Overnight Health Care — Sponsored by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids — What to watch for in tonight's debate | Warren uses debate stage to embrace 'Medicare for All' | Gottlieb elected to Pfizer board | Democrats investigate Trump Medicaid changes

Welcome to Thursday’s Overnight Health Care.

House Democrats are launching an investigation of the administration’s efforts to convince red states to block grant Medicaid, President TrumpDonald John TrumpDalai Lama talks Trump, says European migrants should return to ‘their own land’ McConnell pledges to work with Democratic president on Supreme Court vacancy Trump campaign official: Democratic debate a ‘two-hour infomercial’ for president’s reelection MORE has shifted his health care pitch to focus on costs, and the former FDA chief is heading to a pharma company. But first…

 

Debate prep

We’re still thinking about last night Democratic primary debate and preparing for tonight’s.

Here’s what we’re watching for on the health care front in round two:

  • Will Joe BidenJoe BidenWarren uses debate stage to embrace ‘Medicare for All’ Trump campaign official: Democratic debate a ‘two-hour infomercial’ for president’s reelection 15.3M tune in to NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo combined for first debate MORE talk about his health care platform? He has said he supports a Medicare buy in but hasn’t given many details. And what will he say about Medicare for all, the health care proposal authored by his main primary rival, Bernie SandersBernie SandersWarren uses debate stage to embrace ‘Medicare for All’ Trump campaign official: Democratic debate a ‘two-hour infomercial’ for president’s reelection 15.3M tune in to NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo combined for first debate MORE
  • Will candidates be asked if they support eliminating private insurance, a key feature of Medicare for All? The only candidates to raise their hands in Tuesday’s debate were Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWarren uses debate stage to embrace ‘Medicare for All’ Trump campaign official: Democratic debate a ‘two-hour infomercial’ for president’s reelection Delaney swipes at Warren: She ‘outsourced health care to someone who isn’t even a Democrat’ MORE (D-Mass.) and New York City Mayor Bill de BlasioBill de BlasioWarren uses debate stage to embrace ‘Medicare for All’ The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Sights and sounds from Democrats’ first debate night GOP sen: Democrats talking about ‘Medicare for All’ shows they’re unhappy with ObamaCare MORE.
  • Will Sanders go on the attack against Biden, the frontrunner, on Medicare for All?  
  • Will Biden be pressed on his support for the Hyde amendment? He supported the ban on federal funds for abortions until earlier this month, when he followed the rest of the Democratic party in renouncing it? 
  • What are Biden’s plans to lower drug prices? Biden has been accused by progressive Democrats of being too cozy with the health care industry. 

 

Looking beyond health care, here are 5 key questions for Thursday night’s debate.

And follow along with our live blog and video here.

 

Sponsored Content: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Don’t trust Juul: Stop flavored tobacco now.

Juul enticed kids with sweet flavors like mango, crème and mint, then hooked them with a strong nicotine hit. Last year, teen e-cigarette use spiked 78%. It’s an epidemic. Learn more.

 

Warren uses debate stage to embrace ‘Medicare for All’

Elizabeth Warren is all-in on “Medicare for All.”

Leaving no room for misinterpretation, Warren was one of only two candidates on the debate stage of 10 White House contenders Wednesday night to raise their hand when asked who would abolish private insurance in favor of a government-run, single-payer system.

“I’m with Bernie,” she said.

It was Warren’s strongest show of support yet for Medicare for All, the single-payer, government-run health care proposal authored by her main rival on the left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

While she previously said she supports Medicare for All, her position on the future of private health insurance had been hard to pin down.

Why it matters: Warren’s position sets her apart from other candidates, some of whom have been reluctant to shun a system that covers more than half of the insured population. At the same time, her new stance comes with political risk, as polls show support for Medicare for All declines when voters learn it would eliminate private insurance.

Read more here.

 

Gottlieb elected to Pfizer’s board of directors 

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was elected to Pfizer’s board of directors Thursday. 

“We are fortunate to have Dr. Gottlieb join Pfizer’s Board of Directors,” said Ian Read, Pfizer Executive Chairman. “Scott’s expertise in health care, public policy and the industry will be an asset to our company and enable our shareholders to continue to benefit from a Board representing a balance of experience, competencies and perspectives.”

Something to watch: Gottlieb was a key player in the Trump administration’s push to lower drug costs and helped the administration target industry practices that he said were anti-competitive and kept prices high. Pfizer has taken heat for high prices, and the FDA under Gottlieb accused Pfizer of gaming the system to thwart generic competition.

“I’m honored to be joining the board of directors of #Pfizer and working together with more than 90,000 Pfizer colleagues to promote medical innovation, advance patient care, and secure access to better healthcare outcomes for families around the world,” Gottlieb tweeted.

Read more on the move here.

 

FDA warns of dangerous cyber vulnerabilities on Medtronic insulin pumps

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned patients and health care providers using certain types of insulin pumps of cyber threats involving the devices, with the pumps recalled due to vulnerabilities that could lead to fatal consequences for users. 

Security researchers found cyber vulnerabilities in certain types of Medtronic MiniMed insulin pumps that enabled unauthorized users to access the pumps if they are connected to WiFi and alter or stop the amount of insulin delivered to a patient.

The pumps recalled are Medtronic’s MiniMed 508 insulin pump and MiniMed Paradigm series insulin pumps.  

Medtronic wrote in a letter to its customers on Thursday that it recommended switching to a different type of insulin pump and taking cybersecurity precautions with these existing pumps. Security steps included making sure all devices related to the pump were kept in patients’ sight at all times, monitoring blood sugar levels closely, and disconnecting the pump from WiFi when internet connection is not strictly necessary. 

Read more here.

 

Trump’s health care pitch to focus on lowering costs

President Trump wants to seize the health care mantle from Democrats ahead of the 2020 election by highlighting actions he says will lower costs and challenge special interests.

Trump is touting a series of actions on drug pricing and other consumer-friendly issues, but the president faces an uphill battle, as Democrats won’t let voters forget his record on health care, including repeated efforts to repeal and undermine ObamaCare.

Why it matters: Trump wants to shift the focus to costs, a move designed to position the president as a populist champion of transparency and reduced medical bills. But Democrats say that doesn’t mean much when the administration is still asking the courts to invalidate all of ObamaCare.

Read more here.

 

House Democrats launch investigation into Trump administration’s Medicaid changes

House Democrats are launching an investigation into the Trump administration’s handling of Medicaid.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneOvernight Energy: Top EPA official stepping down amid ethics probe | Critics slam EPA for rolling back union protections | Trump officials open door to controversial Alaska mining project Top EPA official stepping down amid ethics probe Pressure builds to secure health care data MORE (D-N.J.) sent a letter Thursday to the Department of Health and Human Services that asks for information about the administration’s attempts to convince states to make conservative changes to their Medicaid programs.

The administration has been trying to sell states on the merits of imposing block grants, or a per-person spending cap, without congressional approval. 

The Trump administration has pulled out all the stops to encourage red states to make controversial conservative changes to Medicaid, and Pallone questioned whether the agency would follow the law.

“It is troubling to learn that you are putting your radical agenda ahead of your responsibility to implement the law faithfully,” Pallone wrote.

Imposing block grants in Medicaid has long been a major conservative goal. Republicans say policies like block grants and payment caps allow for more state flexibility and are more fiscally sustainable.

Read more here

 

 

What we’re reading 

The nonprofit hospital that makes millions, owns a collection agency and relentlessly sues the poor (Propublica) 

Why only 2 of 10 Democrats raised their hands to say they’d abolish private insurance (Vox) 

How judges added to the grim toll of opioids (Reuters)

Vaccine no match against flu bug that popped up near end (Associated Press)

 

State by state

Federal government demands part of Oklahoma’s $270 million deal with Purdue (The Washington Post) 

Lyft partners with Medicaid in Arizona to offer non-emergency rides (Arizona Republic)

The lessons of Washington State’s watered down public option (The ew York Times)

 

From The Hill’s opinion page 

How much damage are smart phones, computers and tablets doing to our bodies? 

Today is HIV testing day — overcoming stigma to prevent new infections

Women’s reproductive rights are central to economic empowerment 

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

GOP scores procedural win by securing more funding to enforce Iran sanctions

House Republicans on Wednesday scored a procedural victory by successfully amending a spending bill to include language that would increase funding to strengthen Iran sanctions.

Thirty-seven Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the motion to commit to change the bill, adding an additional $10 million for the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. The motion passed in a 226-195 vote.

“In yet another example of deep divisions among House Democrats, 37 of them just broke with their leadership to pass the Republican Motion to Recommit to increase the enforcement of sanctions on Iran,” Lauren Fine, a spokeswoman for House Minority Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph ScaliseTrump knocks Democrats on ‘Open Borders’ House passes .5B border funding bill Pelosi, Democratic leaders seek to quell liberal revolt over border bill MORE (R-La.), said in a statement.

“It’s clear that even these 37 Democrats acknowledge their party’s Iran appeasement stance is wildly out of step with the views of the American public,” she added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Democratic Reps. Cindy AxneCindy AxneIowa Democrat calls foul on White House over Trump ethanol tour invite House Democrats pull legislation that would give lawmakers raise Will Hollywood be coaxed to the political middle? MORE (Iowa), Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.), Gil CisnerosGilbert (Gil) Ray CisnerosMORE (Calif.), Angie Craig (Minn.), Charlie CristCharles (Charlie) Joseph Crist Biz groups target Florida voters ahead of Democratic debates in Miami White House: Pelosi calling Barr a liar ‘beneath her office’ Timeline: Barr, Mueller and the Trump probe MORE (Fla.), Jason CrowJason CrowBipartisan House duo unveils amendment to block Iran strike without Congress’s approval Koch political arm endorses Colorado Sen. Gardner Dem proposal to ban Pentagon funds for border wall survives House panel votes MORE (Colo.), Joe CunninghamJoseph CunninghamTime for Congress to shut the door on President Trump’s radical offshore drilling plan Overnight Energy: Trump proposal would nix agency reviews of long-term climate impacts | Greens rip decision | House votes to block offshore drilling for one year House votes to block US offshore drilling for one year MORE (S.C.), Antonio DelgadoAntonio Ramon DelgadoConservative group launches ad calling on 2020 Democrats to name potential Supreme Court picks Freshman Democrats call on McConnell to hold vote on election reform bill Democrats face voters clamoring for impeachment MORE (N.Y.), Abby FinkenauerAbby Lea FinkenauerYoungest black congresswoman says millennial colleagues have ‘less fighting over partisan nonsense’ The Hill’s Morning Report – 2020 Dems make last dash for debate stage GOP amps up efforts to recruit women candidates MORE (Iowa), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh GottheimerJoshua (Josh) GottheimerCNN’s Rye: U.S. will soon be running ‘death camps’ at the border Bipartisan bill would enable companies to defend themselves against cyberattacks Hillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality MORE (N.J.), Josh Harder (Calif.), Kendra HornKendra Suzanne HornRepublicans attempt to amend retirement savings bill to include anti-BDS language The 31 Trump districts that will determine the next House majority House GOP secures last-minute change to gun bill MORE (Okla.), Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), Andy Kim (N.J.) and Conor Lamb (Pa.) all bucked party leadership in supporting the motion.

Other Democrats who voted for it included Reps. Susie LeeSuzanne (Susie) Kelley LeeMORE (Nev.), Daniel LipinskiDaniel William LipinskiOvernight Health Care: Democratic bill would require insurance to cover OTC birth control | House Dems vote to overturn ban on fetal tissue research | New rule aims to expand health choices for small businesses House Democrats vote to overturn Trump ban on fetal tissue research Sanders endorses Lipinski’s progressive primary challenger MORE (Ill.), David Loebsack (Iowa), Elaine LuriaElaine Goodman LuriaOvernight Defense: Pompeo blames Iran for oil tanker attacks | House panel approves 3B defense bill | Trump shares designs for red, white and blue Air Force One House panel approves 3B defense policy bill House Democrats pull legislation that would give lawmakers raise MORE (Va.), Tom MalinowskiThomas (Tom) MalinowskiUS must do more if justice is to prevail for slain journalist Progressives seize on impeachment in 2020 primaries Cracks form in Democratic dam against impeachment MORE (N.J.), Sean Patrick Maloney (N.Y.), Ben McAdams (Utah), Lucy McBathLucia (Lucy) Kay McBathBlack women candidates are overlooked and underrated Ex-congressman launching PAC to defend Dem seats in 2020 GOP amps up efforts to recruit women candidates MORE (Ga.), Stephanie MurphyStephanie MurphyBipartisan House committee members agree on cyber threats to elections, if not how to address it Biz groups target Florida voters ahead of Democratic debates in Miami House panel approves bills on tax extenders, expanding tax credits MORE (Fla.), Collin PetersonCollin Clark PetersonOvernight Defense: House passes T spending package with defense funds | Senate set to vote on blocking Saudi arms sales | UN nominee defends climate change record Democrats take aim at Trump policies by passing T spending package House passes amendment to block funding for transgender troops ban MORE (Minn.), Max RoseMax RoseCongress needs to continue fighting the opioid epidemic Hillicon Valley: Investigation finds federal agencies failed to address cyber vulnerabilities | Officials crack down on illegal robocallers | Warren offers plan to secure elections | Senators grill Google exec on ‘persuasive technology’ Artificial intelligence can’t solve online extremism issue, experts tell House panel MORE (N.Y.), Brad SchneiderBradley (Brad) Scott SchneiderOmar hits back at Pelosi over BDS remarks Hoyer defends Israel in veiled shot at Omar House Dems unveil measure to reject anti-Israel boycotts MORE (Ill.), Kurt SchraderWalter (Kurt) Kurt SchraderLiberals rip Democratic leaders for writing drug pricing bill in secret Dems walk Trump trade tightrope Lobbying World MORE (Ore.), Kim SchrierKimberly (Kim) Merle SchrierPress beat lawmakers to keep trophy in annual softball game To protect our health, we must act on climate Democratic rep says Congress does not need to ‘blow up and deconstruct’ the health care system MORE (Wash.), Mikie SherrillRebecca (Mikie) Michelle SherrillCongress needs to continue fighting the opioid epidemic Bipartisan House committee members agree on cyber threats to elections, if not how to address it Blue Dogs look to move forward on infrastructure project MORE (N.J.), Elissa SlotkinElissa SlotkinKlobuchar, Warner introduce bill to limit foreign involvement in US political ads Bipartisan House duo unveils amendment to block Iran strike without Congress’s approval Chaos within the EPA exposes Americans to toxins like asbestos MORE (Mich.), Abigail SpanbergerAbigail Davis SpanbergerGOP hopes dim on reclaiming House Second ex-Senate staffer charged in aiding doxxing of GOP senators Overnight Defense: Trump doubles down on claim Iran attacked tankers | Iran calls accusations ‘alarming’ | Top nuke official quietly left Pentagon | Pelosi vows Congress will block Saudi arms sale MORE (Va.), Xochitl Torres Small (N.M.), Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.) and Susan WildSusan WildCongresswoman opens up on House floor about partner’s suicide Congress needs to continue fighting the opioid epidemic Multiple people injured in shooting outside Pennsylvania nightclub: authorities MORE (Pa.).

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) advocated for amending the bill ahead of the vote, making the case that Treasury’s anti-terrorism office could play an important role in pushing back on Iran’s aggression amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran.

“This office plays a key role in countering our most critical national security threats by implementing sanctions. As a Green Beret, I have fought in the war on terror and can tell you that this office is vital to the safety of our nation and preventing war,” he said during debate. 

“In light of our current threats, this office requires an additional $10 million to accomplish its goals. This motion will implement sanctions policy towards Russia, North Korea, ISIS and particularly the Iranian regime,” he added.

Rep. Mike QuigleyMichael (Mike) Bruce QuigleyDemocrats wary of Trump’s ‘erratic’ approach to Iran Dems eye repeal of Justice rule barring presidential indictments Democrats lash out at Trump’s bombshell remarks MORE (D-Ill.) pushed back, arguing that the Republican motion was hypocritical for GOP members to put forth because members of the party supported amendments that would have made cuts to the account. He pointed to an amendment offered by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.).

“How in the world can we take your MTR seriously?” he said on the floor, referring to the motion to recommit.

“Just a few moments ago on an amendment proposed by Mr. Banks from Indiana, you voted yes on two amendments that would cut this account by 14 percent, a cut of $23.5 million.” 

But despite Quigley’s pushback, Democratic leadership members were unable to whip enough lawmakers against the last-minute change.

Republicans have repeatedly utilized the procedural tool in an attempt to highlight divisions within the Democratic caucus. The passage of Wednesday’s motion marks the third time this year they’ve successfully picked off enough members across the aisle to make last-minute changes to a bill.

Top GOP lawmakers are looking to use the strategy to place moderate Democrats up for reelection next year in swing districts in a difficult position.

Republicans had their first success with the procedural move in February when they amended a bill on Yemen to include language condemning anti-Semitism.

Shortly after, they also managed to amend Democrats’ landmark gun control bill to include language requiring that Immigration and Customs Enforcement be alerted if an immigrant without legal status tries to purchase a firearm.

Following the passage of the second motion, Democratic leaders attempted to crack down on members splitting with the party on the procedural votes, with Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSenate passes .5 billion border bill, setting up fight with House Pelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July Trump says he spoke to Pelosi, McConnell on border package MORE (D-Calif.) warning would-be defectors that Democratic resources are best reserved for those who vote with the party, according to multiple media reports.

Meanwhile, three Republicans — Reps. Justin AmashJustin AmashAmash splits with Republicans, votes to authorize subpoena for Kellyanne Conway The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Anticipation high ahead of first debate House panel votes to subpoena Kellyanne Conway over Hatch Act testimony MORE (Mich.), Thomas MassieThomas Harold MassieThis week: Democrats move funding bills as caps deal remains elusive House conservative’s procedural protest met with bipartisan gripes Trump signs long-awaited .1B disaster aid bill MORE (Ky.) and Don YoungDonald (Don) Edwin YoungEx-GOP lawmakers are face of marijuana blitz Congress: Pass legislation that invests in America’s water future Bipartisan group introduces legislation to protect federal workers’ health benefits during shutdowns MORE (Alaska) — voted against the motion Wednesday.

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

Supreme Court set to issue most high-profile decisions of term

The Supreme Court has held its most high-profile cases until the end of its term, leaving court watchers hanging for what could be the most consequential decisions of the year.

The justices have yet to issue opinions in five different cases, and are expected to release their final opinions on Thursday.

Here are the opinions left on the court’s docket before they wrap up for the summer recess:

Census citizenship question

The Supreme Court will weigh in on whether the Trump administration is allowed to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census – but there’s a chance the question could still be blocked by a lower court.

ADVERTISEMENT

The administration has argued that the citizenship question is needed to collect data for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. But opponents cite studies – some issued by the Census Bureau itself – that find that the question will lead to immigrants or non-citizens skipping the question or the census altogether, and ultimately create an inaccurate count of the population.

And those critics also point to recently unearthed documents that suggest that the late GOP redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller played a previously undisclosed role in creating the citizenship question.

They argue that the documents undermine the Trump administration’s argument that the data is needed for solely enforcing the voting rights law, and that the materials suggest a political intent behind the query.

While the Supreme Court is set to rule on certain aspects of the question, a ruling from a federal appeals court this week means that the question could still be in jeopardy.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said that a district judge could rule on claims there was a discriminatory intent behind the question – a different legal question than the one presented to the Supreme Court.

If District Judge George Hazel finds that including the question on the 2020 census violates equal protection claims, he could issue a preliminary injunction blocking the question. And with the Census Bureau saying they need to finalize materials by June 30 – Sunday – it could stop the question altogether.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court in a letter Tuesday to address the equal protection claims in their ruling.

The justices on Wednesday also indicated that they will consider a request for the case to be sent back down to a lower court to consider new evidence over Hofeller’s alleged involvement on the question. That conference is set to be held after opinions are released on Thursday.

Partisan gerrymandering in Maryland

The justices will also rule on whether Democrats deliberately moved to eliminate a Republican congressional seat in their redrawing of the Maryland district map.

Maryland Republicans claim that when the state’s districts were redrawn after the 2010 census, it was done in such a way that removed one GOP seat in Congress. 

Republicans in the state claim that violates their First Amendment rights to political association and representation, an argument a lower court ruled in favor of in 2018.

The decision also presents the justices with an opportunity to set a test for what constitutes a partisan gerrymander, an issue the court has struggled to resolve in the past. 

The justices have repeatedly ducked ruling on such cases in the past, including in 2018 when they sent three of the gerrymandering cases back down to lower courts for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court appeared to be divided along ideological lines on the case when they heard oral arguments earlier this year.

North Carolina gerrymandering

The Supreme Court will also rule on whether Republicans in North Carolina unconstitutionally crafted congressional districts to benefit GOP candidates.

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

The state was ordered in 2016 to redraw its congressional map after some of the districts were found to constitute a racial gerrymander. 

But state lawmakers used political factors – alongside other criteria – to redraw the districts. That left the state with 10 GOP districts and three Democratic ones.

It’s that state map that’s being challenged before the Supreme Court. A lower court had ruled against the GOP legislature, but those lawmakers appealed the case to the justices.

Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the North Carolina Democratic Party are all behind the legal challenge.

Both of the partisan gerrymandering opinions will come one week after the Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia House of Delegates didn’t have the authority to challenge a lower court order that found that the new district maps – already in place – must remain ahead of statewide elections later this year.

Carpenter v. Murphy death penalty case

Observers are also awaiting a ruling in a death penalty case that could have implications for Native American territory in Oklahoma.

Patrick Dwayne Murphy, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, was convicted in 2000 for the murder of fellow tribe member George Jacobs.

Murphy challenged the conviction on whether the state court had jurisdiction to charge him in the first place because of his Native American heritage and because the murder took place on tribal territory.

A state court said it could not determine that the land in question still belonged to the Creek tribe, and a federal court also ruled against Murphy. But the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Murphy’s favor, saying that the land was on a reservation that Congress had never formally dismantled.

If the Supreme Court rules in Murphy’s favor, it could mark a victory for Native American territory rights.

But others argue that ruling for Murphy would also invalidate other crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land in Oklahoma.

After hearing oral arguments in the case in December, the justices requested briefings on whether there are any federal laws that gives Oklahoma state courts the power to prosecute crimes on the reservation, and if the court could rule that the reservation is still in place but doesn’t qualify as “Indian country.”

Federal law goes into effect for “Indian country,” indicating that the justices wanted to see if Murphy and others charged with similar crimes in state court could still be prosecuted under federal law if they do rule for Murphy in the case.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin blood-drawing case

The justices will also weigh in on whether police officers in Wisconsin were allowed to draw blood from an unconscious man.

In May 2013, officers found Gerald Mitchell – who appeared to be intoxicated – by his car. They conducted a breathalyzer test, and brought him to a hospital to have his blood drawn.

Mitchell was unconscious by the time he arrived at the hospital, but an officer read him a statement required under state law and Mitchell’s blood was drawn at the officer’s direction.

Mitchell’s test showed he had a blood-alcohol content of .222, and as a result he was later charged and convicted of driving while intoxicated.

He is now arguing that the conviction should not stand, as the officers should have obtained a warrant for the blood test or proved that they did not need a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment.

However, Wisconsin law states that any individual driving on a public road has implicitly consented to a blood test, and that being unconscious doesn’t mean that consent has been withdrawn.

The justices will now have to rule on the disparity between the state law and the protections offered under the Fourth Amendment.

Pentagon IDs soldiers killed in Afghanistan

The Pentagon has identified the two soldiers killed in combat in Afghanistan this week.

Master Sgt. Micheal B. Riley, 32, of Heilbronn, Germany, and Sgt. James G. Johnston, 24, of Trumansburg, N.Y., were killed Tuesday in Uruzgan province by “small arms fire while engaged in combat operations,” the Pentagon said in a statement.

“The incident is under investigation,” the statement added.

Riley, a Special Forces communications sergeant, was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Fort Carson, Colo.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is with a heavy heart that we learn of the passing of Master Sgt. Michael Riley in Afghanistan,” commander of the 10th Special Forces Group Col. Lawrence Ferguson said in a statement. “Mike was an experienced Special Forces noncommissioned officer and the veteran of five previous deployments to Afghanistan. We will honor his service and sacrifice as we remain steadfast in our commitment to our mission.”

Johnston was assigned to 79th Ordnance Battalion (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), 71st Ordnance Group in Fort Hood, Texas.

The Taliban claimed responsibility Wednesday for an ambush it said killed U.S. troops, but said the attack happened in Wardak province.

The deaths, the eighth and ninth U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan this year, happened hours after Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoWhat’s Putin up to in the Arctic? Tillerson told lawmakers Kushner didn’t alert him to Saudi meeting Pentagon IDs soldiers killed in Afghanistan MORE’s Tuesday visit to Afghanistan.

While there, Pompeo touted progress in negotiations with the Taliban to end the 18-year war.

“We have made real progress and are nearly ready to conclude a draft text outlining the Taliban’s commitments to join fellow Afghans in ensuring that Afghan soil never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists,” Pompeo said.

“In light of this progress, we’ve begun discussions with the Taliban regarding foreign military presence, which today remains conditions-based,” he continued. “And while we’ve made clear to the Taliban that we are prepared to remove our forces, I want to be clear we have not yet agreed on a timeline to do so.”

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

Supreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to overturn a doctrine under which courts defer to federal agencies to interpret their own regulations that come across as ambiguous.

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices narrowed their interpretation of the doctrine, but allowed it to remain in place. The practice means that courts will typically turn to agencies to define exactly what a rule means, if it’s not immediately clear, in cases challenging those rules.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the justices made clear that the doctrine should only be applied when it’s specifically called for, and that courts should be wary of using it too frequently.

“When it applies, [the doctrine] gives an agency significant leeway to say what its own rules mean,” Justice Elena KaganElena KaganSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill’s Morning Report – In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE wrote in the court’s opinion. “In so doing, the doctrine enables the agency to fill out the regulatory scheme Congress has placed under its supervision.”

However, the justices ruled that the case should be sent down to a lower court for reconsideration.

In the case, Vietnam War veteran James Kisor had challenged a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) rule. He had initially been denied disability benefits in 1982 after saying he developed post-traumatic stress disorder, but was found to be eligible for benefits in 2008.

But the VA issued the benefits under a rule that meant Kisor would only receive them from the time of his new application to reopen his case, filed in 2006, and not apply the benefits retroactively to his initial 1982 request.

Kagan wrote in her opinion – joined by Justices Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill’s Morning Report – In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE, Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Biden has a lot at stake in first debate MORE and Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill’s Morning Report – In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE – that courts should not defer to the agency’s interpretation “unless the regulation is genuinely ambiguous.”

“If uncertainty does not exist, there is no plausible reason for deference. The regulation then just means what it means – and the court must give it effect, as the court would any law,” she wrote.

And she said that agencies’ reading of the regulation must be “reasonable,” that courts can only use an official agency interpretation of a rule, that the interpretation “must in some way implicate [the agency’s] substantive expertise” and that the agency definition must also “reflect ‘fair and considered judgement.'”

Kagan also pushed back against Kisor’s claim that the doctrine means that agencies are intentionally setting vague rules in order to clarify them to their advantage at a later date, saying that “no real evidence—indeed, scarcely an anecdote—backs up the assertion.”

She said that Kisor was asking the court to overrule a “long line of precedents” and that doing so “introduces so much instability into so many areas of law, all in one blow.” Kagan also said agencies “should have leeway to say what that term means.”

While Justice Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Washington owes Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch an apology MORE agreed that the court should send the case back down for reconsideration, he vehemently disagreed that the doctrine should remain in place.

“Today’s decision is more a stay of execution than a pardon,” he wrote in a concurring opinion that Justices Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute EXCLUSIVE: Trump: I would fill Supreme Court vacancy before 2020 election MORE, Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Susan Collins: Trump’s ‘she’s not my type’ defense is ‘extremely bizarre’ MORE and Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Supreme Court rules against newspaper over information request, giving confidentiality win to businesses MORE each at least partially joined.

“So the doctrine emerges maimed and enfeebled — in truth, zombified,” Gorsuch wrote.

He argued that allowing the doctrine to remain in this form “threatens to force litigants and lower courts to jump through needless and perplexing new hoops and in the process deny the people the independent judicial decisions they deserve.”

Gorsuch also criticized the justices for invoking the standard that longstanding precedents should not be overturned unless there’s a compelling reason to do so, in their argument that the doctrine should be upheld.

“The court’s failure to be done with Auer, and its decision to adorn Auer with so many new and ambiguous limitations, all but guarantees we will have to pass this way again,” Gorsuch wrote, referring to the deference doctrine. “When that day comes, I hope this court will find the nerve it lacks today and inter Auer at last. 

“Until then, I hope that our judicial colleagues on other courts will take courage from today’s ruling and realize that it has transformed Auer into a paper tiger.” 

In a separate opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that he largely agreed with Kagan’s opinion, but sought to argue that the differences between Kagan and Gorsuch’s opinions are “not as great as it may initially appear.”

And Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a separate opinion that he also believes the doctrine should be overturned, but that he agreed with Roberts that both Kagan and Gorsuch’s opinions are not very different.

“In short, after today’s decision, a judge should engage in appropriately rigorous scrutiny of an agency’s interpretation of a regulation, and can simultaneously be appropriately deferential to an agency’s reasonable policy choices within the discretion allowed by a regulation,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Updated: 1:22 p.m.

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

France's Macron says he'll ask Trump to suspend some Iran sanctions

French President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronFrance’s Macron says he’ll ask Trump to suspend some Iran sanctions Facebook offers to hand hate speech suspect data to French courts Big donors haven’t given money pledged to Notre Dame restoration: report MORE said Thursday that he will ask President TrumpDonald John TrumpDalai Lama talks Trump, says European migrants should return to ‘their own land’ McConnell pledges to work with Democratic president on Supreme Court vacancy Trump campaign official: Democratic debate a ‘two-hour infomercial’ for president’s reelection MORE to ease some sanctions against Iran to aid negotiations between the U.S. and Tehran amid ongoing tensions.

“I want to convince Trump that it is in his interest to re-open a negotiation process [and] go back on certain sanctions to give negotiations a chance,” Macron told reporters while traveling from Tokyo to Kyoto, according to Reuters

The French president, who will join Trump in Japan this weekend for the Group of 20 summit, said he would aim to establish parameters for negotiations on issues including Iran’s role in the Middle East and its potential nuclear development.

“We’d give ourselves a few months,” Macron said, according to Reuters.

Trump and Vice President Pence have both expressed willingness to meet with Iranian leaders with no preconditions, although both have said they will not allow the nation to develop nuclear weapons.

Tensions have increased between the two nations for the past few months, with Trump reportedly canceling at the last minute a planned strike in retaliation for Iran shooting down a drone it claimed was in its airspace.

Iran recently announced it would scale back some of its nuclear commitments under the Obama-era nuclear deal, a year after Trump announced the U.S. would withdraw from the deal altogether.

On Monday, Trump announced additional U.S. sanctions against Iran extending to its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinMnuchin pushing Trump to put Secret Service under Treasury control: report France’s Macron says he’ll ask Trump to suspend some Iran sanctions On The Money: Senate passes .5B border bill, setting up fight with House | 2020 Democrats spar over socialism before first debate | Ex-Im deal in peril amid Dem backlash MORE said some of the sanctions had already been in development while others were the result of unspecified “recent activities.” 

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

Supreme Court set to issue most high-profile decisions of term

The Supreme Court has held its most high-profile cases until the end of its term, leaving court watchers hanging for what could be the most consequential decisions of the year.

The justices have yet to issue opinions in five different cases, and are expected to release their final opinions on Thursday.

Here are the opinions left on the court’s docket before they wrap up for the summer recess:

Census citizenship question

The Supreme Court will weigh in on whether the Trump administration is allowed to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census – but there’s a chance the question could still be blocked by a lower court.

ADVERTISEMENT

The administration has argued that the citizenship question is needed to collect data for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. But opponents cite studies – some issued by the Census Bureau itself – that find that the question will lead to immigrants or non-citizens skipping the question or the census altogether, and ultimately create an inaccurate count of the population.

And those critics also point to recently unearthed documents that suggest that the late GOP redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller played a previously undisclosed role in creating the citizenship question.

They argue that the documents undermine the Trump administration’s argument that the data is needed for solely enforcing the voting rights law, and that the materials suggest a political intent behind the query.

While the Supreme Court is set to rule on certain aspects of the question, a ruling from a federal appeals court this week means that the question could still be in jeopardy.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said that a district judge could rule on claims there was a discriminatory intent behind the question – a different legal question than the one presented to the Supreme Court.

If District Judge George Hazel finds that including the question on the 2020 census violates equal protection claims, he could issue a preliminary injunction blocking the question. And with the Census Bureau saying they need to finalize materials by June 30 – Sunday – it could stop the question altogether.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court in a letter Tuesday to address the equal protection claims in their ruling.

The justices on Wednesday also indicated that they will consider a request for the case to be sent back down to a lower court to consider new evidence over Hofeller’s alleged involvement on the question. That conference is set to be held after opinions are released on Thursday.

Partisan gerrymandering in Maryland

The justices will also rule on whether Democrats deliberately moved to eliminate a Republican congressional seat in their redrawing of the Maryland district map.

Maryland Republicans claim that when the state’s districts were redrawn after the 2010 census, it was done in such a way that removed one GOP seat in Congress. 

Republicans in the state claim that violates their First Amendment rights to political association and representation, an argument a lower court ruled in favor of in 2018.

The decision also presents the justices with an opportunity to set a test for what constitutes a partisan gerrymander, an issue the court has struggled to resolve in the past. 

The justices have repeatedly ducked ruling on such cases in the past, including in 2018 when they sent three of the gerrymandering cases back down to lower courts for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court appeared to be divided along ideological lines on the case when they heard oral arguments earlier this year.

North Carolina gerrymandering

The Supreme Court will also rule on whether Republicans in North Carolina unconstitutionally crafted congressional districts to benefit GOP candidates.

The state was ordered in 2016 to redraw its congressional map after some of the districts were found to constitute a racial gerrymander. 

But state lawmakers used political factors – alongside other criteria – to redraw the districts. That left the state with 10 GOP districts and three Democratic ones.

It’s that state map that’s being challenged before the Supreme Court. A lower court had ruled against the GOP legislature, but those lawmakers appealed the case to the justices.

Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the North Carolina Democratic Party are all behind the legal challenge.

Both of the partisan gerrymandering opinions will come one week after the Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia House of Delegates didn’t have the authority to challenge a lower court order that found that the new district maps – already in place – must remain ahead of statewide elections later this year.

Carpenter v. Murphy death penalty case

Observers are also awaiting a ruling in a death penalty case that could have implications for Native American territory in Oklahoma.

Patrick Dwayne Murphy, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, was convicted in 2000 for the murder of fellow tribe member George Jacobs.

Murphy challenged the conviction on whether the state court had jurisdiction to charge him in the first place because of his Native American heritage and because the murder took place on tribal territory.

A state court said it could not determine that the land in question still belonged to the Creek tribe, and a federal court also ruled against Murphy. But the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Murphy’s favor, saying that the land was on a reservation that Congress had never formally dismantled.

If the Supreme Court rules in Murphy’s favor, it could mark a victory for Native American territory rights.

But others argue that ruling for Murphy would also invalidate other crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land in Oklahoma.

After hearing oral arguments in the case in December, the justices requested briefings on whether there are any federal laws that gives Oklahoma state courts the power to prosecute crimes on the reservation, and if the court could rule that the reservation is still in place but doesn’t qualify as “Indian country.”

Federal law goes into effect for “Indian country,” indicating that the justices wanted to see if Murphy and others charged with similar crimes in state court could still be prosecuted under federal law if they do rule for Murphy in the case.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin blood-drawing case

The justices will also weigh in on whether police officers in Wisconsin were allowed to draw blood from an unconscious man.

In May 2013, officers found Gerald Mitchell – who appeared to be intoxicated – by his car. They conducted a breathalyzer test, and brought him to a hospital to have his blood drawn.

Mitchell was unconscious by the time he arrived at the hospital, but an officer read him a statement required under state law and Mitchell’s blood was drawn at the officer’s direction.

Mitchell’s test showed he had a blood-alcohol content of .222, and as a result he was later charged and convicted of driving while intoxicated.

He is now arguing that the conviction should not stand, as the officers should have obtained a warrant for the blood test or proved that they did not need a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment.

However, Wisconsin law states that any individual driving on a public road has implicitly consented to a blood test, and that being unconscious doesn’t mean that consent has been withdrawn.

The justices will now have to rule on the disparity between the state law and the protections offered under the Fourth Amendment.

Pelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSenate passes .5 billion border bill, setting up fight with House Pelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July Trump says he spoke to Pelosi, McConnell on border package MORE (D-Calif.) announced Wednesday that Congress will receive an election security briefing from administration officials next month, as Democrats put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellPelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July Adam Scott calls on McConnell to take down ‘Parks & Rec’ gif Trump says he spoke to Pelosi, McConnell on border package MORE (R-Ky.) to allow votes on election security bills.

“Next month we will take further steps to harden our democratic institutions against attacks, and on July 10 we will receive the all-member election security briefing we requested from the administration so we can continue to protect the American people,” Pelosi said during a press conference.

The Democratic leader announced the date after McConnell told reporters earlier this month that a briefing would take place, while not giving any more details.

Pelosi was joined at the press conference Wednesday by Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerTrump goes after Democrats over photo of drowned migrants Schumer displays photo of drowned migrants on Senate floor in appeal to Trump McConnell-backed Super PAC says nominating Roy Moore would be ‘gift wrapping’ seat to Dems MORE (D-N.Y.) and other congressional Democrats to promote passage of the Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act, which the House is set to vote on this week.

Schumer also criticized McConnell for “offering no good excuse for why the Senate can’t have a debate on this bill and any of the others,” adding that “we cannot let Leader McConnell bury this another election security bill in his legislative graveyard.”

The SAFE Act, which Democrats have fast-tracked to the House floor after the House Administration Committee approved it last week in a party-line vote, would authorize $600 million for states to bolster election security, along with give states $175 million biannually to help sustain election infrastructure. The legislation would also establish cybersecurity safeguards for voting machines to help prevent foreign interference.

Schumer’s comments on Wednesday came a week after he vowed at a separate press conference to continue putting pressure on McConnell to either allow votes on various Democrat-backed election security bills, or to block them on the floor.

McConnell has so far refused to allow votes on any election security bills, citing concerns that the measures could lead to states seeing their authority over elections being eroded.

When asked for a comment on the SAFE Act, a spokesperson for McConnell pointed The Hill to remarks made by the GOP leader on the Senate floor last month, during which he said that election security “requires serious work.”

McConnell added that Congress has already appropriated millions to states to shore up election systems, and the 2018 midterm elections saw successful efforts by state and local election officials to defend against attack.

A few Senate Democrats have tried to force McConnell to allow votes on their bills. Sen. Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerPelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July Democrats leery of Sanders plan to cancel student loan debt Pressure builds to secure health care data MORE (D-Va.) attempted to pass a bill by unanimous consent last week that would require campaigns to report contacts with foreign nationals seeking to interfere in elections, but was blocked by Sen. Marsha BlackburnMarsha BlackburnPelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July Horse abuse for ribbons and prizes has to stop YouTube may move children’s content to separate app MORE (R-Tenn.).

Earlier this week, Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharPelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July 2020 Dems say they will visit Homestead facility holding migrant children The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Anticipation high ahead of first debate MORE (D-Minn.) attempted to force a vote to allow the Senate to consider her Election Security Act, but was blocked by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). That legislation would require backup paper ballots, and provide $1 billion in election security grants for states to improve election security issues.

The SAFE Act is the second major piece of election security legislation to be passed by the House this year, following the passage of H.R. 1, a sweeping legislative package that also includes election reform measures. McConnell has so far refused to allow a vote on the bill, labeling it the “Democrat Politician Protection Act.”

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenPelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July The Hill’s Morning Report – Democratic debates: Miami nice or spice? Senate Finance leaders in talks on deal to limit drug price increases MORE (Ore.) was among the Democrats on Wednesday to strongly criticize McConnell’s approach to election security, telling reporters that the Senate leader has “opposed every single election reform since the day when the earth cooled.”

Wyden also said that congressional Democrats will spend the upcoming July 4th recess “fanning out all across the country” to spread the word on election security vulnerabilities, with both Wyden and Pelosi comparing this effort to the ride by Paul Revere during the American Revolution to spread word that the British troops were coming.

“We’re going to have a simple message: pass legislation with provisions of the SAFE Act, and tell Mitch McConnell that the future of our democracy is too important for him to stand in its way,” Wyden said.

Pelosi added in reference to Revere that “the fate of the nation was riding that night, well the fate of the nation is riding on us passing this legislation to protect our system.”

Trump directs Pentagon to develop policy allowing service academy athletes to go pro right away

President TrumpDonald John Trump2020 Democrats spar over socialism ahead of first debate Senate passes .5 billion border bill, setting up fight with House ‘Teflon Don’ avoids the scorn of the ‘family values’ GOP — again MORE on Wednesday directed Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to develop a policy that will allow athletes enrolled at service academies to play professional sports immediately upon graduation, reversing a policy his administration implemented in 2017.

“Highly talented cadets and midshipmen who receive the extraordinary benefits of an education from an Academy or through a ROTC program at taxpayer expense should be able to both take advantage of the short window of time during which playing professional sports is realistically possible, while also honoring the commitment they have made to our Armed Forces and our country,” press secretary Sarah SandersSarah Elizabeth SandersStephanie Grisham to take over as White House press secretary READ: Trump’s full exclusive interview with The Hill April Ryan on ‘farewell drinks’ for Sarah Sanders: ‘I won’t be there!’ MORE said in a statement.

Trump signed a presidential memo that gives Esper 120 days to develop a policy that would authorize graduates of service academies to go directly to the pros, “consistent with their military service obligation.”

“Once implemented, the President’s policy will empower our cherished Academies to compete even better in sporting activities against other colleges and universities, benefitting student-athletes and the Armed Forces,” Sanders said. “The President wants our military to be strong in all respects, even in athletics.”

The president said earlier this year during a Rose Garden ceremony awarding the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy to the U.S. Military Academy that he was open to changing the policy for service academy athletes. 

Current Pentagon policy allows athletes to obtain a waiver to play pro sports after serving two years on active duty. That rule was implemented by then-Defense Secretary James MattisJames Norman MattisNew Defense chief: Our ‘priorities remain unchanged’ The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump targets Iran with new sanctions Trump urged to quickly fill Pentagon post amid Iran tensions MORE in 2017, who rescinded a 2016 decision allowing certain athletes to bypass active-duty service entirely and fulfill their obligations in the reserves while playing professional sports.

The Pentagon said in 2017 it was changing the rule to ensure military preparedness.

Trump nominated Esper last week to serve as the full-time Defense secretary. His nomination must still be sent to the Senate, where he will need confirmation before taking over the job.

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

House Democrats face off with Senate on border funding bill

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSenate passes .5 billion border bill, setting up fight with House Pelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July Trump says he spoke to Pelosi, McConnell on border package MORE (D-Calif.), under pressure from progressives, announced Wednesday evening that the House will vote to amend a Senate-passed bipartisan bill to provide $4.5 billion in resources for agencies handling the influx of migrants at the southern border.

House Democrats are insisting that any final measure include stricter “guardrails” to ensure adequate treatment of migrants at holding facilities. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday night that the House Rules Committee, which determines how legislation is considered on the floor, will report out an amendment Thursday morning that ensures health standards for facilities holding migrants at the border and limits the number of days children can spend in influx facilities.

Democrats are also demanding that any deaths of migrant children be reported within 24 hours and that lawmakers don’t need advance notice to visit a facility.

“For the children, we must do the best we can,” Pelosi said in a statement. “We pray that the White House and the Senate will join us in embracing the children and meeting their needs.”

Lawmakers are facing a time crunch to reach a bipartisan deal that President TrumpDonald John Trump2020 Democrats spar over socialism ahead of first debate Senate passes .5 billion border bill, setting up fight with House ‘Teflon Don’ avoids the scorn of the ‘family values’ GOP — again MORE would be willing to sign into law, given that Congress is scheduled to be in recess next week. The Trump administration has said that funding may run out by early July for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for providing care to unaccompanied minors who arrive at the U.S. border.

Earlier Wednesday, the Senate voted 84-8 to pass its own measure, which is bipartisan but doesn’t go as far as House Democrats would like to ensure humanitarian standards at migrant holding facilities.

The Senate vote came a day after House Democrats passed their own measure, which included stricter “guardrails” to ensure adequate treatment of migrants at holding facilities following public outrage over overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. The Senate rejected the House-passed bill in a 37-55 vote Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

When asked Wednesday if the House would take up the bipartisan version passed by the Senate, Pelosi said simply, “No.” 

“They passed their bill. We respect that. We passed our bill. We’d hope they would respect that,” Pelosi said. “And, there are some improvements that we think can be reconciled.”

House Democratic leaders and members of the House Appropriations Committee huddled in Pelosi’s office following the Senate vote to discuss how to push for changes instead of simply clearing the upper chamber’s bill.

“I think we had some very good provisions in our bill that I think could easily be included in the Senate bill. And that’s being discussed,” House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerDemocrats already jockeying for House leadership posts House Democratic leaders work to secure votes for border bill Hoyer: House won’t move forward on congressional pay bump MORE (D-Md.) said as he left Pelosi’s office.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellPelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July Adam Scott calls on McConnell to take down ‘Parks & Rec’ gif Trump says he spoke to Pelosi, McConnell on border package MORE (R-Ky.) announced that the Senate will be in for a rare Friday session to vote on a defense bill. That also buys some time for the House, which is currently scheduled to adjourn on Thursday.

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerTrump goes after Democrats over photo of drowned migrants Schumer displays photo of drowned migrants on Senate floor in appeal to Trump McConnell-backed Super PAC says nominating Roy Moore would be ‘gift wrapping’ seat to Dems MORE (D-N.Y) backed up Pelosi, saying that the House Democrats’ proposal is “much better.” But he also said that “there should be a quick conference” with the Senate bill.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem JeffriesHakeem Sekou JeffriesThe Hill’s Morning Report – Democratic debates: Miami nice or spice? Democrats already jockeying for House leadership posts House Democrats close to finalizing border aid bill MORE (D-N.Y.) vowed that lawmakers wouldn’t leave Washington for the recess without figuring out a path forward on providing resources at the southern border.

“The House will not leave until we resolve the situation at the border. And we look forward to finding common ground with the Senate, as well as the president,” Jeffries said after leaving the meeting in Pelosi’s office.

Progressive and Hispanic lawmakers in the House had sought changes that would require Customs and Border Protection to establish health standards for children and adults in custody.

The House bill that passed on Tuesday would ensure that shelters run by contractors meet established health conditions within six months or else their government contracts will end — a key provision sought by progressives. It also requires the Trump administration to use allotted funding for aid to Central American countries, from which many of the migrants are fleeing.

The Senate bill also includes funding for overtime and back pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers that’s not allotted in the House version. The legislation advanced by the upper chamber would also require lawmakers to give two days’ advance notice to visit facilities holding unaccompanied migrant children, unlike the House bill that doesn’t require any advance notice.

President Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday that he spoke with Pelosi and McConnell, saying that he believes Pelosi “wants to get something done” and that the Senate and House will eventually “be able to do something very good.” 

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

“A lot of people are starting to realize that I was right when I said we have a crisis at the border,” the president said. “It wasn’t manufactured at all.” 

But progressives are adamant that the Senate version, while bipartisan, shouldn’t be the final product.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrat backs up Ocasio-Cortez: Migrant shelters ‘are like concentration camps’ Ocasio-Cortez marks one-year anniversary of her primary win Democratic lawmaker says treatment of migrants at border ‘not American’ MORE (D-N.Y.) argued it didn’t go nearly far enough to ensure adequate treatment for migrants at holding facilities, where there’s been documentation of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions.

“I personally don’t think that the Senate bill is acceptable,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters. “The Senate bill is not a humanitarian bill by any stretch of the imagination. And there’s no accountability.”

Ocasio-Cortez, along with three other progressive freshmen, voted against the House measure on Tuesday night.

But Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), another progressive who represents a district along the southern border and voted in favor of the House measure, also said he’s not in favor of the Senate version without “guard rails, restrictions and accountability.”

“Absent that, then we’re just giving him a free hand,” Grijalva said, referring to Trump.

House Republicans, meanwhile, indicated that they could support legislation like the Senate bill.

“Don’t just get your own members in a room. Bring the members of the other party in if it’s a bill that’s going to have to get signed by the president,” House Minority Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph ScaliseTrump knocks Democrats on ‘Open Borders’ House passes .5B border funding bill Pelosi, Democratic leaders seek to quell liberal revolt over border bill MORE (R-La.) said.

Scott Wong, Mike Lillis and Jordain Carney contributed.