Category Archives: Uncategorized

Neutrality Matters

Standard
Net Neutrality CNN dot com

Image:  CNN.com

“WIRED”

“In a time when there are too few companies with too much power – we need net neutrality now more than ever.

Getting rid of Title II would lead to even more centralization, handing more power to the largest Internet companies while stifling competition and innovation.

Next month, Amazon, Netflix, and dozens of other companies and organizations will host a “day of action” aimed at saving net neutrality as we know it. The Federal Communications Commission, meanwhile, is on the verge of revoking its own authority to enforce net neutrality rules, and the country’s biggest telecommunications companies are cheering along. The future of the internet is on the line here, but it’s easy to be cynical about the conflict: What does it matter which set of giant corporations controls the internet?

Under the current net neutrality rules, broadband providers like Comcast and Charter, and wireless providers like AT&T and Verizon, can’t block or slow down your access to lawful content, nor can they create so-called “fast lanes” for content providers who are willing to pay extra. In other words, your internet provider can’t slow your Amazon Prime Video stream to a crawl so you’ll keep your Comcast cable plan, and your mobile carrier can’t stop you from using Microsoft’s Skype instead of your own Verizon cell phone minutes.

If the Trump administration gets its way and abolishes net neutrality, those broadband providers could privilege some content providers over others (for a price, of course). The broadband industry says it supports net neutrality in theory but opposes the FCC’s reclassification of internet providers as utility-like “Title II” providers, and that consumers have nothing to worry about. But it’s hard not to worry given that without Title II classification, the FCC wouldn’t actually be able to enforce its net neutrality rules. It might be less alarming if the internet were a level playing field with free and fair competition. But it’s not. At all.

If you want to search for anything online, you’ve got to go through Google or maybe Microsoft’s Bing. The updates your Facebook friends share are filtered through the company’s algorithms. The mobile apps you can find in your phone’s app store are selected by either Apple or Google. If you’re like most online shoppers, you’re mostly buying products sold by Amazon and its partners. Even with the current net neutrality laws there’s not enough competition—without them, there will be even less, which could stifle the growth and innovation that fuels the digital economy.

Fast lanes or other types of network discrimination could have a big impact on the countless independent websites and apps that already exist, many of which would have to cough up extra money to compete with the bigger competitors to reach audiences. Consider the examples of Netflix, Skype, and YouTube, all of which came of age during the mid-2000s when the FCC’s first net neutrality rules were in place. Had broadband providers been able to block videos streaming and internet-based phone calls in the early days, these companies may have seen their growth blocked by larger companies with deeper pockets. Instead, net neutrality rules allowed them to find their audiences and become the giants they are today, and without net neutrality, they could even potentially become the very start-up-killers that would’ve slowed or stopped their own earlier growth. Getting rid of net neutrality all but ensures that the next generation of internet companies won’t be able to compete with the internet giants.

The end of net neutrality could also have ranging implications for consumers. Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, and a handful of other services may dominate the online video market, but without net neutrality, broadband providers might try to make it more expensive to access popular streaming sites in an attempt to keep customers paying for expensive television packages. “[Net neutrality] protects consumers from having the cost of internet go up because they have to pay for fast lane tolls,” says Chris Lewis, vice president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge.

Lewis also points out that there are a few other consumer friendly protections in the FCC’s net neutrality rules. For example, the FCC rules require internet service providers to disclose information about the speed of their services, helping you find out whether you’re getting your money’s worth. They also force broadband providers to allow you to connect any device you like to your internet connection, so that your provider can’t force you to use a specific type of WiFi router, or tell you which Internet of Things gadgets you can or can’t use.

“The Internet is as awesome and diverse as it is thanks to the basic guiding principle of net neutrality,” says Evan Greer, campaign director for Fight for the Future, one of the main organizers of the net neutrality day of action, which will take place on July 12 and try to raise awareness about net neutrality across the web.”

https://www.wired.com/story/why-net-neutrality-matters-even-in-the-age-of-oligopoly/

Half of Industrial Control Systems Suffered Cyber Attack Last Year

Standard
Cyber Attacks

The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s industrial control security testbed. (Photo Credit: NIST)

“FIFTH DOMAIN CYBER”

“Data gathered comes from 359 industrial cyber security practitioners in 21 countries that completed online surveys between February 2017 and April 2017.

One-in-five respondents experienced two incidents within the 12-month window.

Threats to industrial control systems are becoming increasingly widespread, according to a new survey from cyber security firm Kaspersky Lab and Business Advantage that found over half of the companies sampled reporting at least one cyberattack in the last 12 months.

The top observed threat remains conventional malware, which played a part in 53 percent of actual incidents, followed by targeted attacks, such as spear phishing to more sophisticated advanced persistent threats. The top perceived threats are  third-party supply chain/partners and sabotage/intentional damage from other external sources.

This has led three-in-four companies to expect a cyber attack to happen to them, though 83 percent feel prepared to combat an incident.

Organizations might not be as ready as they believe themselves to be, however, considering the fact that the anti-malware solutions already implemented by 67 percent of respondents still allowed for so many incidents.

Increasing the frequency of issuing patches/updates could contribute to protection from incidents like the WannaCry pandemic, but the increased attack surface and access granted to external parties by growing enterprises complicates matters.

Therefore, risk management is being recognized as a growing priority, but finding properly trained staff and reliable external partners to implement cyber security tops the challenges of companies that acknowledge financial loss is shown to decrease in organizations that have security awareness programs for staff, contractors and partners.

Looking at the survey’s findings, the top risk factors appear to be the access of external parties, a lack of compliance with industry/government regulations and the use of wireless connections. This has led companies to express support for some level of mandatory reporting and governance to help bring about more transparency to help develop frameworks to address the risks.

Some factors that appear to help mitigate threats include documented cybersecurity programs being set in place; regular security assessments/audits being conducted; vulnerability scans and patch deployments happening biweekly at minimum; unidirectional gateways being installed between control systems and the rest of the network; anti-malware solutions being installed for industrial endpoints; industrial anomaly detection tools, intrusion detection and intrusion prevention tools being used; and staff and contractors being given regular security awareness training.”

The entire survey can be accessed by filling in a form on the Kaspersky blog.

Veterans Administration Has $1 Billion Unexpected Funding Shortfall

Standard
VA Budget Shortfall httpdelmarvapublicradio.net

Image: delmarvapublicradio.net

“THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC”

“Under repeated questioning, VA Secretary David Shulkin acknowledged the department may need emergency funds.

The Department of Veterans Affairs was scolded by both parties over its budget Wednesday as lawmakers scurried to find a fix to an unexpected shortfall of more than $1 billion that would threaten medical care for thousands of veterans in the coming months.

“We would like to work with you,” Shulkin told a Senate appropriations panel. “We need to do this quickly.”

At the hearing, lawmakers pressed Shulkin about the department’s financial management after it significantly underestimated costs for its Choice program, which offers veterans federally paid medical care outside the VA. Several questioned Shulkin’s claim that the VA can fill the budget gap simply by shifting funds — without an emergency infusion of new money — without hurting veterans’ care.

“The department’s stewardship of funds is the real issue at hand,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., chair of the Appropriations panel overseeing the VA. He faulted VA for a “precarious situation” requiring a congressional bailout.

Shulkin cited unexpectedly high demand for Choice and defended President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget request as adequate, but allowed that more money may be needed.

“On financial projections, we have to do better,” he said. “We do not want to see veterans impacted at all by our inability to manage budgets.”

Shulkin made the surprise revelation last week, urgently asking Congress for help. He said VA needed legal authority to shift money from other VA programs.

His disclosure came just weeks after lawmakers were still being assured that Choice was under budget, with $1.1 billion estimated to be left over on Aug. 7. Shulkin now says that money will dry up by mid-August. He cited excessive use of Choice beyond its original intent of using private doctors only when veterans must wait more than 30 days for a VA appointment or drive more than 40 miles to a facility.

Skeptical senators on Wednesday signaled they may need to move forward on a financial bailout.

In a letter Wednesday to the VA, Moran joined three other GOP senators, including John McCain, in demanding more detailed information from VA on what fix is needed.

“Unless Congress appropriates emergency funding to continue the Veterans Choice Program, hundreds of thousands of veterans who now rely on the Choice Card will be sent back to a VA that cannot effectively manage or coordinate their care,” the senators said. “We cannot send our veterans back to the pre-scandal days in which veterans were subjected to unacceptable wait-times.”

VA is already instructing its medical centers to limit the number of veterans sent to private doctors. Some veterans were being sent to Defense Department hospitals, VA facilities located farther away, or other alternative locations “when care is not offered in VA.” It also was asking field offices to hold off on spending for certain medical equipment to help cover costs.

Congressional Democrats on VA oversight committees have also sharply criticized the proposed 2018 budget. Shulkin, for instance, says he intends to tap other parts of the VA budget to cover the shortfall, including $620 million in carryover money that had been designated for use in the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The budget proposal also seeks to cover rising costs of Choice in part by reducing disability benefits for thousands of veterans once they reach retirement age, drawing an outcry from major veterans’ organizations who said veterans heavily rely on the payments.

Shulkin has since backed off the plan to reduce disability benefits but has not indicated what other areas may be cut.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told Shulkin that it sure sounded like VA needed money.

“You’re defending this budget, but your job is to defend veterans,” she said. “It seems to me if the administration makes the request, it will be better served.”

The VA’s faulty budget estimates were a primary reason that Congress passed legislation in March to extend the Choice program beyond its Aug. 7 expiration date until the money ran out, which VA said would happen early next year. At the bill-signing ceremony with veterans’ groups, Trump said the legislation would ensure veterans will continue to be able to see “the doctor of their choice.”

The department is now more closely restricting use of Choice to its 30-day, 40-mile requirements.

The unexpectedly high Choice costs are also raising questions about the amount of money needed in future years as VA seeks to expand the program.

Earlier this month, Shulkin described the outlines of an overhaul, dubbed Veterans CARE, which would replace Choice and its 30-day, 40-mile restrictions to give veterans even wider access to private doctors. He is asking Congress to approve that plan by this fall.”

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2017/06/22/veterans-affairs-facing-1-billion-shortfall-because-unexpected-choice-program-costs/418787001/

 

Limits Placed on Congressional Oversight

Standard
Oversight Limitis Shutterstock

Image:  Shutterstock

“THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT” By Peter Tyler

“In May, a legally binding opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) was made public, stating that individual Members of Congress “do not have the authority to conduct oversight” of the executive branch.

[ They are]  only entitled to “voluntary cooperation” with their requests for information.

However, individual Members of Congress play a critical role in conducting a lot of important oversight. If agencies follow the OLC opinion, it would diminish Congress’s oversight power.

As pointed out in a previous Project On Government Oversight blog, the OLC opinion builds on a harmful and long-standing executive branch policy that diminishes congressional oversight authority, with what appears to be a troubling new twist. And Congress has rightly excoriated the executive branch for this new policy—most notably in a letter from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA)—defending its Constitutional duty and responsibility to oversee the executive branch.

The OLC opinion (Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct Oversight of the Executive Branch) dangerously asserts that only committee or subcommittee chairmen have Constitutional authority to conduct oversight, and, accordingly, to make requests for, and be official recipients of, information from the executive branch. It argues that the Constitution does not authorize individual Members of Congress—including committee ranking minority members—to conduct oversight, since they are not “endowed with the full power of Congress” in the form of a chair appointment. As a result, the requests for information by Members who are not Chairs, would not be “properly considered” as an oversight request, because they do not “trigger any obligation to accommodate congressional needs and [are] not legally enforceable.”

Oddly and detrimentally, the opinion puts oversight requests from individual Members of Congress (and even other committee members and the Ranking Members) as less important than information requests from the public. Such requests may (or may not) be answered at the discretion of the executive branch, wrenching away Members’ Constitutional prerogative to exercise oversight as a separate but equal branch of government. The opinion’s de facto result would be to increase and centralize the power of the executive branch—which is primarily made up of appointed bureaucrats, not elected representatives.

One key difference between this new OLC opinion and previous Justice Department guidance from 1984 is that the new opinion asserts that, “Whether it is appropriate to respond to requests from individual members will depend on the circumstances.” (Emphasis added) The Justice Department’s 1984 guidance states, “if the [Congressional] request is not an official committee or subcommittee request, then the agency should process it as a request from ‘any person’ under the FOIA.” The difference is subtle, but important. Previously, the executive branch’s policy was to treat requests for information from individual Members of Congress as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Now, according to OLC, agencies have discretion to not respond to Congress at all, depending “on the circumstances.”

How have agency officials responded to the new OLC opinion? Public statements by federal agencies have varied.

Last week, in an appearance before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao responded to a question regarding information requests from Congress by saying that “I will do everything I can, but it’s up to the White House on what they want to do. It’s up to the White House and this administration. I’m not in charge of that.” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said at a different hearing, “Regardless of who the letter comes from—and it doesn’t have to just come from a ranking member or chairman—we’ll respond to any congressional inquiry.”

Members of Congress from both political parties are criticizing OLC’s opinion.

Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, publically opposed the policy, calling it “dangerous and unsustainable.” Likewise, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) condemned the policy, assuring “I’ll punch above my weight on this if this administration thinks it can withhold information.” Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) all offered criticism, with Senator Portman reflecting on his time as budget director in the George W. Bush administration: “I found dealing with Congress frustrating, but I felt it was my responsibility to deal with Congress, it’s the way the founders set things up.”

The strongest criticism is coming from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, who wrote to President Trump urging him to encourage executive-branch cooperation with Congressional oversight, and requesting that the White House rescind the opinion. Senator Grassley has long conducted robust Congressional oversight as an individual Member of Congress, Ranking Member, and Chair. His letter is a thorough criticism of the OLC opinion, pointing out the major flaws and citing case law and long-held Congressional practices in equal measure. Senator Grassley argues that, “Every member of Congress is a constitutional officer…. This applies obviously regardless of whether they are in the majority or the minority at the moment and regardless of whether they are in a leadership position on a particular committee. Thus, all members need accurate information from the Executive Branch in order to carry out their Constitutional function to make informed decisions on all sorts of legislative issues covering a vast array of complex matters across our massive federal government.”

Senator Grassley makes an important reference to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals case Murphy v. Department of the Army, which concluded that “[i]t would be an inappropriate intrusion into the legislative sphere for the courts to decide without congressional direction that, for example, only the chairman of a committee shall be regarded as the official voice of the Congress for purposes of receiving such information, as distinguished from its ranking minority member, other committee members, or other members of the Congress.” He further notes that it would be even more inappropriate for the executive branch to determine how Congress does its job. The implication is that the OLC’s opinion threatens our constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances.

The OLC opinion emphasizes the ability of committee chairs to legally compel information from the executive branch via subpoena as evidence of their “authorization” to conduct oversight. However, as Senator Grassley put it, “that’s just not how it works.” He describes that, “[t]he vast majority of information Congress obtains, even through a Chairman’s requests, is obtained voluntarily, not by compulsion,” and the subpoena is “a last resort.”

Senator Grassley draws attention to the fact that many requests for information from Members of Congress are not partisan in nature, and that a partisan response from the executive branch to these requests “discourages bipartisanship, decreases transparency, and diminishes the crucial role of the American people’s elected representatives.” He ends by noting that the OLC opinion “obstructs what ought to be the natural flow of information between agencies and the committees, which frustrates the Constitutional function of legislating.”

The good news is that the OLC opinion does not have to represent the final word of the Administration. President Trump should recognize the rights and duties of Congress to oversee the executive branch, and tell OLC to rescind the opinion.  Equally important, Congressional leadership should be unified in demanding that the executive branch provide information critical to Congress’s Constitutional obligations.”

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2017/06/limits-placed-on-congressional-oversight.html

By: Peter Tyler
Investigator, POGO

Peter Tyler is an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight. Peter’s areas of expertise are Congressional Oversight, Federal spending accountability, Inspectors General.

U.S. President Blocks Veterans Group of 500,000 Members on Twitter

Standard

 

Blocked Vets

“THE HILL”

“Veterans group has been critical of his time in office on Twitter.

“The Commander in Chief can block @VoteVets, the voice of 500k military veterans and families, but we will NOT be silenced,” VoteVets.org wrote on Twitter, including a screenshot that shows Trump had blocked the organization’s account.

The group has in the past criticized the president over his budget proposal, Republican attempts to repeal and replace ObamaCare and the president’s executive order temporarily barring individuals from certain predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States

In one television advertisement aired during MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in early February, VoteVets spoke directly to Trump, telling him to start acting like “a legitimate president.”

“Look, you lost the popular vote … You’re having trouble drawing a crowd …  And your approval rating keeps sinking …” a veteran of the war in Afghanistan says in the ad.

“But kicking thousands of my fellow veterans off their health insurance by killing the Affordable Care Act, and banning Muslims won’t help …  And that’s not the America I sacrificed for … . You want to be a legitimate president, sir? Then act like one.”

VoteVets is a progressive veterans group founded in 2006 that focuses on providing voices to veterans on issues ranging from foreign police to LGBTQ rights.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337560-trump-blocks-veterans-group-on-twitter

 

5 Ways to Make Terrorism Worse

Standard

Terrorism Worse

“DEFENSE ONE”

“Terrorists are pleased to confront a United States that demonizes Muslims and seeks only its own advantage.

Donald Trump seems to regard a terrorist attack almost anywhere in the world as an opportunity to take to Twitter to tout his domestic political agenda. Instead of further straining relations with key democratic allies, the president would be better off reconsidering his own policies that are making terrorism worse.

First, Trump has realigned U.S. policy in the Middle East to give uncritical support to authoritarian regimes whose repressive policies fuel grievances that are exploited by violent extremists. Governments like Saudi Arabia also promote extreme, intolerant interpretations of Islam throughout the world on which terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qa’eda base their worldviews. If Trump were serious about reducing the threat from terrorism, he would confront his authoritarian allies about the hateful incitement spread by preachers and religious and educational institutions in their countries, and about the direct support that still flows to violent extremist groups in Syria and elsewhere. He would also urge U.S. allies to govern in a way that provides hope to the millions of young people across the region who are squeezed between repressive, corrupt authoritarian rulers and violent extremists who claim to offer the only alternative. Instead, Trump condones the harmful practices of his authoritarian allies, remaining silent about their violations of human rights while offering lavish praise and arms sales.

Second, the Trump administration has taken sides in the ancient sectarian rift between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims that has helped fuel conflict in Syria and elsewhere and created conditions in which terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qa’eda thrive. Exploitation of sectarian divisions by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and their proxies has been one of the chief drivers of terrorist violence in the Middle East in recent years, such as the bombings in Baghdad last week, which killed dozens. Trump is encouraging U.S. allies to step up sectarian conflict in Bahrain and Yemen while issuing threats against Iran, steps that vindicate and embolden sectarian extremists in Tehran. Terrorist attacks in the Iranian capital, immediately claimed by ISIS, received only perfunctory condemnation from the White House. The White House statement, which seemed to blame the victims for the assault, has received widespread condemnation. This hopelessly one-sided approach to violence against civilians will only fuel resentment and more violence. To reduce the threat of terrorism, the United States must work to ease sectarian conflicts in the region. Trump is making them worse.

Third, Trump continues to push a travel ban against six majority-Muslim countries, even as more and more federal courts declare it unconstitutional. The president’s single-minded pursuit of this discriminatory policy supports the narrative of violent extremists who claim that Muslims are unwelcome in the West. The travel ban abets recruiting efforts in another way as well: by fomenting distrust of law enforcement among American Muslims, thus reducing the chance that violent extremists might be reported to authorities.

Fourth, Trump’s and his administration’s harsh rhetoric against Muslims, enthusiastically backed up by his cheerleaders in the media, gives license to bigots whose actions benefit ISIS and other extremist groups. Hate crimes against Muslims have jumped, perhaps by half, since Trump began his campaign for the presidency, and he has little to say about this alarming trend. The spread of bigoted attitudes towards Muslims fuels divisions that are be exploited by violent extremists.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the Trump administration is not providing leadership on universal human rights and therefore failing to offer any constructive alternative to the hateful, nihilistic ideology of the terrorists. The Trump administration has pledged to put America first and secure American interests in a world “where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage.” Terrorists are only too pleased to confront the United States in such an amoral world, one without universal values or common interests and with no sense of global community.

By turning its back on these values, the Trump administration is unilaterally giving up the United States’ greatest strength, and making it easier for terrorists to spread division, fear, and violence.”

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/06/five-ways-president-trump-making-terrorism-worse/138602/?oref=d-topictop

Army Colonel, Wife and Defense Contractor Accused – $20 Million Bribery and Kickback Scheme

Standard
Gavel and law books

(Photo Credit: BrianAJackson/Getty Images via iStockphoto)

“ARMY TIMES”
“Col. Anthony Roper conspired with his wife and others to seek and accept bribes in exchange for rigging more than $20 million in Army contracts to individuals and companies, prosecutors said Thursday.

The scheme began in 2008 and lasted nearly a decade, prosecutors said.

Roper was stationed at Fort Gordon near Augusta, Georgia. His duties included oversight of the Army’s efforts to build and modernize its information and communication networks, an indictment said.

Roper, 55, is charged with conspiracy, bribery, obstruction and making false statements. He faces up to 85 years in prison if convicted.

The colonel’s wife, Audra Roper, 49, is charged with conspiracy, false statements and obstruction.
Dwayne Oswald Fulton, 58, is charged with conspiracy and obstruction. Fulton was an officer for “a large defense contracting company.” The firm is not named in the court records.

Audra Roper operated Quadar Group, which prosecutors said was a shell company used to funnel bribe payments to her husband, the indictment states. It was one of multiple shell companies used to defraud the government, prosecutors said.

Court records filed this week do not list any attorneys for the defendants.

A spokesman at Fort Gordon did not immediately respond Thursday.”

Meet NASA’s 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class

Standard
Next Astronauts

(Photo Credit: Robert Markowitz/NASA)

“MILITARY TIMES”

“Seven of the 12 men and women who made it into NASA’s 2017 astronaut candidate class are members of the military.

Competition is tough, and of the thousands of applications received, only a few are chosen for the intensive astronaut candidate training program.

The astronaut candidates, whose names were announced Wednesday, will report in August for a two-year preparation program at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

NASA selects its astronauts from a diverse pool of applicants with a wide variety of backgrounds, according to its website. Including the “Original Seven,” only 338 astronauts have been selected since 1959.

Here are the seven military men and women in this year’s candidate class.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Dominick

Matthew Dominick

Matthew Dominick has been selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. He will report for duty in August 2017.Photo Credit: Mark Garcia/NASA
Dominick grew up in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and graduated with a degree in electrical engineering from the University of San Diego. He commissioned through the Reserve Officer Training Corps immediately after graduation.

He was deployed twice to the North Arabian Sea as a Naval fighter pilot before attending the Naval Postgraduate School and the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School Co-Operative Program. He served as a developmental flight test project officer from 2013 to 2016. He then returned to active duty and was a lieutenant commander on the USS Ronald Reagan when he received word of his selection to the astronaut candidate class.

He’s flown more than 1,600 flight hours in 61 combat missions.

Army Maj. Frank Rubio

Frank Rubio

Dr. Frank Rubio has been selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. He will report for duty in August 2017.Photo Credit: Mark Garcia/NASA
Born in Los Angeles but raised in Miami, Rubio graduated from the United States Military Academy with a degree in international relations. He has a Doctorate of Medicine from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. During his time in the Army, Rubio served as a platoon leader, a company commander, an executive medicine provider and a flight surgeon.

Rubio was a battalion surgeon for 3rd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group when he was selected by NASA.

Former Navy SEAL Jonny Kim

Jonny Kim

Dr. Jonny Kim has been selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. He will report for duty in August 2017.Photo Credit: Mark Garcia/NASA
Kim was born and raised in Los Angeles. He served as a special warfare operator on SEAL Team Three in San Diego. He was a combat medic, sniper, navigator and point man on more than 100 combat missions during two deployments to the Middle East. He later was commissioned into the medical corps through the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps.

During his time as a SEAL, Kim earned the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest award for valor, and the Bronze Star with “V” device, among other awards.

When he was selected by NASA, Kim was a resident physician in emergency medicine with Partners Healthcare at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Air Force Lt. Col. Raja Chari

Raja Chari

Raja Chari has been selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. He will report for duty in August 2017.Photo Credit: Mark Garcia/NASA
Chari, of Cedar Falls, Iowa, graduated from the Air Force Academy with degrees in astronautical engineering and engineering science. He also has a master’s degree in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He has more than 2,000 hours of flight time in the F-35, F-15, F-16 and F-18, including F-15E combat missions in Iraq and deployments to the Korean Peninsula.

Prior to being selected to the astronaut candidate class, Chari was the commander of the 461st Flight Test Squadron and the director of the F-35 Integrated Test Force. He also had been selected for promotion to colonel.

Marine Corps Maj. Jasmin Moghbeli

Jasmin Moghbeli

Jasmin Moghbeli has been selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. She will report for duty in August 2017.Photo Credit: Mark Garcia/NASA
Moghbeli was born in Germany but grew up in Baldwin, New York. She graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a degree in aerospace engineering and earned a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School.

Moghbeli was testing H-1 helicopters and serving as the quality assurance and avionics officer for Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 in Yuma, Arizona, when she was selected by NASA.

Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. Bob Hines

Bob Hines

Bob Hines has been selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. He will report for duty in August 2017.Photo Credit: Mark Garcia/NASA
Hines grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. and graduated with a degree in aerospace engineering from Boston University. He received his commission from Air Force Officer Training School in 1999 and has been deployed to the Middle East and Europe numerous times as a pilot.

Hines has served as a flight test pilot at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth, Texas. During his time at Eglin, Hines was an F-15C/D/E experimental test pilot and was selected to fly the U-28 on an overseas deployment in support of special operations troops.

He transitioned to the Air Force Reserve in 2011, serving in Texas as a flight test pilot for the Federal Aviation Administration. He later moved to NASA’s Johnson Space Center.

When he was selected for astronaut candidate class, Hines was working as a research pilot for the aircraft operations division of the Flight Operations Directorate at the Johnson Space Center. He also was the Air Force Reserve’s F-15E program test director and test pilot at the F-15 Operational Flight Program Combined Test Force at Eglin Air Force Base.

Navy Lt. Kayla Barron

Kayla Barron

Kayla Barron has been selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. She will report for duty in August 2017.Photo Credit: Mark Garcia/NASA
A native of Richland, Washington, Barron is a 2010 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with a degree in systems engineering. She later earned her master’s degree in nuclear engineering at the University of Cambridge in England.

After graduate school, Barron attended the Navy’s nuclear power and submarine officer training before being assigned to the USS Maine, an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. As a submarine warfare officer, Barron completed three strategic deterrent patrols.

Barron was serving as the flag aide to the superintendent of the Naval Academy when she was selected by NASA.”

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/meet-the-seven-military-men-and-women-training-to-be-nasas-next-astronauts

 

VA Will Shift Medical Records To DOD’s “In-Process” Electronic Medical Records System

Standard

 

Veterans Gaming the System

Image:  Military Times

Total Investment To Date Now Projected at Nearly $10 Billion

“MILITARY TIMES”

VA has already spent more than $1 billion in recent years in attempts to make its legacy health record systems work better with military systems.

The military’s health record system is still being put in place across that department, more than three years after the acquisition process began. The initial contract topped $4.6 billion, but has risen in cost in recent years.

Shulkin did not announce a potential price tag for the move to a commercial electronic health records system, but said that a price tag of less than $4 billion would likely be “unrealistic.”


“Veterans Affairs administrators on Monday announced plans to shift veterans’ electronic medical records to the same system used by the Defense Department, potentially ending a decades-old problematic rift in sharing information between the two bureaucracies.

VA Secretary David Shulkin announced the decision Monday as a game-changing move, one that will pull his department into the commercial medical record sector and — he hopes — create an easier to navigate system for troops leaving the ranks.

“VA and DoD have worked together for many years to advance (electronic health records) interoperability between their many separate applications, at the cost of several hundred millions of dollars, in an attempt to create a consistent and accurate view of individual medical record information,” Shulkin said.

“While we have established interoperability between VA and DOD for key aspects of the health record … the bottom line is we still don’t have the ability to trade information seamlessly for our veteran patients. Without (improvements), VA and DoD will continue to face significant challenges if the departments remain on two different systems.”

White House officials — including President Donald Trump himself — hailed the announcement as a major step forward in making government services easier for troops and veterans.
Developing implementation plans and potential costs is expected to take three to six months.

But he did say VA leaders will skip standard contract competition processes to more quickly move ahead with Millennium software owned by Missouri-based Cerner Corp., the basis of the Pentagon’s MHS GENESIS records system.

“For the reasons of the health and protection of our veterans, I have decided that we can’t wait years, as DOD did in its EHR acquisition process, to get our next generation EHR in place,” Shulkin said.

Shulkin for months has promised to “get VA out of the software business,” indicating that the department would shift to a customized commercial-sector option for updating the health records.

The VA announcement came within minutes of Trump’s controversial proposal to privatize the nation’s air traffic control system. The president has repeatedly pledged to make government systems work more like a business, and in some cases hand over public responsibilities to the private sector.

Shulkin has worked to assure veterans groups that his efforts to rely on the private sector for expertise and some services will not mean a broader dismantling of VA, but instead will produce a more efficient and responsive agency.

He promised a system that will not only be interoperable with DOD records but also easily transferable to private-sector hospitals and physicians, as VA officials work to expand outside partnerships.

Shulkin is expected to testify before Congress on the fiscal 2018 budget request in coming weeks. As they have in past hearings, lawmakers are expected to request more information on the EHR changes then. ”

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/va-share-dod-electronic-medical-records-decision