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

An environmental group has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to demand that the federal government recognize several species native to the U.S. as endangered.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said in a press release Thursday that it was suing the Trump administration to force the addition of the longfin smelt, the Sierra Nevada red fox and six other species to the Endangered Species List.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to the lawsuit, the agency had previously found the species worthy of endangered species protections under the Obama administration but under the Trump administration had slow-walked the process of actually implementing the protections.

“The number of longfin smelt in the San Francisco Bay Delta has plummeted while the government has failed to protect them for decades,” Jon Rosenfield, senior scientist with San Francisco Baykeeper, said in the CBD’s press release. “Their population decline reflects the downfall of the entire San Francisco Bay ecosystem, which hosts five other endangered fish species, struggling fisheries and deteriorating water quality. We can’t fix these big problems by burying our heads in the sand, as the Trump administration seems intent to do.”

A spokesperson for Fish and Wildlife Service declined to comment, citing the ongoing lawsuit, when contacted by The Hill.

The group highlighted the few number of species — just 17 — added to the Endangered Species List under the Trump administration, compared to several times that amount added under previous administrations.

“The longfin smelt needs protection now if it’s going to have any chance at survival,” Jeff MillerJefferson (Jeff) Bingham MillerVeterans’ suicides are an epidemic Bottom line VA’s commitment to timely processing of claims and appeals is merely lip service MORE, a senior conservation advocate at CBD, said in the press release. “Trump officials’ delay in protecting these fish and other species is cataclysmic. They’re stalling safeguards for imperiled wildlife for no other reason than to please campaign contributors in Big Ag and other industries.”

Click Here:

Ford to cut 7,000 salaried jobs, slashing workforce by 10 percent

Ford Motor Co. announced Monday it will cut its global salaried workforce by 10 percent and eliminate roughly 7,000 management jobs by the end of August, moves that will save the company about $600 million per year. 

CEO James Hackett announced in a memo to employees, first reported by several media outlets that the company would cut its management structure by 20 percent as it adapts to economic challenges facing U.S. automakers.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: The majority of U.S. employees losing their jobs will be notified by May 24, while layoffs in Europe, China, South America and other countries will be completed by August, wrote Hackett.

Hackett said the layoffs are part of a broader effort to reduce bureaucracy and streamline decisionmaking as Ford adapts to several economic and industrial challenges.

In October, Ford announced it would cut up to 12 percent of its salaried staff as it sought to shed billions in costs. The company, like its rivals General Motors and Fiat Chrysler, is refocusing production toward light trucks, SUVs, electric and autonomous vehicles as sales for U.S. sedans plummeted throughout the past decade.

“Ford is undergoing an organizational redesign process helping us create a more dynamic, agile and empowered workforce, while becoming more fit as a business,” the company said in a Monday statement.

“We understand this is a challenging time for our team, but these steps are necessary to position Ford for success today and yet preparing to thrive in the future.”

Ford has also felt the pinch of 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 tariffs on imported steel, aluminum and Chinese goods, raising prices throughout its supply chain.

Trump struck a deal Friday with Canada and Mexico to lift tariffs on steel and aluminum, easing costs for a slew of U.S. manufacturers. But U.S. automakers could face brutal retribution from the European Union and Japan if Trump follows through with tariffs on imported automobiles.

Trump announced Friday he would hold off on auto tariffs for 180 days while the White House negotiated trade agreements with the European Union and Japan. The president may then decide to impose a 25 percent tax on foreign autos entering the U.S.

U.S. tariffs on foreign autos could cause intense economic pressure in Europe and Japan, where auto exports are a crucial portion of the economy. Both are set to respond with tariffs, potentially on U.S. autos, which could compound financial pressures facing Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler.

Updated at 2:24 p.m.

USPS begins testing self-driving mail delivery

The U.S. Postal Service on Tuesday began a two-week trial of self-driving mail delivery trucks in three Southwestern states, Reuters reported.

San Diego-based startup TuSimple is reportedly providing the self-driving trucks which will begin hauling mail between USPS facilities in Phoenix and Dallas.

ADVERTISEMENT

The trial program involves five round trips, each totaling more than 2,100 miles of driving.

“The work with TuSimple is our first initiative in autonomous long-haul transportation,” USPS spokeswoman Kim Frum told Reuters.

“We are conducting research and testing as part of our efforts to operate a future class of vehicles which will incorporate new technology.”

Click Here:

The program will be a key test for driverless car technology that could radically change the shipping business, which is facing a growing shortage of drivers.

“This run is really in the sweet spot of how we believe autonomous trucks will be used,” TuSimple Chief Product Officer Chuck Price told Reuters. “These long runs are beyond the range of a single human driver, which means today if they do this run they have to figure out how to cover it with multiple drivers in the vehicle.”

Trump urges Dem leaders to pass new NAFTA before infrastructure deal

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 on Tuesday wrote to Democratic leaders ahead of a meeting at the White House calling on them to pass a renegotiated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before moving on to infrastructure.

In a letter to Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy Patricia D'Alesandro PelosiThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Threat of impeachment takes oxygen out of 2019 agenda Trump denies ‘tantrum’ in meeting with Pelosi: ‘It is all such a lie!’ MORE (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerNo agreement on budget caps in sight ahead of Memorial Day recess Ex-White House photographer roasts Trump: ‘This is what a cover up looked like’ under Obama Pelosi: Trump ‘is engaged in a cover-up’ MORE (D-N.Y.), Trump expressed optimism the two sides could find common ground on a “big and bold infrastructure bill.” But he said Congress should first pass a revised version of NAFTA, one of the Trump administration’s top legislative priorities.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here:

Democrats and Trump agreed during a meeting last month to pursue a $2 trillion infrastructure package. The two sides will meet at the White House on Wednesday morning to discuss funding for the legislation.

“Before we get to infrastructure, it is my strong view that Congress should first pass the important and popular [United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)] trade deal,” Trump wrote. 

“Once Congress has passed USMCA, we should turn our attention to a bipartisan infrastructure package,” he added.

The U.S. late last week reached a deal to lift steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico, removing a significant roadblock for congressional approval of the USMCA.

The legislature of each country must still ratify the agreement. Canadian and Mexican officials have indicated they will do so, but House Democrats, including Pelosi, have said all involved parties must tighten labor and environmental standards before passage in the U.S.

Democratic leaders met last week with United States Trade Representative Robert LighthizerRobert (Bob) Emmet LighthizerChinese, US negotiators fine-tuning details of trade agreement: report The Trump economy keeps roaring ahead Trump says no discussion of extending deadline in Chinese trade talks MORE to discuss moving forward on the USMCA.

House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerThe Hill’s Morning Report – Pelosi remains firm despite new impeachment push Pelosi faces tipping point on Trump impeachment Trump urges Dem leaders to pass new NAFTA before infrastructure deal MORE (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the two sides were getting closer but that there was still work to be done. He cited enforcement for labor laws and the length of exclusivity for patents as sticking points.

“I’m hopeful that we can get there. And I think the Speaker is hopeful we can get there,” he said.

While the USMCA has run into some roadblocks, the president in his letter on Tuesday said he believes there is bipartisan agreement to work out an infrastructure deal that modernizes transportation systems and waterways, invests in rural broadband and improves local wastewater facilities.

“It would be helpful if you came to tomorrow’s meeting with your infrastructure priorities and specifics regarding how much funding you would dedicate to each,” he wrote. “Your caucus has expressed a wide-range of priorities, and it is unclear which ones have your support.” 

“There is no doubt that the American people want us to rebuild our infrastructure to improve the quality of life for all Americans,” he added. “It is now time for us to follow the wishes of the American people and work together to pass a big and bold infrastructure bill.”

An infrastructure package was thought to be one of the few areas where Democrats and the White House could make a deal, but members of both parties have raised some concerns about the prospect of such a deal.

Congressional Republicans have signaled they are unlikely to support an infrastructure package with such a hefty price tag unless they can reach a deal on how to pay for it without adding to the deficit. 

Some Democrats have questioned whether it’s worth it to give Trump a win on infrastructure when the president has stonewalled investigative oversight efforts.

Mike Lillis contributed.

Senate GOP votes to permanently ban earmarks

Senate Republicans voted on Thursday to permanently ban the practice of including earmarks — money directed by lawmakers into pet projects — in government funding bills. 

 

GOP senators decided to enact the permanent ban during a closed-door caucus meeting, with aides saying the issue had been under discussion among Republicans for months. 

 

Congress first banned earmarks in 2011, after Republicans took back the House in 2010. But that moratorium expired in January, with the start of the 116th Congress, meaning lawmakers could have tried to insert earmarks into fiscal 2020 government funding bills. 

 

Fiscal conservatives, who have blasted earmarks as “pork-barrel spending,” praised the decision. 

 

Sen. Ben SasseBenjamin (Ben) Eric SasseThe Hill’s Morning Report – White House, Congress: Urgency of now around budget Senate Republicans running away from Alabama abortion law Hillicon Valley: Trump signs order to protect US networks from Chinese tech | Huawei downplays order | Trump declines to join effort against online extremism | Facebook restricts livestreaming | FCC proposes new tool against robocalls MORE (R-Neb.), who spearheaded the effort, called earmarks a “crummy way to govern.” 

 

“Backroom deals, kickbacks, and earmarks feed a culture of constant incumbency and that’s poisonous to healthy self-government,” Sasse said in a statement.

 

Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzJim Carrey fires back at ‘Joe McCarthy wanna-be’ Cruz Hillicon Valley: Google delays cutting off Huawei | GOP senators split over breaking up big tech | Report finds DNC lagging behind RNC on cybersecurity GOP senators split over antitrust remedies for big tech MORE (R-Texas) added that Republicans took “an important step in restoring fiscal sanity by adopting a permanent earmark ban.” 
 

Earmarks skyrocketed into the national spotlight during the George W. Bush administration when both then-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and then-Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) went to jail for earmark-related bribes.

  

The decision for Senate Republicans to amend their caucus rules to include a permanent earmarks ban comes after House Republicans flirted with lifting the earmarks ban late last year, before ultimately backing down. 

 

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 at the time encouraged the return to earmarks.

 

“I hear so much about earmarks,” he said, “… and how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks.”

Click Here:

Ahead of infrastructure talks, House Democrats release $137B bill

House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a $137 billion Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, just hours before Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy Patricia D'Alesandro PelosiThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Threat of impeachment takes oxygen out of 2019 agenda Trump denies ‘tantrum’ in meeting with Pelosi: ‘It is all such a lie!’ MORE (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerNo agreement on budget caps in sight ahead of Memorial Day recess Ex-White House photographer roasts Trump: ‘This is what a cover up looked like’ under Obama Pelosi: Trump ‘is engaged in a cover-up’ MORE (D-N.Y.) were set to meet with 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 to discuss infrastructure.

The bill increases funding for the agencies by $6 billion in comparison to current spending levels.

ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats had blasted Trump for proposing $5.9 billion in cuts to the Transportation Department budget in his budget request, while at the same time calling for major infrastructure investments. A 21.5 percent cut to that agency, they said, did not bode well for a bold infrastructure plan.

“This year’s transportation and housing funding bill makes significant new investments in infrastructure, prioritizes safety, and protects vulnerable populations — a stark contrast to the Trump administration’s draconian budget proposal,” said 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 House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies.

Much of the increased funding in the bill was allocated toward the Department of Housing and Urban Development, increasing budgets for Indian housing, rental assistance, veteran homelessness programs and community planning and development. 

In their last meeting on infrastructure, Pelosi, Schumer and Trump agreed to work toward a $2 trillion infrastructure plan. Wednesday’s meeting is meant to fill in details on what to include in the plan and how to pay for it. 

House Intelligence enjoys breakthrough with Justice Department

An unexpected breakthrough in negotiations between the Justice Department and the House Intelligence Committee is about to offer some lawmakers an intimate look at highly sensitive intelligence files collect by 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.

The development represents a rare example of a deal despite what Democrats otherwise describe as a sea of stonewalling by the president and his officials of their investigations.  

While the Justice Department has not yet met all of the panel’s demands, Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffKey House committee obtains subpoenaed Trump financial documents from two banks: report Judge delivers second blow to Trump over financial records Schiff goes after Barr: He lacks Giuliani’s ‘good looks and general likability’ MORE (Calif.) and other committee Democrats say they are encouraged.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Optimistically, there’s been a thawing,” Rep. Mike QuigleyMichael (Mike) Bruce QuigleyLightfoot takes office as Chicago’s first black woman mayor 5 things to watch as Trump, Dems clash over investigations Senate Dem presses Treasury, IRS over demand for Trump tax returns MORE (D-Ill.), a member of the committee, told The Hill.

Click Here:

The situation stands in contrast to the Judiciary Committee, which voted along party lines to hold Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign Justin Amash confirms collusion witch hunt was all about politics MORE in contempt on May 8 after he failed to meet Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerDemocrats are running out of stunts to pull from impeachment playbook Trump asks if Nadler will look into Clinton’s ‘deleted and acid washed’ emails Trump tweets conservative commentator’s criticism of FBI director MORE’s (D-N.Y.) demands for access to Mueller’s full report and underlying evidence.

Schiff this week delayed a vote to enforce a subpoena to compel Barr to turn over materials after the Justice Department agreed to quickly begin producing intelligence documents on the condition the committee dropped a threat of “enforcement action.”

Various lawmakers, including Reps. Eric SwalwellEric Michael SwalwellCNN’s O’Rourke town hall finishes behind Fox News, MSNBC Biden retains large lead over Sanders, other 2020 Dems in new Hill-HarrisX poll Hickenlooper: Gun owners should be licensed, pass safety test MORE (D-Calif.) and Val DemingsValdez (Val) Venita DemingsWHIP LIST: Democrats who support an impeachment inquiry against President Trump 5 things to watch as Trump, Dems clash over investigations Dems go after Barr’s head MORE (D-Fla.), who sit on both the Judiciary and Intelligence panels, said they were unsure why Intelligence has made more progress in negotiations than Judiciary.

“I don’t have insight on that,” Swalwell said Thursday. “I was pleased with the way that Chairman Schiff was able to negotiate for the materials that we need.”

Some lawmakers pointed to the fact that the Intelligence panel is most interested in foreign intelligence and counterintelligence files, while Judiciary is fighting primarily for Mueller’s unredacted report.

“Our mission is primarily a counterintelligence one,” Swalwell added. “That might be one of the reasons.”

The panels also have distinct oversight authorities and therefore have different statutory and legal arguments underpinning their demands.

Rep. Raja KrishnamoorthiSubramanian (Raja) Raja KrishnamoorthiLawmakers celebrate 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote Lawmakers say improving transparency in higher education offers chance for bipartisanship Dem lawmaker calls bipartisan College Transparency Act a ‘game changer’ for higher education MORE (D-Ill.) noted that Schiff initially issued a rare, bipartisan request for information from the Justice Department with the committee’s top Republican, Rep. Devin NunesDevin Gerald NunesHouse Intel postpones enforcement action after DOJ offer to share some Mueller files Roger Stone considers suing to discover if he was spied on by FBI Overnight Defense: Congressional leaders receive classified briefing on Iran | Trump on war: ‘I hope not’ | Key Republican calls threats credible | Warren plan targets corporate influence at Pentagon MORE (R-Calif.), which he said may have added weight to the committee’s demands. While Nunes did not issue the subpoena with Schiff, he also did not publicly object to it.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think, statutorily, we are required to be provided these documents and it’s something that is requested by Devin Nunes, too,” Krishnamoorthi said Wednesday. “Those two facts are, I think, why the department is cooperating and, for that matter, I think Chairman Schiff gets a lot of credit for being very even-keeled and level-headed in terms of what kind of information we are trying to get.”

Schiff, who has launched an expanded investigation into Russian interference and the possibility that 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 or members of his inner circle are subject to foreign compromise, is particularly interested in the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence material generated in the investigation, which is briefly referenced in Volume I of Mueller’s 448-page report.

The report states that FBI personnel were embedded in the special counsel’s office to review the results and report back to the bureau. These results are not fully disclosed in the report.

“The entire FBI probe began as a counter-intelligence investigation. We have yet to determine what that investigation found in terms of counter-intelligence findings, or even whether it is ongoing,” Schiff told reporters Wednesday.

“But those are issues that potentially could compromise our national security, so our first priority is to get to the bottom of what the counter-intelligence has to show, whether there are any steps that our committee or that Congress has to take to protect the country,” Schiff said.

Mueller did not find evidence to charge members of the Trump campaign with conspiring with Russia to interfere in the election, but Democrats say they need to investigate whether links between the president and Moscow present any unknown national security risks. Trump has accused Schiff and other Democrats of attempting a “do over” of Mueller’s investigation after its results left them unsatisfied.  

Schiff’s negotiations with the Justice Department have had their share of drama.

Earlier this month, Schiff subpoenaed Barr for the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence files generated in the course of the special counsel’s investigation in addition to Mueller’s unredacted report and underlying evidence. At the time, he claimed the Justice Department had failed to adequately respond to the panel’s bipartisan requests.

Last week, Schiff said the department had failed to produce any documents by the subpoena’s May 15 deadline, announcing he would hold a vote on an “enforcement action” to compel the department to comply.

In a letter Tuesday on the eve of the vote, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd warned Schiff that the department would likely cut off negotiations if the panel took the “precipitous and unnecessary” action of holding Barr in contempt. Boyd also accused Schiff of mischaracterizing “many aspects” of the department’s initial offer in prior correspondence.

At the same time, Boyd acknowledged the committee’s legitimate interests in the intelligence material and said the Justice Department would “expedite” access to the files if the committee confirmed it would not pursue a vote on enforcement.  

Schiff then announced he was postponing the meeting on enforcing the subpoena, citing the department’s cooperation. According to Schiff, the committee expects to receive the first batch of intelligence materials by the end of next week.

It’s unclear how many documents the committee will receive, but the Justice Department has described the materials possibly covered by the scope of the request as “voluminous” and “highly sensitive.”

At this stage, the committee has only reached a partial agreement with the Justice Department on the materials sought by the subpoena.

The Justice Department has also offered to allow all committee members and some staff to view a minimally redacted version of Volume I of Mueller’s report – which discusses Russian interference and contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow – provided they keep its contents a secret.

While this represents an expansion of Barr’s initial offer, Democrats remain unsatisfied, demanding that more lawmakers have access to an unredacted version of the report.

“The agreement covers the production of twelve categories of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence documents. The agreement is silent on other matters, including review of the unredacted report,” a committee source told The Hill.

The détente between the Intelligence panel and the Justice Department comes amid a broader spat between House Democrats and Trump, who on Wednesday threatened to stop working with Democrats on legislation unless they halt their investigations into his administration.

Democratic leaders are eyeing a contempt vote for Barr by the full House for not complying with Nadler’s subpoena sometime after the Memorial Day recess, though a date for the vote has not been set. It is unclear whether such a vote could compromise the Justice Department’s negotiations with the Intelligence Committee.

Schiff said Wednesday that the committee would still uphold its subpoena and enforce it if the administration does not produce all of the requested documents. He also noted that the documents are not a “substitute” for the testimony of key witnesses like Don McGahn, who Trump instructed against appearing before the Judiciary Committee this week by citing a Justice Department opinion that the former White House counsel is immune from compelled congressional testimony.

“We should have the full 12 sets of documents by the end of next week. This does not obviate the need for the subpoena,” Schiff said. “We’re going to keep that in force until we get all the documents that we’re seeking. But that production is going to start now.”

Mike Lillis and Olivia Beavers contributed. 

JPMorgan Chase will no longer offer banking services to OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma: report

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.

Reuters, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported Thursday that the bank’s decision to cut ties with Purdue Pharma will force the company to find a new bank to handle its cash and bill payments.

The report is the latest blow for Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family. The prescription painkiller producer is currently facing thousands of lawsuits, according to Reuters.

Click Here:

ADVERTISEMENT

A federal lawsuit alleges members of the Sackler family intentionally downplayed information about the drug’s potential for addiction and overdose.

Sources told Reuters that JPMorgan notified Purdue Pharma in March that it would be ending its relationship with the company, giving it six months to find another bank. JPMorgan reportedly told Purdue that it was concerned about risks to the bank’s reputation for providing services to the drugmaker.

“The company has multiple banking relationships and will not have any interruption to its banking and financial service needs,” Purdue Pharma told Reuters in a statement.

The Hill has reached out to Purdue Pharma for comment.

Preceding JPMorgan’s decision to cut ties with the company, several prominent art museums, most notably the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, announced they would no longer be taking donations from the Sackler family.

Castro swears off donations from oil, gas, coal executives

Democratic presidential hopeful Julián Castro on Thursday declared he will refuse contributions to his White House bid by oil, gas and coal industry executives.

“Since day one, my campaign refused contributions from PACs, corporations, and lobbyists. Today I announced we’re also refusing contributions from oil, gas, and coal executives—so you know my priorities are with the health of our families, climate and democracy. #NoFossilFuelMoney,” Castro tweeted.

ADVERTISEMENT

The former Housing and Urban Development secretary and San Antonio mayor said in a press release that he would not take donations of more than $200 from PACs, lobbyists or executives of fossil fuel companies.

Democratic candidates have sought to distance themselves from the fossil fuel industry in their push to win over voters focused on tackling climate change.

Castro is the 14th candidate so far to have signed a pledge committing to limit fossil fuel donations to their campaigns.

Candidates who have refrained from signing the pledge thus far include Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisThe 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-Calif.) and former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenThe 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

Castro has not laid out an extensive climate policy yet but has vowed that he would sign an executive order recommitting the U.S. to the Paris climate accord and support the passage of a Green New Deal if he were elected president.

Click Here:

Colorado becomes first state to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs

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 Denver Post reports Gov. Jared PolisJared Schutz PolisSchool awards honorary diploma to student killed in Colorado school shooting Colorado secretary of state bans employees from traveling to Alabama after abortion law Colorado governor marks day for teen who died in school shooting MORE (D) signed a bill into law that caps co-pays associated with insulin to $100 per month.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Today, we will declare that the days of insulin price gouging are over in Colorado,” Polis said in his office Wednesday as he signed the bill into law.

The cost of insulin in the U.S. has been increasing in recent years, doubling since 2012, the news outlet noted, citing statistics from the Healthcare Cost Institute. People with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes require the costly drug to control blood sugar levels.

The law does not change or limit what insulin manufacturers can charge insurance companies, instead only capping what patients are required to pay.

The news outlet notes insurers are expected to pay the difference in price.

The law also requires Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) to begin investigating why the cost of insulin surged in recent years.

Click Here: