Ecuadorians Take Case Against Chevron to United Nations

A day after sounding the alarm at Chevron’s shareholder meeting, victims of oil company’s bad faith ask for global action Amazon Defense Coalition 30 May 2013 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Bill Hamilton at (202) 641-0350 or bill@fenton.com Geneva, Switzerland – Fresh from a day of confronting Chevron's CEO and board at their annual shareholders' meeting in San Ramon, CA, tomorrow representatives of Ecuador's community that won a $19 billion judgment against the U.S. oil company take their case to the United Nations. Humberto Piaguaje, coordinator of the organization representing 30,000 indigenous people and subsistence farmers whose lands and streams were devastated by Chevron Corporation's deliberate dumping of chemicals and oil sludge will discuss their experience with attempting to enforce a judgment in their environmental lawsuit against the oil company for environmental damage and the resulting impact on the Ecuadorian population of his region. His presentation will be before member country representatives. Pablo Fajardo of Quito, who leads the global litigation program for the Ecuadorians, and Piaguaje will encourage the world body to take a more active role in supporting successful court actions taken by citizens against transnational companies like Chevron. He will speak of the countless mechanisms used by the company to evade their debt and thwart the law in their Andean country, where the company lost both a trial and an appeal of a case begun 20 years earlier in New York. The two Ecuadorians said the UN should develop and adopt an international convention so that companies such as Chevron, when they commit crimes against the population, can be sanctioned for violations of human rights and thus avoid impunity. On Thursday they made a similar appeal as part of a panel on business and human rights in the Human Rights Council of the UN, at the Seminar on Access to Justice organized by the International Commission of Jurists. "The honest efforts of the Amazonian plaintiffs are constantly met by the bad faith of Chevron, who having promised U.S. courts it would abide by the decisions of the Ecuadorian courts, now hides behind corporate veils and other formalities to avoid pay what is owed. This attitude prolonsd the suffering of the victims of the oil company, and sets a dangerous precedent for future transnational polluters," said Fajardo. Yesterday shareholders representing one third of the ownership of the $246 billion corporation based in California urged Chevron's board to accept a resolution simplifying the process to call special meetings to address emergency issues such as Chevron's growing losses in the Ecuador case. With asset attachment litigation already underway in Argentina, Brazil and Canada, shareholder representatives said Chevron's leadership needed to change course and meet and settle with the Ecuadorians, to avoid further losses. Although opposed by the Chevron board, the resolution received more votes than any other shareholder resolution offered by outsiders. Chevron was found liable in 2011 for the negligence of Texaco, an oil company it acquired in 2002, for polluting the more than 480 thousand hectares of land in the Ecuadorian Amazon jungle. The court in Ecuador found that the company dumped 16 billion gallons of toxic water into the estuaries and rivers, poured 650 thousand barrels of crude, built more than 880 waste pits without any protective lining and destroyed the health and livelihood of the close=by communities. In this long trial, the plaintiffs proved the existence of environmental damage and impact on the health and livelihoods of the population affected with high levels of pollution-related diseases as well as human rights violations and collective displacement of five indigenous nationalities that live in the area. Although lawyers for Texaco – now Chevron – promised a U.S. court that it would abide by the findings in Ecuador of the court's agreement to move the case to South America, Chevron has spent millions of dollars avoiding the judgment and engaging in continuous litigation aimed at thwarting or overturning the decision in Ecuador. It has made payments to political figures and dangled huge investment promises to get government officials to block the award, so far without success. For more information, become a follower of The Chevron Pit or follow @ChevronPit on Twitter

Julian Assange: Stratfor Hacker Jeremy Hammond Guilty Plea Part of Crackdown on Journalism, Activism

Jeremy Hammond of the hacktivist group Anonymous has pleaded guilty to hacking into the private intelligence firm Stratfor, the FBI and other institutions. Hammond says his goal was to shed light on how governments and corporations act behind closed doors. Some five million Stratfor emails ended up on the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, shedding light on how the private intelligence firm monitors activists and spies for corporate clients. In a statement, Hammond said he accepted the plea deal in part to avoid an overzealous prosecution that could have resulted in at least 30 years in prison. He has already served 15 months, including weeks in solitary confinement. Joining us from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Hammond’s prosecution comes as part of a wider crackdown "on effective political activists and alleged journalistic sources." Click here to watch our web-only extended interview with Assange.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show looking at the case of computer activist Jeremy Hammond, who made headlines by hacking into the private U.S.-based intelligence firm Stratfor. Documents obtained from Stratfor were later published by the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, shedding light on how the private intelligence firm monitors activists and spies for corporate clients.
On Tuesday, Hammond admitted to being a member of the group Anonymous and pled guilty to hacking Stratfor as well as a number of other institutions, including the FBI. In a statement, Hammond said, quote, "I did this because I believe people have a right to know what governments and corporations are doing behind closed doors. I did what I believe is right."
Hammond is facing a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. He has already spent 15 months incarcerated, including weeks in solitary confinement. Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, spoke outside the courthouse Tuesday after Hammond pled guilty.

MICHAEL RATNER: Jeremy Hammond pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy, of hacking into a protected computer. That count finishes the case in terms of any other charges. It carries up to a maximum of 10 years in prison. He doesn’t have to get that, and in fact the demand is that he get time served. This is part of the sledgehammer of what the government is doing to people who expose corporate secrets, government secrets, and really the secrets of an empire. And the people who should have been on that trial are the very people who Jeremy admitted to hacking into, which is the Stratfor people who have engaged in corporate spying, along with government cooperation, the public safety people in Arizona, the FBI, etc.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Sarah Kunstler, one of Jeremy Hammond’s attorneys, also spoke outside the courthouse.

SARAH KUNSTLER: The United States government has discretion over its cases over who it chooses to prosecute and why, and choosing to prosecute Jeremy Hammond for exposing corporate secrets and government spying is nothing if not a political decision.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the Jeremy Hammond case, we are joined by Julian Assange, the founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. In February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing hundreds of thousands of emails obtained by Stratfor. Julian Assange joins us via Democracy Now! video stream from the Ecuadorean embassy in London. He took refuge in the embassy last June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he’s wanted for questioning around sex assault allegations. On Tuesday, the Ecuador’s foreign minister accused the British government of trampling on Assange’s rights by refusing to allow him to travel to Ecuador, which granted him political asylum almost a year ago. We’re going to talk about Jeremy Hammond, about Bradley Manning, and about Julian Assange’s own case, for this hour.

Julian Assange, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you start off by responding to Jeremy Hammond pleading guilty and what his case means to you?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Let’s look at what we know and what the prosecution agrees with about Jeremy Hammond. He’s a long-term political activist. He’s been involved in political activism throughout his political life. The allegation against him is that, through his political activism, he became a journalistic source to WikiLeaks and to hundreds of other media organizations in the United States and around the world. The crackdown against Jeremy Hammond is part of, yes, on the one hand, the crackdown on effective political activists, but it’s also part of the crackdown on alleged journalistic sources.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, also your attorney, Julian Assange, for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He spoke about the emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor that were allegedly published by WikiLeaks.

MICHAEL RATNER: Allegedly, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks published, are publishing the material of the Stratfor emails. And so, the comparison is that they are going after now a whistleblower and a source and a person who has been a source to journalists. If you look at what happened to the Stratfor emails, 31 major media around the world in 17 countries published those. He’s a whistleblower. He’s a source. He ought to be protected like whistleblowers and sources ought to be protected. My client, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, ought to be protected as publishers. He shouldn’t have to wind up in the Ecuadorean embassy.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange, your response?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Thank you, Amy. Well, this is part of the wider crackdown against journalistic sources, which has been in the news recently as a result of the FBI and the DOJ taking records from the Associated Press and for Fox News journalist James Rosen. That is something that has really risen up under the Obama administration. Obama has, in relation to the Espionage Act, applied it to more people, more journalistic sources and journalists, than any—than all previous administrations combined, going back to the origin of that act in 1917. In fact, Obama, on his campaign website, brags that it’s twice as many applications as has been previously done.

And that’s part of a new centralization of power in the United States. Back in Russia, if we look in the 1990s and Putin’s taming of the oligarchs, we had independent points of power in Russia, the seven oligarchs, the KGB, the Ministry of Defense, and eventually they’re all pulled in under one central pyramidical structure. And the same thing has been involving in the United States over the last 10 years. That’s why, for example, we see that the—rather unremarked, but extremely significant—that the State Department budget, in its entirety, has been moved in under the national security budget, that USAID budget similarly has been moved in under the national security budget, that the head of the CIA is rotated with the head of the military, that there’s interexchanges at all points, that private military contractors, like Stratfor, form a type of oil between these different groups, interconnecting them in terms up personnel, information flows and contracts—a giant centralization of power. The previous rivalrous group to this was perhaps U.S. finance companies and banks. Post-2008, it’s clear who is winning. And in order to get anything of significance done in the United States, just like in Russia, you need a sponsor within that patronage network.

And as a result of its increasing strength and increasing power, it is able to command an increasing share of the U.S. tax burden, pulling it to itself. The State Department, left on its own, left out there in isolation, was having its budget decline at about 3 to 4 percent per year in real terms, while the military was having a—and the intelligence complex was having a similar increase in real terms per year. So that’s presumably why it decided to jettison some of its independence as an institution and move in under this protective financial umbrella. That shows you the increasing political strength. The U.S. tax burden is picketed over like vultures at a corpse, and the biggest vulture can steal more of the—more of the blood of U.S. taxpayers. And the biggest vulture at the moment is the military-industrial complex, and it’s getting bigger. It’s able to throw more political weight around and able to transfer more finances to itself, which allows it to grow even fatter. Other competing institutions, like the Department of Health or pension programs and so on, they also try and compete politically. But in reality, in fact, they are not competing as well as they could, in the past, so this machine is getting bigger. And as it gets bigger and bigger, it starts to advance its front, to gain more and more power for itself.

And the crackdown in relation to Espionage Act is an example of that, the going after political activists like Jeremy Hammond and trying to put them in prison for 10 years, forcing them to take a plea, by ladling them up with a potential 30-year prison sentence, under exactly the same piece of legislation that Aaron Swartz found himself faced with, the C—the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, same piece of legislation that’s used in the—partly used in the Bradley Manning proceedings, same piece of legislation that’s used in the WikiLeaks grand jury. We know that from subpoenas. So this is part of an advancing front, taking grounds, making new claims that those people that effectively criticize this new centralized power group in the United States should not be able to do so.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Julian Assange, in addition to facing a maximum of 10 years in prison, Jeremy Hammond may also be required to pay up to $2.5 million in restitution costs. So you’ve talked a little bit about how this is part of a widening range of crackdowns on whistleblowers. What do you think this kind of precedent, his plea, sets? And what kind of example do you think it gives for people who are whistleblowers in the future?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Look, the Obama administration is becoming a sausage factory for making political prisoners. And now we have Jeremy Hammond, John Kiriakou, Bradley Manning, and it is after a number of others, as well. The example that it is trying to set, of course, is: Don’t criticize this new power bloc at all. We don’t care what means that you do it by; there will be a way found to criminalize it. And people like Hammond and Manning, John Kiriakou, they’re used as examples: Do something we don’t like, and we’re going to go after you, in order to decrease criticism and embarrassment on behalf of this new dominant political institution in the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see Jeremy Hammond as a whistleblower, and if so, why?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, Jeremy Hammond is not a whistleblower. He is a political activist. And his—but the mechanism of his political activism overlaps the mechanism of many different whistleblowers. For example, the alleged whistleblowing activities of Bradley Manning, very similar sort of—similar sort of alleged activity. They are going after him because they don’t like the results. They’re going after WikiLeaks because they don’t like the results. They’re going after Bradley Manning because they don’t like results and to try and keep an appearance of authority. The Pentagon, allied institutions like Stratfor, can’t keep up a perception of authority if bright young men, determined, courageous and moral, like Jeremy Hammond, are seen to have struck a blow against them and exposed their corrupt activities.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, then come back to this discussion. We’re speaking with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, is in the Ecuadorean embassy right now in London. If he dares to step foot outside, the British government says they will arrest him and extradite him to Sweden. We’ll talk about his case, as well as Bradley Manning’s case, who is about to go to trial, in a moment.

Public Health Assessments Evaluation for Vieques, Puerto Rico

On the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, thousands are commemorating the 10th anniversary of when the U.S. Navy stopped using their home as a bombing range. Since the 1940s, the Navy used nearly three-quarters of the island for bombing practice, war games and dumping old munitions. The bombing stopped after campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience, but the island continues to suffer. At the current cleanup rate, the Navy says, it will take until 2025 to remove all the environmental damage left by more than 60 years of target practice. A fisherman recently discovered a giant unexploded bomb underwater. The island of about 10,000 people also lacks a hospital to treat illnesses such as asthma and cancer that may be attributed to the military’s former bombing activity. "We believe the military is really not interested in cleaning up Vieques and rather interested in continuing to punish Vieques for having thrown the U.S. Navy out in 2003," says Robert Rabin of the Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques. "This is a process that we believe is happening with no real supervision, no genuine community participation." We also speak to Rep. José Serrano of New York, a native Puerto Rican.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Vieques, the tiny island off the eastern coast of Puerto Rico where thousands are commemorating the 10th anniversary of when the U.S. Navy stopped using their island as a bombing range. Since the 1940s, the Navy used nearly three-quarters of the island for bombing practice, war games and dumping of old munitions. Resistance to the bombing reached a turning point in 1999 when a Marine pilot missed his target and dropped two 500-pound bombs that killed a civilian security guard. A campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience eventually forced the Navy to close the facility. This is how Democracy Now! reported on the end of the bombing on May 1st, 2003, when we spoke with Rosa Clemente, then a reporter for Free Speech Radio News.

ROSA CLEMENTE: It was an exciting and a joyous moment for the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico, but I think for all the people who struggled, wherever those people may be, to get the U.S. Navy to leave, and for people all over the world to see a victory and to claim that victory. So it was an amazing moment, and there were thousands upon thousands of people from all over the world that were there celebrating with the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico.

But with that celebration, there’s also a caution. And that caution, I think, comes from the transfer of the land to the U.S. Department of Interior as opposed to giving the land back to the people of Vieques and, in an essence, giving the people of Vieques their reparations. And those reparations need to come by giving the people back their land and also by the U.S. government doing intensive, massive cleanup of the land, that has depleted uranium, napalm, and God knows what other contaminants that continue to kill the people, and particularly in Vieques, Puerto Rico.

AMY GOODMAN: That was May 1st, 2003. Well, 10 years later, Vieques continues to suffer from a slow cleanup process. The island of about 10,000 people also lacks a hospital to treat illnesses such as asthma and cancer, that many attribute to the military’s former bombing activity.
For more, we’re joined here in New York by Congressmember José Serrano, who has been one of the Congress’s most vocal critics of the actions of the U.S. military in Vieques. He represents the 15th Congressional District of New York in the Bronx, born in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.
And joining us from Vieques via Democracy Now! video stream is Robert Rabin, longtime activist, founding member of the Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques, spent six months in prison for participating in the mass civil disobedience campaign that helped pressure the Navy to end its bombing exercises.

Robert, let’s start with you in Vieques. What’s happening today on this 10th anniversary of the successful campaign to stop the U.S. Navy bombing it?

ROBERT RABIN: Buenos días, Amy. Good morning.

Today we are celebrating and remembering and reorganizing the forces here in Vieques. We’re remembering an enormous victory, May 1st, 2003. The people of Vieques and the Puerto Rican nation, in the archipelago and in the diaspora, with help from thousands of people throughout the world, peace-loving people, without firing a single shot, defeated the most powerful military force in history.

But 10 years later, we continue to suffer the effects of the toxic legacy—highest cancer case rates in all of Puerto Rico. Vieques is a small, poor island with no hospital, serious problems, economic and social problems. So, we are, again, remembering this enormous victory but still struggling to make—pressure the government in Puerto Rico and the federal government to be responsible for the horrific ecological and health disaster created by half a century of U.S. military activity here.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Robert, I want to ask you about the cleanup. In my column in today’s Daily News, we run a picture of an undetonated bomb that was found by fishermen recently in 80 feet of water off of Vieques. The military says it’s spent already about $180 million, the most expensive cleanup in its history. But yet, so much of the waters are still contaminated with all of these unexploded munitions. Your sense of how that cleanup has been going?

ROBERT RABIN: I would suggest that most of that almost $200 million has ended up in the bank accounts of large U.S. corporations hired by the Navy to do the cleanup. While the cleanup is taking—has taken over 10 years so far, they’re only scratching the surface. This is a process that we believe is happening with no real supervision, no genuine community participation. We believe the military is really not interested in cleaning up Vieques, and rather interested in continuing to punish Vieques for having thrown the U.S. Navy out in 2003. So we need to continue to pressure and get the support from congressmen, like Congressman Serrano, Nydia Velázquez and Luis Gutiérrez, and now also Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida, have taken up this issue to help push the federal government to be responsible for the ecological destruction done on Vieques as well as helping with the severe health crisis that resulted from these—from military toxics.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Congressman Joe Serrano, what about the cleanup? You have been lobbying fiercely in Congress to get the money, but Robert Rabin is saying some of that money is being wasted and is not really doing the job.

REP. JOSÉ SERRANO: Well, absolutely. Robert has a key word here that I was going to use, and he used it first, which is "punishment." I really saw, I believe, the first couple of years after that May 1st 10 years ago, that there was a resentment, and by members of Congress, sort of "How dare you defeat the military? How dare you push us out?" and in the administration. And so it was very hard to get dollars. In fact, we didn’t cry over it, but I think the closing of Roosevelt Roads was also sort of a punishment. "Oh, yeah? Well, you want that closed? Well, we’re going to close this one that has jobs and so on involved with it." And so, this—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Both Roosevelt Roads and Fort Buchanan, right?

REP. JOSÉ SERRANO: Exactly. So there’s been that sense: "How dare you do it?" Then there is the fact that in this country, and perhaps throughout the world, 10 years becomes a long time, and people forget that there’s a loss of memory of what happened there. My understanding, yesterday I learned that less than 5 percent of the munitions have been removed. So we continue to push in the Appropriations Committee, where I sit. We continue to push the administration. But there is a new emphasis now. I’m seeing a new mobilization, similar to what I saw 10 years ago or 15 years ago, to say, "OK, now the cleanup has to really take a serious role here."

AMY GOODMAN: What about the issue of cancer? There was a study by Dr. Jorge Colón of the University of Puerto Rico that was based on hair samples of the people of Vieques. He found 34 percent of the population, about a third, had toxic levels of mercury, 55 percent contaminated with lead, 69 percent with arsenic, 69 percent with cadmium, 90 percent with aluminum and antimony, whose toxic effects are similar to arsenic poisoning. These are all substances found in the ordnances used on the island, the bombs.

REP. JOSÉ SERRANO: Right, and that was something that the activists in Vieques were saying prior to the Navy getting out, the fact that under the American flag there was no place that had such a high incidence of cancer. And then there was the correlation—or the lack of it—between the fact that the larger island of Puerto Rico did not have the same rate as Vieques did. So, obviously there’s a relationship. But when you’re talking to the military, the military, you know, sort of at times wants to run its own country, its own world, and just refuses to understand or react to what we want, which is an immediate cleanup and a commitment. Yesterday we spoke to the EPA folks, and they told us that the dedication is of $20 million a year. Well, $20 million of a fund, then for Vieques to participate in that fund—no, we need a dedicated amount from the administration for Vieques, and that’s what we’re pushing for.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And does the cleanup include the oceans as well as the land? Because so far all of the cleanup has been on land.

REP. JOSÉ SERRANO: It has to, because so much of it went into the water. So much went into it as part of the practice. You know, I’m not a military person, but I know that part of it was how to get these things into the water and what effect it had. So you have X amount on land; you have X amount on water. But the fact that 10 years later only 5 percent have been removed is an insult. But I go back to the word "punishment." I really believe there are still some people who don’t care and others who say, "How dare you kicked us out? You have to pay a price for that."

AMY GOODMAN: In 2005, evidence emerged that the U.S. Navy paid $1.7 million to a public relations firm to increase support for a 2001 public referendum on whether the Navy should be allowed to keep use Vieques for live-fire training. Voters ended up overwhelming calling on the Navy to stop using the site, even though the Navy spent, oh, about $358 per referendum voter in their PR effort. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, the Navy hired the Rendon Group to, quote, "organize local leaders to build grassroots communications support ... ensure the integrity of the voting process ... develop methods and tracking procedures to increase support among citizens." Robert Rabin, can you talk about this vote and the significance of the Navy spending the money in this way?

ROBERT RABIN: Yes, Amy. The military tried intensely to get people in Vieques to vote for the continuation of bombing practices here during that referendum. However, the overwhelming support of the community was just too much for the Navy. As you mentioned, the Navy spent millions of dollars. They gave out lots and lots of money to people as direct payments to people supposedly to start up new businesses. They were just paying people off to vote. And despite that, around 30—we believe that the people of Vieques expressed themselves very clearly. About 80 percent of the eligible voters participated in that referendum, and over 70 percent voted for the immediate and permanent cessation of military activity. So it was an overwhelming victory despite Navy attempts and Navy use of millions of dollars to try to influence an election—obviously something anti-constitutional, illegal.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Robert, I want to ask you about what’s happened in economic development on Vieques since the Navy left. In my discussions with Cacimar Zenón, a fisherman there, yesterday by phone, he raised questions about the increase of land speculation, of North Americans who have moved to Vieques since the Navy left, and what the situation is for the economy of the fishermen and the residents of Vieques.

ROBERT RABIN: Yes. Vieques is undergoing a severe process of gentrification, displacement, population substitution—things that are not uncommon to places like Vieques, beautiful places where people with powerful economic interests or people with more economic power than the local population come in, buy property, begin to develop businesses. And we’ve been seeing this process in Vieques for decades. It certainly took off in a greater way after the Navy left Vieques. So, we need a lot of support from the government to help local business people, local people in Vieques, to develop their own businesses. There is a Vieques microbusiness incubator project that grew out of the struggle, directed by Nilda Medina here on Vieques. It’s one of the only projects that’s really pushing to help people from Vieques to take over some of the niches in the economy that haven’t been taken over by people from outside.

The difference between Vieques and other places where gentrification and speculation take place is that these processes that are so devastating for the local economy and local populations are happening on top of a half a century of U.S. military degradation, environmental health degradation, and economic obstacles to development that went on while the U.S. Navy was here, again, over half a century, in control of over 70 percent of Vieques’ resources—its best lands, its most fertile lands, best aquifers, the highest points of the island, the closest connecting point to the main island in Puerto Rico. So the Navy presence in Vieques not only was devastating to the environment and the health, but also was a horrific obstacle to economic development on Vieques for half a century. There’s a 1980 Puerto Rican government study that indicates Vieques lost approximately $100 million a year on potential tourist development that could not take place on Vieques, miscompared to the rest of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands close by.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Rabin, we want to thank you for being with us, longtime activist and founding member of the Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques, spent six months in prison for participating in mass civil disobedience against the Navy bombing, which ended 10 years ago this week.

We’re going to continue with New York Congressmember José Serrano to talk about immigration, after this.

 Public Health Assessments Evaluation for Vieques, Puerto Rico