Blood on your hands: Duckworth blasts Sinema for pilot training proposal

Sen. Tammy Duckworth on Thursday blasted a proposal being pushed by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, that would alter how much training a pilot needs to fly a commercial aircraft, saying senators will have “blood on your hands” if they support the changes she is seeking.

“Now is not the time to put corporate profits ahead of the lives of our constituents who may want to board a commercial flight in the future,” said Duckworth (D-Ill.), an Army veteran helicopter pilot who chairs the subcommittee in charge of aviation in the Senate. “A vote to [change the training rules] for pilots will mean blood on your hands when the inevitable accident occurs as a result of an inadequately trained flight crew.”

Just hours before Duckworth’s speech, Sinema’s (I-Ariz.) proposal had forced the Senate Commerce Committee to postpone a vote on a major aviation policy bill. Because Democrats hold only a slim majority in the Senate, Sinema and the panel's Republicans could have amended the bill to include her training language. Democrats have largely opposed changing the training rules, and they have joined the Biden administration in targeting what they call corporate malfeasance in the airline industry.

Some smaller, regional airlines have been pushing for changes to the current rule requiring pilots to have 1,500 hours of training before they can fly for a commercial airline, arguing that the rule is contributing to ongoing pilot workforce problems. Sinema’s amendment, drafted with Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), would have allowed certain kinds of airline training programs to be weighted more heavily toward that 1,500-hour requirement than they are at present — a proposal similar to those already rejected by the Biden administration.

Sinema did not immediately have any comment.

The issue broke into public view Thursday during a challenging time for the industry, with air travel climbing sharply toward pre-pandemic levels at the same time the system saw a spate of near-misses earlier this year. Though airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration appear to have, for now, arrested the near miss problem, even one more near-collision with half the year remaining would be a dire warning of freefall for an aviation system that has an otherwise enviable record of safety in recent years.

Duckworth alluded to the near-misses during her speech, calling 2023 “a chilling year” for aviation safety. She said her experience as “a pilot responsible for the lives of my crew and passengers in the most hazardous conditions” and leadership on the aviation safety subcommittee “means that I cannot be complicit in efforts to compromise on safety for the flying public.”

“There has never been a worse time to consider weakening pilot certification requirements to produce less experienced pilots,” she said.

Duckworth said the pilot shortage has been “real and painful” and that she understood “the temptation to cut corners or chase the false promise of a quick fix to a systemic challenge.” But she said she has asked for specifics on how many additional pilots would be available if the minimum hours were reduced and has received “no precise estimates, let alone any credible projections.”

The Regional Airline Association, the trade group for regional airlines that has been out front of proposed changes, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The issue itself has been long-running and freighted with emotion, considering that the 1,500 rule requirement stems from changes Congress made to shore up gaps in aviation safety revealed by a 2009 regional jet crash outside of Buffalo, N.Y. — the last multiple-casualty plane crash involving a U.S. airline. Regional carriers have been pushing for watering down that rule since it was enacted, arrayed against a group of family members of those lost on board who have pushed back.

“It is absolutely critical that we keep the current standards in place” said Karen Eckert, whose sister died in the crash. “They have led to an unassailable safety record. Nothing we can do will ever bring our loved ones back, but we are dedicated to making sure that what we experienced back in 2009 will not happen to anyone else.”

Alex Daugherty contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/m4nzYWS
via IFTTT

Read More

Opinion | What the Pentagon Thinks About Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence may transform many aspects of the human condition, nowhere more than in the military sphere. Although many Americans may only now be focusing on AI’s potential promise and peril, the U.S. Defense Department has worked for over a decade to ensure its responsible use. The challenge now is to convince other nations, including the People’s Republic of China, to join the United States in committing to norms of responsible AI behavior.

The Pentagon first issued a responsible use policy for autonomous systems and AI in 2012. Since that time, we’ve maintained our commitment even as technology has evolved. In recent years, we’ve adopted ethical principles for using AI, and issued a responsible AI strategy and implementation pathway. This January, we also updated our original 2012 directive on autonomy in weapon systems, to help ensure we remain the global leader of not just development and deployment, but also safety.

Where the Defense Department is investing in AI, we’re doing so in areas that provide us with the most strategic benefit and capitalize on our existing advantages. We also draw a bright line when it comes to nuclear weapons. The policy of the United States is to maintain a human “in the loop” for all actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the president to initiate and terminate the use of nuclear weapons.

Although we are swiftly embedding AI in many other aspects of our mission — from battlespace awareness, cyber and reconnaissance, to logistics, force support and other back-office functions — we do so mindful of AI’s potential dangers, which we’re determined to avoid. We don’t use AI to censor, constrain, repress or disempower people. By putting our values first and playing to our strengths, the greatest of which is our people, we’ve taken a responsible approach to AI that will ensure America continues to come out ahead.

Our current level of funding for AI reflects our present needs: the latest U.S. defense budget, for fiscal year 2024, invests $1.8 billion in artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities, to continue our progress in modernization and innovation. That will change over time as we incorporate the technology effectively into how we operate — while also staying true to the principles that make ours the world’s finest fighting force.

Even as our use of AI reflects our ethics and our democratic values, we don’t seek to control innovation. America’s vibrant innovation ecosystem is second-to-none because it’s powered by a free and open society of imaginative inventers, doers and problem-solvers. While that makes me choose our free-market system over China’s statist system any day of the week, it doesn’t mean the two systems cannot coexist.

Chinese diplomats have said that the PRC “‘takes very seriously the need to prevent and manage AI-related risks and challenges,’” according to news reports. Those are good words; actions matter more. If China is indeed “ready to step up exchanges and cooperation ‘with all parties,’” the Pentagon would welcome such direct engagement.

Our commitment to values is one reason why the United States and its military have so many capable allies and partners around the world, and growingnumbers of commercial technology innovators who want to work with us: because they share our values.

Such values are owned by no country or company; others are welcome to embrace them. For example, if the PRC credibly and verifiably committed to maintaining human involvement for all actions critical to informing and executing sovereign decisions to use nuclear weapons, it might find that commitment warmly received by its neighbors and others in the international community. And rightfully so.

The United States does not seek an AI arms race, or any arms race, with China, just as we do not seek conflict, either. With AI and all our capabilities, we seek only to deter aggression and defend our country, our allies and partners, and our interests.

America and China are competing to shape the future of the 21st century, technologically and otherwise. That competition is one which we intend to win — not in spite of our values, but because of them.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/kdyriJ0
via IFTTT

Read More

Multiple federal agencies hit by hack

Multiple federal agencies are responding to a large-scale breach affecting a product used to transfer sensitive data, a senior government official confirmed Thursday.

The breaches are connected to a file-transfer program called MOVEit, which has a security hole that Russian-speaking cybercriminals have recently exploited to steal data from companies and demand ransom payments.

“CISA is providing support to several federal agencies that have experienced intrusions affecting their MOVEit applications,” Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director for Cybersecurity at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said in a statement. “We are working urgently to understand impacts and ensure timely remediation.”

CISA and the National Security Council did not respond to a request for comment about which federal agencies had been hacked and whether any of the networks had been encrypted or if they’d received a ransom demand.

About a dozen U.S. agencies have active contracts with MOVEit, according to the federal data procurement system.

It was unclear who was behind the breach, which was first reported by CNN.

However, a Russian-speaking cybercriminal group called CL0P has been waging a widespread data extortion campaign involving a vulnerability in MOVEit. CISA did not respond to a query about whether CL0P was behind this breach. Representatives for the FBI and the NSA did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the attacks.

Last week, CISA and the FBI published a joint cybersecurity advisory detailing steps that federal agencies and private sector networks should take to protect their networks from CL0P’s exploitation of MOVEit’s software.

File-transfer applications have become popular targets for ransomware groups because they are a one-stop shop for victims to host sensitive data. CL0P has exploited vulnerabilities in two similar products in the past, CISA and the FBI said in their advisory.

An aide for Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said via an email that Peters “is aware of this situation and our office has asked CISA for more information on the impacts of this vulnerability.” The aide was granted anonymity to discuss the evolving investigation.

CL0P is believed to have begun stealing the files of a number of unnamed victims on Labor Day weekend, according to the government advisory. It gave them until June 14 to respond to its ransom demand, and threatened to publish victims’ sensitive data if they did not, according to security researchers.

No federal agencies' data appears to have been leaked by CL0P thus far, said Allan Liska, a ransomware expert at Recorded Future who monitors the group’s online presence. However, Liska said that should not come as a surprise given the group’s likely ties to the Kremlin.

“They likely have to check with their handlers before releasing that type of information,” Liska said.

The breach is the latest of a series of cyber operations against federal agencies in recent years. Most famously, in 2020, at least a dozen agencies were compromised as part of the SolarWinds breach, in which Russian government hackers gained access to these systems for over a year through exploiting a vulnerability in an update in software from cybersecurity group SolarWinds.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/s025ya6
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden praises companies for ending hidden fees

Several ticketing and travel companies are committing to get rid of hidden fees for buyers in the United States, President Joe Biden announced Thursday.

Biden made the announcement alongside representatives from private-sector companies including Airbnb, SeatGeek and Ticketmaster parent company Live Nation, all of which have pledged to provide consumers with the full price of their tickets upfront. The announcement marks a step forward in Biden’s plan to ban “junk fees” — the extra charges often applied to travel, ticket and banking transactions — as part of a broader appeal toward working-class voters.

“This deal shows collective bargaining works,” Biden said at the White House. “When employers and workers come together to agree on a deal that works for both of them, it’s good for the economy and keeping our supply chain open.”

The companies did not commit to eliminating the actual fees, promising instead to disclose them from the beginning of the transaction rather than in the final stage before payment. The issue came to national attention in November when Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary drew criticism for hidden fees, as well as widespread glitches, during sales for Taylor Swift’s latest tour.

In the last year, the president has made reducing these hidden surcharges a priority, calling for an end to junk fees in hisState of the Union address in February. He called on Congress to pass a “Junk Fee Prevention Act,” and has also asked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Transportation Department to increase their oversight on hidden charges.

“The companies represented here today are voluntarily committed to all-in, upfront pricing,” Biden said. “Some of them have used this process for years, like TickPick, Dice and the Newport Festival Foundation. Tens of millions of fans have already benefited from this decision. Others, like Airbnb, have started giving customers the option of seeing all-in prices since we called for action last year, and other businesses are committing today.”

The White House event followed aThursday-morning announcement from Biden that Live Nation had committed to introduce an “upfront all-in pricing experience” in September. Ticketing companies SeatGeek and xBk will also begin introducing all-in pricing models.

Biden has continued to call for action from Congress, requesting legislation that mandates upfront pricing for all ticketing companies and eliminates early termination fees from cable, internet and cellphone companies. Biden has also advocated for the elimination of family seating fees on airlines, and recently commended Alaska Airlines, Frontier Airlines and American Airlines for committing to fee-free family seating in light of his State of the Union address.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/xuyN5qe
via IFTTT

Read More

De Blasio hit with historic conflicts of interest fine over presidential run

NEW YORK — Former Mayor Bill de Blasio was hit with a historic fine Thursday by New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board for using an NYPD security detail for his ill-fated presidential run in 2019.

The former mayor was ordered to pay $474,794 — a whopping sum that includes compensating the city for police officers' travel expenses and a $155,000 fine, the largest ever issued by COIB.

“Although there is a City purpose in the City paying for an NYPD security detail for the City’s Mayor, including the security detail’s salary and overtime, there is no City purpose in paying for the extra expenses incurred by that NYPD security detail to travel at a distance from the City to accompany the Mayor or his family on trips for his campaign for President of the United States,” board members wrote in a Thursday order. “The Board advised Respondent to this effect prior to his campaign; Respondent disregarded the Board’s advice.”

In response, de Blasio filed a lawsuit. In a statement, his attorney said the board’s ruling was illegal and could open elected officials up to all manner of violence in an era where partisanship has reached a fever pitch.

“With today’s decision, the COIB has broken with decades of NYPD policy and precedent, ignored the professional expertise of the greatest law enforcement agency in the world, and violated the Constitution to boot,” said Andrew Celli, Jr., an attorney with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel. “In the wake of the January 6th insurrection, the shootings of Congressmembers [Gabby] Giffords and [Steve] Scalise, and almost daily threats directed at local leaders around the country, the COIB’s action — which seeks to saddle elected officials with security costs that the City has properly borne for decades — is dangerous, beyond the scope of their powers, and illegal."

In May 2019, de Blasio broached the topic of a presidential run with the board, asking if the city could pick up the cost of the mayor’s security detail while out of town on the stump. In response, the board said that while taxpayers could foot the bill for salary and overtime costs, billing the city for travel costs would be a misuse of city resources.

De Blasio subsequently went on 31 out-of-state campaign trips through September, racking up $319,794 in costs the board had warned against charging the city for. He dropped out of the race in September 2019 after he was unable to get more than 1 percent in the polls and struggled to fundraise for the long-shot bid.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Investigation said that COIB's conclusions mirrored its own report on the security detail released in 2021.

“The Conflicts of Interest Board’s conclusions regarding former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s misuse of his security detail reaffirms DOI’s investigative findings, and shows that public officials — including the most senior — will be held accountable when they violate the rules,” DOI Commissioner Jocelyn Strauber said in a statement Thursday.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/CFlzDkj
via IFTTT

Read More

U.S. deploys F-22s to Middle East in response to 'unsafe' Russian aircraft activity

The Air Force has deployed F-22 fighter jets to the Middle East because of unsafe Russian aircraft activity, U.S. Central Command announced on Wednesday.

The stealth jets, deployed from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, will join existing American and allied air and ground forces in the area, according to a news release from CENTCOM, which also covers portions of South and Central Asia.

“Russian Forces’ unsafe and unprofessional behavior is not what we expect from a professional air force,” Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the head of CENTCOM, said in the release. “Their regular violation of agreed upon airspace deconfliction measures increases the risk of escalation or miscalculation.”

As the war in Ukraine continues, relations between the U.S. and Russia have remained tense. American military officials have reported increasingly reckless Russian activity in the Mideast region for several months.

Armed Russian jets flew over a U.S. military output in Syria nearly every day in March, an army commander told NBC News that month. In April, Russian pilots were seemingly inviting American jets to dogfight in Syria, a lieutenant general told the military publication Defense One.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/Cr2hOXb
via IFTTT

Read More

House passes another gas stove bill this time to thwart Energy Department efficiency rule

House lawmakers passed the second bill in as many days Wednesday to fend off federal action on gas stoves — moving legislation aimed at stopping the Energy Department from finalizing a proposed efficiency regulation for the appliances.

The Biden administration has repeatedly disavowed any ban on gas stoves. But the bipartisan bill — alongside legislation passed Tuesday to preemptively prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from using federal funds to ban gas stoves — represents Republican efforts to combat what they call overreach by the Biden administration and its efforts to push efficiency measures as part of a larger anti-fossil fuel agenda.

"It's all part of this government-control agenda that we're seeing from this administration," Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. "The Biden administration — it seems like every single department. It’s CFPB here, it's the Department of Energy over there, it's EPA in another place, trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their lives."

But Democrats who oppose the bill say Republicans are misleading Americans on what the proposed rule would do. Instead, they said the “commonsense” proposal — which would only apply to new gas stoves sold three years after the rule is finalized — would lower energy bills, improve Americans' health and cut pollution.

"There's simply no reason for this proposed rule to be controversial," Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said Tuesday. "No one is saying you can't keep your gas stove. No one is saying you don't have a choice. No one is saying you have to move to electric stoves. This is all misinformation."

Lawmakers passed the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, H.R. 1640 (118), by a 249-181 vote Wednesday. Twenty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in support of the bill.

The bill is unlikely to gain traction in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and no action on the measure has been scheduled there. However, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) led seven colleagues Wednesday in introducing companion legislation to prohibit the Energy Department from implementing its proposed rule. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is among its backers. Manchin previously withdrew his support last month for an Energy Department nominee, citing the department's efficiency proposal on gas stoves and the Biden administration's overall approach to fossil fuels.

The House legislation passed Wednesday after stalling last week amid a conservative revolt that blocked a procedural measure setting up its consideration.

The bill would prohibit the Energy Department from finalizing, implementing or enforcing its proposed rule setting new energy efficiency requirements for cooking tops and ovens or any "substantially similar" rule.

The department has said it is following its congressional and legal requirements to review and update the energy efficiency rules, which will save consumers and businesses money. But Republicans contend the proposed rule amounts to a backdoor regulatory ban on gas stoves.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), sponsor of the legislation, called the Energy Department's proposal “extreme regulation” that shows “how out of touch” the Biden administration's policies have become.

"Consumers don't want the government taking away the features on gas stoves that they like and use. That is not the role of the U.S. government,” she said from the floor Tuesday.

Republicans and opponents of the efficiency regulation point to initial technical analysis from the department that signaled most gas cooking top models tested would not meet the proposed standards. But Democrats, the Energy Department and efficiency advocates have pushed back, saying that figure is related to high-end models and not a test designed to represent the whole market.

The department said earlier this year that gas cooking tops representing nearly half of the market would not be impacted by the proposed standard, if finalized.

“Now they claim that nearly 50 percent of gas stoves will pass their rule. But guess what? That means more than 50 percent won't. Don't tell me they're not trying to ban gas stoves,” Lesko responded.

Pallone said the bill could also limit the Energy Department from taking action to improve energy efficiency of cooktops because it does not include a sunset clause.

Lawmakers added an amendment to the bill by voice vote Tuesday from GOP Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan that requires the Energy secretary to disclose stakeholder meetings with entities that have ties to China, produced studies regarding or advocated for policies that ban the use of any type of energy and have applied for or received federal funds.

Lawmakers, however, rejected an amendment offered by Pallone on Wednesday that sought to remove the provisions in the bill that would limit future DOE rulemaking authority, as well as an amendment from House Rules ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) to certify that the legislation would not adversely affect U.S. energy security.

The White House has "strongly" opposed the legislation, although it has stopped short of issuing a veto threat.

The vote could potentially put vulnerable House Democrats in the tricky position of signaling support for gas stoves, while also making clear the administration has no plans to ban the appliances. Twenty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the Consumer Product Safety Commission legislation Tuesday.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/yPKYNMn
via IFTTT

Read More