that are working on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will provide Russian gas to Germany under the Baltic sea. Washington is trying to halt completion of the $10.5 billion pipeline.

Sanctions may be too late

A recent article notes: "The U.S. Senate has approved a defense bill that will see sanctions imposed on companies working on Russia’s massive flagship gas pipeline project to Germany — but the sanctions might not have much effect given that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is almost complete.

Denmark had delayed project

On October 30th Denmark gave permission to construct the 147 kilometers of the project that pass through Denmark's territorial wat Thers no doubt frustrating US efforts to stop the project. The project will run along the seabed southeast of the Danish island of Bornholm.

The sanctions

The sanction provision are part of a large spending package that passed the US Congress with a large majority last week and is due to be signed by President Trump some time this week. After the provisions are signed into law, the Trump administration has 60 days in which to identify companies and individuals to Nord Stream 2.

Individuals sanctioned could have their US visas revoked and property blocked. Those sanctioned have 30 days to wind up operations on the project.

Allseas based in Switzerland is a likely target as it is working on sections not yet completed.

US wants to prevent Russian influence in EU

US officials believe that the pipeline will increase the EU's reliance on Russian energy and increase Russian influence in the EU. They claim it will put billions of dollars in Russian coffers. The US would like to see Germany rely on more expensive gas from the US which would put even more billions of dollars in US coffers.

German reaction

Heiko Maas tweeted that EU energy policy was decided in Europe and not the US. He said on German TV criticizing the sanctions:"We think this is unacceptable, because it is ultimately a move to influence autonomous decisions that are made in Europe."

The German-Russian Chamber of Commerce also had a negative reaction not surprisingly. The Chamber claimed that the pipeline was essential for European energy security and called for retaliatory sanctions on the US. The Chamber does not appreciate the US position that EU energy security should not depend upon Russia but the US.

Andreas Nick a member of the German Bundestag claimed to a German newspaper that US sanctions over Nord Stream 2 would unite Germans in supporting the project. Nick said: "It's an issue of national sovereignty, and it is potentially a liability for trans-Atlantic relations."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US legislators introduce bill to audit algorithms for bias

US legislators introduced a bill that requires large companies to audit machine learning powered systems such as facial recognition or ad targeting algorithms to check for bias.

	1 of 2

The Algorithmic Accountability Act

The act is sponsored by Senators Cory Booker a Democrat and Ron Wyden a Republican. In the House an equivalent bill is sponsored by Representative Yvette Clarke a Democrat. If the bill passes it would ask that the Federal Trade Commission create rules for evaluation of highly sensitive automated systems. The companies that use such systems would need to check the algorithms powering the systems to determine whether they are biased or discriminatory. They would also need to determine if the systems pose a threat to privacy or the security of individuals.

The act targets companies that access large amounts of information, making over $50 million per year, hold information on at least 1 million people or devices, or primarily act as data brokers who buy and sell consumer data. The companies would be required to examine a large range of algorithms, including those that could affect a consumer's legal rights, that attempt to predict or analyze consumer behavior, involve large amounts of sensitive information or systematically monitor a large publicly accessible physical place. Theoretically, this would include a huge area of the tech economy. If a report should uncover major risks of discrimination, privacy problems of other issues, the company involved is to address them within a reasonable time.

Facebook sued for bias

The bill comes just a few short weeks after Facebook was sued by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department had alleged its algorithms resulted in a targeting system which unfairly limited who saw housing ads. The sponsors mentioned this lawsuit in a press release.

The suit is reported in a recent article: The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced Thursday it is suing Facebook for violating the Fair Housing Act by allowing advertisers to limit housing ads based on race, gender and other characteristics. The agency also said Facebook’s ad system discriminates against users even when advertisers did not choose to do so. ProPublica first reported in 2016 that Facebook allowed housing advertisers to exclude users by race. Then in 2017, ProPublica found that—despite Facebook’s promised changes—the company was still letting advertisers exclude users by race, gender, ethnicity, family status, ability and other characteristics."

Bill covers many controversial AI areas

The bill would also include training data that could also result in biased outcomes. An example would be a facial recognition pattern trained on mostly white subjects can as a result misidentify people of other races.

Senator Ron Wyden noted the importance of an audit for bias noting that “computers are increasingly involved in the most important decisions affecting Americans’ lives — whether or not someone can buy a home, get a job or even go to jail. But instead of eliminating bias, too often these algorithms depend on biased assumptions or data that can actually reinforce discrimination against women and people of color.”

As reported in a Digital Journal article some time ago the academic world has already noted the importance of ethics in the field of AI: "The advances of artificial intelligence together with machine learning into greater areas of life requires a review of the ethical and human-facing implications, according to the University of Guelph. A new hub has been launched to address such issues."

Back in October of 2017 the Google AI chief expressed concerns about algorithms: "John Giannandrea AI chief at Google is concerned that bias is being built in to many of the machine-learning algorithms by which the robot makes decisions. At a recent Google conference on the relationships between AI systems and humans Giannandrea said: “The real safety question, if you want to call it that, is that if we give these systems biased data, they will be biased.”"

Previously published in the DIgital Journal

January oil export from Texas first in 40 years from US as ban lifted

Enterprise Products Partners LP, a Texas energy company, plans to load 600,000 barrels of light sweet crude from South Texas into a tanker at its terminal in the Houston Ship Channel during the first week of January.

	1 of 2
Vitol Group, a Dutch firm, is buying the crude. The crude will be sent to a refinery in Switzerland where a subsidiary of the company owns a refinery according to a source familiar with the company. Jim Teague, chief operating officer, of Enterprise's general partner said:

“We are excited to announce our first contract to export U.S. crude oil, which to our knowledge may be the first export cargo of U.S. crude oil from the Gulf Coast in almost 40 years.”

Shell Oil also welcomed the lifting of the export ban and said it considered the move "beneficial to government, industry and consumers, alike." Republicans in Congress argued the ban was obsolete due to the huge increase in U.S. production, much of it due to fracking. The ban was imposed back in 1975 when there was an acute oil shortage in the U.S.

Some environmentalists claimed lifting the ban would be disastrous for the planet since it would increase production. Oil Change International's executive director, Stephen Kretzmann, said:Just days after we all were given new hope in Paris, the empire has struck back. Congress’s response to an historic climate deal? Incentivise further oil production. It’s hard to imagine a clearer example of how far politics still has to go on climate in order to catch up with the science.

This deal to lift the export ban is a disaster for the climate and for American communities that our children will view as a cynical indictment of a corrupt political system not yet willing to confront the powerful interests behind the climate crisis.

However, alternative energy proponents, did get some welcome news as well. Republicans in Congress agreed to extend subsidies for wind and solar energy projects for another five years. The 30 percent tax credit was due to expire next year. The tax credit for wind lapsed in 2014. This will mean $25 billion for the industries. The Republicans also will not block a $500 million payment to the UN Green Climate Fund.

The export ban removal was part of a $1.1 trillion spending measure that will avert a US government shutdown. The bill passed the House by a vote of 316 for versus 113 against. The Senate vote was 65 for to 33 against. The bill will ensure government financing until September of 2016. President Obama signed the bill.

Obama still trying to close Guantanamo Bay prison in spite of Congressional roadblocks

Obama is poised to present his plan for closing the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, a plan that involves transfer of some inmates to the US. The plan may be revealed as early as today, Friday the 13th of November.

 

+ Add Image

The transfer of any inmates to U.S. soil is prohibited by the U.S. Congress by provisions in a recently passed defense bill. The provisions also place restriction on transfers of inmates to other countries. The Obama plan suggests seven facilities in the U.S. to which inmates could be transferred. The list includes two in Colorado one of which has a Supermax facility for very dangerous inmates. The report indicates the advantages and disadvantages of each facility but does not rank them. No doubt Obama would probably choose a facility in a location that has the least local resistance to the transfer or even had local support.

Guantanamo now holds 112 detainees with 53 eligible for transfer to another country. The other 59 will either face trial by military commission or the government has decided that they are too dangerous to release but are not facing charges. A key aspect of the shame of Guantanamo was that it held prisoners indefinitely without charge. Yet Obama's plan retains that feature while closing the facility. As a Guardian article notes:The administration claims they cannot charge and hold a trial for dozens of detainees (in many cases, because torture will likely taint any evidence), but they also say they consider them “too dangerous” to release from US custody. So the plan appears to be to let them rot in jail forever – in clear violation of the fifth amendment – in a supermax prison somewhere inside the United States.

Those who oppose Obama's plan appear not to even take notice of this aspect of his plan. They worry that the inmates might pose a danger to Americans even though there are already many terrorists locked up in the U.S. quite safely it would appear. Ben Carson, the frontrunner in the Republican presidential nomination race, probably speaks for many Republicans when he says on his Facebook page that the Guantanamo detention facility must be kept open even though many observers think that it is a prime recruiting tool for jihadists. Even George W. Bush thought it should be closed.

There are difficulties too in transferring the 53 cleared for transfer to another country. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter must be certain that the detainees will not return to terrorism or the battlefield. Many of those cleared for transfer are from Yemen now in the midst of a civil war in which Al Qaeda is making great gains. Carter is not about to repatriate any Yemeni inmates.

Many analysts and legal experts argue that Obama could easily use his executive power as commander in chief to transfer Guantanamo inmates to the US without congressional approval. The main argument is relatively straightforward. The former special envoy overseeing Guantánamo’s closure, Cliff Sloan, and a former White House counsel, Gregory Craig, wrote a commentary on Nov. 6 in the Washington Post arguing that, under his powers as commander in chief outlined in Article II of the Constitution, “the president has exclusive authority to determine the facilities in which military detainees are held.”

A similar argument has been made by Harold Koh, a former top legal advisor at the State Department.

It would be somewhat ironic if Obama does use his executive power and ignore the U.S. Congress. In 2007 as a senator Obama accused the G.W. Bush administration of "clear abuse of power" for claiming sweeping authority to ignore Congress. However as president Obama has moved in the same direction of extending executive privilege: He has invoked commander-in-chief authorities to justify the widespread use of lethal drone strikes abroad and the secrecy surrounding them, despite criticism that in many cases the individuals targeted did not represent an “imminent threat” to the United States.When he wants to claim and use executive power Obama does so, but when he has it but does not want to use it he claims he cannot act because Congress is preventing him.

The problem for Obama with using his executive power is that he could face not just a legal challenge but challenges to cut funding for government priorities or even a shut down, as well as refusal to approve nominations for key positions. Obama may not be willing to face such a political battle even if this means not being able to carry out a key promise that he has continually said he will keep. Perhaps Obama might wait until after the November election to carry out the transfer of detainees to the U.S. by executive order. Already, the Republicans are making the plan to close Guantanamo a joint Obama-Clinton operation as shown on one appended video.

Lobbyists' funds help pass "fast track" trade legislation in US Congress

The Obama administration, after a prolonged battle, was able to pass "fast-track" authority for the Transpacific-Partnership trade deal by a vote of 62 to 37 in the U.S. Senate.

+ Add Image

This will allow the Obama administration to complete the deal with Congress only being able to vote for or against the bill with no amendments or filibuster. The battle will now shift to the House of Representatives where Obama will face strong opposition from the ranks of his own party and from some on the Republican right. The bill has much more support among Republicans than Democrats. The vote in the Senate to approve the bill was no doubt in part the result of large payments to Senators. The Guardian newspaper reports:Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes. The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.

The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.The complete data can be found here.

Among Democrats, Senator Warren has been one of the leading and harshest critics of the TPP. Nancy Pelosi the Democratic minority leader in the House said that John Boehner the House Speaker would need 200 Republican votes to win the 217 votes he needs. Obama is having a battle to win over new converts within his own party. Pelosi has yet to declare her own position.

A few Republican conservatives apparently oppose the bill simply because they do not want to support Obama on anything. Hillary Clinton, has been vague in her responses to the issue. Certainly she has not come out with criticisms as her supporter Elizabeth Warren has done. In the past, Clinton was a cheerleader for the TPP but in order to further her campaign for the presidential nomination she must throw out some crumbs to the Democratic base of union member and environmentalists who are generally opposed to the TPP:The problem for Clinton is that she has historically backed free-trade deals, and as secretary of state called the TPP "the gold standard in trade agreements." Yet her campaign's big push over the last week or two has been to prove her liberal bona fides.

In the House, there are about 20 Democrats in favor of the bill and less than a dozen still undecided. Those supporting the bill say that they need at least 25 Democrats with 30 even better to pass the bill. Thirty to forty Republicans are expected to oppose the bill. The passage of the bill in Senate was aided by a measure called Trade Adjustment Assistance(TAA) that would assist workers who might be displaced as a result of the agreement. Many Republican oppose the provision. The House leadership might possibly divide the question to allow separate votes on the TAA and the bill itself. Some Democrats also oppose the TAA because it would be partly funded by Medicare cuts.

Opponents of the legislation point out that corporations could use TPP provisions to challenge U.S. regulations governing food safety or pesticide us:The TPP would allow foreign corporations to challenge any U.S. food safety regulation on pesticide use or processing that exceeds international standards. In turn, any U.S. food safety rule could be challenged as an illegal trade barrier, which ultimately might force the U.S. to allow unsafe food products to be imported under the threat of trade sanctions.Senator Warren has demanded that Obama end what she calls the secret deals involved in the TPP and allow for public input in the negotiation process.

Opponents of the TPP may have a problem mobilizing the general public against the bill since a recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 58 percent of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, thought that free trade agreements had been good for the U.S. The issue of global trade ranked 23rd among priorities of Americans for the Congress and president.

US House or Representatives passes Keystone XL pipeline approval bill

- The U.S. House of Representatives controlled by Republicans easily passed a bill that approves the Keystone XL pipeline that also circumvents the need to get presidential approval for the project.

The legislation approving the $8 billion dollar project passed by a vote of 252 votes to 161. Joining all 221 Republicans who voted for the bill were 31 Democrats. Supporters claim the bill will also pass in Senate although this is certainly not assured as at least one source claims that one more vote was needed to pass Senate to garner the 60 votes to overcome any attempt to block passage through a fillibuster. The Senate is expected to take up the bill on Tuesday.
 The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil from the Canadian Tar Sands in the province of Alberta to the US Gulf Coast. Since the pipeline will cross the US border the line must be approved by the US government. A description of the project and its history can be found here.
 While supporters of the pipeline, including some unions, claim construction of the line would create many jobs among other benefits, environmentalists claim the number of jobs created is inflated and that the pipeline will indirectly elevate carbon emissions through the increased production from the Alberta Tar or Oil Sands. Obama has threatened to veto any approval in the past as he wants to wait for the outcome of a legal case over the route of the pipeline in Nebraska. After the ruling the State Department can complete its own evaluation of the project.
 The Democrats face problems when the Keystone bill comes to the Senate. The bill is sponsored not only by Republican John Hoeven from North Dakota but also Democrat Mary Landrieu from Lousiana. The sponsor of the House bill was Republican Bill Cassidy also of Louisiana. Cassidy will face Landrieu on December 6 in a runoff election for Senate. Democrats will need to decide if they want to help out their fellow Democratic Senator by voting for the bill or vote against it. Even if the bill does not pass the Senate now it will probably pass after the Republicans take over control in January since after the mid-term elections they gained control of the body. At present, the Republicans need the support of 15 Democrats to push through the legislation.
Republicans and Democrats both touted their role in bringing the bill before the Senate. Landrieu pushed for the vote in Senate to show she supported the project, as it is quite popular in Louisiana. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, on the other hand claimed progress on the bill was due to Republican sponsor John Hoeven:"We never would have gotten to this point without the tireless leadership of Sen. Hoeven in the Senate, and Congressman Cassidy in the House. Like the experts, Sen. Hoeven also knows that Keystone would also have almost zero net effect on our climate."
 Obama maintains that the pipeline would not help lower gas prices in the US claiming that it only provides Canada the ability to send its oil to the Gulf and export it elsewhere as shown on the appended video. Duane Bratt, chair of the Department of Policy Studies at Mount Royal University, is quite critical of Obama's remarks: "There is so much wrong with that statement. It ignores the undercapacity of U.S. refineries. Having additional oil coming into U.S. refineries is good for them." He points out as well that most Canadian oil is not shipped to China and Asia but is sold in the US. He might have mentioned as well that most of the oil sands producers are not even Canadian owned: More than two-thirds of all oil sands production in Canada is owned by foreign entities, sending a majority of the industry’s profits out of the country, says a new analysis released Thursday by a British Columbia-based conservation group Oil analyst Jackie Forrest pointed out that Gulf Coast refineries in the US need heavy oil: “There is a shortage of heavy oil. If we can get our oil to the Gulf Coast, there is a market for it there.”
 Environmentalists will see Obama's reactions to these events as a test of his commitment to address the issue of climate change. The Republicans accept a State Department report this January that the pipeline would not significantly add to carbon emissions since if the pipeline were not built the oil would be transported by truck and rail which could cause even more environmental problems.

646 billion defence bill passes US house.

So now there is no timetable for withdrawal. The only Democratic victories are for clauses that promote Buy American pandering to economic nationalism. It will be interesting to see if Bush actually vetoes the bill to show that he wants to reward capital in other countries in the coalition of the willing such as the UK. The Democracs did not even manage to tie Bush's hands with respect to attacking Iran. The truth is they probably do not want to anyway. Hilary is no less hawkish on Iran than Bush as far as I can see.

House Passes $646 Billion Defense Bill
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, May 17, 2007


The House passed a $646 billion defense bill Thursday that supports the Pentagon's ambitious weapons acquisition program but would place new restrictions on foreign-made technology the military could buy.



The legislation, approved 397-27, has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of its "Buy American" provisions. The measure covers defense spending for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.


In recent years, the Defense Department and Congress have locked horns over this issue. Lawmakers want to protect suppliers in their districts; the Bush administration typically has sided with industry in opposing tough new restrictions.


In a statement, the White House said the House bill would "jeopardize our military readiness when our objective should be to enhance our ability to get the best capability for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer."


The White House also threatened a veto over proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies. The legislation would restore collective bargaining rights and access to an appeals process for certain employees.


Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the veto threat was a disappointment, but noted the large majority backing the legislation.


"This is a strong bill that addresses our military's critical readiness needs, supports our troops in the field and at home and protects the American people," said Skelton, D-Mo.


The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to complete its version of the legislation next week.


Overall, the House bill authorizes more than $100 billion in military procurement. That includes money to buy new protective vehicles and body armor for troops, and an additional $142 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Despite the administration's opposition to certain parts of the bill, the legislation was an unusual display of bipartisanship in a Congress sharply divided on the Iraq war. The bill does not call for troop withdrawals, as many Democrats want, and was supported overwhelmingly by Republicans.


Skelton worked to keep the Iraq debate out of the bill to ensure the legislation's survival.


Bush this month vetoed the 2007 war spending bill because it included a deadline for troop withdrawals from Iraq.


Despite their general support for the bill, Republicans fiercely opposed a $764 million reduction in the Pentagon's $8.9 billion request for ballistic missile defense. A proposal by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., to restore the money failed.


Republicans were successful in adding money for missile defense programs when they tied the money to Israel. The House voted to increase the president's request by $205 million for U.S.-Israeli anti-missile programs.


The House also agreed to an amendment by Rep. James Moran, D-Va., aimed at pressuring the administration on its handling of military detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The measure, approved by a 220-208 vote, calls for a plan to free prisoners slated for release by the end of the year.


The White House said it would veto any bill that prevents the detention of enemy combatants, but has not stated a position on Moran's amendment.


On Wednesday, the House adopted amendments intended to ease the stress of combat on troops and their families.


One measure would require that the Pentagon fly home the remains of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to the airport that is closest to their families. A second would prevent deployed troops from permanently losing custody of their children.


Democrats were unsuccessful in adding amendments to prevent a military strike in Iran and to require the videotaping of military interrogations. The Iran measure failed after several members said they feared it would leave Israel vulnerable.