Welcome to Friday’s Overnight Health Care.

As a reminder, next week we’ll be scaling back to a recess schedule. 

Some big K Street news today, though: PhRMA’s top lobbyist is leaving. Also, the CDC reports overdose deaths are becoming more urban, and Colorado will allow marijuana to be prescribed instead of opioids for pain.

We’ll start with the lobbying news…

 

PhRMA’s top lobbyist is leaving

Rodger Currie, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s (PhRMA) top lobbyist, is leaving his post at the nation’s top lobby for drugmakers.

“Rodger Currie has decided to leave PhRMA to pursue new opportunities effective August 31. We thank Rodger for his tireless efforts leading PhRMA’s advocacy functions during such a challenging time for the industry, and we wish him well in his next endeavor,” PhRMA told The Hill in a statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Currie has been the executive vice president for advocacy at PhRMA since 2016.

Context: As the statement indicates, this has been a challenging time for the pharmaceutical industry. Lawmakers in both parties, President TrumpDonald John TrumpKentucky miners’ struggle is that of many working Americans Cummings releases statement on attempted break-in after Trump attacks PhRMA top lobbyist to leave post MORE, and Democratic presidential candidates are all calling for action to lower drug prices.

Still, PhRMA remains a powerful force and it remains to be seen whether any significant anti-industry policies will actually make it into law, despite all the talk about lowering prices. 

Read more here.

 

Colorado becomes third state to allow doctors to recommend marijuana instead of opioids

A new law in Colorado allows doctors to prescribe patients medical marijuana instead of traditionally prescribed opiates for any condition as the state seeks to battle the opiate addiction crisis.

The law, which The Denver Post reported in May would go into effect Friday, allows patients to choose medical marijuana as an alternative prescription for any diagnosis that would normally result in a prescription of an opioid-based medication.

The bill passed the state legislature with little opposition, though some critics said that the law could result in some patients being prescribed marijuana when different drugs are required.

“Our real concern is that a patient would go to a physician with a condition that has a medical treatment with evidence behind it, and then instead of that treatment, they would be recommended marijuana instead,” one physician in Aurora, Colo., told the Post.

Read more here. 

 

In related news…

 

CDC: Overdose deaths now higher in cities than rural areas

Drug overdose deaths in the U.S. are now higher in cities, after years of being more common in rural areas, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the report, the overdose rates for urban areas surpassed rural areas in 2016 and 2017, but not by much.

The CDC found that in 2017, there were 22 overdose deaths out of every 100,000 people in urban areas. In rural areas, there were 20 overdose deaths per every 100,000 people. 

The report found that deaths in urban counties were the result of men who overdosed on heroin, synthetic opioids like fentanyl, and cocaine.

Rural counties reported higher deaths among women who overdosed on methamphetamine and prescription opioid pills like oxycodone.

Read more on the findings here 

 

What we’re reading

Democratic candidates debate ‘Medicare for All’ when they should focus on saving ObamaCare (USA Today editorial)

Trump and Sanders want to ease imports of drugs from Canada. Canada says not so fast (The Washington Post)

What is it like to work in an abortion clinic or pregnancy center? Our reporters visited both. (Tampa Bay Times) 

Infusion treatments — needed or not — can deplete patients’ wallets (Kaiser Health News)

 

State by state

Dem lawmaker Horsford warns Medicare for All is too expensive (Nevada Independent)

Medicaid supporters call for full expansion after failure of Utah Legislature’s health care plan (Salt Lake Tribune)

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

President TrumpDonald John TrumpKentucky miners’ struggle is that of many working Americans Cummings releases statement on attempted break-in after Trump attacks PhRMA top lobbyist to leave post MORE said Friday that he will not nominate Rep. John RatcliffeJohn Lee RatcliffeWashington Post report raises questions about record of Trump’s DNI pick The next director of national intelligence fills critical role Top Democrat: ‘Disqualifying’ if Trump intel pick padded his résumé MORE (R-Texas) to be director of national intelligence (DNI), just days after announcing plans to tap the GOP congressman to replace Daniel Coats.

 

Trump blamed the media for treating Ratcliffe “very unfairly” in a string of tweets sent Friday afternoon, saying Ratcliffe had decided to stay in Congress and withdraw his name from consideration. Trump said he plans to announce an official nominee “shortly.”

 

“Our great Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe is being treated very unfairly by the LameStream Media. Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people,” he tweeted.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

“John has therefore decided to stay in Congress where he has done such an outstanding job representing the people of Texas, and our Country. I will be announcing my nomination for DNI shortly.”

 

Trump’s abrupt announcement came after days of scrutiny of Ratcliffe’s background and past statements critical of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Several Republican senators had declined to weigh in on his nomination, as he withstood a barrage of criticism from Democrats for being too political for the role.  

Trump had not officially nominated Ratcliffe. 

Several news reports have described Ratcliffe as overstating parts of his biography relating to his work on terrorism cases as a federal prosecutor in Texas since Trump announced his intention to nominate him on Sunday.

Sen. Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerHouse Republican asks Mark Zuckerberg for answers on Facebook ‘romance scams’ Top Democrat: ‘Disqualifying’ if Trump intel pick padded his résumé Senate Democrats demand Trump order review of White House security clearances MORE (Va.), the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, said Thursday it would be “clearly disqualifying” if it were true that Ratcliffe padded his resume.

Ratcliffe said in a statement Friday that he asked Trump to nominate someone else for the position, explaining he didn’t want the debate around his nomination “however untrue, to become a purely political and partisan issue.”

“While I am and will remain very grateful to the President for his intention to nominate me as Director of National Intelligence, I am withdrawing from consideration,” Ratcliffe said.

“I was humbled and honored that the President put his trust in me to lead our nation’s intelligence operations and remain convinced that when confirmed, I would have done so with the objectivity, fairness and integrity that our intelligence agencies need and deserve,” he continued. “However, I do not wish for a national security and intelligence debate surrounding my confirmation, however untrue, to become a purely political and partisan issue.”

Trump did not answer questions about Ratcliffe’s withdrawal on Friday afternoon during a White House event on trade. White House officials were notified in recent days that his nomination likely would face an uphill climb in the Senate, according to an administration official. 

Trump’s decision to pull the nomination adds a fresh layer of scrutiny to the intelligence community shakeup. It was not immediately clear who Trump would choose for the role now that Ratcliffe has withdrawn.

Relatedly, Trump is also considering removing Sue Gordon, Coats’s current deputy and a career intelligence officer, so he can name someone else as acting DNI when Coats leaves on Aug. 15, according to a person familiar with the process. The White House and DNI did not return multiple requests for comment about Trump’s plans for the acting director.

A federal statute states that the principal deputy Director of National Intelligence — the position Gordon currently holds — “shall act” as DNI during a vacancy in that position.  

However, if Gordon were to resign or be removed, something Warner raised concerns about, that would allow Trump to choose from a larger group of officials to serve as acting DNI.

Trump told reporters later Friday afternoon that he likes Gordon and that she would be “considered” for the acting role, with a decision made in the coming days.

Trump said he has a list of three candidates he is considering for the DNI nomination, but didn’t offer any specific names.

“I do have a short list. I have a list of a few people. We’re looking at very well known people. People where the vetting would go very easily because that’s what they’ve been doing. They’re in the intelligence world,” Trump said.

Friday’s announcement also highlighted ongoing problems with the White House’s vetting process, which have plagued the administration since its earliest days.

Ratcliffe became the latest Trump appointee who faced scrutiny about their background and were forced to withdraw their name after the president announced his intention to install them in top positions.

In the past 15 months, Ronny Jackson withdrew as Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, Stephen MooreStephen MooreHis ‘curve’ wins Art Laffer the Medal of Freedom — and the left’s outrage Why do Republicans keep trying to outspend Democrats in Congress? Trump puts hopes for Fed revolution on unconventional candidate MORE and Herman CainHerman CainTrump puts hopes for Fed revolution on unconventional candidate Acosta on shaky ground as GOP support wavers The Hill’s Morning Report – Sanders falters as rivals rise MORE pulled out consideration for the Federal Reserve Board and Heather Nauert took herself out of the running for U.N. ambassador.

Trump defended the White House vetting process as “very good,” telling reporters that he relies in part on the media to do the vetting for him.

“I get a name, I give it out to the press and you vet for me… If you look at the vetting process for the White House, it is very good, but you are part of the vetting process. I give out a name to the press and you vet for me, we save a lot of money that way,” he said.

Trump announced that Coats would resign on Sunday — capping months of rumors about his potential ouster — and that he intended to tap Ratcliffe for the role.

Ratcliffe, a three-term congressman who sits on the House Intelligence, Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, has received criticism for having a dearth of national security qualifications when compared to previous intelligence chiefs.

He is viewed as a staunch Trump ally and has criticized the origins of the Russia investigation, suggesting the FBI acted improperly in its investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

Compared to Coats, a former GOP senator from Indiana, Ratcliffe is a somewhat unknown commodity in the Senate. Several Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellKentucky miners’ struggle is that of many working Americans The Hill’s Morning Report: More bad news for House Republicans GOP punches back in election security fight MORE (Ky.), withheld judgment about his nomination.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

“I’ve yet to meet him and know very little about him. Frankly, his name was unknown to me prior to my reading the transcripts of the Mueller hearings,” Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsTop Democrat: ‘Disqualifying’ if Trump intel pick padded his résumé Overnight Energy: Changing climate boosts Maine lobster industry — for now | 2020 Dems debate climate response at Detroit debate | Dem asks for perjury investigation into Interior nominee Senate Democrats to force vote on Trump health care moves MORE (R-Me.), an Intelligence panel member, told reporters Thursday, referring to Ratcliffe’s aggressive questioning of Mueller during congressional hearings last week.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrTop Democrat: ‘Disqualifying’ if Trump intel pick padded his résumé Rand Paul says Trump intel pick has ‘worrisome’ record on surveillance Senate braces for brawl over Trump’s spy chief MORE (R-N.C.) said Friday that he respected Ratcliffe’s decision to withdraw from consideration.

“I am grateful that he will continue serving the people of Texas in the House,” Burr said in a statement. “As the White House determines its next nominee, I‘m heartened by the fact that ODNI has an experienced and capable leadership team to help see it through this transition. However, there is no substitute for having a Senate-confirmed director in place to lead our Intelligence Community. I remain committed to moving the official nomination through regular order once it is submitted to the Senate.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care: Schumer warns Dems against ‘circular firing squad’ on health care | Sanders pledges to allow drug imports on first day in office | Ebola outbreak highlights rise in epidemics Harris and Biden campaigns spar on Twitter after debate Corey Lewandowski, former Trump campaign manager, mulling Senate bid in New Hampshire MORE (D-N.Y.) cheered the development, saying that Ratcliffe “never should have been considered in the first place.”

“The next Director of National Intelligence must be someone who is nonpartisan, sees the world objectively and speaks truth to power,” Schumer said in a statement.  

—Updated at 5:03 p.m. Jordan Fabian contributed.

Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerThe Hill’s Morning Report – Progressives, centrists clash in lively Democratic debate Yang likens Democratic debate to ‘boring football game’ Overnight Health Care: Trump campaign ad to hit Dems on health care during debate | ACLU says 900 migrant kids separated over past year | Medicaid expansion backers use ballot measures to sidestep GOP MORE‘s (D-N.J.) barbed exchange with former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenO’Rourke predicts Democrats ‘can win Texas’ away from Trump in 2020 CNN roasted over debate production, format: ‘A disservice to serious people’ The Hill’s Morning Report – Progressives, centrists clash in lively Democratic debate MORE over criminal justice reform and his hiring of an official connected to former New York City Mayor Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiTrump allies spike ball after Supreme Court decision on border wall Mueller will be remembered for his weak testimony, not his shocking report The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Muller testimony dominates Washington MORE (R) was the top tweeted-about moment of Wednesday’s debate.

Twitter’s Government and Elections team tweeted Wednesday night following the debate that the back-and-forth, during which Booker told Biden: “You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor.”

Booker’s response came after Biden questioned the New Jersey senator and former Newark mayor’s embrace of stop-and-frisk tactics by police as well as the hiring of Giuliani’s former adviser.

ADVERTISEMENT

“If you want to compare records, and I’m shocked that you do, I’m happy to do that,” Booker told Biden Wednesday night.

Other top moments from the debate, according to Twitter, included Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardThe Hill’s Morning Report – Progressives, centrists clash in lively Democratic debate Military service can help Gabbard and Buttigieg with undecided Democratic voters The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s new target: Elijah Cummings MORE‘s (D-Hawaii) exchange with Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisO’Rourke predicts Democrats ‘can win Texas’ away from Trump in 2020 CNN roasted over debate production, format: ‘A disservice to serious people’ The Hill’s Morning Report – Progressives, centrists clash in lively Democratic debate MORE (D-Calif.) for admitting to smoking marijuana after prosecuting people for the same crime, as well as Sen. Kirsten GillibrandKirsten Elizabeth GillibrandThe Hill’s Morning Report – Progressives, centrists clash in lively Democratic debate Overnight Health Care: Trump campaign ad to hit Dems on health care during debate | ACLU says 900 migrant kids separated over past year | Medicaid expansion backers use ballot measures to sidestep GOP Candidates face make-or-break moment in Democratic debates MORE‘s (D-N.Y.) quip that she would “Clorox” the Oval Office as her first order of business as president.

Tuesday night’s debate ended with Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenYoung Turks host says Marianne Williamson proved why she ‘deserves’ to be on debate stage Romney calls Sanders ‘all hat, no cattle’ after Democratic debate Delaney fires back at Warren after debate: She ‘doesn’t want to defend’ her policies MORE‘s (D-Mass.) rebuke of former Rep. John DelaneyJohn Kevin DelaneyYoung Turks host says Marianne Williamson proved why she ‘deserves’ to be on debate stage Delaney fires back at Warren after debate: She ‘doesn’t want to defend’ her policies Warren’s excited hand rub in reaction to Delaney wealth tax question turns into meme MORE (D-Md.) going viral after the Massachusetts progressive questioned why Delaney was running to just “talk about what’s not possible.”

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

A new law in the Netherlands banning face coverings in certain public areas went into effect Thursday, but police and officials to this point have been largely unwilling to enforce it.

As part of the Partial Ban on Face-Covering Clothing Act, wearing ski masks, full-face helmets, balaclavas, niqabs and burqas is not allowed in public buildings, including schools and hospitals and on public transport, according to The Guardian.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, Pedro Peters, spokesperson for the RET transport network, said police have already told him and other transportation companies that they will not focus on enforcement of the new law.

“The police have told us the ban is not a priority and that therefore they will not be able to respond inside the usual 30 minutes, if at all,” Peters said.

He added that it essentially means if a person wearing a burqa or a niqab is challenged trying to use a service, “our staff will have no police backup to adjudicate on what they should do. It is not up to transport workers to impose the law and hand out fines.”

Fines for a first-time offense can run as high as 150 euros and individuals can be arrested for refusing to uncover their faces under the law.

Netherlands in 2016 became the sixth European country to pass a law prohibiting face-coverings in public buildings or transport.

Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema has already expressed her displeasure with the law and made clear that the city’s police will largely ignore it.

Click Here: Liverpool Mens Jersey

Nearly three-quarters of respondents in a new poll said they support raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21.

Gallup found that 73 percent of Americans said they backed raising the minimum tobacco purchase age to 21. Support for the move was higher among older respondents, the survey giant added.

According to the poll, 81 percent of Americans 65 and over supported the increase, as did 70 percent of those aged 50 to 64, 73 percent of respondents aged 30 to 49 and 66 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds.

ADVERTISEMENT

Eighteen states and Washington, D.C., have passed laws raising the legal age to purchase tobacco to 21. About half of the states’ laws have gone into effect, and the other half will go into effect over the next two years. 

Aside from the state bills, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump doubles down on support for budget deal Senate barrels toward tight budget vote The Hill’s Morning Report – Attacked repeatedly, Biden fires back MORE (R-Ky.) and Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineOvernight Defense: Dems talk Afghanistan, nukes at Detroit debate | Senate panel advances Hyten nomination | Iranian foreign minister hit with sanctions | Senate confirms UN ambassador Senate committee advances nomination of general accused of sexual assault Booker, Durbin and Leahy introduce bill to ban death penalty MORE (D-Va.) have introduced legislation to raise the federal minimum age from 18 to 21. 

Gallup also found that 64 percent of Americans support stricter regulations on e-cigarettes. According to Gallup, 75 percent of Americans 65 and older supported stricter regulations, as did 69 percent of those 50 to 64, and 64 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds.

About half, 49 percent, of Americans 18 to 29 supported stricter regulations, compared to 42 percent that t supported keeping restrictions as they are now. 

Tobacco and e-cigarette companies like Altria and Juul, which have been attacked for offering flavored products attractive to youths, also support the Senate bill. 

Public health groups support increasing the tobacco purchasing age, but say more must be done to curb youth vaping rates.  

Click Here: Liverpool Mens Jersey

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports e-cigarettes were the most commonly used tobacco product among youth in 2018. The CDC said 20.8 percent of  high school students used e-cigarettes in 2018, compared to 1.5 percent in 2011. 

The CDC said the increase in use is “likely because of the recent popularity” of products such as Juul, which is shaped like a USB flash drive and can be used discreetly. The agency also claims the flavored products appeal to youth. 

Gallup surveyed 1,525 U.S. adults from July 1 to July 12. There is a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

HOW ABOUT SOME AIR RULE WONKINESS?: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to finalize a rule Thursday that would ease the air pollution permitting process for certain power plants and manufacturers.

Since the early days of the Trump administration, the EPA has argued the process for obtaining permits under the Clean Air Act, known as New Source Review (NSR), is too burdensome.

The agency’s proposal seeks to make a regulation out of a 2018 memo from former EPA Administrator Scott PruittEdward (Scott) Scott PruittPair of GOP senators propose easing Obama water rule Overnight Energy: EPA proposes scrapping limits on coal plant waste | Appointee overseeing federal lands once advocated selling them | EPA lifts Obama-era block on controversial mine EPA kills proposed Obama-era Pebble mine ‘veto’ MORE that has already been challenged in court by environmental groups.

The Sierra Club said the proposed rule would allow “some of the wealthiest industries in our country to avoid cleaning up their air emissions instead of installing modern pollution controls on their dirty facilities.”

ADVERTISEMENT

EPA argues it will help ease the process for facilities looking to install new equipment. 

The NSR process at the crux of the proposed regulation kicks in both for new facilities and when power plants install new equipment or make changes that would significantly increase air pollution.

The debate between EPA and environmentalists largely centers on how much pollution must be factored in when weighing changes at a power plant. Whether or not a plant has to install pollution controls hinges on that calculation. 

Environmentalists say the law requires looking at the plant as a whole, including all the ways a facility decreases and increases pollution through its operations. 

John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA proposal weighs the increased pollution from one change against all the other decreases in the plant —something that ignores that net pollution may go up.

“You can’t cherry-pick the decreases because it’s allowing even greater increases to escape control,” he said, thus leading to more pollution. “And that’s really the point of this regulation, to allow greater increases to escape control.”

He gave the example of installing a new boiler at a plant. The new technology might be more energy efficient, but if the boiler is run more often than the old one, it will still produce more pollution.

The EPA pushed back against Walke’s assertion.

“Today’s proposal is an important step towards President TrumpDonald John TrumpComedy Central shoots down Trump Jr. after he joked network should host Democratic debates Booker: If Obama was running for a third term, ‘I wouldn’t be running’ De Blasio releases plan to substantially raise taxes on the rich, corporations MORE’s goal of reforming the elements of NSR that regularly discouraged facilities from upgrading and deploying the latest energy efficient technologies,” EPA Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerEPA proposal scraps limits on coal plant waste Judge cuts Roundup cancer case payout from billion to million Automakers rebuff Trump, strike fuel efficiency deal with California MORE said in a release. “By simplifying the permitting process and implementing a common-sense interpretation of our NSR rules, we will remove a major obstacle to the construction of cleaner and more efficient facilities.”

Read more about the fight over New Source Review here. 

 

HAPPY AUGUST-RECESS-IS-SO-CLOSE-YOU-CAN-TASTE-IT THURSDAY! And welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news. 

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

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our newsletter.

 

WOTUS WOES: Two Midwest Republican senators are pushing a bill to cement changes made by the Trump administration to an Obama-era rule designed to reduce water pollution, bringing a pet project of the Trump administration to Congress. 

The Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule has long been controversial within the agriculture community, with farmers arguing it gives the federal government far too much power to regulate runoff in small bodies of water that could get contaminated by farm waste.

The bill from Sens. Joni ErnstJoni Kay ErnstPair of GOP senators propose easing Obama water rule Overnight Defense: Dems talk Afghanistan, nukes at Detroit debate | Senate panel advances Hyten nomination | Iranian foreign minister hit with sanctions | Senate confirms UN ambassador Senate committee advances nomination of general accused of sexual assault MORE (R-Iowa) and Mike BraunMichael BraunPair of GOP senators propose easing Obama water rule Overnight Health Care: Senate panel advances drug pricing bill amid GOP blowback | House panel grills Juul executives | Trump gives boost to state drug import plans | Officials say new migrant kids’ shelter to remain open but empty Romney to vote against budget deal: Agreement ‘perpetuates fiscal recklessness’ MORE (R-Ind.) is the latest attempt to put the onus on Congress instead of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to define which waters should be regulated under the law. 

“The Obama-era WOTUS rule threatened Iowa’s farmers, manufacturers, and small businesses by giving the federal government authority to regulate water on 97 percent of land in our state,” Ernst said in a statement. “President Trump and his administration have taken tremendous steps to roll back this far-reaching regulation. … But it’s the job of Congress to make a new, reasonable definition permanent.”

Trump’s EPA finalized its own WOTUS rule in February. 

Pushback from greens: “This bill would gut the Clean Water Act even worse than the Trump administration’s reckless and wildly unpopular proposal earlier this year,” Jon Devine, director of federal water policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement to The Hill. “It’s a recipe for letting polluters around the country off the hook and forcing communities to bear the costs of contaminated waterways and destroyed wetlands. Americans have a right to clean water. We deserve better from members of Congress and the Trump administration than parroting polluters’ bogus claims.”

Though farmers gripe WOTUS goes too far by regulating small bodies of water and seasonal issues, like waterways that result from melting snow, environmentalists say the rule is essential because small waterways eventually flow into larger ones. They say the rule is also necessary to protect drinking water sources from contamination.

WOTUS was established under the Obama administration in 2015 to determine which bodies of water are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act — something Trump’s EPA sought to ease early in the administration. The Clean Water Act was first established in the 1970s to give the federal government authority to regulate pollution discharges into waterways.

The bill proposed by Ernst and Braun would dramatically scale back federal jurisdiction over water. The EPA would no longer have purview over seasonal bodies because the federal law would only apply to those that contain water slightly more than half the year — 185 days — eliminating their review over seasonal waterbodies created by snowmelt or heavy rains.

The 185-day figure comes directly from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the bill also excludes irrigation areas from what would be considered navigable waters

Read more about the bill here.

 

LEADING ON LEAD? Environmentalists are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over a new rule they say doesn’t do enough to protect children from lead contamination.

A group of environmental advocates filed a joint lawsuit against EPA on Thursday challenging the agency’s finalized June Dust-Lead Hazard Standards that the group says are too lax to protect families. 

The suit, filed in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, takes issue with the EPA’s newly revised environmental regulations that measure lead found in dust on floors, window sills and in soil typically from older dwellings. 

The rule, rolled out jointly by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben CarsonBenjamin (Ben) Solomon CarsonBen Carson compares Baltimore’s problems to having cancer Ben Carson defends Trump’s assessment of Baltimore Ben Carson: Trump is not a racist and his comments were not racist MORE, is meant in particular to protect children from harmful lead exposure.

“Trump’s EPA had a chance to follow mainstream science and correctly update these standards for children’s sake,” said Eve Gartner, Earthjustice attorney. “Instead it botched the opportunity and gave families a rule that falls far short of protecting children.”  

This is the second time Earthjustice is taking the EPA to task over the lead dust standards. The environmental group in 2016 previously sued the EPA to force the agency’s hand in finalizing the rule, saying the EPA at the time was delaying its rulemaking. The court in 2017 sided with the group which led to the EPA’s finalized rule introduced this year.

But environmentalists are saying the EPA’s new rule still does not provide stringent enough protections for children.

“Current standards result in inspections that fail to identify homes or schools with dangerous levels of lead,” said the coalition of organizations represented by Earthjustice. “When that happens homeowners and others do not take measures to reduce lead, exposing families and children to breathing in toxic levels of lead. This is illegal and intolerable.”

 

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY: 

–Judge blocks copper mine project in Arizona national forest, the Associated Press reports.

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

-New Mexico private fishing ban might not be a keeper, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

-South Carolina refunds utility customers for failed nuclear plant, The State reports.

 

ICYMI: Stories from Thursday…

-Pompeo hits China over Mekong River dams

-Pair of GOP senators propose easing Obama water rule

-Researchers say firefly populations are dying out due to human development, pesticides

-2 percent of endangered North Atlantic right whales died this summer: report

-Trump campaign calls Democratic environmental plans ‘reckless and dangerous’

-Green group sues EPA over lead dust rules it says are too lax

-EPA proposes easing air pollution permitting process

Republicans are pushing back on Democrats after sustaining more than a week’s worth of attacks over stalled election security bills.

GOP senators this week countered accusations from across the aisle that they are thwarting all efforts to secure the 2020 elections, arguing instead that Senate Democrats are abandoning the legislative process, treading on states rights and misleading voters about what their legislation would do.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

“When they talk about federalizing elections, or having to have a central D.C. location to be able to give certification to every vendor or Voter ID laws or federal funding for elections, those are not election security items, that’s a completely different thing,” Sen. James LankfordJames Paul LankfordMcConnell under fire for burying election bills in ‘legislative graveyard’ Romney to vote against budget deal: Agreement ‘perpetuates fiscal recklessness’ Overnight Defense: House approves 3 billion defense bill | Liberal sweeteners draw progressive votes | Bill includes measure blocking Trump from military action on Iran MORE (R-Okla.), one of the main Republicans pushing for election security legislation, told The Hill this week.

Other Republicans pointed to a recent all-member Senate briefing, given by senior administration officials on election security efforts, as their reasoning for not wanting to pass election bills.

“When we were in the briefing we asked, ‘Do you need further authority?’ And the people in charge of election security don’t need any further authority, they don’t need a law,” Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonThe Hill’s Morning Report – Crunch time for 2020 Democrats in Detroit debate We have a growing fentanyl problem so let’s not repeat past mistakes More than 1,400 Jewish clergy call on Trump, Congress to allow asylum-seekers into US MORE (R-Wis.) told The Hill.

Sen. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE (R-La) told reporters that he felt “we are on top of the election.”  

“If you had attended the classified briefings I attended, you would have been impressed,” he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

The comments from GOP senators came as Republicans are attempting to reframe the election security debate by explaining their rationale for consistently blocking related bills, despite warnings from former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerTrump calls for probe of Obama book deal Democrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony Kellyanne Conway: ‘I’d like to know’ if Mueller read his own report MORE that the Kremlin is actively planning on a repeat performance of its 2016 election interference.

Top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerDe Blasio defends Al Sharpton amidst Trump attacks GOP chairman to move ‘swiftly’ on Ratcliffe nomination to intelligence post Sharpton: Trump has ‘particular venom’ for blacks, people of color MORE (D-N.Y.), have repeatedly come to the floor in the past week to try to pass various election security bills by unanimous consent. Each time, they have been blocked from passage by Senate Republicans, who have cited concerns around these bills not being bipartisan and their potential to federalize aspects of elections.

Senate Democrats have directed blistering attacks at Republicans, particularly Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump doubles down on support for budget deal Senate barrels toward tight budget vote The Hill’s Morning Report – Attacked repeatedly, Biden fires back MORE (R-Ky.), for refusing to allow votes on the measures. McConnell’s refusal to allow any votes led to “#MoscowMitch” trending on Twitter.

The moniker even came up on the debate stage this week, when former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian CastroJulian CastroThese Democratic candidates should drop out now Five takeaways from Democratic debate brawl Castro argues for impeachment: We’ll tell voters ‘Moscow Mitch’ let him off MORE referred to “Moscow Mitch” during the second Democratic presidential debate in reference to McConnell potentially blocking impeachment proceedings against President TrumpDonald John TrumpComedy Central shoots down Trump Jr. after he joked network should host Democratic debates Booker: If Obama was running for a third term, ‘I wouldn’t be running’ De Blasio releases plan to substantially raise taxes on the rich, corporations MORE if the House were to initiate them.

McConnell hit back during a floor speech this week, calling the nickname and allegations akin to “modern-day McCarthyism.”

“Last week, I stopped Democrats from passing an election law bill through the Senate by unanimous consent. A bill that was so partisan that it only received one single Republican vote in the House. My Democratic friends asked for unanimous consent to pass a bill that everyone knows isn’t unanimous, and never will be unanimous. So I objected,” he said.

The bill McConnell was referring to was passed by the House in June. The bill includes many provisions designed to secure elections from interference, such as providing $600 million in funds for states to implement security improvements, and requiring the use of voter-verified paper ballots. It passed the House by a vote of 225-184, with only one Republican voting in favor.

Lankford argued that since states are constitutionally given the authority to run their elections, they should fund security improvements.

“Just as cutting the grass at the governor’s mansion is a state responsibility, so is running their elections,” he said. “Now there is a federal nexus in this, in that if they mess up a federal election, that has national consequences. But ultimately it’s their responsibility, so I don’t want us to get into funding every single state.”

Congress appropriated $380 million to states through the Election Assistance Commission last year, much of which has been used to put in place cybersecurity enhancements and replace outdated voting equipment.

Almost two dozen Democratic state attorneys general sent a letter to Congress in June asking that lawmakers appropriate “sustained” funding to states for election security purposes.

A bill sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharThese Democratic candidates should drop out now The Hill’s Morning Report – Attacked repeatedly, Biden fires back Winners and losers from the Democratic debates in Detroit MORE (Minn.), and backed by 38 other Democrats, would appropriate $1 billion to states to improve election security, with an additional $175 million given for the same purpose every two years through 2026.

But in some instances, funding is not the issue blocking consideration in the Senate.

H.R. 1, known as the For the People Act, has been stalled in the Senate ever since it was passed by the House in March on a party-line vote. McConnell has labeled it the “Democrat Politician Protection Act” and has said it will never come to the Senate floor.

Lankford argued that bill has little to do with stopping foreign interference in elections. Some of the provisions include creating nationwide automatic voter registration, ending the practice of gerrymandering and requiring organizations involved in politics to disclose their financial activity.

“With the passage of H.R. 1 at the beginning of this session, it’s less hopeful that we can pass just an actual election security bill, that we’re not going to try to have the House jump in and say, ‘OK, now that we’re talking about election security, let’s also talk about everything else with elections and federalizing all these other things,’” Lankford said. “We have no interest in doing that.”

Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntSenate barrels toward tight budget vote Senate kicks budget vote to Thursday amid questions over GOP support Lawmakers seek to honor Negro Leagues baseball with commemorative coin MORE (R-Mo.), the chairman of the Rules Committee with jurisdiction over election security legislation, went to the floor this week to dispute the narrative that Republicans are opposed to securing elections.

“Our friends came to the floor last week and they sought unanimous consent to make sweeping changes in the election laws of the country and then somehow suggested there is a conspiracy that anybody would say not to that,” Blunt said, adding that unanimous consent “is what we do when we name a post office…it is not how we shape the laws at the heart of our democracy.”

One bill that is positioned to garner bipartisan support and potentially break the deadlock is the Secure Elections Act, backed by Lankford and Klobuchar in the previous Congress. The measure failed to make it through the Rules Committee, with Klobuchar blaming the White House and Lankford saying too many people “jumped in” with suggestions.

The two senators are looking to reintroduce the bill this Congress, and according to Lankford are only working out “verbs, nouns, and adjectives” before putting it out.

The previous iteration of the bill would strengthen cybersecurity information sharing between the federal government and state and local election officials, while also requiring all jurisdictions perform post-election audits to verify Election Day results.

While McConnell has not yet been asked to support the bill, Lankford said that last year the majority leader was not opposed to the “concept” of the legislation, adding that he has been receiving “technical assistance” from the White House on the bill’s new language.

But in the meantime, Lankford said Senate Democrats are the ones spreading disinformation when it comes to election security legislation.

“You’re not going to find a Republican opposed to election security,” Lankford said. “Contrary to popular belief, we don’t want elections interfered with either.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerDe Blasio defends Al Sharpton amidst Trump attacks GOP chairman to move ‘swiftly’ on Ratcliffe nomination to intelligence post Sharpton: Trump has ‘particular venom’ for blacks, people of color MORE (D-N.Y.) on Thursday warned Democratic presidential candidates not to become so focused on the internal differences over health care that they lose sight of fighting against President TrumpDonald John TrumpComedy Central shoots down Trump Jr. after he joked network should host Democratic debates Booker: If Obama was running for a third term, ‘I wouldn’t be running’ De Blasio releases plan to substantially raise taxes on the rich, corporations MORE.  

In an interview with SiriusXM’s Joe Madison, Schumer cautioned against candidates turning into a “circular firing squad.”

“If we get all focused on the differences between, say Bernie [Sanders] and Cory [Booker] and Mayor Pete [Buttigieg] and [John] Hickenlooper, we’ll lose sight of the fact that it’s Donald Trump who’s now trying to reduce health care, destroy health care, get rid of it for everybody,” Schumer said.

“That’s a trap that we shouldn’t fall into. No circular firing squads,” he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

Schumer’s remarks come after a divisive Democratic debate on Wednesday night that saw a number of battles break out over health care between former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenBooker: If Obama was running for a third term, ‘I wouldn’t be running’ De Blasio releases plan to substantially raise taxes on the rich, corporations Biden Surrogate: His opponents have taken the tactics of Donald Trump MORE, Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisEric Holder to 2020 Democrats: ‘Be wary of attacking the Obama record’ The myth of health insurance choice These Democratic candidates should drop out now MORE (D-Calif.) and other candidates. 

The battles over health care and other issues during the debate were brutal enough that Booker at one point said the White House was surely enjoying the spectacle. 

Democrats running for president are struggling with divisions over just how far to the left their health plans should go. Progressives like Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe myth of health insurance choice These Democratic candidates should drop out now Krystal Ball: Biden failed the test of moral leadership. Saagar Enjeti: Bernie-lite candidates should drop out MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenDe Blasio releases plan to substantially raise taxes on the rich, corporations These Democratic candidates should drop out now Mark Penn: Democrats’ debate was a panderfest MORE (D-Mass.) support completely eliminating private insurance as part of a transition to single-payer “Medicare for All.”

More centrist Democrats like Sen. Michael BennetMichael Farrand BennetDe Blasio releases plan to substantially raise taxes on the rich, corporations These Democratic candidates should drop out now The Hill’s Morning Report – Attacked repeatedly, Biden fires back MORE (Colo.) and Biden are pushing to strengthen ObamaCare and want to offer a government-run insurance option while letting people keep their private plans if they want to.

Biden, Bennet and other moderates argue the massive cost of Medicare for All would bankrupt the government.  

Battles over health care also dominated Tuesday night’s Democratic debate featuring Warren and Sanders, and on both nights there was only a passing acknowledgement of Trump and his continuing fight to overturn ObamaCare. 

Democrats ran on protecting ObamaCare in the 2018 midterm elections, and took control of the House. Senate Democrats are trying to hammer home the message that fighting Trump’s “sabotage” of ObamaCare should be the immediate focus.  

“The difference between the Democrats is a little, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is huge,” Schumer said. Democrats “are united in the broad sense in health care. Every one of us is for universal health care. … Different people have different ways to get there.” 

A Navy fighter pilot that crashed his F/A-18E Super Hornet on Wednesday in California has died, the Navy confirmed on Thursday.

The pilot, who was assigned to the “Vigilantes” Strike Fighter Squadron 151, was based at Naval Air Station Lemoore and was flying a routine training mission when he crashed in Death Valley National Park.

“The Navy mourns the loss of one of our own and our hearts go out to the family and friends affected by this tragedy,” the Navy wrote on Twitter.

ADVERTISEMENT

“In accordance with [Defense Department] policy, the identity of the pilot will be withheld 24 hours,” pending next of kin notification.

The cause of the crash is currently under investigation.

The fighter jet crashed around 10 a.m. local time near the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, in a gorge often referred to as Star Wars Canyon but officially called Rainbow Canyon.

Search and rescue crews searched for the pilot through the night before declaring him dead.

It was also reported that seven park visitors had minor injuries, minor burns and cuts from jet fragments after it crashed and caused an explosion.

ABC News-affiliated station KABC-TV reported that tourists said they were taking photographs when the jet appeared and hit the canyon wall.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

Sens. Mike CrapoMichael (Mike) Dean CrapoOn The Money: Fed poised to give Trump boost with rate cut | Parties unable to reach deal in Trump tax return lawsuit | New York opens investigation into Capital One data breach New York Attorney General opens investigation into Capital One data breach Overnight Health Care: Faith-based health clinics spurn contraceptives under Trump rule | Senate punts vote on bipartisan health costs bill | Azar calling GOP senators to back Grassley drug price plan MORE (R-Idaho) and Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerDemocrats raise questions about how Ratcliffe would approach election security Democrats take another stab at preventing foreign election interference Collins is first GOP senator to back bill requiring campaigns report foreign assistance offers to FBI MORE (D-Va.) introduced legislation Tuesday intended to secure U.S. technological supply chains from exploitation from countries such as China.

The Manufacturing, Investment, and Controls Review for Computer Hardware, Intellectual Property and Supply (Microchips) Act would establish a National Supply Chain Security Center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

ADVERTISEMENT

This new center would be charged with collecting information on threats to supply chains for the government and the military as well as for key telecommunication infrastructure like 5G, and sharing this with relevant federal agencies. 

The bill would also require the director of national intelligence to develop a plan to increase supply chain intelligence within 180 days of the bill being signed into law. This portion of the bill was included in the House-passed version of the Intelligence Authorization Act

While the bill aims to address foreign threats generally to supply chains, it zeros in on Chinese supply chain exploitation practices including cyber-physical attacks on U.S. electric grids, missiles and computer systems, and malicious actors gaining access to sensitive data. 

Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement that “actions by the People’s Republic of China have contributed to an unfair and unsafe advantage in its technological race against the United States,” adding that “China aims to dominate a $1.5 trillion electronics industry, which creates serious, far-reaching threats to the supply chains that support the U.S. government and military.”  

Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, noted that the U.S. still lacks a “coordinated, whole-of-government strategy to defend ourselves,” and called for “a national strategy to unify efforts across the government to protect our supply chain and our national security.” 

Chinese interference in U.S. supply chains has been increasingly in the spotlight as the Trump administration has moved to block American companies from doing business with Chinese telecom Huawei, citing national security concerns. 

This has been a particular focus as both Chinese and American companies look to roll out fifth generation (5G) wireless technologies, with Crapo’s office noting in announcing the new bill that China is trying to export 5G technologies to the U.S. “that could potentially harm and expose both consumer and U.S. military information.”

Click Here: highlanders rugby gear world