Daily Archives: February 25, 2021

Freedom Foods' share remain suspended at its own request

Graham's departure marks another executive to leave the New South Wales business, which has been bogged down for almost a year investigating possible fraudulent activity in its accounts dating back to June, and more recently agreed a AUD200m (US$156.7m today) capital injection from its majority shareholder Arrovest, led by the Perich family, as part of a recapitalisation exercise.

Its share remain suspended on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) at Freedom Foods' request, and have not traded since last June. The company has repeatedly extended the suspension as it seeks to resolve the crisis at hand.

Freedom Foods producesconsumer-dairy products, dairy ingredientsand plant-based beverages. In December, the company announced the sale of its cereal and snacks division to local peerThe Arnott's Group, owned by US private-equity firm KKR, for AUD20m.

The financial saga at Freedom Foods resulted in the resignation of CEO Rory Macleod in June, the same month CFOCampbell Nicholas also quit the business, followed by vompany secretary Trevor Allen. Michael Perich is currently serving as interim chief executive.

Jose Lemoine, who stepped in as CFO when Nicholas departed, will now occupy the same executive position again with immediate effect.

"Ms. Lemoine has been working within the company's finance team since November 2020," Freedom Foods said in thefiling with the ASX. "The board of Freedom Foods Group thanks Ms. Graham for her service and commitment to the company and wishes her well in her future endeavours."

In January, Freedom Foods' chairman Perry Gunner noted in another ASX filing that the company was reviewing the potential disposal of its "Speciality Seafood" division, which would leave the business engaged in dairy and nutritionals and plant-based beverages.

Perich noted in the same document: "Wehave been reviewing every product line, every site, every sales channel and every market segment to ensure we are focused on those with the greatest potential. We are removing or repositioning products that are not delivering value and investing in the ones that are."

Those comments were issued on the back of Freedom Foods' financial results for the fiscal year to 30 June 2020, the most recent numbers. All of the company's 2019 accounts have been restated.

Revenue climbed 26% to AUD461.8m, but losses permeated the rest of the results. EBITDA was in the red to the tune of AUD96.7m, widening from the previous year's loss of AUD118.6m.

Net profit after tax was a loss of AUD174.5m, down from a corresponding loss of AUD145.8m. Net debt stood at AUD275.2m, up from AUD122m in the prior 12 months.

View original post here:

Freedom Foods sees another CFO depart troubled Australian dairy business - just-food.com

LAKE FOREST, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA), a leading developer, manufacturer and marketer of implantable lenses and companion delivery systems for the eye, today reported financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended January 1, 2021.

Fourth Quarter 2020 Overview

Full Year 2020 Overview

Our 2020 performance reflects the continued momentum behind STAARs commercial growth and product innovation. Consequently, we achieved strong fourth quarter results and met our original sales targets for the second half of 2020, despite the unprecedented global pandemic. Our momentum has continued into the first weeks of 2021, said Caren Mason, President and CEO of STAAR Surgical. For the full year 2020 ICL unit growth was up 11% as compared to a 21% decline in industry-wide refractive procedures.1 STAARs positive growth affirms the increasing adoption for our EVO ICL family of implantable lenses and illustrates that our lenses continue to capture refractive market share. We believe our lenses are likely to grow the overall market demand for refractive procedures. In 2021 we are confident that our strategies will continue to expand the ICLs position as a transformational pathway to Visual Freedom for patients seeking a life independent of glasses and frequent replacement contact lenses as we support a lens-based future of refractive vision correction.

Financial Overview Q4 2020

Net sales were $46.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2020, up 18% compared to $38.9 million reported in the prior year quarter. The sales increase was driven by ICL revenue and unit growth of 20% and 13%, respectively, as compared to the prior year period. Other Product Sales increased 10% compared to the prior year quarter due to increased injector parts sales. ICL revenue was 87% of total Net sales for the fourth quarter of 2020.

Gross profit margin for the fourth quarter of 2020 was 74.6% compared to the prior year period of 74.1%. Factors impacting gross margin in the fourth quarter of 2020, as compared to the prior year period, include geographic sales mix partially offset by inventory reserves taken on certain lower margin IOL products which are being discontinued, and manufacturing projects.

Operating expenses for the fourth quarter were $30.2 million compared to the prior year quarter of $26.5 million. General and administrative expenses were $9.5 million compared to the prior year quarter of $7.9 million. The increase in general and administrative expenses was due to increased salary-related costs, variable compensation, corporate insurance and facilities costs. Selling and marketing expenses were $11.8 million compared to the prior year quarter of $11.2 million. The increase in selling and marketing expenses is due to increased salary-related costs and advertising and promotional expenses, partially offset by decreased travel, sales meetings and trade show expenses. Research and development expenses were $9.0 million compared to the prior year quarter of $7.4 million. The increase in research and development expenses is primarily due to increased clinical expenses associated with our EVO clinical trial in the U.S., and increased salary-related expenses and variable compensation.

Net income for the fourth quarter of 2020 was $3.3 million or $0.07 per diluted share compared with net income of $6.4 million or $0.14 per diluted share for the prior year quarter. The year over year decrease is attributable to higher provision for income taxes as the result of a $0.07 per diluted share tax benefit in 2019. Adjusted Net Income for the fourth quarter of 2020 was $6.8 million or $0.14 per diluted share compared to $5.5 million or $0.12 per diluted share for the prior year quarter. The reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP financial information is provided in the financial tables included with this release.

Financial Overview Full Year 2020

Net sales were $163.5 million for full year (FY) 2020, up 9% compared to $150.2 million reported in the prior year. The sales increase was driven by ICL revenue and unit growth of 9% and 11%, respectively. Other Products Sales increased 6% compared to the prior year. ICL revenue was 87% of total net sales for FY 2020.

Gross profit margin for FY 2020 decreased to 72.4% of total net sales compared to 74.5% of total net sales for FY 2019. The decrease in gross margin for the year is due to geographic sales mix, a voluntary pause in manufacturing at the Companys principal manufacturing facility commencing in March due to the pandemic, and period costs related to manufacturing projects.

Operating expenses for FY 2020 were $111.6 million compared to prior year of $100.1 million. The increase in operating expense is due to increased salary-related costs, variable compensation, corporate insurance and facilities costs, and increased clinical expenses associated with the Companys EVO clinical trial in the U.S.

Net income for FY 2020 was $5.9 million or approximately $0.12 per share compared with net income of $14.0 million or $0.30 per diluted share for the prior year. The year over year decrease in net income is due to lower operating income and a higher provision for income taxes as the result of a $0.07 per diluted share tax benefit in 2019. Adjusted Net Income for FY 2020 was $16.7 million or $0.35 per diluted share, compared with an Adjusted Net Income of $21.7 million or $0.46 per diluted share for FY 2019. The reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP financial information is provided in the financial tables included with this release.

Cash and cash equivalents at January 1, 2021 totaled $152.5 million, compared to $120.0 million at end of the fourth quarter of 2019. The Company generated $21.0 million in cash from operations for FY 2020.

1 Market Scope Refractive Surgery Report, January 2021.

Conference Call

The Company will host a conference call and webcast today, Wednesday, February 24 at 4:30 p.m. Eastern / 1:30 p.m. Pacific to discuss its financial results and operational progress. To access the conference call (Conference ID 7649387), please dial 833-350-1429 for domestic participants and 647-689-6661 for international participants. The live webcast can be accessed from the investor relations section of the STAAR website at http://www.staar.com.

A taped replay of the conference call (Conference ID 7649387) will be available beginning approximately one hour after the calls conclusion for seven days. This replay can be accessed by dialing 800-585-8367 for domestic callers and 416-621-4642 for international callers. An archived webcast will also be available at http://www.staar.com.

Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

This press release includes supplemental non-GAAP financial information, which STAAR believes investors will find helpful in understanding its operating performance. Adjusted Net Income excludes the following items that are included in Net Income as calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP): gain or loss on foreign currency transactions, stock-based compensation expenses, and valuation allowance adjustments. Management believes that Adjusted Net Income is useful to investors in gauging the outcome of the key drivers of the business performance: the ability to increase sales revenue and our ability to increase profit margin by improving the mix of high value products while reducing the costs over which management has control.

Management has also excluded gains and losses on foreign currency transactions because of the significant fluctuations that can result from period to period as a result of market driven factors. Stock-based compensation expenses consist of expenses for stock options and restricted stock under the Financial Accounting Standards Boards Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 718. Valuation allowance adjustments can occur from time to time based on forecasted changes in operating results until all net operating loss carryforwards are fully utilized. In calculating Adjusted Net Income, STAAR excludes these expenses because they are non-cash expenses and because of the considerable judgment involved in calculating their values. In addition, these expenses tend to be driven by fluctuations in the price of our stock and not by the same factors that generally affect our other business expenses.

The Company also uses Constant Currency as a Non-GAAP financial measure to exclude the effects of currency fluctuations on net sales. The Company conducts a significant part of its activities outside the U.S. It receives sales revenue and pays expenses principally in U.S. dollars, Swiss francs, Japanese yen and euros. The exchange rates between dollars and non-U.S. currencies can fluctuate greatly and can have a significant effect on the Companys results when reported in U.S. dollars. In order to compare the Company's performance from period to period without the effect of currency, the Company will apply the same average exchange rate applicable in the prior period, or the "constant currency" rate to sales or expenses in the current period as well. Because changes in currency are outside of the control of the Company and its managers, management finds this non-GAAP measure useful in determining the long-term progress of its initiatives and determining whether its managers are achieving their performance goals. The Company believes that the non-GAAP constant-currency sales results measures provided in this press release are similarly useful to investors to give insight on long term trends in the Company's performance without the external effect of changes in relative currency values. The table below shows sales results calculated in accordance with GAAP, the effect of currency, and the resulting non-GAAP measure expressed in constant currency.

About STAAR Surgical

STAAR, which has been dedicated solely to ophthalmic surgery for over 30 years, designs, develops, manufactures and markets implantable lenses for the eye with companion delivery systems. These lenses are intended to provide visual freedom for patients, lessening or eliminating the reliance on glasses or contact lenses. All of these lenses are foldable, which permits the surgeon to insert them through a small incision. STAARs lens used in refractive surgery is called an Implantable Collamer Lens or ICL, which includes the EVO Visian ICL product line. More than 1,000,000 Visian ICLs have been implanted to date and STAAR markets these lenses in over 75 countries. To learn more about the ICL go to: http://www.discovericl.com. Headquartered in Lake Forest, CA, the company operates manufacturing and packaging facilities in Aliso Viejo, CA, Monrovia, CA and Nidau, Switzerland. For more information, please visit the Companys website at http://www.staar.com.

Safe Harbor

All statements that are not statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements, including statements about any of the following: any financial projections, plans, strategies, and objectives of management for 2021 or prospects for achieving such plans, expectations for sales, revenue, margin, expenses or earnings, the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and related public health measures (including but not limited to its impact on sales, operations or clinical trials globally), product safety or effectiveness, the status of our pipeline of ICL products with regulators, including our EVO family of lenses in the U.S., and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing, including those relating to our product pipeline and market expansion activities. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties related to the COVID-19 pandemic and related public health measures, as well as the factors set forth in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2020, and Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2020 under the caption Risk Factors, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available in the Investor Information section of the companys website under the heading SEC Filings. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any financial projections or forward-looking statement due to new information or events. These statements are based on expectations and assumptions as of the date of this press release and are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. The risks and uncertainties include the following: global economic conditions; the discretion of regulatory agencies to approve or reject existing, new or improved products, or to require additional actions before approval, or to take enforcement action; international trade disputes; and the willingness of surgeons and patients to adopt a new or improved product and procedure. The EVO version of our ICL lens is not yet approved for sale in the United States.

$ 152,453

$ 119,968

35,229

30,996

18,111

17,142

10,625

6,560

216,418

174,666

24,030

17,065

596

1,867

8,764

6,684

270

296

1,786

1,786

4,944

4,408

608

751

$ 257,416

$ 207,523

$ 1,379

$ 1,827

7,874

8,050

360

560

2,485

2,700

4,532

3,644

24,606

See original here:

STAAR Surgical Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2020 Results - Business Wire

The Senators introduced, "a bipartisan approach to adult-use marijuana legalization in Pennsylvania."

HARRISBURG, Pa. Two state senators from both sides of the aisle will introduce legislation to legalize recreational marijuana in Pennsylvania, according to a memo published Wednesday on the Pennsylvania State Senate website.

Sen. Daniel Laughlin (R-Erie) will join Sen. Sharif Street (D-Philadelphia) in introducing "a bipartisan approach to adult use marijuana legalization in Pennsylvania," the Senate memo said.

"Adult use of marijuana is supported by two-thirds of Pennsylvanians and has majority support in rural, suburban, and urban legislative districts," the memo states. "This bipartisan approach is grounded in safety and social equity."

According to the memo describing the legislation, the bill would set the minimum age for legal consumption of recreational marijuana at 21, and would also "provide the appropriate deterrence to keep marijuana out of the hands of anyone under age 21," the co-sponsors said in the memo.

The bill would also decriminalize marijuana "up to a certain limit as has been championed in a bipartisan fashion" and would expunge non-violent marijuana convictions, both for medical marijuana patients and other non-violent offenders, the senators said.

Such a move also has bipartisan support, according to the bill's co-sponsors.

The legislation would also provide the appropriate deterrence to keep marijuana out of the hands of anyone under age 21, give law enforcement the means to adjudicate driving under the influence, and provide police with the authority to "pursue and eradicate any illicit market," the sponsors said in the memo.

State Democrats have long supported legalization and Gov. Tom Wolf made the issue a priority in his 2021 budget address.

State Republicans, State Sen. Laughlin included, have opposed it.

Laughlin changed his mind, he said, because he believes a more open market is a decidedly Republican value.

"Republican government stands for less government and more freedom, and I dont know what would be more free than this," Laughlin said.

The bill would also ban any marketing of recreational marijuana directed at children and provide workplace requirements regarding marijuana use for those operating in good faith, the senators said.

The legislation would also address social equality by granting licenses to social and economic equity applicants while providing room for new and existing licensees to ensure demand in Pennsylvania is met.

"This is the morally right thing to do, this is the libertarian free market thing to do, this is the economically responsible thing to do. The time is right to move forward with cannabis legalization," State Sen. Street said.

Farmers and craft crowers across the commonwealth would be able to "engage in the cultivation of marijuana in a manner that is safe and regulated" under the terms of the proposal, its co-sponsors said.

Laughlin and Street point to recent legislation passed in New Jersey that legalized adult use of marijuana, and noted that legislation in New York appears likely to pass in the future.

"It is our duty to taxpayers to seize the initiative and legalize marijuana concurrently with bordering states," the senators said. "Failure to do so risks permanently ceding hundreds of millions of dollars of new tax revenue as well as thousands of jobs at a time when taxpayers can least afford it."

In February 2021 Appropriations hearings, the senators noted, the Pennsylvania Independent Fiscal Office projected the legalization of marijuana for adult use will generate $400 million to $1 billion in new tax revenue for the Commonwealth.

Laughlin and Street called for the fellow senators to join them "in co-sponsoring a bipartisan and regulated approach to the legalization of adult use marijuana," the memo concludes.

Laughlin, who serves Senate District 49 in Erie County, serves as chair of the Pennsylvania Game and Fisheries Committee, vice-chair of the Banking & Insurance Committee, and is a member of the Appropriations, Community, Economic, & Recreational Development, Law & Justice, and State Government committees. A former construction company owner, he was elected to the State Senate in 2016.

Street, who serves the Senate District 3 in Philadelphia County, is minority chair of the Banking & Insurance and State Government committees, and also serves as a member of the Agricultural & Rural Affairs, Appropriations, and Local Government committees. He has served on the State Senate since his election in 2016. The son of former Philadelphia Mayor John Street, he is a supporter of criminal justice reform, environmentally-friendly energy production, cannabis legalization and equity education finance.

Street has called for the legalization of recreational marijuana before. In 2020, he joined fellow Democratic Sen. Daylin Leach in introducing Senate Bill 350, which is considered the "gold standard" for the legalization of recreational marijuana in the state.

State Rep. Jake Wheatley (D-Pittsburgh) introduced similar legislation in the House.

Neither bill came up for a committee vote.

While my colleague Senator Street and I come from different political parties, we see a bipartisan way forward on marijuana legalization that is premised on safety and social equity, said Laughlin in a press release Wednesday afternoon. As the marijuana movement reaches Pennsylvania, legalization must be done the right way. This bill ensures a legalized market in the Commonwealth is implemented safely and responsibly, with a thoughtful approach that provides opportunities to medical and recreational consumers, farmers, and small, medium and minority-owned businesses.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf and Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman have both called for legislation to legalize recreational marijuana use for adults in Pennsylvania.

The commonwealth passed legislation to legalize marijuana for medicinal use in the 2015-16 legislative session.

Im proud to join my Republican colleague and introduce this historic, bipartisan bill to legalize marijuana, said Street in the same release. In close collaboration with Senator Laughlin, key community groups and stakeholders throughout the Commonwealth, we developed a bill that will benefit communities across the Commonwealth. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Legislature and with the Administration to build support for this critical legislation that aims to make Pennsylvanias cannabis market the most diverse and inclusive in the country while enabling those who have been harmed by prohibition to seal their records and rebuild their lives.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute issued a statement Wednesday opposing the new legislation.

"There are a host of reasons why full marijuana legalization is disastrous for our communities," the organization said. "It would mean dangerously-high potent marijuana with up to 99% THC consistently packaged in ways that attract youth - including ice creams, candies and flavored vaping products like Strawberry Cough and Mango Dream. It would create more pot shops than Starbucks and McDonalds combined.

"Despite legalized states placing bans on marketing to children, you still see colorful billboards for marijuana in states like California or Facebook pages touting their kid-friendly marijuana products. Its the Big Tobacco strategy for targeting teens and addicting lifetime customers, applied to marijuana. And Big Tobacco giants like Altria are right now huge investors in the push for states to commercialize marijuana."

Read the original:

Senators from two parties introducing bill to legalize recreational marijuana in Pennsylvania - WNEP Scranton/Wilkes-Barre

Former City Councilmember Ruben Wills, who was convicted of fraud and grand larceny and served two years in prison, is eyeing a political comeback after a State Appeals Court reversed his conviction and returned the case to Queens Supreme Court.

His entrance would likely upend a race where the current City Councilmember Adrienne Adams is running unopposed in the Democratic primary. Wills has name recognition and a story of alleged injustice that could resonate with voters.

Adams, who has less than $40,000 in her bank account, according to campaign finance records, hasnt responded yet to a request for comment.

Council District 28 includes the Queens neighborhoods of Jamaica, Richmond Hill, Rochdale Village and South Ozone Park. Wills, 49, was first elected in 2010. He went to prison in 2017 after a jury found he used public money awarded to his non-profit, as well as campaign finance matching funds, on personal expenses like a designer bag.

An Appeals Court ruling found that during his trial Wills was deprived of his right to present evidence by witnesses of [his] own choosing [which] is a fundamental ingredient of due process.

A spokesperson for Attorney General Leticia James said prosecutors have not decided yet whether or not to retry the case. Willss lawyer, Kevin ODonnell, said his client had served his sentence and it wouldnt be wise to spend public funds on an expensive second trial.

Even if we went to trial and he was convicted the judge would give him the same sentence and he already served it, said ODonnell. I am not sure the effort is worth the result and I certainly hope the Attorney Generals office sees it the way I do.

The City Council passed a bill earlier this month that disqualifies people convicted of certain felonies, including those that involve public corruption, from running for public offices which the mayor is expected to sign into law on Wednesday. It will prevent other potential candidates, including former State Senator and City Councilmember Hiram Monserrate, from running for office -- but not Wills because his conviction was reversed.

He told Gothamist/WNYC that he thinks the law was designed to benefit those currently in power.

I'm disappointed in, you know, people who profess to be progressive for the sake of carrying a progressive banner, but then turn around and pass a bill that stops people from having second chances just to protect the incumbency, he said.

He also said his experience in prison has inspired him to reform criminal justice policies and what he described as judicial indifference, and improve conditions for those behind bars.

While in a work release program, Wills said he tested positive for a drug that is given to people who are addicted to opioids and was sent back to Sing Sing. It was later revealed that thousands of state prisoners were subjected to faulty drug tests. Wills said he was one of those individuals.

I think that my purpose, the reason I went through this is to make sure this is highlighted. I don't represent Ruben Wills, he said. I represent two or three hundred thousand young men that look like me, that have gone through these doors of the halls of injustice every single day for the past, I dont know how many years.

During his tenure on the City Council, Wills had a reputation for being excessively absent. Politico New York filed a Freedom of Information Law Request and found that in fiscal year 2016, he was present at work only 28% of the time. Wills said at the time he was suffering from health problems that are no longer an issue.

Theres no issues with my health that would prevent me from doing anything, Wills said. I've made great strides or improvement in physical health.

If he decides to run for his old Council seat, Wills must collect a minimum of 270 valid petition signatures by March 25th; candidates will begin collecting petitions next week.

See original here:

After An Appeals Court Reversed His Conviction, Ruben Wills Eyes A Comeback In Queens - Gothamist

LUCKNOW :The Uttar Pradesh budget tabled in the state assembly on Monday has proposed a sum of at least 640 crore for the development and beautification of Ayodhya.

The budgetary provisions for fiscal 2021-22 include a sum of 300 crore for the construction of an approach road to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple, Ayodhya Dham. The budget has also proposed a sum of 140 crore for the all-round growth of the city, including the development of Suryakund there. Another sum of 100 crore has been provided for the development and beautification of other tourism facilities in Ayodhya. The budget has also made a provision of 101 crore for the development of the Ayodhya airport, to be named Maryada Purshotam Shriram Airport.

To attract tourists elsewhere in the state, the budget provides 100 crore and 200 crore respectively for the development and beautification of tourism facilities in Varanasi and Chitrakoot. A provision of 200 crore has also been made for the Chief Minister Tourism Fiscal Scheme. All developmental projects in the state will be executed in accordance with the mythological significance of various cities, an official spokesman said.

The budget has also provided a sum of 15 crore for the year-long commemoration of the Chauri-Chaura incident centenary. The budget has also proposed 8 crore and 4 crore respectively for the construction of a tribal museum in Lucknow and a freedom fighters gallery in Shahjahanpur. In its budget, the state government has also decided to confer 'Uttar Pradesh Gaurav Samman' on eminent writers and artists who have not been given any other award by the state. Under this scheme, a maximum of five people will be honoured and given a sum of 11 lakh each every year.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

See original here:

UP budget proposes at least 640 crore to develop and beautify Ayodhya - Mint

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal 2021 created the Office of the National Cyber Director within the Executive Office of the President. The office will be headed by the United Statess first national cyber director (NCD) and is intended to lead the implementation of national cyber policy and strategy, with a focus on making rapid progress on domestic cybersecurity. The director will serve as the presidents senior adviser for cyber issues.

The creation of the Office of the National Cyber Director comes at a pivotal time in the development of the nations cybersecurity and on the heels of one of the most widespread cyber incidents ever inflicted on the country. The nations lead cyber agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) at the Department of Homeland Security, continues to slowly mature into its crucial role. Still in the midst of the presidential transition, President Biden has begun to organize his staff at the White House, including with the creation of a deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies. While Biden has made it clear that cybersecurity will be a top priority for his administrationand the creation of the new deputy national security adviser is certainly indicative of thismany questions remain. The confluence of these developments and the creation of the Office of the National Cyber Director has led some observers in the administration, the private sector, and the media to pose questions about the nature and role of the new office. The NDAA provides clear descriptions of the offices several mandates. But questions remain about the motivation for the creation of the office, its authorities and how it relates to other cyber-relevant roles within the White House.

The NCD provision in the NDAA stems from a recommendation by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, a bipartisan, bicameral commission created by the 2019 NDAA and charged with crafting a new strategic vision for the United States in cyberspace. Here, we provide the commission staffs answers to these questions in an effort to clarify the commissions intent in recommending the creation of the Office of the National Cyber Director.

Was the creation of the national cyber director position motivated by the abolishment of the cybersecurity coordinator position in 2018?

Yes and no. Commentators have rightly noted that the creation of the NCD position was motivated partly by former National Security Adviser John Boltons abolishment of the cybersecurity coordinator position in 2018, but they tend to overestimate the part Boltons move played. Cyber policy experts have long called for a national-level, senior official in the White House to bring coherence and direction to cyber policy, strategy and operations. And Congress has demandedand continues to demandaccountability and communication from the executive branch on cybersecurity issues. Despite substantial progress by federal departments and agencies, the U.S. government has lacked institutionalized leadership, coordination and a consistent advocate for the appropriate prioritization of cybersecurity in the White House.

To date, the existence of national cyber leadership has been a matter of executive branch policy, not an enduring legislative requirement. The prominence of the role has fluctuated across administrations, with some declining, at times, to fill the position at all. These changes have prevented the persistence and consistency needed to establish enduring policy and strategy. While these issues were cast in stark relief when the Trump administration abolished the position, the fundamental problem is more systemic and long term than any one administrations actions.

More than anything, the legislative establishment of the position is an affirmative statement from Congress on the need for good governance and effective organization in cybersecurity. The NCD ensures the governments focus on cybersecurity is a consistent and unified national priority, while also shielding it from bureaucratic turf battles or interest of the president. In this regard, the creation of the Office of the National Cyber Director is not dissimilar to the creation of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 1976, which was motivated in part by President Nixons abolishment of the Presidents Science Advisory Committee a few years prior. In both cases, Congress responded by cementing a national priority through its power to organize the executive branch, establishing new positions, and empowering them as best they could.

What will the NCD do?

The NCD role is designed to act as the presidents senior adviser on cybersecurity and associated emerging technology issues, except for Title 10 (offensive) and Title 50 (intelligence) cyber operations and programs. The NCD is intended to focus on implementing the national strategy and policies for cybersecurity, as defined by the National Security Council, and coordinating, supporting, and deconflicting whole-of-nation cybersecurity and defensive cyber efforts led by executive branch agencies and the private sector. The NCD is intended to connect, complement, and strengthen, rather than duplicate, existing organizations and processes. In general terms, the 2021 NDAA confers on the NCD the following functions:

Does the NCD have the authorities and powers necessary to be effective in the role?

No, not through legislation alone. Legislation confers the NCD with functions and responsibilities but few authorities independent of those already vested in the president. This was intentional. Congress, with few exceptions, takes a relatively light touch in dictating how presidents use their advisersbeyond organizing the Executive Office of the President. Importantly, the chief of staff and the national security adviser, the most empowered positions in the Executive Office of the President, derive their influence not from law but from convention and their proximity to the president.

Senate-confirmed positions in the White House like the NCD, such as the U.S. trade representative, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, straddle a unique line. The positions within the Executive Office of the President are extensions of the president but as separate, Senate-confirmed office-holders with responsibilities and authorities conferred by Congress, they are accountable officials in their own right. Despite these positions being given responsibility by Congress, their effectiveness and ultimate authority beyond what is prescribed in law hinges on their proximity toand the confidence ofthe president they serve. This rings particularly true in the ability of any of these positions to influence policy. The NCD is no exception.

Much of the exact powers and influence of the NCD will need to be defined through executive orders and, over time, convention. This will need to be a priority for the Biden administration, which will need to update existing executive orders such as Presidential Policy Directive-41 (PPD-41), to account for the position and define its role in national security policymaking, budget review, operational coordination and rule-making. These executive orders will be essential in delegating the necessary authorities to make the position effective and consistent with congressional intent.

How will the NCD work with the National Security Council and the national security adviser?

The 2021 NDAA amended the National Security Act of 1947 to allow the NCD to be a participant in the NSC where cybersecurity issues are a substantial topic and to be included in the development of cyber policy, the National Cyber Strategy, and coordinating U.S. government defensive cyber efforts. However, the NCD serves on the NSC Principals Committee at the presidents discretion, much like the director of national intelligence or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Biden administration affirmed this status for the NCD in the recently released National Security Memorandum-2 (NSM-2), which renewed and organized the National Security Council system.

The national security adviser is the principal adviser to the president on national security issues, of which cybersecurity is one. As such, national security policy and strategy, including the development of the national cyber strategy and many national cyber policies, will continue to flow through the national security adviser. In this regard, the Biden administrations decision to create a new deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies is particularly meaningful. This position will lead the development of a national cyber strategy for the national security adviser and the president, and the NCD should provide advice on the formulation of the strategy.

The NCD will also need to work closely with the deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies on the development of cyber policy, as each will have a role in developing policies. In this regard the NCD is intended to play a critical role in working with federal departments and agencies on developing and implementing policies and strategies to make the NSCs strategic vision a reality.

What role will the NCD have in operational coordination?

The NCD position was established to lead the coordination of integrated response by federal departments and agencies against cyberattacks and cyber campaigns of significant consequence, and to ensure coordination with the private sector in these responses. The NCDs efforts should include significant preplanning before an incident such as plan and playbook development and cross-sector exercises. In this responsibility, the NCD will work across government and the private sector to define priority, risk-based scenarios by which to guide and direct interagency planning efforts. These plans, regularly exercised, will serve to prepare both public- and private-sector partners to shift seamlessly to response and recovery efforts when a major cyber incident occurs. These efforts will no doubt help enable the NCD to serve a critical leadership role in coordinating initial incident response efforts, a chaotic period where visible leadership, clear communication, and a concrete plan-of-action do much to instill order and credibility. This vantage point will also serve to inform the NCD on key areas of critical infrastructure where additional attention is warranted for long-term cyber resilience.

To facilitate this role, the NCD is intended to play a leading role in the Cyber Response Group, the current NSC-led, interagency body authorized under PPD-41. The Cyber Response Group coordinates, plans, and oversees U.S. government responses to cyber incidents and malicious cyber campaigns. Before the position was abolished, the NSCs cybersecurity coordinator was charged with leading the Cyber Response Group. It was the original intent of the NCD legislation for the president to update PPD-41 and give management of the Cyber Response Group to the NCD. However, given the Biden administrations creation of the new deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies, it is far more likely the NCD will share responsibility for this interagency body. In any case, given the necessary interplay of offensive and defensive efforts, the NCD and the deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies will need to work closely together, both inside and outside the Cyber Response Group, to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach to U.S. actions in cyberspace.

What is the NCDs role in Title 10 and Title 50 operations?

The NCD will have no role in coordinating Title 10 (offensive) and Title 50 (intelligence) operations. That said, the NCD is intended to have visibility into these operations. Given the NCDs roles in organizing, planning, and coordinating defensive cyber operations and as a representative of the U.S. government in international forums, he or she should at least be aware of any operation that could inadvertently cause retaliation and, to the degree the director is able, preemptively prepare for it. That said, the degree that the NCD will be allowed to weigh inand at what levelin the planning and coordination process is at the discretion of the president.

Because the president has established the NCDs position on the NSC Principals Committee, the NCD will likely have some voice on operations if and when they rise to that level of decision-making. Given this, it would be shrewd on the part of the national security adviser to include the NCD or his or her staff early in any decision-making process that would eventually come before the NCD in a Principals Committee meeting to which the director is a part.

What is the NCDs relationship with the director of CISA? What is the relationship with other departments and agencies?

The NCD is intended to connect, complement, and strengthen, not duplicate, the existing work of departments and agencies. CISA is no exception. CISA will maintain responsibility for the coordination of U.S. government-wide cybersecurity and defense efforts at the operational level; the NCD will focus on the strategic level, namely in the development and implementation of plans, programs and strategy. While CISA has well-established responsibilities, programs, and processes to lead the overall U.S. government-wide cybersecurity effort, the agency is limited in its ability to cajole or persuade other departments and agencies to participate and follow suitparticularly when parochial agency interests run counter to greater integration. Department and agency priorities, policies, programs, and, most importantly, budgets can diverge markedly from CISAs vision and its conception of a well-coordinated U.S. government effort. The NCD in this capacity will be a useful ally for CISA in ensuring that the agencys central role in cybersecurity is reinforced and made manifest through programs and execution.

The NCD will also need to manage the varying interests of the interagency, a more perilous balancing act that requires compromise between long-term vision and department and agency priority. National-level strategy and policy implementation in cybersecurity are complex endeavors, one where tension often exists between White House-led top-down design and bottom-up department and agency defense of bureaucratic self-interest. After all, policy and strategy development proceeds by consensus before reaching the presidents desk, and Cabinet members are not inclined to consent to any measure that promises to reduce their role or their organizations room to maneuver. That said, as part of the presidents ostensible inner circle, the NCD position was designed to have sufficient proximity to the president to define a long-term strategy, weigh its trade-offs with bureaucratic interests, and ensure its successful implementation. Managing this tension and navigating the push-and-pull relationship between department and agency principals will be a key factor in the directors ultimate effectiveness.

What will be the NCDs role in engagement with the private sector?

In the 2021 NDAA, the NCD is given nominal responsibility for leading coordination and consultation with the private sector on cybersecurity and emerging technology issues. What this looks like in practice, however, is complicated. Even with a full office of 75 personnel, the NCD will lack the bureaucratic strength and existing private-sector relationships to manage or run a full-fledged industry engagement process. Nor would such a thing be desirable. The U.S. government maintains a number of fora for industry engagement on cybersecurity, including those led by the Department of Homeland Security (through CISA) and the Department of Commerce (through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, for example). Adding another player to compete with these efforts, rather than coordinate them, would only further stoke industry frustration and run counter to the type of government integration the NCD is intended to produce. The NCD has a critical role here in establishing the broad elements of national strategy, supporting lines of effort, and, in turn, supporting, enabling, coordinating, and deconflicting department and agency cyber engagements as they execute their roles within that strategy. The national cyber strategy should account for the need to coordinate and bring coherence to U.S. government engagement with the private sector writ large.

That said, the NCD will need to engage directly with the private sector on national-level cyber policy implementation and development of responses to and recovery from cyber incidents. This is a critical piece of why the NCD position was createdto ensure there is a reliable, senior-level official who can, on behalf of the entire U.S. government, act as both a voice and a touchpoint on cyber issues for the public, industry, Congress or otherwise. In this, the NCD will complement, not replace, private-sector engagement led by CISA. CISA, as the executive agent for the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, manages the U.S. government process for cybersecurity and infrastructure security engagement with the private sector. This process runs through sector coordinating councils, which are jointly led by CISA and the relevant department or agency (called the Sector Risk Management Agency) for each of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors. The NCD was designed to lead the implementation of national-level defensive policy and strategy, allowing CISA to focus on plans, operational collaboration, and more tactical and technical issues. Where those issues overlap or merge, the NCD would be well served to leverage the established processes CISA already has in place. In any case, communication and close coordination between the director of CISA and the NCD will be a necessary reality of both positions.

What is the NCDs role in international engagement?

It is expected that the NCD, in coordination with the national security adviser and the national economic adviser as appropriate, would participate in meetings with international partners on topics of cybersecurity and emerging technologies to implement the National Cyber Strategy and advance the presidents international priorities. The NCD would be expected to coordinate closely with relevant offices within the State Department when participating in international cyber and cybersecurity-related initiatives, international agreements, standards-setting bodies, and capacity-building efforts. The NCD will be included as a participant in preparations for the execution of cybersecurity summits and other international meetings at which cybersecurity or related emerging technologies are a major topic.

Is the NCD subject to Freedom of Information Act requests? Will this impede the directors ability to do his or her job as an adviser to the president and coordinator on cybersecurity?

Broadly speaking, yes, the NCD is subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Andrew Grotto brings up a good point that the new Office of the National Cyber Director will not benefit from FOIA exemptions afforded to the NSC. This is, in broad strokes, accurate, but the framing is misleading. The NSC is not exempted from FOIA by statute, but, as Grotto points out, through a Supreme Court decision. Because the NSC operates in close proximity to the President and because the NSC does not exercise substantial independent authority[,] the Supreme Court concluded that the NSC is not an agency for the purposes of FOIA and thus not subject to its requirements. Rightly or wrongly (and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a compelling dissent), the same argument could be equally applied to the NCD, who, as noted above, does not enjoy substantial independent authority beyond that delegated by or derived from his or her proximity to the president. Still, it is worth acknowledging that the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of National Drug Control Policyarguably more similar to the Office of the National Cyber Director than the NSC for reasons covered beloware not exempt from FOIA requirements.

It is reasonable to expect that much of the NCDs work will be exempt from FOIA under one of the laws nine categories of exemptions. Exemption 1 covers information classified to protect national security. Exemption 4 covers trade secrets or commercial or financial informationa pertinent exemption given the NCDs expected role in liaising with the private sector. Finally, and most importantly, exemption 5 covers privileged communications between agencies or deliberative, pre-decisional documents. According to the Department of Homeland Security, this [p]rotects the integrity of the deliberative or policy-making processes within the agency by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinion, conclusions, and recommendations included within inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which much of the NCDs substantive work wouldnt qualify under this exemption and its subset of executive privilege. The concerns over FOIA undermining the integrity and confidentiality of the presidents deliberative process are overblown. This should not impede the directors ability to do his or her job.

Does being Senate confirmed impede the NCDs ability to do his or her job as an adviser to the president and coordinator on cybersecurity?

Andrew Grotto points out rightly that Senate and House oversight committees consider it a matter of institutional right to have Senate-confirmed officials appear before them. And it should be expected that the NCD will be called upon routinely to testify before the House and the Senate. Its worth noting, however, that NSC deliberations include Senate-confirmed positions at the assistant secretary, deputy secretary, undersecretary, and secretary levels at successive stages of the policy process. The same logic of concern that is leveled at the NCD could be applied equally to these positions, which are similarly beholden to Congress. But does the president keep the secretary of defense at arms length because he or she can be called to testify before Congress? No. Executive privilege would almost certainly apply.

Does this put the NCD in an uncomfortable position between Congress, which desires to know more, and the president, who prefers to keep deliberations confidential? Certainly. But no more than it does the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. trade representative, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, or the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Each of these positions is both Senate confirmed and appointed in the Executive Office of the President. Each is involved, in various degrees, with national security decision-making. And each invokes executive privilege where appropriate and where applicable. It is a space the White House knows how to navigate well.

Will the NCD position require changes?

The NCD was never intended to spring fully formed from the minds of the multi-stakeholder commission that recommended it or the Congress and the pages of statute that gave birth to it. It will take time and considerable effort to find its way among the dynamic environment of the White House and the fray of the interagency. The creation of the deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies is a positive development and will need to be accounted for. The NCD is not and likely will not remain static. The president holds preeminence in delegating authority to the position through executive order. And Congress maintains its prerogative to empower the position further and in response to, and support of, how the president manages the position. It is an iterative dynamic that will lend itself well to evolving needs of cybersecurity and the demands of the office.

But the fundamental argument for the establishment of the position remains the same: The U.S. government needs vision, leadership, and unity of effort in cyberspace. This is true irrespective of political party or administrationthough the Biden administration is off to a good start. That said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. The NCD position changes the institutional dynamic and is a marked step forward in ensuring enduring leadership and accountability. It will need to evolve, certainly, but as it stands the position is a good start. It is up to the Biden administration to make it successful.

Read the original post:

How the National Cyber Director Position Is Going to Work: Frequently Asked Questions - Lawfare

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, a coalition of 17 organizations led by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to reject the proposed restoration of earmarks being considered by House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

The letter was co-signed by Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, National Taxpayers Union, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, American Commitment, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Heritage Action, Frontiers of Freedom, 60 Plus Association, Alaska Policy Forum, Center for Individual Freedom, The Heartland Institute, Annapolis Center-Right Coalition Meeting, and The Maine Heritage Policy Center.

CCAGW President Tom Schatz said in a statement:

Earmarks are one of the most corrupt, inequitable, and wasteful practices in the history of Congress. As the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) explained regarding those who called for a return to earmarks in 2014: The problem with all their arguments is: the more powerful you are, the more likely it is you get the earmark in. Therefore, it is a corrupt system. Earmarks are a lazy, unfair, and corrupt way to circumvent the authorization and appropriations process. They are not a path to unity; they are a road to fiscal ruin for taxpayers. Members of Congress must be fiscally responsible and oppose the resurrection of earmarks. Thank you to the coalition members who on behalf of taxpayers across the country are joining CCAGW in the fight to permanently ban rather than restore earmarks.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the nations largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

The rest is here:

CCAGW Leads a Coalition Urging Congress to Reject the Restoration of Earmarks - Business Wire

(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Democrats plan to revive congressional earmarks after a decade-long moratorium on the funding practice. In a call with House Democrats, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) promised that any move to bring the practice back to life will attract bipartisan support, Politico reported.

Earmarks, known officially as congressionally directed spending, are provisions written into bills that designate specific contractors for federally funded projects. Proponents argue that returning to the practice would make it easier for Democratic and Republican lawmakers to collaborate on legislation by cutting deals to entice lawmakers from across the aisle to support legislation that includes projects for their district.

In the federal budget for the 2011 fiscal year, Congress set aside $130 billion in earmarks. Small government groups and some conservatives point to these allocated funds as evidence of excessive spending by the federal government, a point underscored by several widely publicized scandals in the early 2000s that detailed how a handful of lawmakers traded earmarks for personal gain.

But Travis Johnston, a political scientist at University of Massachusetts Boston who has researched and written about the impact of earmarks on electoral politics, points out that congressionally directed funding represents only a small fraction of the total federal budget which was $2.6 trillion in 2011.

Both the media and the public really latched on to extremely salient cases, to big, big earmarks that were seen as a classic case of Congress patting itself on the back doing favors for one another, Johnston said. In reality, the price tag around these earmarks is kind of a drop in the federal budget. Its a rounding error.

Though earmarks constitute just a sliver of federal spending, K Street could see major gains from a revitalization of earmarks. The year after Republicans nixed congressional earmarks, total federal lobbying expenditures fell by $170 million, though other conditions including the economic recession and passage of the Affordable Care Act at the end of 2010 may have also played a part in the drop in lobbying spending. Lobbying spending rebounded under former President Donald Trump.

Our clients are excited about the prospect of a return to earmarks, and we think we can be helpful to them with our advocacy there, one senior lobbyist told Roll Call.

Before the earmark moratorium went into effect, defense contractors were among the biggest spenders on lobbying and received significant earmarked funding. Northrop Grumman spent $15.7 million to lobby the federal government in 2010 and took in $39.6 million from congressionally directed spending in the same year. Lockheed Martin spent $12.7 million in lobbying and received $17.9 million in earmarks.

If the reforms suggested by congressional Democrats are adopted, a revitalized earmark system may limit funding recipients to public or nonprofit groups, such as universities and state agencies. Such a stipulation would discourage private companies like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin from lobbying for earmarks.

However, many traditional earmark recipients would remain. In 2010, public universities were among the top earmark recipients, though they spent less on lobbying efforts than for-profit enterprises. The University of Mississippi took in $32.8 million and spent $120,000 on lobbying. The University of New Mexico was another winner, bringing home almost $19 million after spending $280,000 on lobbying.

Democrats are planning other reforms too. Party leadership is calling the provisions funding for community projects, and Hoyer assured lawmakers and reporters that this time around, earmarks will be better regulated to prevent abuse. Legislators will only be able to direct funding to entities in which they have no existing financial stake. The individual sponsor of each earmark will be publicly disclosed.

The modern debate around earmarks which appeared first in 1789 as a part of the first federal budget ever began with a series of scandals during former President George W. Bushs administration.

In 2005, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) famously secured $231 million for a bridge to nowhere, connecting a sparsely populated island with mainland Alaska. That same year, an investigation by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed that former Rep. Randy Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) accepted millions of dollars in gifts from a defense contractor whose firm in turn benefitted from millions of dollars of earmarked federal funding. Cunningham spent seven years in federal prison on corruption charges before Trump pardoned him during his last week in the Oval Office.

Another lawmaker, former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), pled guilty to accepting bribes from lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for the inclusion of several millions of earmarked dollars for Abramoffs clients in 2006. Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

In the wake of these scandals, a bipartisan group of senators joined with the Bush White House to champion the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which required lawmakers to disclose all earmarked sums and document the sponsor and recipient of each earmark.

After the implementation of the act, OpenSecrets and Taxpayers for Common Sense maintained a database of all earmarks, documenting how recipients of federal earmarks interacted with the federal government through lobbying efforts and campaign contributions. The full database can be found here.

Despite the 2007 reform, earmarks became a target for the Tea Party movement, which painted the practice as a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. In 2016, a poll by The Economist and YouGov found that 63 percent of Americans approved of the earmark moratorium. Fifty-nine percent of respondents also said that the practice of earmarks was generally unacceptable.

Earmarks strike a chord for people because they see it as this [politician] doing something for themselves, for their own community, at the expense of the country and the American taxpayer, Johnston said. I think that theres a generally conservative ethos that we are all socialized into adopting about limited government and you can play into those narratives pretty easily with earmarks. Its low-hanging fruit to identify these types of scandalous, corrupt practices.

Republican lawmakers spearheaded a 2011 moratorium on earmarks, and then-President Barack Obama pledged to veto any legislation that included earmarks.

Traditionally, public opinion on earmarks divided cleanly along partisan lines. A 2016 survey experiment designed by Johnston and co-authors found that 66 percent of Democrats, and only 45 percent of Republicans, said they would be more likely to support a politician who had secured funding for projects in their area. Fox News reported that the GOP is already planning to attack Democrats for supporting pork barrel politics ahead of the midterms elections, a threat that has made some Democrats in swing states wary.

But a lot has changed since 2016. Whether GOP attacks on earmarks and lawmakers who support them will have staying power will largely depend on the political context that develops over the next two years. Right now, most Americans are not concerned about profligate federal spending. Most voters support expensive federal investments even if they are paid for by adding to the federal deficit.

Were in a spend, spend, spend mood because of COVID-19, and so people are not paying attention to price tag, but if theres a whiplash effect, and we return to thinking about deficits, then I think that will be a different story, Johnston said. So I think it depends on how much it is messaged effectively, and how much the public latches on.

Johnston noted that the political discourse that surrounds earmarks and government spending more broadly has changed since the 2011 moratorium went into effect. In 2018, Trump surprised many by coming out in support of earmarks.

The enactment of the earmark ban, the rise of the Tea Party, all those things that did away with earmarks, thats really ancient history in the world of Trumpian politics and things like that, at least for the GOP, Johnston said.

The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress a bipartisan group of six Democrats and three Republicans recommended bringing earmarks back last September.The proposal has garnered support from some Republicans including Rep. Tom Reed (N.Y.) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Punchbowl News reported Wednesday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has not publicly taken a stand on the issue, said he would follow Shelbys lead.

Other GOP members, however, are gearing up for an intra-party battle over earmarks. Reps. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) introduced a bill on Feb. 18 that would permanently eliminate earmarks. Budd and Norman are both members of the House Freedom Caucus, which tweeted Wednesday that it would oppose any effort to bring back earmarks.

Support Accountability Journalism

At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether youre reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or dark money influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust. Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you.

See more here:

Democrats want to revive earmarks will they further empower lobbyists? - Center for Responsive Politics

In less than a week, lawmakers will convene at the State Capitol to take and debate a host of issues over the course of a 60-day session. Several hot-button bills are on the table, as well as some lesser-known proposals that could gain traction and opposition as the legislative cycle plows forward.

Governor Ron DeSantiss Cerberus is certain to turn heads this Legislative Session. Like the mythological hound, DeSantiss three-tiered agenda seeks to shield Floridians and shut the gates on violent mobs, Silicon Valley, and pandemic lawyers. Below is a rundown of those bills.

Combatting Public Disorder (HB 1) would deter criminal rioting and crackdown on violent mobs that loot and destroy businesses. The measure, spearheaded by State Representative Juan Fernandez-Barquin, would impose enhanced penalties for assaulting police officers and enticing a riot. The bill is in response to the lawlessness that permeated in major cities across the country last summer.

Consumer Data Privacy (HB 969) is just the latest component in the GOPs fight against Big Tech companies. The proposed measure will allow consumers in Florida to have the final say in how social media companies like Twitter and Facebook use their personal information. State Representative Fiona McFarlandis sponsoring the bill.

The path to Floridas fiscal budget always takes a series of turns and detours before reaching its final destination. While a roadmap of government spending can be a headache, the economic fallout brought forth by an ongoing pandemic makes 2021s process a bit more challenging.

While lawmakers have stressed that potential budget cuts are on the horizon, DeSantis has offered up a 2021-2022 budget of $96.6 billion a $4.3 billion increase over the current fiscal year. The Governor says his increase accounts for various expenditures related to the states COVID-19 pandemic response and its impacts on Floridians. DeSantiss proposed budget also recommends over $1 billion in savings including over $400 million in administrative and operational efficiencies.

Still, GOP leaders will have to walk a tightrope when tackling the budget being pragmatic while also playing politics.

Brandes is doubling down on legalizing sports betting in Florida, again filing legislation to give the third most populous state a piece of the action.

His Sports Wagering bill (SB 392) would allow Floridians over the age of 21 to wager money or items on a sports event, with bets being placed with the states Department of Lottery or a licensee. The new law would put the Department of Lottery in charge of regulating sports betting and allow them to administer annual licenses for those seeking to operate a sports pool. Brandes also filed related measures (SB 394/396) that would set the application fee and renewal fee for the license at $100,000 and impose a sport betting revenue tax of 15 percent.

The Pinellas Republican filed a similar bill during the 2020 Legislative Session, but his proposal was never heard in committee.

A contentious issue, given the Seminole Tribe Compact granting exclusivity for certain types of gambling (slots, roulette, blackjack, etc.) in the Sunshine State, Brandes faces an uphill battle. Not only is the bill up against the Tribe, which controls Floridas biggest casinos, Brandes measure is also subject to Amendment 3 which could put the matter of casino gaming expansion in voters hands.

Whether or not the legislature will have the appetite to open the floodgates to Florida bettors is still to be determined, but theres no denying the impacts this legislation could have on the states economy. Apart from giving people the ability to bet on collegiate and professional sports, a gaming expansion could generate millions of dollars that could be used to bolster education and offset shortfalls brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

With new leadership at the helm and a lingering virus, its now or never for Brandes gambling proposals.

While insiders continue to speculate if Democratic State Senator Jason Pizzo will run for governor, the former Miami-Dade prosecutor has kept his nose to the grindstone, carving out a role for himself as a reformer. His three big issues this session fixes to the states unemployment system, evictions processes, and criminal justice laws have made him a progressive beacon in a coronavirus cloud of darkness.

Pizzo has embraced this leadership role openly, standing on the frontlines of the COVID-19 fight while serving as a voice of reason.Entering the final stretch of his first term in the Senate, Pizzo has carried the accountability mantle for the Democratic Party, being bold in his approach with fellow colleagues and swift with his desire to aid Floridians impacted by the mass contagion.

Most notably, hes positioned himself as the figurehead in the fight surrounding the states unemployment system. With the website failing to keep up with an influx of applicants in 2020, many out-of-work Floridians were left in the dark with no manual on how to navigate the trials brought on by the coronavirus, Pizzo slowly became the de facto leader in this battle, and has since turned his attention to championing reforms to help those affected by the virus.

While many in his party feel emboldened by the press and quietly call it day, Pizzo actually has the legislation to boot. On Tuesday, Pizzo filed an Evictions During a Declared State of Emergency bill (SB 1548) aimed at protecting individuals from being kicked out of their residency during a state of emergency. Pizzos bill would no longer require the Governor to issue an executive order to halt evictions during an economic shutdown like the pandemic.

Though Pizzo is still at the mercy of a Republican-led Senate, GOP leadership respects the Miami Democrat, with Senate President Wilton Simpson reaching across the aisle to tap Pizzo to lead the Criminal Justice Committee.

Some say he has a cape stashed away in his office, although these claims have not been confirmed.

Republican State Senator Dennis Baxley is pushing a bill that will put in place tighter vote by mail restrictions. The move comes in the wake of significant Republican concerns over lax enforcement of similar vote by mail laws that Republicans say were exploited in other states.

The bill (SB 90) would change absentee voting rules, reducing the period that vote-by-mail requests would stay valid. Current law allows mail ballot requests to stay valid through two election cycles. Baxleys bill would shorten that, requiring Floridians to request mail ballots ahead of every election cycle.

Democrats oppose the measure, saying the reform is not needed. As evidence, they point to Floridas relatively smooth election night performance last November.

Continuing their push to expand Floridas school-choice landscape, Republicans will look to fast track a measure that would expand the states eligibility for voucher programs and give parents the flexibility to use taxpayer-backed education savings accounts for private schools and other costs.

Backed by Republican State Senator Manny Diaz, the Education Scholarship Programs bill (SB 48) would merge existing voucher programs into two primary scholarships. One scholarships would serve students with special needs while the other would serve a broader population of students. Diazs bill would also grant parents the freedom to spend educational savings accounts on private tuition, electronic devices, as well as tutors.

Related

View original post here:

Six hot legislative issues to watch this session - The Capitolist

SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Protegrity, a global leader in data security, today announced record business growth and company momentum during its fiscal year 2020. Over the past year, Protegrity achieved significant customer growth, signing 225 percent more new customers than in 2019. Total year-over-year revenue increased by 23 percent in 2020, with annual recurring revenue for first-time customers increasing by 398 percent.

2020 was a marquee year for Protegrity, representing the most successful twelve months in the companys history, said Protegrity President and CEO Rick Farnell. We are growing rapidly, hiring aggressively, and expanding quickly into new markets across the globe in response to the incredible demand weve seen for our industry-leading Data Protection Platform. As we surge into 2021, we will continue to focus on enabling our customers to innovate and confidently pursue data-driven initiatives, knowing they are benefitting from Protegritys customer-first mission of creating and delivering the most comprehensive and reliable data-security solutions available today.

Throughout the course of 2020, Protegrity announced a number of significant advancements across the business, leading to the companys customer and revenue growth. These include:

Accelerated Digital Transformation Drives Unprecedented Demand for Data Security

According to recent Gartner research, information-security spending was expected to reach $123.8 billion in 2020. The report found that while the demand for some information-security segments, such as network security, were projected to decrease in 2020, the pandemic accelerated growth for market segments such as cloud security and data security, with cloud-security spending projected to increase 33 percent over 2019.

Farnell continued: The global COVID-19 pandemic pushed nearly every industry online, leading to a dramatic acceleration of digital transformation, cloud, and AI initiatives. However, as these companies continue to push the boundaries of innovation to keep pace with the digital economy, they have quickly encountered the age-old balance between innovation and the control required by the business. Protegrity gives organizations the freedom to innovate safely with flexible, fine-grained data-security solutions for on-premises, cloud, and SaaS environments, allowing businesses to fully tap into their most valuable asset: secure data.

Delivering Trusted Data-Security Solutions for Global Enterprises

Protegrity protects the sensitive data of more than two billion individuals at global enterprises, including 35 percent of the top 250 global businesses and a large number of the Fortune 500. The company is uniquely positioned to help organizations navigate the myriad global data-privacy regulations already enacted, as well as the many others that are projected to come. As a result, Protegrity has seen significant momentum across highly-regulated industries, such as healthcare, retail, and financial services. Examples of customer momentum in these industries include:

In 2021, Protegrity will continue to make it clear that it is the modern, must-have solution for data security. Beyond that, by moving ahead with its vision for the Secure AI Era and the value for secure innovation, the company will present a series of platform and technology upgrades, continue to add strategic partners, both in the U.S. and around the globe, and work with more customers to secure data for them and their customers. As ever, 2021 will prove, once again, that Protegrity is the global standard for ubiquitous data protection.

Learn More

Website: protegrity.com Twitter: @Protegrity LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/protegrity/

About Protegrity

Protegrity, a global leader in data security, protects sensitive data everywhere and future-proofs businesses as data-privacy regulations evolve. Maintaining privacy today across distributed data has become impossibly complicated. With Protegrity, enterprises can secure data wherever it resides, control how its protected, and have confidence that data is safe, even if a breach occurs. The Protegrity Data Protection Platform is a modern alternative to traditionally complex data-protection methods that leave gaps in security. Whether encrypting, tokenizing, or applying privacy models, Protegrity protects data at the speed of business. Deep integrations with Snowflake, Amazon Redshift, Teradata, Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, Cloudera, Databricks, and many other enterprise applications ensure that data remains fully protected in hybrid-cloud, multi-cloud, and on-premises environments without performance penalties. The platforms fine-grained data protection anonymizes personally identifiable information (PII) thats used in AI and machine learning models, providing faster access to critical analytics data and dramatically shortening the time to business insights. Protegrity protects the sensitive data of more than two billion individuals across global enterprises, including four of the worlds 15 largest banks, four out of 10 of the top health insurance providers, and three of the worlds leading multinational companies. With more than two decades of industry-leading innovation, Protegrity allows businesses to finally tap into the value of their data and accelerate digital transformation timelines without jeopardizing individuals fundamental right to privacy.

Originally posted here:

A 'Marquee Year' for Protegrity Led by Record Business Growth in 2020 - Business Wire