Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Tuesday released new portions of an interview with former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach on his role in adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanRep. Amash stokes talk of campaign against Trump Rep. Amash stokes talk of campaign against Trump House panel advances bill to create cybersecurity standards for government IT devices MORE (R-Ohio), the ranking member of the panel, made the new portions of the interviews with Kobach and other Trump administration officials public in response to the committee’s vote last week to hold Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrForeign interference is a threat to the 2020 elections — presidential interference is, too Foreign interference is a threat to the 2020 elections — presidential interference is, too America’s crisis of compassion is a Constitutional crisis, too MORE and Commerce Secretary Wilbur RossWilbur Louis RossCompanies line up to weigh in on proposed 0B China tariffs during hearings Companies line up to weigh in on proposed 0B China tariffs during hearings Trump ‘perfectly happy’ to slap more tariffs on China if no deal is made: Commerce secretary MORE in contempt.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The contempt citation was premature, unnecessary, and designed to advance a partisan goal of influencing ongoing litigation presently before the Supreme Court of the United States,” the Republican report reads.

Jordan also sought to refute allegations surrounding the role of a late GOP redistricting strategist in getting the citizenship question on the census.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed documents in court last month indicating that GOP strategist Thomas Hofeller, who died last year, had partially ghostwritten a draft of a memo arguing in favor of adding the citizenship question. The evidence also showed that Hofeller had conducted a 2015 study that found a census citizenship question would help Republicans and white communities in redistricting efforts, while hurting Democrats and Hispanic communities.

In the newly released portions of the Kobach interview, Kobach said he didn’t “recall ever meeting or talking with anyone by that name,” in reference to Hofeller.

And Kobach said that he had “never read any such study or heard of any such study” when asked about the 2015 survey conducted by Hofeller, according to the transcript released Tuesday.

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah CummingsElijah Eugene CummingsHouse Democrats question DHS over using facial recognition tech on US citizens House Democrats question DHS over using facial recognition tech on US citizens Democrats lash out at Trump’s bombshell remarks MORE (D-Md.) first revealed earlier this month that Kobach had interviewed with the committee.

Cummings had also released parts of the Kobach interview. Those portions showed that Kobach discussed the citizenship question with Trump early in his presidency and that he also discussed the question with Trump campaign staff during the 2016 campaign.

In another transcription released Tuesday, former Commerce Department counsel James Uthmeier said that he was never in contact with Hofeller. 

Uthmeier, who worked on the citizenship question and testified to the Oversight Committee, also said he was not familiar with Hofeller’s 2015 study and to his knowledge, had “never seen anything written by him,” according to the Republican report.

In another interview segment released on Tuesday, Justice Department official Gene Hamilton said he did not know of Hofeller.

Jordan also said Tuesday that Uthmeier, Hamilton and Justice Department official John Gore each testified to the committee that they had no contact with White House officials about the census citizenship question.

“Rather than attempt to legislate on the citizenship question, the committee is using its oversight authority to create a controversy in the hopes of influencing the Supreme Court’s imminent decision on the issue,” Jordan’s report reads.

“For all the reasons set forth in these minority views, the committee’s contempt citation is unnecessary, premature, and designed merely to advance partisan political goals.”

The Hill has reached out to Oversight Committee for comment.

The committee voted last week to hold Barr and Ross in contempt for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents on the census citizenship question. Rep. Justin AmashJustin AmashJohn Oliver advocates Trump impeachment inquiry for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ John Oliver advocates Trump impeachment inquiry for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ The Hill’s Morning Report – Is US weighing military action against Iran? MORE (R-Mich.) was the only Republican on the committee to support the contempt resolution.

Both the Commerce and Justice departments claimed that they have provided thousands of documents to the committee, as well as making agency officials available for interviews.

However, Cummings has maintained that many of the documents provided were heavily redacted, already publicly available and not in line with the subpoenas issued earlier this year.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of the month on whether the citizenship question should be allowed on the 2020 census.

Opponents of the question argue that asking about citizenship will lead to an inaccurate population count. The Trump administration says the question is needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

A case of ‘he said, she said’ took over a congressional committee Thursday, as the head of California’s Air Resources Board argued with a nonpresent EPA head over the circumstances surrounding the end to key pollution talks.

Testifying on Capitol Hill in front of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, Chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board Mary Nichols addressed an “elephant in the room” denying the account of EPA head Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerOvernight Energy: Trump EPA finalizes rule to kill Obama climate plan | Trump officials delayed releasing docs on Yellowstone superintendent’s firing | Democrats probe oil companies’ role in fuel rule rollback Overnight Energy: Trump EPA finalizes rule to kill Obama climate plan | Trump officials delayed releasing docs on Yellowstone superintendent’s firing | Democrats probe oil companies’ role in fuel rule rollback Trump admin submits final rule to kill Obama Clean Power Plan MORE that California was responsible for ending negotiations over a high tension vehicle emissions rule.

ADVERTISEMENT

“California is not here because we are seeking to defy the federal government. We are in the business of setting emissions standards for vehicles based on the provisions of the Clean Air Act, which recognizes the important fact that California is very big and has some of the biggest markets for vehicles and also has some of the worst air quality in the United States,” she said.

Nichols’s testimony in front of the committee comes as the Trump administration is working to finalize a national rule on vehicle emissions standards that would replace and weaken regulations previously determined under President Obama. Trump officials, including Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Andrew Wheeler, argued the old rule was too onerous for the car industry and not effective.

California has a waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own air pollution standards at a level higher than might be determined by the federal government. In the case of the Obama administration’s car emissions rule, the state and the federal government worked together to agree on one national standard, much to the delight of the auto industry.

Yet, the Trump administration has questioned California’s right to the waiver and the new rule would most likely divide the state and the federal government. Negotiations between the Golden State and administration reportedly broke down in February following the EPA’s August release of a final proposed emissions rule.

Neither group has spoken together since about the rule, and it became clear Thursday that there still remains disagreement over who is responsible for end to communications.

“Each time the Trump Administration has been unwilling to find a way that works, their claim that California offered no counter proposal is false. They unilaterally decided to cut off communications, an action that automakers oppose,” Nichols read from her opening statement.

She added: “I stand by every single word in that paragraph.”

Nichols comments were responding to a letter Wheeler sent Thursday morning to Republican lawmakers and was later circulated to the press, critiquing Nichols’ pre-written testimony before the committee.

In the letter, Wheeler told Reps. John ShimkusJohn Mondy ShimkusCongress: Expand access to physical therapy for underserved communities Lawmakers, Trump agencies set for clash over chemicals in water Dems look to bypass EPA with asbestos ban MORE (R-Ill) and Kathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Ore.) that Nichols’s account of the communications break down between California and the Trump administration was “false” and a “conspiracy theory”

Nichols told lawmakers Thursday that the letter was “shocking.”

“I was under the belief that the meetings themselves were confidential,” she said.

“I would state categorically that we proposed areas where we would be willing to come to a compromise with the admin and we never were told precisely what was wrong with any of those proposals. We were simply told they were inadequate and we had simply failed in our jobs by not bringing a proposal that the administration found acceptable.”

Lawmakers at the hearing made strides to try to bring officials from the Trump Administration and CARB back to the table.

“The elephant in the room is, are you guys talking or are you not?,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) in a moment of bi-partisanship. “It could be ‘he said, she said’ but we aren’t going to know that until we get focused.”

He suggested both Nichols and Wheeler get into a room together and sort it out and come back to the negotiating table.

“We want a national standard, we don’t want to destroy the interstate commerce clause, we want it to proceed.”

The heightened tension between the two camps come as the auto industry asking the Trump administration to work with California on a unified standard — one that won’t cause the industry more money to develop cars with separate sets of emissions releases. The issue also comes as the world faces rising global temperature and an increase in weather-related natural disasters.

“The current proposal we believe, and I think this is what the auto industry has said, by taking away the year over year improvements (on air pollution), does take away a major incentive for continuous improvement by the industry. So we think it’s a step backwards,” Nichols said.

California representatives have knocked the rule as doing too little. The state’s Attorney General threatened to sue if it were to be implemented.

Rep. Debbie DingellDeborah (Debbie) Ann DingellOn The Money: Democrats set stage for next shutdown fight | House panel wraps up final 2020 spending bill | GOP senators, White House delay meeting on spending | Trump hits Fed over high interest rates On The Money: Democrats set stage for next shutdown fight | House panel wraps up final 2020 spending bill | GOP senators, White House delay meeting on spending | Trump hits Fed over high interest rates Michigan Democrat: Trump ‘threw a grenade’ in middle of new NAFTA talks with tariff threat MORE (D-Mich.) whose constituents include the American auto industry, agreed that the Obama administration’s rule wasn’t perfect, but criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the problem.

“It’s hard to make projections far into the future and it’s clear we need to make some tweaks, but we don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater,” she said. “The trump administration has been reckless in proposing these flatline standards that would hurt jobs in my state and harm the environment as well.”

Dingell asked Nichols if she’d be willing to come back to the negotiation table.

“We have always been prepared to go to the negotiating table in good faith,” she said. “We still are.”

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from making arrests in and around courthouses in the state.

The district attorneys for Middlesex and Suffolk counties sued ICE earlier this year, alleging that a directive authorizing the civil arrests of undocumented immigrants at courthouses violates long-standing common-law privilege.

ADVERTISEMENT

And they argued that the arrests “exceed the powers granted to the federal government” and violate residents’ constitutional right to access the courts.

The district attorneys specifically claimed that the civil arrests in state courthouses were impeding their ability to prosecute cases. And the Chelsea Collaborative, a local group that supported the lawsuit, said they were unable to assist immigrants seeking protective court actions because they avoided the courthouses due to the ICE policy.

ICE pushed back against the claims, pointing to agency documents that state that courthouses are not considered to be a “sensitive location.” And officials said they generally don’t arrest people ahead of hearings, nor do they target witnesses or victims involved in court proceedings.

The agency also argued that the state prosecutors were harmed due to just the threat of an arrest increasing their workload or amount of time it takes to secure a prosecution. And ICE pointed to the immigrants who fail to appear for court proceedings for harming state prosecutors, not the agency’s directive itself.

However, District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote in a preliminary injunction that she agrees “that being unable to reliably secure the attendance of defendants, victims, and witnesses hinders the ability of the DAs [district attorneys] to prosecute crimes and Chelsea Collaborative’s members to secure their rights under state law and amounts to a particularized injury sufficient to constitute injury-in-fact.”

The Hill has reached out to ICE for comment.

Immigration advocacy groups have repeatedly called for ICE to not make immigration arrests at courthouses, arguing that it prevents immigrants from seeking legal protections.

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

Bipartisan lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee joined forces Thursday to advance legislation slapping new sanctions on Myanmar’s military regime for its violent purge of ethnic minorities.
The proposal, sponsored by Reps. Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelEngel draws primary challenger in NY Engel draws primary challenger in NY Overnight Defense: Latest on House defense bill markup | Air Force One, low-yield nukes spark debate | House Dems introduce resolutions blocking Saudi arms sales | Trump to send 1,000 troops to Poland MORE (D-N.Y.) and Steve ChabotSteven (Steve) Joseph ChabotGOP hopes dim on reclaiming House GOP hopes dim on reclaiming House Lawmakers explore easing rules on small cannabis businesses MORE (R-Ohio), is designed to punish Myanmar’s leaders for their long-running campaign of brutality and displacement against the Rohingya, a Muslim group occupying western regions of the state.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: Sports Water BottlesSupporters are hoping the new restrictions — including trade, travel and financial sanctions against Myanmar’s top leaders — will check the violence and ultimately lead to war crimes charges against those behind the attacks.
“The Rohingya who have been suffering at the hands of the Burmese military since the horrific attacks in 2017 shouldn’t have to wait for justice any longer,” Engel, chairman of the Foreign Affairs panel, said in a statement. “There needs to be relief from the violence and suffering. There needs to be accountability for those who have carried out the genocide against the Rohingya and ongoing horrors against other ethnic minorities.”
The unanimous vote of the Foreign Affairs panel sends the proposal to the House floor, where a similar bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the last Congress. The legislation has hit a wall of opposition in the Senate, however, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOvernight Defense: House passes T spending package with defense funds | Senate set to vote on blocking Saudi arms sales | UN nominee defends climate change record Overnight Defense: House passes T spending package with defense funds | Senate set to vote on blocking Saudi arms sales | UN nominee defends climate change record Senate to vote Thursday to block Trump’s Saudi arms deal MORE (R-Ky.) — a close ally of Aung San Suu Kyi — has declined to consider the bill.
Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was once glorified across the world for her pro-democracy advocacy, has largely defended the military’s conduct amid their purge of the country’s ethnic minorities. Thousands of Muslim Rohingyas were killed since the latest round of violence began in the summer of 2017, and roughly 1 million others have been pushed into makeshift refugee camps in neighboring Bangladesh. One of the camps, housing roughly 700,000 people, is the largest refugee camp in the world.
A United Nations report issue last year found widespread abuse of the Rohingya at the hands of Myanmar’s military, including mass killings, gang rapes and other “violations [that] undoubtedly amount to the gravest crimes under international law.” The U.N. labeled the purge a “genocide,” and recommended the perpetrators be tried before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
The Trump administration has stopped short of applying that designation. A State Department report released last year found that the military “targeted civilians indiscriminately and often with extreme brutality,” but the agency has declined to label the tragedy a genocide. 
The issue came to light Wednesday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during the confirmation hearing of Kelly Knight Craft, President TrumpDonald John TrumpBooker hits Biden’s defense of remarks about segregationist senators: ‘He’s better than this’ Booker hits Biden’s defense of remarks about segregationist senators: ‘He’s better than this’ Trump says Democrats are handing out subpoenas ‘like they’re cookies’ MORE‘s pick to become the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Pressed by Sen. Jeff MerkleyJeffrey (Jeff) Alan MerkleyOvernight Defense: House passes T spending package with defense funds | Senate set to vote on blocking Saudi arms sales | UN nominee defends climate change record Overnight Defense: House passes T spending package with defense funds | Senate set to vote on blocking Saudi arms sales | UN nominee defends climate change record Overnight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn’t want war with Iran MORE (D-Ore.), Craft characterized the Rohingya tragedy as “unexcusable” and “ethnic cleansing,” but declined to say it rose to the level of genocide. 
“Senator, this is not a decision for me to make. This is a decision that’s made within the State Department,” said Craft, who’s currently the U.S. ambassador to Canada. “I can assure you that i will be a strong voice on behalf of the Rohingyas.” 
The Engel-Chabot proposal, aside from applying new sanctions on Myanmar’s leaders, would also bar the Pentagon from expanding the U.S. military presence in Myanmar until tangible reforms are adopted, while providing help for investigations into the atrocities, with an eye toward prosecuting war crimes. 
“I hope this bill moves swiftly through the House,” Engel said, “and if it reaches the Senate, I hope that body’s leadership will see the dire need to get this measure across the finish line.”

Four men have been named as suspects in the 2014 destruction of a Malaysia Airlines flight traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, police said Wednesday.

The Associated Press reported that Dutch National Police chief Wilbert Paulissen named three Russian suspects and one Ukrainian suspect at a press conference, charging them with murder in a missile attack that downed the Boeing 777 plane, killing all 298 people on board as it flew over eastern Ukraine.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

The four men are Igor Girkin, Sergei Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov and Leonid Kharchenko, according to the news service. None of the men are in custody or are reportedly likely to appear at trial.

The Washington Post reports that all four men are thought to be in Russia, but the Kremlin is unlikely to honor an extradition request.

Multiple nations, including the Netherlands and Australia, have previously blamed the attack on Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, a charge Moscow has vehemently denied.

A trial for the four men is expected to begin in their absence next March.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpGOP senator introduces bill to hold online platforms liable for political bias Rubio responds to journalist who called it ‘strange’ to see him at Trump rally Rubio responds to journalist who called it ‘strange’ to see him at Trump rally MORE in 2015 said that Russia was “probably” to blame for the incident but added that there was little the U.S. could do to hold Russian-backed forces accountable at the time.

“They say it wasn’t them,” Trump told MSNBC at the time. “It may have been their weapon, but they didn’t use it. They didn’t fire it. They even said the [other] side fired it to blame them.”

“To be honest with you, you’ll probably never know for sure. It was probably Russia. It was probably people involved on the pro-Russia side,” then-candidate Trump added.

Ned Price, a national security official in the Obama administration, said at the time that the plane was “shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffHouse votes against curtailing warrantless collection of Americans’ data Overnight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn’t want war with Iran Cracks form in Democratic dam against impeachment MORE (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the FBI is starting to respond to his inquiries about the counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference that preceded special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerKamala Harris says her Justice Dept would have ‘no choice’ but to prosecute Trump for obstruction Kamala Harris says her Justice Dept would have ‘no choice’ but to prosecute Trump for obstruction Dem committees win new powers to investigate Trump MORE’s probe.

“We have started to get answers from the FBI,” Schiff told reporters at the National Press Club Wednesday. “They are not nearly complete. I would describe it as the beginning of their response, not the end, but I think they recognize that they are going to have to live up to their legal obligations.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Schiff did not back off his threat to subpoena FBI Director Christopher Wray if the panel is not satisfied with the bureau’s response to remaining questions about the counterintelligence investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“We have started to get answers, but as we have seen all too often in the last six months, without the threat of coercion, we don’t get anything,” Schiff said. “I think patience is running out at every level so we are going to continue to press the FBI to get answers. If necessary we will bring the FBI director under subpoena.”

One week ago, Schiff threatened to subpoena the FBI over the counterintelligence probe, saying he has been unable to receive briefings or information on the status or findings of the investigation. 

Schiff said he has not been briefed on the investigation, the existence of which then-FBI Director James ComeyJames Brien ComeyWant the truth? Put your money on Bill Barr, not Jerry Nadler Want the truth? Put your money on Bill Barr, not Jerry Nadler Trump: Reported security incidents related to Clinton emails ‘really big’ MORE revealed in March 2017, since Comey was ousted by Trump two months later. Schiff says he was also never notified that the investigation had ended. 

When asked to expand on what he has learned from the FBI, Schiff said Wednesday that the bureau began by explaining how it conducts a traditional counterintelligence investigation — which has a beginning and a formal end.

“Whether that process was followed here, we still do not know,” Schiff said, noting that clearly some of the investigation was ended given the conclusion of Mueller’s probe. But Schiff raised questions about its scope and whether parts of it may still be active.

Schiff has repeatedly raised questions about the status of the original counterintelligence investigation, saying that Mueller’s report — which only makes a brief reference to it — provides no information about the findings. 

The Justice Department has separately begun sharing with the committee some of the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence files related to Mueller’s investigation. Schiff did not comment on those Wednesday.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

Schiff said he’s particularly interested in what Americans the FBI investigated as potentially wittingly or unwittingly acting as agents of a foreign power, what the bureau’s conclusions were, and whether any investigations remain open.

Schiff also described Mueller’s 10-minute press conference addressing his investigation’s conclusions as insufficient, saying the special counsel needs to testify — whether voluntarily or under subpoena. Schiff did not give a timeline on when Democrats may subpoena Mueller to compel his appearance.

“I also think time and patience are running out on that front,” Schiff said.

Both the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees are negotiating separately for Mueller’s appearance. Mueller indicated last month that he was unwilling to testify publicly before Congress. 

The Senate will vote Thursday to block President TrumpDonald John TrumpGOP senator introduces bill to hold online platforms liable for political bias Rubio responds to journalist who called it ‘strange’ to see him at Trump rally Rubio responds to journalist who called it ‘strange’ to see him at Trump rally MORE‘s controversial arms sales to Saudi Arabia, paving the way for a showdown with the White House.

 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOvernight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn’t want war with Iran Senators reach .5B deal on Trump’s emergency border request Senators reach .5B deal on Trump’s emergency border request MORE (R-Ky.) said the Senate will hold three votes on the 22 sales that would also send weapons to the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Two standalone votes will be on resolutions to block sales to Saudi Arabia. Senators would then have a third vote that would condense the remaining 20 resolutions of disapproval into one vote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

The resolutions blocking Trump’s arms sales are anticipated to be able to pass the Senate, where they only need a simple majority. At least four Republicans are expected to vote with all 47 Democrats to block the arms deal. 

 

House Democrats have also pledged to block the sales, setting the stage for a massive veto showdown with Trump. Neither chamber is expected to have the votes to override the vetoes. 

 

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulOvernight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn’t want war with Iran Senators demand Trump explain decision to deploy troops amid Iran tensions Senators demand Trump explain decision to deploy troops amid Iran tensions MORE (R-Ky.) pointed to the bipartisan opposition to the arms sales as a sign of “coalition building” in Congress to check an administration’s foreign policy authority. 

 

“I think the votes going to be significant — well over 50 but possibly over 60 and even with a potential of getting a veto-proof,” Paul told reporters. 

 

The unprecedented move to block the sales reflects growing frustration on Capitol Hill about the U.S.-Saudi relationship and would come after two votes fell short in recent years to block arms deals with Saudi Arabia. One, in 2016, garnered support from only 27 senators. The other, in June 2017, had the backing of 47 senators.

 

Since then, U.S.-Saudi relations have soured further amid growing concerns about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the years-long Yemen civil war and the death of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

Trump sparked bipartisan backlash when he invoked an emergency provision under the Arms Export Control Act to push through the sales without a congressional review period.

The administration has cited a heightened threat from Iran as its justification for invoking the emergency sales.

“These sales and the associated emergency certification are intended to address the military need of our partners in the face of an urgent regional threat posed by Iran; promote the vitality of our bilateral relationships by reassuring our partners; and preserve strategic advantage against near-peer competitors,” R. Clarke Cooper, the assistant secretary of State for political-military affairs, told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

Congressional leaders from both parties and senior White House officials emerged from a meeting in Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi slated to deliver remarks during panel hearing on poverty The DNC’s climate problems run deep Cracks form in Democratic dam against impeachment MORE’s (D-Calif.) Wednesday afternoon without a deal on raising spending caps and the debt limit.

Congress and the White House have a few more months to go before the new fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, but lawmakers are eager to take the prospect of another government shutdown off the table sooner rather than later. 

In a joint statement, Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerDemocrats detail new strategy to pressure McConnell on election security bills Democrats detail new strategy to pressure McConnell on election security bills Ex-state senator in North Carolina enters race against Tillis MORE (D-N.Y.) seemed to put the blame on the administration for impeding progress.

 

“If the House and Senate could work their will without interference from the President, we could come to a good agreement much more quickly,” the two leaders said after the meeting.

 

A senior administration official, however, blamed Democratic leaders for refusing to give ground on the top-line spending numbers.

“Talks broke down today because Pelosi and Schumer refused to come one dollar off absurdly expensive House appropriations bills, which can’t pass the Senate and would be vetoed,” the official said. “Democrats obviously don’t want a deal and are just playing press games.”

Without new spending bills signed into law, the government could shut down or continue functioning at current spending levels through a continuing resolution that limits some government capabilities.

If an agreement isn’t reached to raise the spending caps, an automatic sequestration of government funds could lower government funding levels by some 10 percent in January.

 

Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinCharitable giving by individuals down in first year under Trump’s tax law: study Charitable giving by individuals down in first year under Trump’s tax law: study Congressional leaders, White House officials to meet Wednesday on spending MORE, who attended Wednesday’s meeting, laid out the GOP’s Plan B if no deal is reached. That plan would freeze current spending levels and prevent deep spending cuts from going into effect if no agreement is reached before the end of September.

 

“If we can’t reach a spending agreement, we are prepared to do a one-year CR [continuing resolution], and a one-year debt ceiling. The president has every intention of keeping the government open and keeping the soundness of the full faith and credit of the government,” he said.

 

Pelosi and Schumer said they were committed to avoiding a CR but ensuring the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

 

The deadline for addressing the debt limit is expected sometime in September. Failure to act on it would cause the U.S. government to default on its debt, which would lead to extreme volatility in global financial markets.

 

Mnuchin also said that during Wednesday’s meeting Pelosi reversed her earlier stance that the debt ceiling would not be raised without a spending caps deal.

 

“The good news is everybody in the room agreed that we will not hold the debt ceiling subject or hostage to spending,” Mnuchin said.

 

A senior Democratic aide disputed Mnuchin’s account.

 

“That never happened in the room,” the aide told The Hill, adding that Pelosi still wants a caps deal before addressing the debt ceiling.

Acting White House chief of staff Mick MulvaneyJohn (Mick) Michael MulvaneyCongressional leaders, White House officials to meet Wednesday on spending Congressional leaders, White House officials to meet Wednesday on spending The Hill’s 12:30 Report — Presented by MAPRx — Supreme Court double jeopardy ruling could impact Manafort MORE said after the meeting that Democrats had increased their ask for non-defense spending, from $639 billion to $647 billion.

“So you tell me if things are moving in the right direction,” he said.

 

The senior Democratic aide told The Hill that the $647 billion was representative of the overall figure Democrats were using for their appropriations, which includes spending in categories that don’t count toward the statutory caps.

 

Schumer defended Pelosi’s decision to move ahead with the House-crafted spending bills without a deal on the top-line numbers.

“The House is going to proceed with its regular order and hopefully we can move the senate to regular order. A one-year CR is bad policy, it’s bad politics and it’s a fallback,” he said. “We should be negotiating a bill …. We want to do better.”

Other negotiators said progress was made at Wednesday’s meeting but reported that multiple issues remain.

 

“It was overall a good meeting,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbySenators reach .5B deal on Trump’s emergency border request Senators reach .5B deal on Trump’s emergency border request Congressional leaders, White House officials to meet Wednesday on spending MORE (R-Ala.), who participated in Wednesday’s talks. “We had a serious discussion.”

 

The meeting included Pelosi, Schumer, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOvernight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn’t want war with Iran Senators reach .5B deal on Trump’s emergency border request Senators reach .5B deal on Trump’s emergency border request MORE (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyCongressional leaders, White House officials to meet Wednesday on spending Congressional leaders, White House officials to meet Wednesday on spending The Congressional Award — a beacon of hope  MORE (R-Calif.), as well as senior lawmakers from the Senate and House Appropriations committees.

 

Mnuchin and Mulvaney represented the White House.

 

A congressional source familiar with the meeting called it a “waste of time.”

 

When asked what comes next, Shelby responded, “That’s a good question. I asked too.”

 

“I believe that the secretary of the Treasury, on behalf of the administration, and the Speaker are going to talk,” he said.

 

Updated at 6:42 p.m.

Welcome to Wednesday’s Overnight Health Care.

House Democrats passed a massive spending bill Tuesday, the Trump administration was on the defensive about changes to a federal family planning program, and two senators released a new version of a major package targeting high health costs.

We’ll start over in the House at a hearing on some contentious Trump administration moves…

 

Trump administration defends controversial changes to family planning program on Capitol Hill

Diane Foley, HHS deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, and a Trump appointee, testified before Congress for the first time Wednesday about the administration’s changes to Title X, a decades-old grant program for family planning clinics that offer contraception and preventive health services to low-income women.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was the first time Foley has talked publicly about the changes, which have been temporarily blocked in the courts.

A refresher: The Trump administration rule would require a financial and physical separation between Title X services and abortion services. It would also ban Title X providers from referring for abortions and lift a requirement that providers tell women about abortion as an option.

What Foley had to say: The administration has grave concerns that Title X funds can be misused for abortions but she was unable to tell Democrats on a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee if there was any evidence of this happening.

Foley said banning referrals is an attempt to comply with federal law and lifting the counseling requirement is an effort to protect the conscience rights of providers who oppose abortion.

“There are many providers that avoid being part of the Title X program because the current regulations states that are required to refer for abortions and required to have counseling,” she said.

Read more here on the hearing.

 

Democrats passed a $1 trillion spending package, which included the Labor-HHS funding bill

Lawmakers passed the spending package in a 226-203 vote that fell largely along party lines. Seven Democrats voted against the measure, as did all Republicans.

Many of the provisions are unlikely to be taken up in the Senate but are instead a message to the Trump administration and voters. Highlights:

• The bill includes $99.4 billion for HHS, an increase of $8.9 billion above the 2019 level.
• It would repeal the Mexico City policy, which bans foreign aid to non-governmental organizations that promote or provide abortions.
• It would block the Trump administration from implementing its Title X changes and give the program its first funding boost in years.
• It also includes the Hyde Amendment, a decades long ban on federal funding for abortion.
• It would direct $25 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun violence prevention.
• And it offers $140 million to support the CDC’s goal of reducing new HIV infections by 90 percent in 10 years.

 

Senators unveil bipartisan package to lower health care costs

A pair of key senators on Wednesday unveiled a revised version of their bipartisan package aimed at lowering health care costs, ahead of a committee markup expected next week.

Sens. Lamar AlexanderAndrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderOvernight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Trump’s health care focus puts GOP on edge MORE (R-Tenn.) and Patty MurrayPatricia (Patty) Lynn MurrayOvernight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Trump’s health care focus puts GOP on edge MORE (D-Wash.) released the package, which takes steps to protect patients from receiving massive “surprise” medical bills when they get care from an out-of-network doctor. It also cracks down on anti-competitive clauses in hospital contracts with insurers that can drive up costs, and encourages the introduction of cheaper generic drugs.

One of the most significant and contentious decisions in the new bill is on the mechanism for protecting patients from surprise medical bills.

Why it matters: Alexander and Murray are known as two of the best bipartisan dealmakers in the Senate.

Their previous signature health care effort in 2017 and 2018 to shore up ObamaCare eventually failed amid the bitter partisan divide over the health law.

Alexander says the new effort is intended to focus on other areas in health care that are less partisan.

Read more on the proposal here.

 

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

But hold on…Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyOvernight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn’t want war with Iran Senators demand Trump explain decision to deploy troops amid Iran tensions Senators demand Trump explain decision to deploy troops amid Iran tensions MORE may oppose bipartisan health bill unless it addresses ObamaCare ‘sabotage’

There’s some drama on the bipartisan health care package released Wednesday by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he might vote against it next week in committee unless it addresses what he called “sabotage” of ObamaCare.

Murphy told reporters he is worried that there is “no language in the measure to counteract the massive sabotage campaign that’s happening by the administration.”

The politics: This gets at the balance Democrats are trying to strike of both attacking Republicans for their assaults on ObamaCare, an issue that has borne political fruit, while also working in a bipartisan way on health care legislation.

Read more here.

 

Grassley announces opposition to key Trump proposal to lower drug prices

Another divide between congressional Republicans and President TrumpDonald John TrumpGOP senator introduces bill to hold online platforms liable for political bias Rubio responds to journalist who called it ‘strange’ to see him at Trump rally Rubio responds to journalist who called it ‘strange’ to see him at Trump rally MORE:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyOn The Money: Trade chief defends Trump tariffs before skeptical Congress | Kudlow denies plan to demote Fed chief | Waters asks Facebook to halt cryptocurrency project On The Money: Trade chief defends Trump tariffs before skeptical Congress | Kudlow denies plan to demote Fed chief | Waters asks Facebook to halt cryptocurrency project Trade chief defends Trump tariffs before skeptical Congress MORE (R-Iowa) told reporters that he opposes a plan that Trump announced in October to lower the prices Medicare pays for certain drugs by tying them to lower prices paid in other countries, an idea known as the International Pricing Index.

“I don’t think that this administration’s approach on international pricing is going to be to the benefit of the adoption of and research for modern drugs,” he said.

“You’ve heard me say in these meetings before that I’m going to wait until there’s a real proposal to put out before I take a stand, but I think I’ve studied it long enough now that I’ll stick by what I just told you,” he added.

What this means: There has been some speculation the Trump administration will never finalize the proposal, which has not yet gone into effect, and is instead using it as an incentive for industry to come to the table with other ideas.

The opposition from Grassley, a powerful chairman in Trump’s own party, makes it even harder for the administration to move forward.

Read more here.

 

Durbin urges HHS chief to help stop youth vaping

Sen. Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinOvernight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn’t want war with Iran Senators demand Trump explain decision to deploy troops amid Iran tensions Senators demand Trump explain decision to deploy troops amid Iran tensions MORE (D-Ill.), frustrated at what he says is a lack of trust in leadership at the Food and Drug Administration, is making an appeal to the top. On Wednesday, Durbin sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar calling on him to use the “full force of his agency” to tackle the youth vaping epidemic.

“It has become clear to me that the FDA, under [Acting Commissioner Ned] Sharpless’ leadership, will not use its existing authority on tobacco products to protect our nation’s children from a lifetime of addiction,” Durbin wrote. “As Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)–which oversees the FDA–and as a father to two children, I urge you to put the full force of your agency behind a robust effort to tackle the youth vaping epidemic.”

Durbin wrote that he is “extremely skeptical” that FDA will do anything to stop the massive rise in youth vaping, and so he urged Azar to intervene and force the agency’s hand.

“Will you use your authority to protect our children?” Durbin wrote.

Backstory: At the end of last month Durbin wrote to Sharpless, saying he did not understand why FDA wasn’t taking immediate action, and didn’t trust that Sharpless had any intention of acting to curb youth vaping. Durbin asked the acting FDA commissioner to prove him wrong. But less than a month later, Durbin doesn’t seem to want to wait, and is intent on provoking some kind of response.

 

The Hill events

On Tuesday, June 25th, The Hill will host Cost, Quality and Care: The Medicare Equation at the Newseum in Washington, DC. The Hill’s Editor-at-Large Steve Clemons and Editor-in-Chief Bob CusackRobert (Bob) CusackOvernight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Democrats attack after Trump revives talk of ObamaCare replacement | Cruz, Ocasio-Cortez efforts on birth control face major obstacles | CVS investing M to fight teen e-cig use MORE will sit down with Reps. Brett GuthrieSteven (Brett) Brett GuthrieOvernight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Democrats attack after Trump revives talk of ObamaCare replacement | Cruz, Ocasio-Cortez efforts on birth control face major obstacles | CVS investing M to fight teen e-cig use MORE (R-Ky.) and Doris MatsuiDoris Okada MatsuiOvernight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Democrats attack after Trump revives talk of ObamaCare replacement | Cruz, Ocasio-Cortez efforts on birth control face major obstacles | CVS investing M to fight teen e-cig use MORE (D-Calif.) and an expert panel for a discussion on how leaders in Washington and the health industry can bring down drug costs for Medicare patients while continuing to ensure quality of care for those who depend on the program. RSVP here.

 

On Wednesday, June 26th, The Hill will host the Future of Healthcare Summit at Long View Gallery in Washington, D.C. We will discuss some of tomorrow’s biggest questions in healthcare with policymakers, health officials and industry leaders. Speakers include Sen. Bill CassidyWilliam (Bill) Morgan CassidyOvernight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump Overnight Health Care: Poll finds most Americans misunderstand scope of ‘Medicare for All’ | Planned Parenthood chief readies for 2020 | Drugmakers’ lawsuit ramps up fight with Trump The Hill’s 12:30 Report — Presented by MAPRx — All eyes on Trump as 2020 bid begins MORE (R-La.), FDA’s Dr. Amy Abernethy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Nano Vision CEO Steve Papermaster and many more. RSVP and learn more about the summit here.

 

What we’re reading

Meet the New York couple donating millions to the anti-vax movement (The Washington Post)

Black leaders denounce Juul’s $7.5 million gift to medical school (The New York Times)

Religion and vaccine refusal are linked. We have to talk about it. (Vox)

“We didn’t cause the crisis:” David Sackler pleads his case on the opioid epidemic (Vanity Fair)

 

State by state

California vaccine bill amended to appease governor (California Healthline)

Study: Arkansas Medicaid work requirements hit those already employed (Kaiser Health News)

Squandered Big Tobacco money a cautionary tale in opioid cases (Bloomberg Law)

 

From The Hill’s opinion page

NBA finals injuries are a game-changing warning for an aging America

Quality standards for biologics protects patient safety — don’t make it optional

In an effort to protect young users, YouTube is considering shifting all content for children to a separate app, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Critics of the Google-owned video platform have frequently warned that the feature that automatically plays another video after one is finished can inadvertently expose children to inappropriate content.

ADVERTISEMENT

YouTube executives are now considering transferring children’s videos to the stand-alone YouTube kids app. This could represent a major financial risk for the platform, as children’s content comes with millions of dollars in advertising and is among YouTube’s most popular categories of video.

Some employees are pushing for a different modification that would automatically switch off the feature that automatically plays another video, the WSJ reported.

The idea for a separate app is being floated as YouTube increasingly comes under scrutiny for what critics say is inadequate policing of videos targeting or featuring children, with Google CEO Sundar Pichai taking a more hands-on role in the running of the site lately, the WSJ reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki recently wrote in a private memo to employees that some recent calls by the company on recent controversies were “disappointing and painful.”

Last year, a survey from the Pew Research Center found that more than 80 percent of parents with children aged 11 or younger have given them permission to watch a YouTube video, with more than a third of them letting their children use the site regularly.

Earlier this month, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Marsha BlackburnMarsha BlackburnDemocrats detail new strategy to pressure McConnell on election security bills Democrats detail new strategy to pressure McConnell on election security bills Election security bills face GOP buzzsaw MORE (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to Wojcicki demanding answers after a New York Times report found YouTube’s suggestion algorithms were picking up home movies of children, leading to concern such innocent fare was being served up to predators on the platform.

“The sexualization of children through YouTube’s recommendation engine represents the development of a dangerous new kind of illicit content meant to avoid law enforcement detection. Action is overdue,” the senators wrote.