Two House Appropriations subcommittees on Thursday passed spending bills that defy President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE‘s requests to slash spending on agriculture, transportation and housing. 

The subcommittees on agriculture and on transportation and housing and urban development each advanced their respective bills to the full committee, which is expected to take them up after the Memorial Day recess.

The $24.3 billion agriculture bill rejected Trump’s request to cut the Department of Agriculture budget by nearly 15 percent.

Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita LoweyNita Sue LoweyChances for disaster aid deal slip amid immigration fight Overnight Defense: Trump officials say efforts to deter Iran are working | Trump taps new Air Force secretary | House panel passes defense bill that limits border wall funds House Appropriations passes defense bill that would limit funds for border wall, pull US support from Yemen war MORE (D-N.Y.) said the bill rejects Trump’s “misguided budget and instead invests in important initiatives for the people.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The bill would reduce hunger at home and abroad, support rural development and our farmers, and ensure the FDA is properly funded to meet the growing needs of regulating our food, medicines, and more,” she added.

The $137.1 billion bill for transportation and housing and urban development came out $17.3 billion above the president’s budget request.

Rep. David PriceDavid Eugene PriceAhead of infrastructure talks, House Democrats release 7B bill House Appropriations passes defense bill that would limit funds for border wall, pull US support from Yemen war Lawmakers call for investigation after census hired registered sex offender MORE (D-N.C.), who chairs the transportation subcommittee, said the bill “makes forward-looking investments in our housing and transportation infrastructure, while ensuring concerted attention to safety, the needs of the most vulnerable, and resilience.”

Republicans on the Appropriations Committee raised concerns that the bills nix conservative policy provisions, as well as issues with overall spending levels. 

“I am concerned about the overall funding level and that an important pro-life provision was removed from the bill,” said Rep. Kay GrangerNorvell (Kay) Kay GrangerChances for disaster aid deal slip amid immigration fight Overnight Defense: Trump officials say efforts to deter Iran are working | Trump taps new Air Force secretary | House panel passes defense bill that limits border wall funds House panel advances billion energy bill, defying Trump MORE (R-Texas), the committee’s ranking member.

Thursday’s bills mark the ninth and 10th spending bills to pass through Appropriations subcommittees this year. Eight have already cleared the full committee. Democrats hope to complete all 12 bills next month.

The Senate, however, has stalled on appropriations, with Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbyThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Chances for disaster aid deal slip amid immigration fight Immigration fight imperils deal on disaster aid package MORE (R-Ala.) saying he is waiting for Democrats, Republicans and the White House to strike a deal setting new spending levels. 

A deal seemed close on Tuesday, but chances of an agreement fell as the sides dug in over domestic spending.

Click Here:

Department of Justice lawyers argued in a D.C. court Thursday that the House doesn’t have the ability to sue the administration as they sought to block Democrats’ lawsuit challenging President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE’s ability to use military funds to build a border wall under his national emergency declaration.

The Democratic-controlled House filed suit against the Trump administration last month after the president declared a national emergency to shift funds toward building a wall at the southern border. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The lawsuit doesn’t challenge the national emergency itself, but rather the transfer of the military funds toward constructing a border wall.

House Democrats have argued that only Congress has the constitutional authority to appropriate funds, and that using money meant for military projects to build a wall violates the separation of powers.

During the first 90 minutes of the roughly three-hour hearing, District Judge Trevor McFadden heard arguments from both parties on whether the courts should even play a role in the fight between Congress and the administration on the border wall funding. 

James Burnham, a deputy assistant attorney at the Justice Department, said that the “Constitution nowhere even hints at inter-branch litigation” and that for 200 years, officials “resolved political disputes through political means.”

When McFadden, who indicated throughout the proceedings that he was concerned over whether he should even be ruling on a dispute between the executive and legislative branches, asked him whether that means the House would never have the ability to sue the administration, Burnham replied, “Yes.”

Douglas Letter, the general counsel for the House, argued that it’s well within the courts’ rights to make a ruling. He said that in the past, the Supreme Court has found that judges can “tell the other two branches what the Constitution means.”  

“We cannot have the president appropriate money, in order to protect the liberty of U.S. persons,” he argued.

When McFadden, a Trump appointee, pressed Letter on whether the House had exhausted all of its other options to oppose the administration before filing the lawsuit, the attorney said that it had.

He pointed to lawmakers in both the House and Senate refusing to include Trump’s requested border security funding in appropriations bills as an implicit denial of funding to construct a border wall.

Click Here:

“Here we have a situation where the House did what the political weaponry told it to, not just the House but Congress,” Letter said.

Congress also passed a resolution opposing Trump’s emergency declaration, but Burnham said that the House’s argument was weakened by its failure to override Trump’s veto of that measure.

“Congress of plenty of tools it could use” to halt the transfer of funds, Burnham argued, “if it felt strongly enough.”

Trump issued the emergency declaration in January after agreeing to a funding bill to end a record 35-day government shutdown that didn’t include his requested amount of border security funds.

During the second half of Thursday’s hearing, McFadden heard arguments pertaining to whether he should issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the military funds from going toward the wall.

Letter claimed that lawmakers are being “irreparably harmed” because the money can’t be returned once it’s spent.

While Burnham acknowledged that the funds can’t be returned, he said that construction under the scope of the national emergency hasn’t fully begun yet. And he said the Defense Department has not formally determined how the reprogrammed funding will be used, so an injunction isn’t necessary at this time.

McFadden ended the proceedings without making a ruling, saying that he was taking the matter “under consideration.”

The hearing was held after House Democrats secured a pair of key legal victories this week, with two separate federal judges ruling that financial institutions can hand over Trump’s financial records to lawmakers investigating the president.

It’s unclear exactly how McFadden will rule. If he determines that House Democrats can’t sue the administration, the lawsuit could be tossed out — which lawmakers would likely appeal.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE has ordered U.S. intelligence officials to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr‘s investigation into “surveillance activities” directed at the president’s 2016 campaign, the White House said Thursday.

Click Here:

Trump also gave Barr “full and complete authority” to declassify information related to the investigation, White House press secretary Sarah SandersSarah Elizabeth SandersLive coverage: House panel moves forward with Barr contempt vote Mueller’s facts vs Trump’s spin Trump says he was called ‘the greatest hostage negotiator this country has ever had’ MORE said in a statement.

The notice comes as Barr is conducting a review of what he has described as “spying” on members of the Trump campaign during the investigation into Russian interference.

Sanders said Trump had directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully” cooperate with the investigation at Barr’s own request. 

“Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions,” Sanders said. 

Barr told senators last month that he was reviewing the “genesis and conduct” of intelligence collection on members of the Trump campaign during the period of the 2016 election, saying he believed the campaign was spied on.

Barr’s use of the term triggered massive protest from Democrats, who viewed it as legitimizing a conspiracy theory.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Trump to replace James ComeyJames Brien ComeyAttorney General Barr puts former intel bosses on notice Christopher Steele’s nugget of fool’s gold was easily disproven — but FBI didn’t blink an eye Clash with Trump marks latest break with GOP leaders for Justin Amash MORE, seemed to distance himself from Barr’s use of the term earlier this month when he told a Senate panel that he wouldn’t use the term “spying” to describe government investigations.

Trump and Republicans, who have long alleged the Russia investigation was started by FBI agents biased against the president, have heralded Barr’s decision to look into the origins of the investigation.

The White House sent a memo to agency heads Thursday evening directing the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies as well as the heads of departments and agencies that include elements of the intelligence community to “promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with” his review into intelligence activities related to the 2016 presidential campaigns. 

The memo also stipulates that Barr has the authority to declassify information or intelligence relating to his review and instructs him to consult with the intelligence community before taking such steps “to the extent he deems it practicable.”

The memo was sent to Barr as well as the Directors of National Intelligence and CIA, and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security. 

The Justice Department inspector general has already been reviewing whether the FBI followed applicable rules in applying for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, a probe Barr expects to be completed in May or June.

Barr has tapped John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to lead his new inquiry into the origins of the investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Trump has previously sought to declassify and release materials from the Russia investigation, including the application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to surveil Page, but backed off after U.S. allies objected. 

News of Barr’s inquiry into the origins of the Russia counterintelligence investigation came after special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerHouse progressive: Pelosi ‘has it right’ on impeachment Democrats talk subpoena for Mueller Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna: ‘I’m not there yet’ on impeachment MORE wrapped up his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Mueller did not find evidence to charge members of Trump’s campaign with conspiring with Russia. The special counsel also did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, and Barr later ruled the evidence to be insufficient to accuse Trump of obstruction.

Barr has faced deep scrutiny from Democrats over his handling of the investigation, which has been further exacerbated by his decision to look into the origins of the Russia investigation.

Barr has said he wants to ensure that the surveillance was done properly.

“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr said in April congressional testimony. “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred, I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.” 

–Updated Thursday at 9:51 p.m.

Welcome to Thursday’s Overnight Health Care.

It was a bipartisan kind of day in health care. The Senate’s top health care leaders introduced their package aimed at lowering health care costs, while over in the House, Republicans and Democrats released drug pricing reforms.

We’ll start with the Senate’s bipartisan plan…

 

Alexander and Murray reveal sweeping health care package

Sens. Lamar AlexanderAndrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderCollins offering bill to boost battery research as GOP pushes energy ‘innovation’ Senate chairman says bipartisan health care package coming Thursday It’s time for Republicans to lead (again) on climate MORE (R-Tenn.) and Patty MurrayPatricia (Patty) Lynn MurraySenate chairman says bipartisan health care package coming Thursday Overnight Health Care — Presented by Campaign for Accountability — House passes drug pricing bills amid ObamaCare row | Senate Republicans running away from Alabama abortion law | Ocasio-Cortez confronts CEO over K drug price tag Bipartisan senators unveil measure to end surprise medical bills MORE (D-Wash.) released their long-awaited package to lower health care costs on Thursday. And there’s a lot in it:

Some of its major provisions would:

• End surprise medical bills. The proposal lays out various options, but all would protect patients from getting massive medical bills when they go to the emergency room and get care from an out-of-network doctor.
• Create more transparency around pharmacy benefit managers, sometimes known as drug “middlemen” to ensure they are passing along discounts on drugs to customers.
• Prevent certain anti-competitive clauses in contracts between medical providers and insurance companies that can drive prices up.

The path forward: Alexander is hoping for committee action in June and a Senate vote in July. The package could be combined with another bipartisan health care package, on drug prices, that Sens. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyThreat of impeachment takes oxygen out of 2019 agenda Trump mulling visit to ethanol refinery later this month: report Nursing home care: A growing crisis for an aging America  MORE (R-Iowa) and Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenDemocrats seize on IRS memo in Trump tax battle Momentum grows to create ‘Do Not Track’ registry Senate chairman says bipartisan health care package coming Thursday MORE (D-Ore.) are working on in the Finance Committee.

“These are common sense steps we can take, and every single one of them has the objective of reducing the health care costs that you pay for out of your own pocket. We hope to move it through the health committee in June, put it on the Senate floor in July and make it law,” Alexander said.

Read more on the package here.

 

 

Bipartisan House members unveil surprise billing legislation

Momentum is building for a legislative solution to surprise medical bills … but so far, we have only seen disparate pieces of legislation. The latest bill introduced on Thursday was led by Reps. Phil RoeDavid (Phil) Phillip RoeThe nation needs to do more to reduce veteran suicide The Hill’s 12:30 Report: State of the Union takeaways | Sights and sounds from the night | Virginia attorney general admits he wore blackface Activist who met with GOP lawmakers also promotes ‘black violence’ gene: report MORE (R-Tenn.) and Raul RuizRaul RuizCongressional Hispanic Caucus demands answers on death of migrant children Step therapy forces patients to fail first: Congress can fix that Dems brush off unemployment rate, say Hispanics will reject Trump in 2020 MORE (D-Calif.). The lawmakers called it an “outline” of a bill, with a final version to follow in the coming weeks.  

The legislation is more in line with the Cassidy/Hassan legislation in the Senate than it is with the other bipartisan House bill introduced less than two weeks ago by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneMcConnell, Kaine introduce bill to raise tobacco purchasing age from 18 to 21 The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Pass USMCA Coalition – Restrictive state abortion laws ignite fiery 2020 debate Work on surprise medical bills goes into overdrive MORE (D-N.J.) and ranking member Greg WaldenGregory (Greg) Paul WaldenHere are the eight Republicans who voted with Democrats on the Equality Act House approves anti-LGBT discrimination Equality Act Overnight Health Care — Presented by Campaign for Accountability — House passes drug pricing bills amid ObamaCare row | Senate Republicans running away from Alabama abortion law | Ocasio-Cortez confronts CEO over K drug price tag MORE (R-Ore.).

The differences: Not surprisingly for legislation sponsored by two doctors, the Roe/Ruiz bill calls for arbitration between an insurer and provider when parties can’t agree on what the in-network rate should be.

Meanwhile, the Walden/Pallone legislation would require insurers to pay based on the price paid to nearby in-network providers.

The fact that there are now multiple versions of surprise billing legislation shows that there’s a definite desire to solve the problem. But it also means lawmakers have issues to work out. The legislation from the leaders of committees with jurisdiction over health care will likely carry more weight, though President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE is likely to sign anything that makes it through both chambers in order to declare victory.  

 

And in other bipartisan health care action….

 

House committee leaders release Medicare drug pricing reforms

The drug pricing action is heating up, with more movement on Thursday in the House.

The chairmen and ranking members of the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees jointly requested feedback on a bill to reform how Medicare Part D pays for drugs.

The bill would:

• Cap seniors’ out of pocket costs for drugs in Medicare
• Change the incentives in the program by reducing the share of costs the government has to pick up for high-cost enrollees.

What’s notably missing: Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which would lose the support of the Republican lawmakers. Instead, this bill focuses on changes to Medicare drug coverage that get bipartisan support.

Read the bill here.

 

Democrats introduce bill to guarantee abortion access

Bills introduced in the House and Senate Thursday would ban states from passing abortion restrictions that are “medically unnecessary” and interfere with a woman’s ability to get an abortion.

The state laws that would become illegal under the “Women’s Health Protection Act” include bans on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, measures requiring ultrasounds before abortions and law requiring multiple trips to the clinic before obtaining an abortion.

“As extremist lawmakers viciously attack women’s reproductive rights in statehouses across the nation, the Women’s Health Protection Act has never been more urgent or more necessary,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the lead Senate sponsor of the bill.

Reps. Judy ChuJudy May ChuThe Go-Go’s rock the stage at annual ‘We Write the Songs’ DC concert Pelosi faces tipping point on Trump impeachment The Hill’s Morning Report — Presented by Pass USMCA Coalition — Trump: GOP has `clear contrast’ with Dems on immigration MORE (D-Calif.), Marcia FudgeMarcia Louise FudgeHouse Administration Committee to make election security a ‘primary focus’ Dems rally behind Omar as Trump escalates attacks Congressional Black Caucus faces tough decision on Harris, Booker MORE (D-Ohio) and Lois FrankelLois Jane FrankelRepublicans amp up attacks on Tlaib’s Holocaust comments Overnight Health Care: Biden backs Medicare buy-in | New warnings as measles cases surpass record | House Dems propose M to study gun violence prevention House Democrats seek to protect Planned Parenthood from Trump’s funding cuts MORE (D-Fla.) introduced the House version of the bill, which has 171 co-sponsors. The Senate version has 42 co-sponsors.

Why it matters: This bill is specifically aimed at states like Alabama and Georgia that recently passed bills restricting access to abortions.

 

CMS maintains navigator funding at $10 million

The Trump administration on Thursday announced that it was keeping the funding for ObamaCare “navigators” at $10 million for next year, the same amount as this year.

The amount is a significant decrease from the Obama administration; compared to 2016, it’s an 84 percent reduction.

Navigator programs provide outreach, education, and enrollment assistance to consumers eligible for ObamaCare and Medicaid coverage.

The total available funding will be allocated among the 34 states that use federal exchanges, with a minimum of $100,000 available to each state.

Democrats have seized on the cuts to navigators as proof of the administration’s “sabotage” of ObamaCare and have passed legislation in the House to restore the funding to its original levels.

In the funding opportunity announcement, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it doesn’t need to spend as much money as in the early years of ObamaCare because more people know about it now.

“When Exchanges were in their infancy, and public awareness and understanding of coverage options was low, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) encouraged Navigators to cast a wide net and to provide intensive face-to-face assistance to consumers,” CMS said. The [exchanges] have been in operation since 2013 for the 2014 open enrollment period, and the public is more aware of the options for private coverage available through them.”

 

What we’re reading

A new Senate health package includes surprisingly aggressive drug pricing reforms (Stat News)

Fact-checking Donald Trump’s claim that drug prices are going down (PolitiFact)

Senators look for bipartisan path on health care amid House squabbles (CNN.com)

Here are the GOP’s secret talking points defending Alabama’s abortion law (Vice News)

 

SPONSORED CONTENT – PHARMACEUTICAL CARE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

PBMs serve as the check against drugmakers’ pricing strategies by negotiating for consumers and clients to ensure prescription drugs are affordable. Learn how PBMs advocate for patients and payers at OnYourRxSide.org.

 

Also at The Hill

Colorado on Wednesday became the first state in the country to limit how much someone could be required to pay out-of-pocket for insulin.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted this week to impose a one-year restriction on travel to the state of Alabama for official county business after a new law in the southern state banned abortion in nearly all cases.

The Alabama House on Wednesday passed a bill requiring doctors to try to save the life of a baby born after an attempted abortion or face up to 20 years in prison.

Arizona legislative committees on Wednesday pushed forward a bill that seeks to prevent abortions by directing $7.5 million over the next three years to adoption services and apparently funding controversial crisis pregnancy centers. 

JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States by assets, will reportedly no longer offer its services to OxyContin producer Purdue Pharma over the company’s alleged role in the country’s opioid crisis.

 

State by state

Hollywood invested big in Georgia. A new abortion law is causing some tensions. (The New York Times)

Pregnancy-related deaths are rising in Utah. Experts say extending Medicaid could help those at risk (KUER)

Pennsylvania woman was convinced she bought ObamaCare insurance. She got scammed by a look-alike website (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Click Here:

The beer industry is pinning blame on the Trump administration’s tariffs for thousands of job losses across the country.

A study released this week by the Beer Institute and National Beer Wholesalers Association found that direct, indirect and induced jobs were at 2.19 million in 2018, a drop of 40,000 jobs from 2016.

“Aluminum tariffs are increasing brewers’ costs and are an anchor on a vibrant industry,” Beer Institute President Jim McGreevy told The Hill in a statement. “Each brewer is deciding for themselves how to absorb that expense, whether it’s raising prices, laying off workers or delaying innovation and expansion, all of which hurt a vibrant job-creating industry.”

ADVERTISEMENT

After the administration slapped a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports in March 2018, the cost of getting the metal to the Midwest more than doubled, according to Bloomberg News, which first reported on industry insiders blaming President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE‘s steel and aluminum tariffs for the loss in jobs.

The industry report noted that while overall beer sales are down about 2.4 percent from 2016, there are some areas of growth, with brewing jobs up 8 percent. It attributed the increase to “tremendous growth in micro and brewpub employment as well as growth in higher margin products from all brewers.”

The number of distributor jobs alone in the industry has also increased by more than 19 percent over the past decade, according to the latest report, which said that the industry has generated 2.1 million jobs and about $101 billion in wages and benefits.

“While one can’t say aluminum tariffs are 100% to blame, as there are multiple factors, this evidence supports that brewers are making fewer investments or having to make tough decisions because of the added cost of aluminum,” a Beer Institute spokesperson said in a statement to The Hill on Thursday.

The administration recently reached a deal to lift aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico as part of negotiations for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

Click Here:

Updated: 5:41 p.m.

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenDemocrats seize on IRS memo in Trump tax battle Momentum grows to create ‘Do Not Track’ registry Senate chairman says bipartisan health care package coming Thursday MORE (D-Ore.) on Thursday introduced a bill that would end tax benefits for investment fund managers’ carried interest, a move that comes shortly after President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE reiterated his desire to so.

“If President Trump wants to address carried interest and make the tax code more fair, he’ll be happy to support my new proposal that would fully close the loophole—existing bills only address half the problem,” Wyden said in a statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Carried interest is compensation that hedge fund and private equity managers receive in the form of future profits in a partnership.

Under current law, taxes on carried interest are deferred until the partnership realizes income, through actions like selling an investment. Carried interest is generally taxed at capital gains rates rather than the higher ordinary income rates.

Wyden’s bill would have fund managers pay taxes annually on a certain compensation amount. That amount would be taxed at ordinary income rates and subject to self-employment taxes, according to a fact sheet from the senator’s office.

The leader of a trade group representing the private-equity industry criticized the bill.

“Raising taxes on carried interest capital gains will destroy jobs, decrease investment, and discourage entrepreneurship across America,” said Drew Maloney, president and CEO of the American Investment Council.

Democrats have long been interested in ending carried-interest tax benefits. Previously introduced bills aimed to re-characterize carried interest as ordinary income but did not address the deferral issue. Democrats view the tax preference for carried interest as a loophole that allows wealthy people to pay less in taxes than middle-class workers.

When he was a presidential candidate, Trump said he wanted to eliminate the carried interest tax break. The tax-cut law he signed in 2017 did not include a provision to eliminate that break.

Trump said in a recent Fox News interview that he would still like to eliminate the carried interest tax break. Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Democrats seize on IRS memo in Trump tax battle No agreement on budget caps in sight ahead of Memorial Day recess MORE told reporters after a congressional hearing Wednesday that such a change would require legislation and could be considered if Congress moves a bill making technical fixes to the tax code.

Click Here:

DEMS SAY WHEELER GAVE ‘DUBIOUS DEFENSE’ OF ROLLBACK: Democrats are asking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerThe Trump administration must heed the call to cut methane Overnight Energy: EPA to reconsider cost benefit analysis of air pollution rules | Interior gets new rules on free concert tickets | Dem challenges EPA for skipping hearing EPA to reconsider cost benefit analysis of air pollution on human life MORE to turn over documents tied to the agency’s proposal to roll back emissions standards for vehicles, suggesting he made misleading statements on the topic.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneMcConnell, Kaine introduce bill to raise tobacco purchasing age from 18 to 21 The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Pass USMCA Coalition – Restrictive state abortion laws ignite fiery 2020 debate Work on surprise medical bills goes into overdrive MORE (D-N.J.) and Sen. Tom CarperThomas (Tom) Richard CarperOvernight Energy: EPA watchdog finds Pruitt spent 4K on ‘excessive’ travel | Agency defends Pruitt expenses | Lawmakers push EPA to recover money | Inslee proposes spending T for green jobs Lawmakers take EPA head to task for refusing to demand Pruitt repay travel expenses Dems request investigation of lobbyist-turned-EPA employee who met with former boss MORE (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the request was “in light of numerous comments from Administrator Wheeler, including statements made to Congress, that plainly contradict data presented to him by EPA’s own experts.”

“Despite the fact that you were briefed on these concerns before the rule was proposed, you have continued to make assertions about the proposal that you must know do not reflect the views of EPA’s expert staff,” the lawmakers wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

What’s at stake: The EPA’s controversial proposal would freeze emissions standards set by the Obama administration in 2020 rather than have them tighten into 2026. Vehicle manufacturers oppose the plan, and the proposal has sparked a lawsuit with California, with the state threatening to enact other tough measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPA’s response: An EPA spokesperson told The Hill when asked to comment on the letter that the agency “will respond through the proper channels.”

The big issue: In a letter to the agency, the Democrats homed in on one particular comment Wheeler made to Congress in April.

“I have been told by my staff that the CO2 reductions, the impact of the CO2 reductions are pretty similar to what the Obama administration proposal would have received under their — would have gotten under their proposal. Because the Obama proposal had a number of exemptions and off-ramps. And the car, automobile manufacturers aren’t complying with the Obama standards today,” Wheeler told the House Energy and Commerce Committee then.

The legislators said that was demonstrably false.

“These and other statements like it are remarkable since analysis in the proposed rule clearly demonstrates that carbon pollution will increase by 8 billion tons during this century if the Trump Administration proposal is finalized,” they wrote in the letter.

The Democrats argued that the only discernible purpose for the proposed rollback is to increase the profits of the oil industry and said the request for documents was to shed light on how outside groups may have influenced the agency.

Read more about the letter here.

 

HAPPY THURSDAY! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news.

Please send tips and comments to Miranda Green, mgreen@thehill.com and Rebecca Beitsch, rbeitsch@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @mirandacgreen, @rebeccabeitsch and @thehill.

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our newsletter.

 

AN ACTUAL CLIMATE DEBATE? Three Senate Democrats are calling on NBC News to have its first presidential debate focus exclusively on climate change.

Sens. Brian SchatzBrian Emanuel SchatzOvernight Defense: Trump officials say efforts to deter Iran are working | Trump taps new Air Force secretary | House panel passes defense bill that limits border wall funds Bullock: Running for Senate ‘never really got me excited’ Cruz asks Trump FAA pick to ‘be pissed off’ about Boeing crash deaths MORE (Hawaii), Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseOvernight Energy: EPA watchdog finds Pruitt spent 4K on ‘excessive’ travel | Agency defends Pruitt expenses | Lawmakers push EPA to recover money | Inslee proposes spending T for green jobs Lawmakers take EPA head to task for refusing to demand Pruitt repay travel expenses Dems request investigation of lobbyist-turned-EPA employee who met with former boss MORE (R.I.) and Martin HeinrichMartin Trevor HeinrichCollins offering bill to boost battery research as GOP pushes energy ‘innovation’ Senate panel approves Interior nominee over objections from Democrats Congress readies for battle over nuclear policy MORE (N.M.) said in a letter to NBC’s top brass that the 2016 debates improperly shortchanged a topic of high interest to Democratic voters.

“There are many ways to address the climate crisis, and voters want to know what policies each candidate supports,” the trio wrote in a letter to NBC News Chairman Andy Lack. “Voters deserve a vigorous debate with an informed moderator that can press candidates for detailed answers and hold them accountable.”

Environmental groups and several 2020 candidates have also called for a climate-centric debate. Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign 2020 Dems put spotlight on disabilities issues MORE (D-Mass.) joined that chorus last week, following a similar request from Washington Gov. Jay InsleeJay Robert InsleeInslee signs bill making Washington a sanctuary state Biden retains large lead over Sanders, other 2020 Dems in new Hill-HarrisX poll Inslee signs bill to make Washington first state to legalize human composting MORE (D).

The senators said in Thursday’s letter, first reported by the Daily Beast, that the 2016 debates devoted just five minutes to climate change, while recent polling shows the topic is of increasing concern to party voters.

“Democratic voters across the country have accepted the facts about climate change, are seeing its impacts, and are having real debates on solutions. In this consequential election year, it’s time for our candidates to do the same,” they wrote.

What the polls say: An April poll from CNN found that 82 percent of registered voters who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents listed climate change as a “very important” top priority they would like to see as the focus of a presidential candidate.

Click Here:

The first 2020 Democratic primary debates are slated for the end of June.

 

LATEST 2020 CLIMATE PROPOSAL COMES FROM DELANEY: John DelaneyJohn Kevin DelaneyCNN’s O’Rourke town hall finishes behind Fox News, MSNBC Harris seeks Iowa edge with army of volunteers Castro to strike with McDonald’s employees in North Carolina MORE is adding his name to a growing list of Democratic presidential hopefuls rolling out climate action plans, with a $4 trillion proposal announced on Thursday.

The former Maryland congressman’s plan focuses on six key areas to tackle the “climate crisis,” including an introduction of a carbon tax, renewable energy investments and funding carbon capture technology.

“We have to act on climate and we have to act now,” Delaney said in a statement. “We need a real plan to hit our goals and we have to listen to actual scientists. This is a real plan that all Americans can support. It is full of new ideas and massive investments in innovation that will both deal with climate change and create jobs in the heartland and all across our country.”

He said the plan outlines initiatives he would achieve within the first 100 days of taking the presidency.

Delaney’s campaign called his commitment to a carbon tax, or fee, the largest component of his climate plan. He proposes starting the fee on carbon pollution at $15 per metric ton of Co2 and increasing the cost by $10 every year. The issue was an important one for Delaney while he was in Congress. He introduced the first bipartisan carbon fee and dividend bill in over 10 years, according to his campaign.

He said his plan would reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2050.

Climate plans piling up: Delaney is the fourth Democratic presidential candidate to release a comprehensive climate action plan, following Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Colorado Sen. Michael BennetMichael Farrand BennetCNN’s O’Rourke town hall finishes behind Fox News, MSNBC The Hill’s Morning Report – White House, Congress: Urgency of now around budget Overnight Energy: Warren wants Dems to hold climate-focused debate | Klobuchar joins candidates rejecting fossil fuel money | 2020 contender Bennet offers climate plan MORE and former Texas Rep. Beto O’RourkeBeto O’RourkeCNN’s O’Rourke town hall finishes behind Fox News, MSNBC Biden retains large lead over Sanders, other 2020 Dems in new Hill-HarrisX poll The Hill’s Morning Report – Pelosi remains firm despite new impeachment push MORE, who announced a $5 trillion proposal.

Read more on Delaney’s plan here.

 

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY:

Maryland bill mandating 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 to become law, but without Republican Gov. Larry Hogan’s signature, The Baltimore Sun reports.

Report: National park visits contribute $40 billion to US economy, KOB4 reports.

Environmental groups sue over Louisiana law allowing felony arrests for pipeline protesters, The Advocate reports.

Plastic straws, stirrers and Q-tips to be banned in England starting April 2020, we report.

 

ICYMI:

Stories from Thursday…

2020 hopeful John Delaney unveils $4T climate plan

Democratic senators want NBC primary debate to focus on climate change

Weather forecasters predict up to 15 major storms this hurricane season

Democrats suggest EPA chief misled on vehicle emissions rollback

Environmental group files lawsuit to force Trump to add eight species to endangered list

Democrats are asking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerThe Trump administration must heed the call to cut methane Overnight Energy: EPA to reconsider cost benefit analysis of air pollution rules | Interior gets new rules on free concert tickets | Dem challenges EPA for skipping hearing EPA to reconsider cost benefit analysis of air pollution on human life MORE to turn over documents tied to the agency’s proposal to roll back emissions standards for vehicles, suggesting he made misleading statements on the topic.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneMcConnell, Kaine introduce bill to raise tobacco purchasing age from 18 to 21 The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Pass USMCA Coalition – Restrictive state abortion laws ignite fiery 2020 debate Work on surprise medical bills goes into overdrive MORE (D-N.J.) and Sen. Tom CarperThomas (Tom) Richard CarperOvernight Energy: EPA watchdog finds Pruitt spent 4K on ‘excessive’ travel | Agency defends Pruitt expenses | Lawmakers push EPA to recover money | Inslee proposes spending T for green jobs Lawmakers take EPA head to task for refusing to demand Pruitt repay travel expenses Dems request investigation of lobbyist-turned-EPA employee who met with former boss MORE (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the request was “in light of numerous comments from Administrator Wheeler, including statements made to Congress, that plainly contradict data presented to him by EPA’s own experts.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here:

“Despite the fact that you were briefed on these concerns before the rule was proposed, you have continued to make assertions about the proposal that you must know do not reflect the views of EPA’s expert staff,” the lawmakers wrote. 

The EPA’s controversial proposal would freeze emissions standards set by the Obama administration in 2020 rather than have them tighten into 2026. Vehicle manufacturers oppose the plan, and the proposal has sparked a lawsuit with California, with the state threatening to enact other tough measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

An EPA spokesperson told The Hill when asked to comment on the letter that the agency “will respond through the proper channels.”

In a letter to the agency, the Democrats homed in on one particular comment Wheeler made to Congress in April.

“I have been told by my staff that the CO2 reductions, the impact of the CO2 reductions are pretty similar to what the Obama administration proposal would have received under their — would have gotten under their proposal. Because the Obama proposal had a number of exemptions and off-ramps. And the car, automobile manufacturers aren’t complying with the Obama standards today,” Wheeler told the House Energy and Commerce Committee then.

The legislators said that was demonstrably false.

“These and other statements like it are remarkable since analysis in the proposed rule clearly demonstrates that carbon pollution will increase by 8 billion tons during this century if the Trump Administration proposal is finalized,” they wrote in the letter.

The Democrats argued that the only discernible purpose for the proposed rollback is to increase the profits of the oil industry and said the request for documents was to shed light on how outside groups may have influenced the agency.

The two are asking the agency to turn over a number of materials, including briefing slides prepared by EPA staff, a list of meetings held with a number of fuel industry and conservative groups and any correspondence between them and political appointees.

The legislators also ask for information presented to Bill Wehrum, the head of EPA’s air office and a former lobbyist who Democrats have probed on a number of issues.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick ShanahanPatrick Michael ShanahanFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report Pentagon approves DHS request to build tents to house 7,500 migrants at southern border Overnight Defense: Iran worries dominate foreign policy talk | Pentagon reportedly to send WH plans for 10K troops in Mideast | Democrats warn Trump may push through Saudi arms sale | Lawmakers blast new Pentagon policy on sharing info MORE on Thursday acknowledged that the growing tensions with Iran “may involve sending additional troops” to the region.

Shanahan’s comments marked the first public confirmation that the Trump administration is considering sending additional U.S. forces to curtail what it claims is “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran.

“What we’re looking at is: Are there things we can do to enhance force protection in the Middle East? … It may involve sending additional troops,” Shanahan told Pentagon reporters prior to meeting with Vietnam’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Pentagon has already deployed a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East, and news reports emerged this week that Shanahan on Thursday was set to present the White House with a request to deploy 10,000 troops to the Middle East.

Click Here:

An earlier report said that the U.S. could send upwards of 120,000 additional troops.

Shanahan denied those reports.

“I got up this morning and read that we were sending 10,000 troops to the Middle East and then I read about, more recently, there’s 5,000. … There is no 10,000 and there is no 5,000. That’s not accurate,” he said.

Shanahan added that he and other security officials are “going to give the president an update on the security situation in Iran.” He also stressed that any additional military movement would be for deterrence purposes.

“This is not about war. We have a mission there in the Middle East: freedom of navigation, counterterrorism in Syria and Iraq, defeating al Qaeda in Yemen, and the security of Israel and Jordan.”

Shanahan said that he is in regular contact with U.S. Central Command head Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie and will be meeting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford as well as speaking to head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Scott Miller, on the situation.

The new comments come as Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday briefed lawmakers on intelligence detailing recent actions by Iran. The Trump defense chief asserted after the briefings that U.S. efforts to deter Iran in the region have worked.

Shanahan said Thursday that should “things change, then my plan will be to update Congress because they’ve certainly been very clear to ‘keep us current.’”

A sweeping draft legislative package from the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Health Committee seeks to lower health care costs by addressing surprise medical bills and adding transparency to drug prices, among other provisions.

The bipartisan draft from committee Chairman Lamar AlexanderAndrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderCollins offering bill to boost battery research as GOP pushes energy ‘innovation’ Senate chairman says bipartisan health care package coming Thursday It’s time for Republicans to lead (again) on climate MORE (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Patty MurrayPatricia (Patty) Lynn MurraySenate chairman says bipartisan health care package coming Thursday Overnight Health Care — Presented by Campaign for Accountability — House passes drug pricing bills amid ObamaCare row | Senate Republicans running away from Alabama abortion law | Ocasio-Cortez confronts CEO over K drug price tag Bipartisan senators unveil measure to end surprise medical bills MORE (Wash.), the panel’s top Democrat, comes as the pair have been working to find areas of agreement where both parties can take action on health care.

“The steps we are taking on important issues like surprise medical billing, drug prices, maternal mortality, and vaccine hesitancy show we can make progress when both sides are at the table ready to put patients and families first,” Murray said in a statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

The package contains nearly three dozen specific bipartisan provisions that will reduce the cost of what Americans pay for health care, Alexander said. It sidesteps controversial issues like ObamaCare repeal, Medicare for All and abortion funding.  

Aside from surprise billing, the package also aims to provide transparency to rebates between drug companies and the pharmacy benefits manager “middlemen.”

The goal is to bring the package to the Senate floor this summer, and Alexander and Murray requested members submit comments on the bill by June 5.

Alexander told President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE earlier this month that he is aiming for a vote in July.

Lawmakers have been moving quickly to notch a bipartisan win on surprise medical bills, and the legislation from Alexander and Murray is now the second major legislative option in the Senate introduced this month.

Trump has urged lawmakers to take action, and administration officials offered lawmakers a list of principles to guide them in forming legislation. Their top priority is to make sure patients no longer receive separate bills from out-of-network doctors.

Unlike bipartisan legislation from Sens. Bill CassidyWilliam (Bill) Morgan CassidySenate passes bill to undo tax increase on Gold Star military families Overnight Health Care — Presented by Campaign for Accountability — House passes drug pricing bills amid ObamaCare row | Senate Republicans running away from Alabama abortion law | Ocasio-Cortez confronts CEO over K drug price tag Bipartisan senators unveil measure to end surprise medical bills MORE (R-La.) and Maggie HassanMargaret (Maggie) Hassan’American Taliban’ set to be released after years behind bars Overnight Health Care — Presented by Campaign for Accountability — House passes drug pricing bills amid ObamaCare row | Senate Republicans running away from Alabama abortion law | Ocasio-Cortez confronts CEO over K drug price tag Bipartisan senators unveil measure to end surprise medical bills MORE (D-N.H.), the package from Alexander and Murray does not commit to one particular method of payment options for providers and hospitals. Instead, they ask for feedback on three options, including arbitration.

Doctors, hospitals and insurers have all pledged to protect patients from being hit with massive, unexpected bills for out-of-network care, but no one wants to take on the added costs that come with it.

Elsewhere in the Senate, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyThreat of impeachment takes oxygen out of 2019 agenda Trump mulling visit to ethanol refinery later this month: report Nursing home care: A growing crisis for an aging America  MORE (R-Iowa) and top Democrat Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenDemocrats seize on IRS memo in Trump tax battle Momentum grows to create ‘Do Not Track’ registry Senate chairman says bipartisan health care package coming Thursday MORE (Ore.) are working on their own bipartisan health care package, aimed at lowering drug prices.

Alexander has suggested the two packages could be combined.

Click Here: