Hello, everyone. Welcome. There's a thunderstorm here. Hopefully you're not having the same thing where you are. I did want to mention that this is our last lecture of the spring season. I hope you've enjoyed it all. We certainly have. I wanted to also mention that this weekend we will send out a feedback email to you. So please feel free to send that back evaluating our last four lectures. And we, of course, will keep you posted this summer on what's going to be happening in the fall. So in the meantime, have a wonderful spring. And I'd now like to ask Beth Wood, our program chair, to please introduce today's speaker, Beth. Thank you, Carol. If you've been attending our lectures for a while now, our speaker today probably needs no introduction. But Triple E is blessed to have a number of new members this semester, so I'm very happy to provide a brief overview of Eric Davis. Eric earned his bachelor's at Brown, his master's in PhD at Stanford, all in political science. He is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Middlebury College, where he taught for over 30 years. He also provided political analysis to a number of Vermont news organizations. And Triple E is very fortunate to have had Eric speak to us a number of times, and offer his insights and analysis and give us some perspective and some context on a number of countless actually elections now. And as of today, three presidencies. So Eric is here today to talk to us about the Biden presidency after its first two months. And it's a great pleasure to welcome back Eric Davis. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Beth, for that introduction and thank you for making the arrangements for this talk and thanks to beyond and technology for tomorrow for providing the technical background. Before I begin my lecture I should note that thunderstorm ended here in Middlebury just about two minutes ago. We had a brief power outage about 130 hopefully things will stay connected for the next hour but if I disappear suddenly, it's because of the weather. What I'm going to do for the next 45 minutes or so is talk about my sense of where things are with the Biden administration I'd like to begin by talking about appointments to the cabinet and White House staff then talk about relations with Congress. Talk about a number of domestic policy issues dealing with the pandemic economic recovery, climate change, racial justice issues, and then a few foreign policy issues North Korea, Afghanistan, and China. So about 40 to 45 minutes, and that will give us some time for questions at the end of the presentation. There is a Q&A box in the bottom of your screen. If while I'm talking you have a subject you would like me to address during the question period, please type your question into the Q&A box. And when I finish the presentation, I'll go to that box, read out the questions and then answer. So, Biden administration has been in office now a little over two months, just about all of the top level positions in the cabinet and the White House staff have been filled. Although there's still a lot of second and third level positions where a nomination either remains to be made or a Senate confirmation vote still needs to be taken. But we can make a few observations about the people in the senior level positions at this time. First of all, many of them have known each other a very long time, quite a few were veterans of the Obama administration, along with the president himself. Many others work together in think tanks in Washington during the Trump years. One of the things that strikes me about the Biden cabinet is how many of the people have subject matter expertise in the area for, excuse me, in the area for which they are responsible. And also, for example, Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, who was on the White House staff in the Obama administration, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who was a senior general, manager of the Central Command, Attorney General Merrick Garland, a longtime judge on the DC circuit. And before that, a senior officer in the Justice Department in the Clinton administration, Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury, Senator Ford, Alexander Mayorkas, the Homeland Security Secretary, again, someone who held a senior position in the Obama administration. Then there are some professional diplomats, Linda Thomas Greenwood at the UN, Bill Burns as Director of the CIA, April Haynes as Director of National Intelligence. So these people bring years of subject matter expertise to the area for which they are responsible. Then there's another group of cabinet secretaries who come from more political backgrounds. Governors, former governors, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan in the Energy Department, Gina Raimundo of Rhode Island in the Commerce Department, Tom Vilsack of Iowa in the Agriculture Department, a position that he also held during the Obama administration. A couple of mayors, Marty Walsher Boston in the Labor Department, Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana in the Transportation Department, a couple of House members, Marsha Fudge of Ohio in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Deb Halen from New Mexico in the Interior Department. The combination of subject matter expertise and extensive political background makes Biden's cabinet one of the most prepared, I would argue, for the positions they are holding that we have seen in some time. One other thing that should be noted is that for the 15 cabinet departments, all of the President's nominees were confirmed by the Senate, took approximately two months. Mary Walsh and Labor was the last one to be confirmed on the Monday of this week. Some of the votes were very close, but everyone was confirmed. Both President Obama and President Trump had nominees who withdrew or were withdrawn, because it was clear they couldn't get a Senate majority. Now there was one senior appointment that was withdrawn by the White House that was near attendant to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. She was caught because she was a prolific tweeter. She had tweeted I think over 80,000 times over the last three or four years and some of them were out hominem or out feminine tweets against Republicans in the Congress who were offended by it. But also she was a longtime associate of the Clintons and the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and so forth, would not particularly enthusiastic about her being named to the position. Sanders is chair of the Budget Committee, she has the committee through which her nomination had to go. He didn't do very much behind the scenes to defend her from the stories on the tweets. Members of Congress, I think I'm more pleased with the person who's deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Shalandra Young, who's now serving as acting director. She was the longtime staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. We'll see whether Biden comes up with a nominee for that position or simply makes Ms. Young the regular director of OMB. Speaking of Congress, the power distribution in Congress is an important background consideration in Biden's decisions on what he would like to do and how he would like to do it. House first, the House has a very narrow Democratic majority. As of today, the count in the House is 219 Democrats and 212 Republicans. There are four vacant seats. One was held by a Republican, three by Democrats, assuming they're all filled by members of the same party, which is likely. The House party balances 222 to 213, just a nine seat majority for the Democrats. Well, Speaker Pelosi and her lieutenants are very good at exercising party discipline and keeping all the Democrats together. It is possible that if additional members leave either because of illness or death or resignation or for some other reason, that majority would become even more shaky. And all the major bills that have passed the House so far have been only two or three Democratic defections. One reason for that is there are very few members, Democratic members of the House, who represent districts that did not also vote for Biden for president. One of the few House Democrats representing a Trump majority district is Jared Golden from the second district of Maine, the northern part of the state. And interestingly, he has been one of the few Democrats who voted against several of Biden's priorities in the House. On the Democratic side is the strong party discipline. The rules also advantage the leadership. So pretty much what Biden, Pelosi, the committee chairs and other leaders agree on can pass the House. One of the important questions about the House has to do with timing. Will that House majority be there after the midterm elections in 2022? That's a question that's very much in doubt. The history of recent election cycles is that the president's party usually loses House seats in the second year of a new administration. That's happened in almost every election since the 1990s. And there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again next year. The more serious question for House Democrats next year though has to do with reapportionment and redistricting. The Census Bureau is still working on final calculations of the numbers from last year's census. But sometime later this year, announcement will be made as to how many seats each state in the House, each state will have in the House beginning in 2022. And then the legislatures are in some instances independent commissions in those states will be responsible for redrawing the district lines in all states that have more than one House district. Based on preliminary analysis of the census data. It appears that states that will gain significant number of House seats in the next election, such as Texas, North Carolina, Florida are seats that have Republican legislatures. And in two of the three instances all except North Carolina or Republican governor. And states that are likely to lose House seats. New York, some of the upper Midwestern states, Michigan, Illinois, even California is expected to lose one or two House seats, because people have been moving out of that state tend to be more Democratic. So, it looks to me like the Republicans could have a net gain of somewhere between five and 10 seats in the House, just from redistricting and reapportionment. Regardless of the results of, excuse me, regardless of the results of any elections in November of 2022. So, the consensus at this point, not that this necessarily will turn out to be the case, but the consensus is that the Democrats are going to work after work very, very hard to hold on to their House majority, and that it would not be at all surprising who are now at 213 seats managed to gain somewhere in the range of 15 to 20 seats and be around 230 after the November 22 elections. The Senate is on a knife edge right now with 5050 division between the parties. And what that means, of course, is that a few senators in both parties have an inordinate amount of influence. Most Democratic senators tend to be in the center left or progressive side of things and most Republican senators tend to be quite conservative and or Trump is. There are two relatively conservative members of the Senate Democratic caucus, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and first and cinema of Arizona. And there are three members of the Senate Republican caucus who have shown some willingness to vote with Democrats on occasion. That's Susan Collins and main Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. The most votes in the Senate so far on the cabinet secretaries. Some combination of Romney Collins and Murkowski has put over the top people like Deb Haland for Interior or Aviator setup for Health and Human Services. The American Rescue Plan. The big, the big relief plan of the vote on that was 50 to 49 purely on partisan lines from one Republican senator had to miss the had to miss the vote because of a family obligation in his home state. It's interesting to note that if the 50 states right now 44 of them have two senators from the same party. Split Senate delegation is an increasingly rare thing. So of course that leads to the question of the filibuster and its future. Now as Biden pointed out in his press conference yesterday. From the time that the current Senate rules were enacted in 1917. The 1970s period of about 60 years. It was total of, I believe it was 54 55 filibusters. Less than one a year. Last year alone in 2020. There were more than that. The filibuster is becoming increasingly frequent. Minority Party is using it increasingly frequently in the Senate. But the nature of the filibuster has changed too. Biden pointed out yesterday in this many news commentators have noted. Until about the 1970s. A filibuster was a so-called talking filibuster. If there was a minority of senators and wanted to prevent a bill from passing. They had to organize themselves. And be on the Senate floor and rotating shifts 24 hours a day. To try and wear down the other side. So that the proponents of the bill would eventually give up. And say there's no way that these people are going to yield. And we'll drop the bill. And some of those filibusters were eventually broken. Some were not. But this is where you have the classic stories of senators speaking for 1820 22 hours. To talk a bill to death, literally to talk a bill to death. Today, a senator simply has to indicate. He's opposed to bringing up a bill. And that's enough. So there's been some suggestions that. Let me back up for me. It's unlikely even within the Democratic caucus. There are 50 votes to eliminate the filibuster rule entirely. And it is mentioned in cinema who I mentioned earlier. Have made that quite clear. They will not vote to get rid of entirely. Now they're open to considering revisions of it. Going back to requiring the talking filibuster. Maybe changing the percentages. You know, a filibuster. Now can be. It requires 60 votes. Maybe you change that to three fifths of those present. So absentees are not counted in the calculation of determining can culture be broken. So there are those sorts of things. There are other people who are suggesting, well, maybe it could be prevented in certain subject matter areas. Voting rights for example. My own view at this point is that. Because the Senate is so narrowly divided. And because the Democrats in the Senate don't agree on this issue. What they could expect. From this year's Senate would be a revision of the rules to require a return to the talking filibuster model. Or some small changes in the percentages needed to calculate the votes needed to close debate. I think the business of setting aside certain subject matter areas. And then the public hearing rights, some who consider that a slippery slope. I read a news article this morning that abortion rights activists are staying out of the filibuster debate. They know that when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate it was Democratic filibusters that prevented Congress from repealing from passing some pretty strong anti abortion legislation. So if a group that's not sure whether getting rid of the filibuster would be a good idea. This all started of course back in the time when Harry Reid from Nevada was chair of the Senate Democratic caucus majority leader. When he eliminated the filibuster for lower court nominations, because Mitch McConnell was blockading Obama's nominees to the district courts and the courts of appeals. So McConnell last year came back and eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. We know last year three years ago so that was such could be confirmed. And the same thing was used done with Cabinare and Barrett. So you've already seen the slippery slope of getting rid of the filibuster first for lower court nominees then for Supreme Court nominee. In Gorsuch, Cabinare and Barrett could never have been confirmed at the filibuster rule been an effect. So it's an issue that requires careful consideration of consequences both intended and unintended. All right, let's move on and talk about some of the major policy actions of the Biden administration over the last two months. First controlling the pandemic. The administration's approach has clearly been to rely on the science to follow recommendations from CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and let the experts in those agencies do their work. With almost no political interference from the White House, unlike the case in the previous administration. Biden's initial goal for vaccines was 100 million doses in 100 days. That was accomplished in less than 60 days. The announcement is press conference yesterday as goal is to get 200 million vaccinations by 100 days, which is toward the end of April. The most recent numbers indicate that the vaccination rate is running over 2 million a day in the 2.2 to 2.4 million a day range. So attaining the 200 million goal by the end of April should not be a problem. Increasingly opening up eligibility to more and more of the population. Well eligibility began initially limited to either older people in some instances people in certain occupations such as first responders teachers. Most states have now set forth a plan for expanding eligibility to all people over age 16, over the next few weeks. So it does seem reasonable to assume as the president has said as governor Scott has said here in Vermont, that by the end of June, anyone who wants a vaccine should be able to have had either one dose or two dose depending upon which which vaccination they receive. But I think there's still a pretty delicate period of the next three months or so that needs to be gone through before we get there. In some states that have relaxed restrictions much faster than others. Florida as an example you've probably seen the film of young people partying on Miami Beach for spring break. The federal government is trying to do what it can to prevent the spread through things like mask mandates for federal property to enter federal buildings and transport you have to wear a mask to be able to fly on a plane. Red state legislatures red state governors and legislatures are clearly opening up their states faster than blue state governors and legislatures. And even in the blue states there's a concern about spread if you listen to a followed governor Scott's press conference this morning that number of cases announced today was a record 251. But interestingly differently from earlier in the pandemic and Vermont is no different from the rest of the country here. The cases are now primarily among young people and in metropolitan areas of the 251 cases. We announced in the latest round in Vermont 204 were in Chittenden County, and most of them were in people under 30. And that's leading at least some blue state governors not yet here in Vermont but who knows how that will develop in Vermont to to reconsider decisions that have been made about reopening restaurants and bars for example. Also there's the concern about variants spreading so I think I think there's a sense that well very good progress is being made on getting vaccinations into people's arms. Wearing this is still necessary for a few more months until the percentage of those vaccinated reaches 70 to 80% range, which scientists have identified as achieving so called so called herd immunity. It's also interesting to note the willingness to be vaccinated does vary considerably among various social and political groups. Initially there was some reluctance to be vaccinated among among black indigenous and people of color that seems to have receded over the last month or so. I think there's been good outreach work done in those communities. Most recent polls though indicate that Republicans particularly self identified Republicans particularly self identified Republican man are the most unwilling to be vaccinated. And one of the administration's challenges is figuring out how to do outreach to that group. It's been said many times if Donald Trump would make would engage in a public campaign to urge his supporters to be vaccinated. That would probably be the best thing but he's not doing that. Indeed, he was vaccinated himself shortly before leaving office, but did not publicize that he had received the vaccine. Another important step the Biden administration took regarding vaccine and regarding the pandemic was to rejoin the World Health Organization. A group that Trump had pulled the United States out of so that they can be international sharing of information regarding the pandemic and its progress in various countries. Related to responding to the pandemic was the American rescue plan, the $1.9 trillion bill that Congress enacted in the president signed a few weeks ago. This provides $1,400 stimulus checks for most Americans, most of which will be received by the end of this month. Continued unemployment benefits additional unemployment benefits of $300 a week early September for those without a job extending the eviction and foreclosure moratoriums that were announced. At the beginning of the pandemic through the end of September, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for K to 12 schools in higher ed, $50 billion for small businesses and additional aid. Just here in Vermont, the state and local governments will receive almost $2 billion in aid from the federal government. And that's not counting the stimulus checks. This is money that's going to the state government or to local governments to be used to support ongoing program. One of the most important initiatives in the American rescue plan is the additional child tax credit, establishing a fully refundable child tax credit of $3,000 for each dependent child $3,600 for children under six. It was hoped that the checks for this credit could be issued monthly. It's turning out to be more of a challenge administratively from the internal revenue service to make the program work than it was thought so the checks may end up being issued quarterly and not start until the middle of this year. A dicey question for Congress is that the child tax credit, however, it's administered and dispersed was approved only for the year 2021, retroactive to January one. So Congress would have to take another vote in December in order to continue the program for next year. Democrats in the House figure it's going to be very, very difficult for Republicans to vote to take away money from families with children at the beginning of an election year. Now the administration included some elements in its draft of the American rescue plan which were not included in the final congressional bill. Probably the biggest one of those was an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour in those states that do not already have a wage at that level. Excuse me. In order to get around the Senate filibuster rule, which normally requires 60 votes to pass legislation. American rescue plan was passed using the parliamentary mechanism known as reconciliation, which allows a simple majority to pass a bill related to budgetary matters. However, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the $15 minimum wage was not a budgetary related matter so could not be the subject of the bill that was passed under reconciliation. Biden did issue an executive order that federal contractors those who do work for the federal government have to increase their minimum wage to $15 over a period of years. But that does not cover private or public sector workers with is no federal contractual relationship. The American rescue plan also extended the moratorium on student loan repayments, as I mentioned, along with those moratorium on foreclosures fictions. Biden talked a lot at his press conference yesterday about an infrastructure bill. Treasury Secretary Pete, Pete Buttigieg, a peer before major house panel yesterday talking about the same thing. Biden, the Biden administration has an expansive definition of infrastructure. It includes not just traditional things roads bridges airports and so forth, but also includes investments in broadband. Investments in green energy. The administration argues that infrastructure is not just transportation, but it involves. It involves communications and the way we use energy also. Indeed, if all the plans that the administration has talked about in terms of broadband rollout green energy and so forth are talked about. Program supported by the successor to the American rescue plan could end up being as expansive as many of the important new deal era initiatives such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, or the rural electrification administration. And such an expansive program received the support of 10 Senate Republicans in order to overcome a filibuster. We don't know yet. Even Republican members of Congress like roads and bridges for their districts. It may not like some of the other things the bill green energy for some fossil fossil fuel state Republicans is a no no. So, will this bill will an infrastructure and related topic bill be part of. Will they go with the approach of trying to get 60 votes and get at least 10 Republicans for it, or will it be passed again using reconciliation. One of the rules for reconciliation is that it can be used twice in a given fiscal year it's been used once already. So it could be used one more time. The end is very much famous reconciliation approach. I just read before coming on the air here, a story about one of the things he would like to see in a second bill under reconciliation, in addition to infrastructure is an expansion in Medicare, not necessarily an expansion not Medicare for all the program you talked about during the campaign. What he would like is to provide in a in a reconciliation bill the opportunity for people between ages 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare. You would also like Medicare coverage expanded to some things that are not covered and I'm sure many members of this audience are aware of these limitations, things like hearing aids, vision coverage and dental coverage. But I think the the strategic decision about whether to go for a second big infrastructure slash energy slash communications bill through the traditional order, requiring 60 votes, but to do it again reconciliation that's one of the big strategic decisions that Biden and the congressional leadership are going to have to make over the next couple of months. Another important issue that the Biden administration has devoted a lot of attention to is the climate crisis, rejoin the Paris climate accord. As you know, Secretary John Kerry former Secretary of State John Kerry was has been appointed as the international climate change coordinator for the US government. It's a subject he's interested in as a former Secretary of State he has the credibility and prestige to deal with national leaders on this subject. In the area of environmental policy the administration has a bit more leeway than in some domestic other domestic areas to take actions by executive order. For example, the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline to bring natural gas from Canada down to refineries in the Southwest was revoked. Biden's EPA is going to review vehicle emission standards and see if there are ways that can be reduced to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Interestingly, that's an approach that has the support of the auto manufacturers. Most auto manufacturers at least the three big ones based in the United States. For example, Ford Chrysler and General Motors see electric vehicles being an increasingly important part of their product line. They see fossil fuels, fossil fuel powered vehicles as having a limited lifespan. So the automakers would like incentives for consumers to purchase electric vehicles and a big expansion in the infrastructure of charging stations to support those vehicles. Again, our electric vehicle charging stations something that should be properly included in infrastructure. Most Democrats would say yes, many Republicans would say no. There are many other Trump era environmental regulations that are going to be that are going to be reviewed by the Biden EPA. The Trump administration rolled back regulations on the emissions of methane for the oil and gas industry. Those will likely be reinstated. They rolled back regulations on refrigeration equipment using hydrofluorocarbons. Those will likely be reinstated. The limits on the type of science that the Environmental Protection Agency could use in decision making have been taken off. Restore rules on power plant emissions and energy efficiency rules for lighting, air conditioning appliances, and bathroom fixtures. Remember, Trump would go on about light bulbs and showers, shower heads and things like that. The regulations which he either did or tried to roll back will be put back in place by the Biden administration. The Biden administration Interior Department has restored many national monuments that were taken off by the Trump administration, such as the Biaisius and Grand Staircase Escalante in Utah, and the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument off Cape Cod. A moratorium on oil and natural gas leasing in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge has been announced. Although today, 18 Republican Attorney General filed suit against the Biden administration for this moratorium on oil and natural gas leasing. You recall that when Trump was president, Democratic Attorney Generals in states such as New York, Massachusetts and California frequently filed lawsuits against policies of the Trump administration and they would file them in states like Boston and New York and San Francisco in regions where the appeals courts were considered favorably inclined to a governmental activism. This group of Republican Attorney Generals that's opposing the Biden administration's moratorium on fossil fuel leasing, they filed their suit in New Orleans so that it will go to the Federal Appeals Court in Texas, which is one of the most conservative of the whole country. Let's talk a bit about racial justice issues. We have a new leadership throughout the Department of Justice, starting at the top with Attorney General Merrick Garland but also heads of the major bureaus throughout the Justice Department. New United States attorneys all across the country. The new leadership in the Justice Department is placing much greater emphasis than its predecessors did on civil rights and combating domestic right wing terrorism, a subject which the Trump administration said did not exist. There's the push for the new voting rights legislation and again this is one of the key tests of the whole filibuster question. House a week or so ago passed HR one, which will make it much more difficult for states to pass the sort of limitations that the Georgia State Legislature enacted yesterday, and the governor of Georgia signed these are limitations on early voting absentee voting the number of polling places, other restrictions on on on on the exercise of the franchise and rules changes designed to make it more difficult to vote in Republican controlled states. HR one would prevent state legislatures from doing that sort of thing. HR one would also make changes in terms of rules regarding voter registration to prevent states from closing voter registration, more than a week before the election, and making other changes that make it more difficult to vote. Not all of the states that would be affected by HR one incidentally are Republican controlled states. Rhode Island has some of the longest voting registration deadlines in the country I believe it's still a month in advance of the election to register to vote in Rhode Island. It's a strongly democratic state but the political parties have always been strong there and have tried to restrict participation. The Biden administration has announced a moratorium on the federal death penalty. A good test of that will come in a case that the Supreme Court just accepted for a review last week. Joe Koshane of the Boston Marathon bomber from 2013 was convicted by a jury in Boston and was sentenced to death. His attorneys appealed and the federal appeals court in Boston overturned not the conviction but they overturned the death penalty. They argued that in selecting jurors, the judge didn't do as thorough a job as he could have questioning people about their views on the death penalty. Trump administration's Justice Department appealed the Supreme Court accepted the appeal this week.  The only question is, will there be another trial penalty phase trial. Will there be a whole series of post conviction proceedings. What are the impacts of this on the, on the community in Boston of reliving the events of 2013 Marty Walsh the mayor at the time. Excuse me he became mayor in the fall of 2013, but the mayor at the time journey if it was convicted said that he thinks I have should simply be be put in the most maximum security prison possible and left to live out his life there and be forgotten, rather than bring continuing appeals for, for who knows how long. Another important issue we got in the racial justice area has to do with police practices. And to what extent, the federal government will go through local US Attorney's offices will oversee local police, particularly in cases such as those that led to the death of George Floyd and others. We have police have been charged with using practices that resulted in the deaths of, in most instances, black men. Trump administration us attorneys to not investigate any cases like that. The new group of us attorneys that the Biden administration is appointing appears much more willing to to focus on racial justice issues in local police well not exactly parallel with racial justice the Biden administration is placing emphasis on changing immigration policies. Again, this is an area where the 60 vote thresholds in the Senate is going to be difficult. Last week, it passed to piece to pieces of a larger immigration policy, one of them addresses the so called dreamers. The deferred action for childhood arrivals group. Those people were brought to the United States by the appearances very young children. In some instances now 20 or so years ago, who are now for the most part young adults and fully integrated into American society. But they still do not have, while they while they begin given leave to remain in the United States, they do not have a pathway to American citizenship House bill would give them such pathway, whether again 60 Republicans 60 senators including 10 Republicans can be found to support that bill is doubtful. Some Republicans see the issue of border security as a wedge issue in the 2022 election and don't want to do anything regarding immigration before 2022. Well, we have about five minutes left before we time for questions so I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about foreign policy, and then we'll move to q amp a. And again if you do have questions. This is now the time to type them into the, the q amp a I do see that there are, it looks like there are seven questions there yes seven questions there now. So if you have a question now you might want to add it to the queue. And we'll try and get to as many as we can before time expires foreign policy. Last conference yesterday did get questions about all three of the key foreign policy issues. I think that are top of the plate issues for his administration, the first is North Korea. In the last week North Korea has launched some short range ballistic missiles and issued the sort of rhetorical statements that one hadn't heard from Pyongyang. It was four years, when the so called love affair between the President Trump and Kim Jong-un was in progress. One of the issues Biden is going to have to decide on relatively quickly is what strategy is he going to use to deal with North Korea. Is it going to be a return to the multilateral talks of the Bush and Obama years, which involved Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, the United States and North Korea. Or is it going to be a more bilateral thing, just the United States and North Korea, with perhaps South Korea included this well. So that's a big decision that Biden has to make and, and I think needs to be made relatively soon. That is, what level of North Korean provocation generates a response. Trump had said that anything short of nuclear tests, a launching into continental range missiles would not result in an American response. So, Kim Jong-un knew what Trump's red lines were and he didn't violate them. So, Kim Jong-un trying to test Biden with these recent missile, short range missile firings to see how far he can go without provoking some sort of a response. What would that response be? Presumably some form of economic sanctions reports out of Pyongyang indicate that North Korea's economy may be doing a little bit better than it has in the past. There may be some room to squeeze there, but in order to have sanctions, meaningful sanctions against North Korea, the cooperation of China is needed. Is that an issue on which China is willing to cooperate? Indeed, on US-China relations more broadly, what Biden said yesterday is he saw the two nations engaged in a competitive relationship, which did not necessarily have to be a hostile relationship. And it would also be possible for there to be cooperation within a competitive relationship. Again, there's a certain amount of testing here involving Chinese military Badoovers in the South China Sea, tariffs. Will there be reciprocal rescinding of some of the tariffs that were imposed on both sides during the Trump administration? What about issues relating to intellectual property? There's been many allegations of Chinese theft of intellectual property. An issue that the Trump administration didn't talk about regarding any country, which was human rights. There were sanctions imposed this past week on a number of Chinese officials by the US, Canada, Britain and the European Union regarding treatment of Uighurs in western China. This is the question of the Winter Olympics, which are in Beijing about a year from now. Should the United States participate or not? The United States does participate. There are other symbolic actions that could be taken indicating the US dissatisfaction with China's policy. So again, that's a series of related questions that the administration needs to consider. And the third foreign policy issue was Afghanistan. It'll be 20 years ago this fall since US troops first arrived in Afghanistan. Congress approved a proposal from the Trump administration last year to have them all withdrawn by May 1st. About 5,000 US troops left there in Afghanistan. Biden indicated yesterday at the press conference it may not be possible to bring them all home by May 1st, but he didn't see them remaining in Afghanistan. He said that he didn't see any situation in which American troops would remain in Afghanistan into next year. Defense Secretary Austin visited Kabul just last week. Other high level American representatives have been there as well. And finally in that relation, in that regard, I should note that Congress may, this year, repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. This was a resolution passed shortly after 9-11, which has been legal basis that the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and the Trump administration all use to justify various types of American, as the military says, kinetic actions in the wider Middle East and South Asian regions the last 20 years. And it looks like Congress may repeal that resolution and come up with a much more tightly drafted and more restrictive resolution on US use of force abroad. Well, it's now 245, so I think I should go to the questions and let me, let me, I'm just going to read the questions in the order that they're presented. But only one question from each person. They've been, I see some people post posted more than once. So I'll only ask one question from each person. And then if we have time at the end, we'll go back to second questions from the same people. Okay. First question. Do actions such as Biden's appointment of former Senator John Kerry as the special envoy for climate and dispatching current Senator Chris Coons to resolve a crisis in Africa, where he may continue to rely heavily on his trusted longtime Senate colleagues as a kind of shadow cabinet. I would make a distinction between Kerry and Coons in this regard. Kerry has a formal position as international climate coordinator. He's in that position, not so much as a former Senate colleague of Biden, but as a former Secretary of State. In the U.S. rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, Biden wanted someone who would be able to engage in negotiations with the highest level authorities in other countries and be taken seriously. Speaking for the president and a former Secretary of State could what Coons did regarding Ethiopia was a much lower profile thing. I'm not aware of all the details of that. I guess he is a trusted colleague, but the State Department does have an African Bureau the question I would have is, is there an Assistant Secretary for Africa now in place or is that person still pending confirmation. Okay, next question discuss the chances of replacing Lewis to joy is postmaster general. That's a good question. Biden cannot fire to joy directly. The postmaster general is appointed by the Postal Service Board of Governors. The Board of Governors consists of a present all Trump appointees with three vacancies. Biden has nominated people for the vacancies. The Senate confirms all of Biden's nominees, they would still not be a majority to replace to joy right away until Biden gets one or two more positions on the Board of Governors. So I think it's going to. To joy could end up being fired by the board, but I think it's going to be more likely a year or two from now rather than now. Until Biden's appointees have a majority on the board I think the joy is secure in this position. Okay, what has the ACLU said about HR one. Generally they are very supportive of it. I see a way to break out of what seems to be a pattern of each president I'm doing many of the executive actions of the previous president. I certainly don't want many of the things Trump did stand yet we need policies that last more than one administration. I can't see how this will change do you see it as a significant issue in our government functions. It is a significant issue. And part recent presidents and not just Trump Obama did it to resorted increasingly to executive orders because of the difficulty of passing legislation by Congress. With Congress as polarized as they are not much being able to be passed. The administration of both parties has relied heavily on executive orders. To me one of the interesting open questions about all of these Biden executive orders is how many of them are going to be challenged in court by red state attorney generals in the way that the blue state attorney generals challenged the Trump executive orders in court. Although federal bench right now. I mean, I mean if there's one thing Mitch McConnell accomplished during the time he was Senate majority leader was getting judges confirmed about 40% of the sitting federal judges were nominated by Trump. So I'm very interested to see how some of these Trump appointed judges are going to respond to the suits from red state attorney generals opposing Biden administration executive actions. And I'm very excited to be here at websites for getting accurate information on administration policies and federal judicial cases and decisions. Generally I rely on the government agencies themselves in these instances is a lot of information on White House dot gov. And I think it's supreme court dot gov it might be supreme court dot org, but I rely on those sites themselves. What do you think will happen in the Iowa House election which has already been certified. Republican representative Miller Meeks will stay in office. I think it's too much risk for the Democrats to attempt to remove her, even with such a small Democratic majority. It's hard for Democrats who made such a big issue about accepting certified election results on January 6 to overturn a certified election result now. I see a functional Congress returning to doing their job and passing legislation, particularly in areas like immigration budget and removing the salt weapon. I see a polarized Congress continuing for at least the next two years and probably beyond, although can't predict with any certainty the results of the 2022 election. The likelihood of action being taken major action in areas like immigration and assault weapons requires getting 60 votes in the Senate because I don't think the filibuster is going to be eliminated. Can 10 Republicans be obtained for those issues for some things I think it's possible. A path to citizenship for the dreamers. A path to citizenship for 12 million undocumented people. Much less so. What about earmarks. Looks like Congress is going to bring them back as a way of greasing the skids for things about about infrastructure. Yesterday, Biden one mentioned Trump's name several times well describing his own accomplishments and two in response to a question stated that he plans to run for reelection. What do I, what's in giving to describe to either of both of these. There's no other answer he could have given to the second question. He's not going to make himself a lame duck after only two months in office. He expected to run that's what every president would say at this point in their term, the more serious time for considering that question will be after the 2022 midterm. I don't see any more questions in the Q&A. Let me look in the chat. Are there any in the chat. Yes, there are a few questions in the chat. Will Biden's and McConnell's long acquaintance truly have much impact on how much Biden can accomplish. I may talk with each other in terms of results. I'm less sure. And Carol and Beth I'll just give you a heads up that the next question is going to be the last question that I see. So maybe it's time to stop wrapping up in about two minutes. What were my impressions of the questions asked or not asked by the press corps at the press conference yesterday. I was disappointed with the press conference to give a candid response to that question. Like Biden went on at some length in responding to questions so fewer questions could be asked than there were people in the room. There were about 30 people in the room. The press conference went an hour. There were only about 15 of them who had an opportunity to ask questions. Joe Biden has never been noted for verbal discipline. And I think we saw some of that yesterday. As for the questions there were a lot on immigration and border issues, but there were no questions really on guns except for one which Biden turned into an answer on infrastructure. There were no questions on the pandemic. There were no questions on discrimination against Asian Americans. There were no questions on racial related issues.  I mean you saw you had a list and work through it and the people were mostly from the major news networks. One problem with this press conference format is that, you know, these press people themselves, it's the White House is a very competitive beat. One up each other as well as one upping the president. And the White House reporters aren't necessarily the most knowledgeable, substantively. You'd have a very different sort of press conference. If the focus were on economic issues and the economics reporters on the economic speed, we're there. I mean, you can watch Jerome Powell's or Janet Yellen's press conferences, where it's reporters on the economic speed. And the questions are very, very different than what you see at the White House. Same thing with reporters on the immigration beat. We'll ask Secretary Mayorkas of Homeland Security. They'll ask him very, very different sort of questions than the White House reporters were asking the president yesterday. So I think that the format has been unfortunate. And then president's tendency to give lengthy responses doesn't help with it. So it's now 255 I don't see any other questions here so I think I will stop and turn things back to either Beth or Carol or both. Thank you all for listening for the last hour and I wish you all a very good spring. Oh, thank you so much. Again, we love your insights. We really do. I hope you have a wonderful spring and summer. Let's stay safe. Yes, you too. Thank you so much. Bye bye now. Bye everyone see you in the fall.


So Rachel, what are you gonna show us to make today? So today we're gonna make a cashew coconut yogurt. And it's so amazing to be able to make something at home that you really thought you had to buy. All you need to do is start with cashews and you literally put them in a bowl with water and leave them to soak for at least six hours. But I like to leave them overnight. The longer you leave the cashews soaking, the more creamy and smooth your yogurt will be. That's great. Nobody really loves a chunky yogurt. Yeah, of course not. So then what you do is you take the cashews and you just strain them. Cashews are great. They're heart healthy. They have lots of fiber and fatty acids. And essentially this yogurt is going to be dairy free. So you're just gonna put the cashews in the blender. Put in coconut milk. So this will make your yogurt really thick and decadent. So we're just gonna blend up. Okay, I think it looks ready. There's no visible chunks. We're just gonna pour this into a microwave safe bowl and microwave it for two minutes. And you just wanna make sure that it gets cooled down after the microwave to between 90 and 110 degrees, okay? Before you put in your yogurt starter culture. So it starts to act on the milk and turns bacteria into more probiotics. So basically it's the good stuff. It's the good stuff for your health. And mix it in. If you don't have yogurt starter culture, you can also use store bought yogurt to get those probiotics going. And then we're just going to pour this into our jars. This is just plain. At this point, you can mix in pureed fruits like berries or peaches or even some melted chocolate to give your yogurt some flavor. So the next thing that we're gonna do is we're just gonna put a little bit of water about two to three cups in an instant pod or a slow cooker and put it on saute for one to two minutes. Just a little bit, just a little bit just to get it hot. And then what we're gonna do is put covers on our yogurt and place them in the pot. At this point, your instant pod is off. You turn it off for the night and you allow the yogurt cultures to incubate and the yogurt thickens and becomes yogurt. And then tomorrow morning there's breakfast. Then tomorrow morning there's breakfast, exactly. So here's the yogurt and we're gonna make our own parfaits here that we can bring to go to the office because I know we work together. I like a little bit of everything. I don't know what your preference is. I like berries and also something crunchy.  It was pretty easy. You can really customize it to your palate and how you like it. Exactly. If you like this video, make sure to watch more one thing videos on thespruceeds.com.


Everybody forced here ripping to 2022 try star hidden treasures autograph basketball season edition boxes for Michael B Here we go, Michael. Let's see what you got man. Maybe we'll see a Kobe or a Jordan Of course, that's the bond. Yeah, thank you. That's a pretty good box man All right first up Come on Jordan. Come on Kobe. Come on This is a Celtics and heat legend right here Celtics and heat It is an Antoine Walker basketball Antoine Walker Antoine Walker the first one that was JSA authentic it's got the sticker and everything this one is Rockets legend Ralph Samson Samson right very nice couple of legends there. Let's watch try star authenticated That'll do a mic. We appreciate you. We'll get these basketballs out to you


Dr. Hing Miao, Director and Professor of the Institute of Neuroscience, Wanzhou Medical University. The paper I want to talk today is about a newly established SN1A gene mutation database and the role of functional alterations in determining the pathogenicity of the mutations. SN1A gene, which includes the alpha subunit of S1.1 is one of the most clinically relevant genes and is potentially associated with epilepsy, autism, and familial migraine. This database included more than 1,000 mutations with special sections on functional studies and inherited mutations. Based on the information from this database, we analyzed the relationships among genotypes, functional alterations, and phenotypes. From the genotype's phenotype point of view, we used the missing mutations which do not cause gross protein formation as in index. It was displayed that mined phenotypes were more frequently associated with missing mutations, suggesting correlations between impairment and pathogenicity. Practically, in contrast to genotype, functional alteration, phenotype in brief, is more directly linked to phenotype. Therefore, an important aspect of this type is to analyze the correlation between genotype and phenotype, phenotype and phenotype. The four homologous domains contain voltage sensors and pore-forming regions which form this alpha subunit of S1.1. For analysis, we classified the electrical physiological changes of the channel into six categories, including loss of function, partial loss of function, gain and loss of function, decreased usability, gain of function, and increased usability. Regarding genotype-phenotype relationship, it is found that missing mutations located in the pore region result in loss of function mostly and partial loss of function occasionally. While missing mutations located in the surface of the channel may need to increase visibility, gain of function, and also loss of function of different degrees. Tracating mutation occurred at the C-terminal, may produce small sodium current. While those located in the proximal part may cause complete loss of function. Regarding phenotype-phenotype correlation, it is demonstrated that why phenotype like GIFS-PRAS are associated with mined functional defects. Whereas severe phenotype like SMEI are more frequently associated with complete loss of function. It is found that there is a negative correlation between the familial instance and the phenotype severity, and incomplete penetrance was associated with missing and split site mutations, but not tracations or genomic rearrangements suggested clinical genetic concerning applications. From the data presented, we might find that ACM-1A mutation varying in pathogenicity that are corrected with phenotype severity and inheritance. When the pathogenicity of a mutation is evaluated, the possible functional consequence should be considered besides the nature of the mutation. The analysis presented in this paper is expected to be an example to exploring the relationships among genotype, phenotype, and phenotype. My colleagues and I will continue to update the information on ACM-1A mutation and make this database a really useful tool for clinical diagnosis and research. Thank you.