Family members hold photos of victims killed on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610 on Tuesday.

Boeing’s 737 Max jet is at the center of two international crashes that left 346 people dead in just five months over the past year. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and John Hamilton, company vice president and chief engineer, are expected to testify before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Wednesday. The aircraft has been grounded since March, and this week’s hearings are focused on aviation safety concerns and the status of the aircraft.

On Tuesday, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee explored issues regarding the design, development, certification and operation of the 737 Max. Muilenburg and Hamilton testified along with Robert Sumwalt, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, and Christopher Hart, chairman of the Joint Authorities Technical Review. Tuesday marked one year since an Indonesian Lion Air jet crashed into the Java Sea minutes after takeoff, killing all 189 people on board. Another 157 people were killed when an Ethiopian Airlines flight from Addis Ababa to Nairobi crashed in a remote part of Ethiopia on March 10.

“On behalf of myself and the Boeing company, we are sorry, deeply and truly sorry,” Muilenburg said in his opening statement to the committee. “As a husband and father myself, I’m heartbroken by your losses. I think about you and your loved ones every day, and I know our entire Boeing team does as well. I know that probably doesn’t offer much comfort and healing at this point, but I want you to know that we carry those memories with us every day. And every day that drives us to improve the safety of our airplanes and our industry. “

This is the first time Boeing executives have testified since the two crashes. Here’s what brought them to Capitol Hill.

What should I know about the 737 Max?

The Boeing 737 Max family — including the Max 7, Max 8, Max 9 and Max 10 — is the fourth-generation of the Boeing 737. Competition with Airbus, which announced an updated version of its A320 model in 2010, spurred Boeing to develop a more fuel-efficient aircraft under time constraints. It decided to reengineer the existing model rather than undergo the long and expensive process of creating and certifying a new plane.

Boeing announced the launch of the 737 Max in August 2011 and delivered the first plane for commercial use in May 2017. It became the fastest-selling airplane in company history, with roughly 5,000 orders from more than 100 customers worldwide.

Click Here: Real bape hoodie

As of March 2019, three U.S. carriers have 737 Max jets: Southwest has 34 in its fleet, American has 24 and United has 14. China and Indonesia are two of the aircraft’s biggest users.

What happened during and after the crashes?

The Boeing 737 Max 8 — and the company — fell under intense scrutiny after two deadly crashes.

Lion Air 610 from Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang, Indonesia, was in the air for just 13 minutes before it suddenly pitched into the Java Sea on Oct. 29, 2018. Less than half a year later, on March 10, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa.

Airlines and government regulators worldwide, including the Federal Aviation Administration, grounded all 737 Max passenger planes pending further investigation.

Preliminary reviews of the Ethiopian Airlines plane’s flight data showed that there were “clear similarities” between the two accidents. Both involved a new flight control system called the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system, or MCAS, which is designed to prevent aerodynamic stalls. The new 737 Max’s larger engines were placed farther forward on the wing, which changed the aircraft’s aerodynamic lift. The flight control system was intended to make the new model feel similar to its predecessor for pilots, even though it was designed to activate only in rare and extreme circumstances.

The MCAS system would push the nose of a plane downward if its sensors and flight control computers sensed a problem with low airspeed. But Ethiopian officials announced in March that the plane’s flight data recorder showed that its pilot, like that of the Lion Air flight, struggled to keep the plane from nosing down at high speed shortly after takeoff.

What other issues might have contributed to the accidents?

In March, The Seattle Times reported that Boeing had downplayed the risks of crucial flaws in its safety analysis of the new flight control system and that FAA oversight was lacking. Multiple FAA technical experts told the Times that safety assessments were rushed to meet certification dates and that FAA engineers were pressured to increasingly delegate technical assessments to Boeing itself. The System Safety Analysis on MCAS was one such delegation.

Because the MCAS would only be activated in extreme situations, The Seattle Times reported, “Boeing decided that 737 pilots needed no extra training on the system — and indeed that they didn’t even need to know about it. It was not mentioned in their flight manuals.”

Passenger flights using the 737 Max have been grounded since March.

The Joint Authorities Technical Review — a panel assembled by the FAA and composed of U.S. and international civil aviation authorities — released a report earlier this month that criticized both Boeing and the FAA for the way the 737 Max was developed and certified to fly. It confirmed that information about MCAS was absent from pilot and training manuals and that Boeing withheld details about it from the FAA during the certification process.

And in mid-October, evidence emerged that key Boeing employees were discussing problems with the MCAS system over text messages as early as 2016, without alerting the FAA.

Senior company pilots described seeing fundamental issues with the flight control system but telling federal regulators the plane was safe, in what one pilot described as an unknowing lie. In an Oct. 18 statement, the FAA said Boeing had alerted the Department of Transportation to the existence of the messages, which the company had discovered “some months ago.” The FAA said it found the substance of the messages and their handling concerning, and has since shared them with the relevant congressional committees.

Last week, Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee released its long-awaited report, criticizing Boeing for the design and certification of the 737 Max and the MCAS system in particular. Investigators found that while MCAS was the primary cause of the Lion Air crash, a faulty sensor, inadequate maintenance, poor pilot training and a failure to heed previous problems with the same aircraft were all contributing factors.

Boeing insiders told NPR’s David Schaper that a shift in corporate culture over the past decade has led to the prioritization of profits and shareholder value over safety. Since the 737 Max earned a common “type rating” with the previous model, for instance, pilots only had to undergo minimal additional training, which Boeing promoted on its website as a cost-saving measure. Experts such as aviation industry analyst Bjorn Fehrm say a culture of cost-cutting has financial as well as reputational consequences that Boeing must address.

How have Boeing and the FAA responded?

Boeing officials have insisted safety is their top priority and has said its engineers are working to fix software problems and other issues. The company has since developed a software fix for the MCAS system and announced an overhaul of internal safety procedures and reporting protocols.

Since the Lion Air accident, the “737 Max and its software are undergoing an unprecedented level of global regulatory oversight, testing and analysis,” Boeing said in a statement responding to the Indonesia report. It added that the company is “updating crew manuals and pilot training, designed to ensure every pilot as all [the] information they need to fly the 737 Max safely.”

The FAA also issued a statement saying it welcomed the report’s recommendations and would consider them as it reviewed proposed changes to the Boeing 737 Max.

“The FAA is committed to ensuring that the lessons learned from the losses of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 will result in an even greater level of safety globally,” it read.

Senators criticized Boeing President and CEO Dennis Muilenburg at a hearing on 737 Max safety.

Sources told NPR in June that FAA test pilots had discovered an additional issue that “affected their ability to quickly and easily follow recovery procedures for runaway stabilizer trim and stabilize the aircraft.” Boeing said it was working on the required software fix and was working closely with the FAA to “safely return the 737 Max to service.”

Last week, Boeing reported a 50% drop in profits in the third quarter related to the grounding of the Max. Both domestic and foreign airline carriers have experienced shrinking profits and crowded planes as a result of grounding their 737 Max aircraft.

Boeing also announced last week that it would be replacing the head of its commercial airplanes unit, the first firing of a top executive since the crashes. Kevin McAllister had arrived at Boeing when the 737 Max was already in the final stages of design and certification but had faced customer criticism over his handling of the crisis.

What’s happening on the Hill?

Boeing officials faced intense questioning at Tuesday’s hearing, and tensions are expected to remain high on Wednesday.

Boeing CEO Muilenburg acknowledged the company had made mistakes and was working closely with the FAA and other regulators to fix them.

“Regulators around the world should approve the return of the MAX to the skies only after they have applied the most rigorous scrutiny, and are completely satisfied as to the plane’s safety,” Muilenburg told lawmakers. “The flying public deserves nothing less.”

Senators asked Muilenburg whether the company intentionally hid information about issues with the MCAS system from regulators and pressed him on why Boeing pushed regulators to permit 737 Max planes to continue flying after the Lion Air crash.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., criticized the company for being in “too cozy a relationship”with the FAA, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked why the 2016 pilot text messages were not turned over until earlier this year. Muilenburg answered that he did not see the details of the exchange until “recently” and supported “diving deep into this and understanding what he said and what he meant.” He disputed the idea that the company would “lie or conceal.”

“We know we made mistakes and got some things wrong,” Muilenburg said in his opening statement. “We own that, and we are fixing them.”

Among software improvements and organizational restructuring efforts, Muilenburg said, the company has also pledged $100 million to help meet the financial needs of the communities and families affected by the crashes.

Nearly 20 family members from several countries who lost loved ones in the Ethiopian Airlines crash are attending the hearings. At one point on Tuesday, they were asked to stand up while holding photographs of their lost relatives.

Family members, who had just returned from collecting the remains of those killed in the crash, also spoke with Muilenburg in a private meeting after his testimony.

Rachel Treisman is an intern on NPR’s National Desk.

Correction Oct. 30, 2019

In a previous version of this story, we misspelled Dennis Muilenburg’s last name as Muilenberg in several references.

When ObamaCare’s open enrollment period begins Friday, many people can expect to find lower premiums and more plan options on healthcare.gov.

But experts and advocates are projecting the number of enrollees for 2020 will decrease for a fourth consecutive year, in large part because of actions taken by the Trump administration.

“I expect to see a decline in enrollment because of the long list of things working against it,” said Josh Peck, who oversaw ObamaCare enrollment efforts from 2014 to 2017.

ADVERTISEMENT

Enrollment has slipped in recent years, from a high of 12.7 million in 2016 to 11.4 million in 2019.

Democrats have accused President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump congratulates Washington Nationals on World Series win Trump hints that dog injured in al-Baghdadi raid will visit White House Vindman says White House lawyer moved Ukraine call to classified server: report MORE and his administration of “sabotaging” the 2010 health care law by backing a lawsuit that seeks to overturn it, loosening regulations on the sale of non-ObamaCare plans, cutting federal funds for marketing and outreach efforts, and ending payments to insurers that go toward reducing costs for low-income customers.

Still, there are signs the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces are holding steady. Health insurance premiums have decreased, on average, from last year, and increased insurer participation means consumers will have more plan options.

“Generally speaking, the markets have proven to be more resilient than many would have given it credit for, and I think there are several positive trends for the market and the people signing up for it,” said Cynthia Cox, director of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s ACA program. “The market is still relatively stable despite the policy changes that have been put in place over the last few years.”

An analysis by Peck’s group, Get America Covered, found 67 percent of consumers shopping for coverage on healthcare.gov this year can find an ObamaCare plan for $10 or less after subsidies.

Peck said he would highlight that dollar amount if he were still running marketing for ObamaCare.

“That is not something they’re broadcasting,” he said of the Trump administration.

While the administration has noted premiums are down this year, and insurer participation is up, Trump officials have also said ObamaCare “simply doesn’t work” and is “unaffordable” for too many people.

That messaging, combined with the administration’s decision in 2017 to slash the marketing budget from $90 million to $10 million, can dampen enrollment, Peck said.

“Telling people prices are unaffordable leads to fewer people seeing if they qualify for coverage,” he said. “There’s a need to make sure consumers are aware there are affordable prices out there.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Open enrollment begins Friday and ends Dec. 15 for the 28 states that use healthcare.gov, the enrollment platform managed by the federal government. The remaining states manage their own platforms, like California’s coveredca.com. Seven states also have enrollment deadlines that extend into January.

The open enrollment period comes as Democratic presidential candidates argue over the next steps for ObamaCare. White House hopefuls like former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenPompeo says Trump-Zelensky call was ‘consistent’ with administration policy Alyssa Milano to co-host Biden fundraiser next month House panel advances resolution outlining impeachment inquiry MORE want to build on ObamaCare, while progressive candidates like Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersSanders campaign hits back at Biden: ‘He is once again peddling dishonest insurance company talking points’ Overnight Health Care: House Dems clash over Pelosi drug pricing bill | Senate blocks effort to roll back Trump ObamaCare moves | Number of uninsured children rises Sanders aide says heart attack ‘personalized’ health issues for voters MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenOvernight Health Care: House Dems clash over Pelosi drug pricing bill | Senate blocks effort to roll back Trump ObamaCare moves | Number of uninsured children rises Sanders aide says heart attack ‘personalized’ health issues for voters Krystal Ball: Bernie seems ‘to have a little extra mojo post heart attack’ MORE (D-Mass.) favor a national health care program referred to as “Medicare for All,” where everyone would receive coverage.

In the meantime, one of the biggest concerns to advocates this open enrollment season is the proliferation of loosely regulated “short-term” plans that have been expanded by the Trump administration. The plans, which are sold by some health insurance companies, agents and brokers, typically cost less than ObamaCare but provide fewer benefits.

Short-term plans were originally designed to fill gaps in insurance coverage for consumers, but the administration finalized rules last year allowing the plans to be renewed for up to three years, much longer than the previous three-month limit.

House Democrats are investigating what they see as “deceptive” and “misleading” marketing tactics used by some companies to attract customers who might not know their plans don’t cover all of the same benefits ObamaCare does, like prescription drugs or mental health care.

Experts expect those marketing efforts to intensify as open enrollment begins and consumers start thinking about their health insurance options for the coming year.

“There’s definitely some efforts out there to sell skimpier plans, and it’s not clear to people necessarily know what they’re buying,” Cox said.

Click Here: IQOS White

A study conducted last year by the Urban Institute found that Google searches for “ObamaCare plans” and “ACA enroll” mostly yielded results for websites selling short-term plans. Those plans aren’t sold on healthcare.gov or other state-based marketplaces, but are instead found on third-party websites run by brokers, agents and insurance companies.

The plans are also available year-round, while sign-ups for ACA plans are limited to six weeks at the end of the calendar year.

“Even if you type in ‘ACA plans’ or ‘ObamaCare plans,’ the first page of results is mostly junk insurance,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and founder of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms who co-authored the Urban Institute report.

These plans are being “aggressively and deceptively marketed to consumers,” she said.

The Trump administration lifted restrictions on short-term plans to offer an alternative for customers who can’t afford ObamaCare plans, particularly those who make too much money to qualify for subsidies.

Seema Verma, who oversees ObamaCare as director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the Trump administration has tried to protect consumers by requiring companies selling short-term plans to include language in their contracts and applications clearly stating they don’t comply with ACA standards.

“These plans are not for everybody, and so we want to make sure that people understand exactly what they’re getting and what they’re not getting,” Verma told The Hill on Tuesday. “And that’s why we focused on strengthening the consumer protection regulations.”

Senate Democrats are also raising alarms over what they see as a lack of oversight by the administration, noting that brokers often get higher commissions for signing up customers for short-term plans compared to ObamaCare plans.

“There are other websites out there that may not be looking for consumers’ best interests,” Sen. Bob CaseyRobert (Bob) Patrick CaseyScrap House defense authorization provision benefitting Russia Here are the Senate Democrats backing a Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine call Ex-GOP congressman to lead group to protect Italian products from tariffs MORE Jr. (D-Pa.) told reporters Tuesday. “We have a lot of scam artists who are trying to rip people off that we’re trying to warn them about.”

Also hanging over the open enrollment period is a pending 5th Circuit ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare that could come any day now.

The Trump administration is supporting a lawsuit brought by a coalition of Republican-led states that argue the law has been unconstitutional ever since Congress in 2017 repealed the fine for not having insurance.

While the lawsuit won’t have a direct impact on enrollment, it could cause confusion among consumers about the future of the ACA, especially if the court declares the law, or parts of it, unconstitutional.

Whichever side loses is expected to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

“I think the important thing for a consumer to keep in mind is that you just have to make your health insurance decisions based on the current law and based on what’s currently available to you what you can afford and what your options are,” Cox said.

“There’s no way that you can plan for what’s going to happen because no one knows.”

Happy Tuesday and welcome back to On The Money. I’m Sylvan Lane, and here’s your nightly guide to everything affecting your bills, bank account and bottom line.

See something I missed? Let me know at slane@thehill.com or tweet me @SylvanLane. And if you like your newsletter, you can subscribe to it here: http://bit.ly/1NxxW2N.

Write us with tips, suggestions and news: slane@thehill.com, njagoda@thehill.com and nelis@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @SylvanLane, @NJagoda and @NivElis.

 

THE BIG DEAL–Fed faces crossroads as it weighs third rate cut: The Federal Reserve is expected to cut interest rates for the third consecutive meeting Wednesday to boost a slowing economy despite growing concerns it could be depleting its arsenal of tools to fend off a recession.

The Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC), the Fed’s policymaking arm, finds itself at a difficult crossroads during its two-day October meeting.

• The U.S. economy has slowed steadily throughout 2019, though the country still boasts joblessness near historic lows amid a record stretch without a recession. 

• Even so, the October jobs and third-quarter growth reports are likely to show the U.S. economy heading toward a plateau, raising pressure on the Fed to cut rates to spur activity.

• But with interest rates already close to record lows, skeptics of the Fed’s loose-money approach question whether another cut will protect the U.S. from a more severe downturn and instead leave the bank defenseless against a true recession.

I explain the Fed’s conundrum here.

 

The background: The Fed’s difficult decision comes as the bank faces intense political pressure from President TrumpDonald John TrumpNumber of uninsured children rises for second year, tops 4 million Trump moment from White House Halloween trick-or-treat event goes viral White House official says transcript of Ukraine call omitted key phrases: report MORE. The president’s years-long campaign to bully the Fed into zeroing-out interest rates, and blaming it for any economic setback, has plunged the independent bank into a risky political battle.

• Economists say the Fed is almost certain to slash borrowing costs as monthly job gains fall and Europe braces for a potential recession. 

• Fed watchers also cite the looming threat of new U.S. tariffs on Chinese and European goods, along with widespread geopolitical unrest, as major risks to the U.S. economy.

• But with interest rates already close to record lows, skeptics of the Fed’s loose-money approach question whether another cut will protect the U.S. from a more severe downturn and instead leave the bank defenseless against a true recession.

 

Reactions:

• “The weakness has already commenced,” said Daniel Alpert, managing partner at investment firm Westwood Capital. “We’re already seeing it in the data. So what are you going to do, wait until everybody’s flat on their backs?”

• “They’re already very close if not below the real inflation-adjusted zero lower bound,” said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics, referring to the level at which interest rates are effectively equal to zero.

 

ON TAP TOMORROW:

• The House Financial Services Committee continues its Tuesday markup, 10 a.m.
• The FOMC announces its October interest rate decision at 2 p.m., followed by a press conference with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell at 2:30 p.m.
• The Senate Budget Committee holds a hearing on the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, 2:30 p.m.

 

LEADING THE DAY

House Democrat presses Mnuchin on ‘alleged rampant corruption’ at Treasury: Rep. Bill PascrellWilliam (Bill) James PascrellOn The Money: Fed faces crossroads as it weighs third rate cut | Dem presses Mnuchin on ‘alleged rampant corruption’ | Boeing chief faces anger at hearing | Trouble for House deal on Ex-Im Bank House Democrat presses Mnuchin on ‘alleged rampant corruption’ at Treasury Democrat asks FEC to investigate Trump campaign declining to pay police bills MORE (D-N.J.), on Tuesday pressed Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinOn The Money: Fed faces crossroads as it weighs third rate cut | Dem presses Mnuchin on ‘alleged rampant corruption’ | Boeing chief faces anger at hearing | Trouble for House deal on Ex-Im Bank House Democrat presses Mnuchin on ‘alleged rampant corruption’ at Treasury The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Better Medicare Alliance – Dems shift strategy on impeachment vote MORE on “alleged rampant corruption” at the department, after The New York Times reported that Mnuchin instructed the department to take an action that benefited former “junk bond king” Michael Milken.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a letter addressed to Mnuchin, Pascrell, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, chided the secretary, warning him that the government does not exist for the benefit of its higher-ups. 

“It should go without saying that the United States government is not a piggy bank to be looted for the sole benefit of the President and his friends. Yet this is not only what is occurring in your department, but it is happening at your direct supervision.”

The Hill’s Naomi Jagoda tells us why here.

The background: The New York Times reported Saturday that the Treasury granted an opportunity zone designation to an area in Nevada last year — after having previously determined that the area was ineligible — at the instruction of Mnuchin.

The area includes land co-owned by Milken, and the decision to grant the area opportunity zone status came after Mnuchin spent time with Milken, the Times reported.

Treasury fires back: In a statement over the weekend, Treasury spokeswoman Monica Crowley called the Times story “highly inaccurate and deeply misleading.” She said that Mnuchin had no knowledge of Milken’s investments in the Nevada county and that Treasury considered adding the tract as an opportunity zone at the request of public officials in the state.

 

Boeing chief faces anger at hearing: Boeing President and CEO Dennis Muilenburg testified before Congress for the first time Tuesday since two deadly crashes of his company’s 737 Max jets, apologizing to the victims’ families and facing tough questions from lawmakers.

“I wanted to let you know, on behalf of myself and all of the men and women of Boeing, how deeply sorry I am,” Muilenburg told the Senate Commerce Committee, in a hearing that came one year to the day after one of the 737s, Lion Air Flight 610, crashed, killing 189.

In a dramatic moment, family members of crash victims were recognized by the committee and held up photos of those they lost.

Muilenburg in his opening statement sought to assure senators that Boeing has made necessary improvements since the crashes.

“We have learned and are still learning from these accidents, Mr. Chairman. We know we made mistakes and got some things wrong. We own that, and we are fixing them. We have developed improvements to the 737 Max to ensure that accidents like these never happen again,” he said.

But the criticism from lawmakers was withering. Senators expressed anger that Boeing reportedly approved the design of the 737 Max despite concerns from their own pilots and did not act more quickly to address the problems after the Lion Air crash in October 2018. Five months later, another 737 Max, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, crashed, killing 157.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) grilled Muilenburg, saying that since the crashes his “anger has only grown.” He told the CEO that the victims of the crashes died “as a result of a pattern of deliberate concealment.”

Blumenthal blasted Boeing for initially blaming the crashes on “pilot error,” saying “those pilots never had a chance, those loved ones never had a chance.”

The Hill’s Zack Budryk has more from the dramatic hearing.

 

Democrats renew push for contractor back pay from government shutdown: Democratic senators are pushing their colleagues to support an amendment that would provide back pay for low-wage government contractors who went without pay during the record 35-day shutdown earlier this year.

• When Congress passed a spending bill to reopen the government in January, lawmakers provided back pay for federal employees who had been furloughed and those who had been required to work without pay.

• But many workers employed by contractors for security, cleaning or food service jobs were not compensated for the month of lost wages.

“They were ready and willing to work every single day of the 35-day shutdown, but they couldn’t,” said Sen. Tina SmithTina Flint SmithOn The Money: Fed faces crossroads as it weighs third rate cut | Dem presses Mnuchin on ‘alleged rampant corruption’ | Boeing chief faces anger at hearing | Trouble for House deal on Ex-Im Bank Democrats renew push for contractor back pay from government shutdown Female lawmakers make bipartisan push for more women in politics at All In Together gala MORE (D-Minn.), who introduced a back-pay amendment to a package of spending bills the Senate is considering this week.

The Hill’s Niv Elis tells us more about how this would work here. 

 

GOOD TO KNOW

• A House bill to reauthorize and impose stricter standards on the Export-Import Bank appears to be doomed in the Senate, threatening a shutdown at the controversial agency as lawmakers near a deadline to fund the government.  

• Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerSenate Democrat: Colleague was working on fantasy football trade instead of listening to Schumer Senate Democrats to vote this week to overturn Trump ObamaCare moves Man explains refusing to shake McConnell’s hand at Cummings memorial: ‘I couldn’t do it’ MORE (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday he was growing more worried that President Trump could force a government shutdown as soon as next month over the impeachment fight.

• China says it will back off barriers to foreign investment in financial companies and stop forced technology transfers, a move that could boost trade talks with the United States.

• Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWarren says college athletes should be able to unionize after NCAA move Andrew Yang launches six-figure digital ad buy in early voting states Overnight Health Care: Judge temporarily blocks Alabama near-total abortion ban | Sanders dismisses calls for ‘Medicare for All’ funding plan | Dems urge Trump not to back down on vaping flavor ban MORE (I-Vt.) said he doesn’t think he needs to release more details about how to pay for his “Medicare for All” health care proposal.

 

Updated at 7:15 p.m.

Click Here: IQOS White

House investigators on Wednesday invited former national security adviser John BoltonJohn BoltonHouse panel advances resolution outlining impeachment inquiry Democrats raise stakes with impeachment vote The Memo: After Vindman, GOP anxiety deepens MORE to give a voluntary deposition next week as part of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, in what could be key testimony on President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump congratulates Washington Nationals on World Series win Trump hints that dog injured in al-Baghdadi raid will visit White House Vindman says White House lawyer moved Ukraine call to classified server: report MORE‘s contacts with Ukraine.

Democrats are seeking Bolton’s closed-door testimony on Nov. 7, according to a source familiar with the impeachment proceedings, a move that comes following reports that his lawyers are negotiating with three House committees about possibly testifying.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper told The Hill Wednesday that his client would not appear voluntarily and would need to be subpoenaed.

While Democrats have said for weeks they want to hear from Bolton, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffHouse panel advances resolution outlining impeachment inquiry Overnight Defense: Pentagon shares images of al-Baghdadi raid | Bolton called for impeachment inquiry deposition | Russia ambassador pick pressed on surveillance flight treaty House calls for Bolton deposition as part of impeachment inquiry MORE (D-Calif.) fixed a spotlight on his possible testimony on Sunday. 

“Obviously he has very relevant information, and we do want him to come in and testify,” Schiff said on ABC’s “This Week,” calling Bolton a “very important” witness.

The Intelligence chairman also said he believes the White House will seek to block Bolton from testifying. 

Amid the House investigation into Trump’s controversial dealings with Ukraine, Democrats now see the military hawk as a potential star witness — one whose intimate knowledge of the Ukraine affair could expose more evidence of wrongdoing by the president.

Bolton was involved in some of the most explosive events related to Trump’s contacts with Kiev, but it’s unclear whether the Republican stalwart would defend Trump’s actions or paint the president’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into political rivals as an abuse of power.

Bolton, who departed the White House last month amid conflicts with Trump over major foreign policy matters, is said to have raised concerns about efforts by the president and his personal attorney Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiDemocrats raise stakes with impeachment vote Giuliani hits back at Trump’s nominee for Russia ambassador: He ‘doesn’t know what he’s talking about’ Overnight Defense: Pentagon shares images of al-Baghdadi raid | Bolton called for impeachment inquiry deposition | Russia ambassador pick pressed on surveillance flight treaty MORE to get Zelensky to investigate 2020 Democratic candidate and former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenPompeo says Trump-Zelensky call was ‘consistent’ with administration policy Alyssa Milano to co-host Biden fundraiser next month House panel advances resolution outlining impeachment inquiry MORE and his son Hunter Biden.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s (NSC) top Ukraine expert, testified Tuesday that during a July 10 meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland “started to speak about delivering the specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short,” according to a copy of his opening remarks.

“Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma,” Vindman’s prepared remarks continue.

Vindman said he raised his concerns to Sondland that “his statements were inappropriate and that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.”

Vindman said Fiona Hill, Trump’s former leading Russia expert who left voluntarily in July, also voiced her concerns to Sondland.

Hill earlier this month told House investigators during her own closed-door deposition that Bolton was so alarmed by what he heard about Trump’s contacts with Ukraine that he instructed her to notify the chief NSC lawyer about Giuliani’s efforts as well as Sondland and acting White House chief of staff Mick MulvaneyJohn (Mick) Michael MulvaneyHouse calls for Bolton deposition as part of impeachment inquiry Pro-impeachment group pressures vulnerable GOP senators in new ads Ex-Rep. Livingston pressed for Ukraine ambassador’s firing, says witness MORE, The New York Times reported at the time.

“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Bolton told Hill, according to her reported testimony.

Separately, Democrats have also requested testimony next week from two other top White House officials with insights into the Ukraine saga: John Eisenberg, senior attorney at the NSC, and one of his deputies, Michael Ellis. The pair has been asked to appear on Monday, according to a source familiar with the impeachment inquiry.

Bolton, now a Republican operative, clashed with the president on major policy issues such as North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan, with Trump viewing the longtime hawk as too militant in his approaches. He is reportedly working on a book about his time in the administration. 

Upon leaving the White House, Bolton showed he was willing to fight back with the administration, disputing Trump’s claims that he had been fired, rather than offering to submit a letter of resignation a day prior.

—Mike Lillis and Morgan Chalfant contributed. Last updated at 5:48 p.m.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump congratulates Washington Nationals on World Series win Trump hints that dog injured in al-Baghdadi raid will visit White House Vindman says White House lawyer moved Ukraine call to classified server: report MORE is under pressure to follow through on his promise to remove all flavored e-cigarettes from the market. 

Lawmakers from both parties initially applauded when Trump and federal health officials made the announcement last month that they would restrict the sale of all non-tobacco flavors of e-cigarettes. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump cited a massive spike in teen vaping and the spread of a mysterious illness that has now sickened more than 1,600 people across the country and killed at least 34. 

But more than a month after Trump and health officials sat in the Oval Office and announced their intentions, the administration has yet to publish any guidelines. 

Mitch Zeller, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s tobacco program, told reporters last week that the rule is a “very, very high priority, and we’re trying to complete work on it as quickly as possible.”

But the administration has also been taking heat from the right, which worries it is overreaching and will hurt businesses.

That has worried Democrats and public health groups, who have been ratcheting up their advocacy efforts with a flurry of letters to the president and other administration officials.

They say they are concerned the delay means Trump could bow to political pressure from his reelection campaign, which is reportedly pushing the president to water down the ban to exempt mint and menthol flavors.

Federal data shows that nearly two-thirds of high schoolers who use e-cigarettes use mint or menthol flavors.

“Flavored e-cigarettes are attractive to kids and are a huge public health concern, and politics should never outweigh the common good in setting our nation’s public health policy,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneHouse Democrats launch process to replace Cummings on Oversight panel Walden retirement adds to GOP election woes Oregon GOP Rep. Greg Walden won’t seek reelection MORE (D-N.J.) wrote in a letter to Trump on Wednesday.

In the Senate, a group of over 25 Democrats expressed similar concerns. 

“With each day, more children continue to be lured to e-cigarettes by flavors such as fruit, candy, and mint or menthol. We are therefore deeply troubled that there is no final compliance policy more than six weeks after the Oval Office announcement,” the senators wrote. 

Outside groups are also jumping in. On Wednesday, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians outlined the steps they think the administration needs to take to regulate e-cigarettes.

Sara Goza, president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said unless all flavors of e-cigarettes are removed from the market, children will still be at risk. 

“The idea that mint and menthol are adult flavors is simply ridiculous,” Goza said, adding that children use mint-flavored toothpaste and that menthol is used as a way to mask the “harsh taste of nicotine, making it easier for kids to get hooked.”

Those three groups were among the more than 50 health and advocacy organizations this week that urged Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar as well as first lady Melania TrumpMelania TrumpTrump moment from White House Halloween trick-or-treat event goes viral Gaetz responds after #MattGaetzIsATool trends on Twitter: ‘I kinda like it’ Why Melania Trump is poised to have a great legacy as first lady MORE to continue pushing for a complete removal of all e-cigarette flavors.

The first lady has previously called e-cigarette use by children a “growing epidemic” and was one of the leading voices to convince the president to crack down on e-cigarettes. 

“We can’t have our youth be so affected,” President Trump said at the time. “People are dying with vaping, so we’re looking at it very closely.”

The groups are hoping that Melania Trump can be similarly influential now. 

In the past week, the administration has reportedly been considering exempting mint and menthol flavors from the policy, amid warnings from Trump’s 2020 campaign team that the ban could have negative political ramifications for the president.

Trump’s initial announcement was met with fierce opposition from the vaping industry and conservatives, who argue that removing flavors would hurt small businesses and adults who use the products to quit smoking traditional cigarettes.

Click Here: Golf special

The possibility that mint and menthol could be exempt is an encouraging development for e-cigarette flavor advocates.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We are heartened to see signs that the Trump administration is beginning to recognize that its rush to judgment on flavors was misguided,” said Gregory Conley, president of American Vaping Association, a nonprofit that advocates for vaping companies.

Conley cited findings from Wall Street analysts that show banning flavors will boost cigarette sales, which have been lagging.

However, Conley said the whole idea of a flavor ban needs to be scrapped, because exempting mint and menthol would substantially benefit Juul, the largest e-cigarette manufacturer.

“The Trump administration needs to know that carving out certain flavors will largely only benefit one company and will not be effective at achieving any of the White House’s goals,” Conley said. 

Both sides are likely to keep up their pressure on the administration.

The White House Office of Management and Budget last week began reviewing the administration’s guidance that would implement the ban. 

However, there is no time frame for when the review will end, and administration officials have not disclosed what the actual text of the guidance will say.

Moderate and progressive House Democrats are clashing with each other over changes to Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOvernight Defense: House approves Turkey sanctions in rebuke of Trump | Trump attacks on Army officer testifying spark backlash | Dems want answers from Esper over Ukraine aid Mark Mellman: Three questions for Republicans White House: Democrats’ resolution shows impeachment is ‘illegitimate sham’ MORE’s (D-Calif.) signature plan to lower drug prices.

A group of centrists, including Rep. Stephanie MurphyStephanie MurphyHouse Democrats clash over Pelosi’s drug pricing bill Hillicon Valley: Amazon poised to escalate Pentagon ‘war cloud’ fight | FCC’s move to target Huawei garners early praise | Facebook sues Israeli firm over alleged WhatsApp hack | Blue Dog Dems push election security funding Blue Dog Democrats push Congress to fund state election security MORE (D-Fla.), co-chairwoman of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition, has warned leadership that some moderate Democrats might vote against the bill if it moves any further to the left, sources say.

ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, House progressives are pushing for revisions they say are needed to toughen up the legislation. Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalDC Comics goes viral celebrating #NationalImmigrantsDay Overnight Health Care — Presented by National Taxpayers Union —Dem wants more changes to Pelosi drug pricing bill | Ebola outbreak wanes, but funding lags | Johnson & Johnson recalls batch of baby powder after asbestos traces found Overnight Health Care — Presented by National Taxpayers Union — House Dems advance drug pricing bill | Cases of vaping-related lung illnesses near 1,500 | Juul suspends sales of most e-cigarette flavors MORE (D-Wash.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told The Hill, “I really don’t understand” why moderates are objecting to the changes, adding that she was undeterred.

Pelosi will have to thread the needle between these dueling factions as she plans to bring the measure to the floor as soon as mid-November. 

The legislation, a top priority for Democrats, would allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower prices for as many as 250 drugs per year.

The measure would have little chance of advancing in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOvernight Defense: House approves Turkey sanctions in rebuke of Trump | Trump attacks on Army officer testifying spark backlash | Dems want answers from Esper over Ukraine aid Mark Mellman: Three questions for Republicans Menendez seeks probe into if Pompeo violated Hatch Act MORE (R-Ky.) has called it “socialist” and vowed to block it. Progressives, however, argue Democrats should put out a bold marker rather than negotiate with themselves on something that’s almost certain to die in the Senate anyway.

Pelosi’s office has held out hope that President TrumpDonald John TrumpNumber of uninsured children rises for second year, tops 4 million Trump moment from White House Halloween trick-or-treat event goes viral White House official says transcript of Ukraine call omitted key phrases: report MORE might endorse her bill, given his rhetoric against high drug prices, and some centrists want to move toward common ground with Republicans to increase those odds.

“The further left you go with drug pricing bills, it just means it’s only going to be a House-only bill and a Democrat-only bill,” said Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), a co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition who faces a tough reelection race. “That’s not helping people in my district.”

Brindisi called for a greater focus on finding common ground with GOP lawmakers on something that could be signed into law. He said he had communicated that “to leadership and anyone who will listen around here.”

Progressives, though, are pushing for a range of changes, such as increasing the minimum number of drugs that will be subject to negotiation, up from 35, and fully repealing the ban on Medicare negotiating drug prices. As the bill stands now, it creates an exception allowing a limited number of drugs to be negotiated, rather than fully repealing the ban.

Progressives have vowed to push for floor votes on amendments if leadership does not agree to make their changes beforehand.

They are also looking to protect a Jayapal amendment, adopted in committee, to ensure it is not stripped out of the final bill because of objections by moderates. The provision would extend protections against drug price increases to people in private employer-sponsored insurance plans, not just those on Medicare.

Pelosi’s office has expressed concerns about the feasibility of Jayapal’s amendment and other proposed changes by progressives, like increasing the number of drugs that will be negotiated, sources say.

Some progressives argue the feasibility concerns raised by Pelosi’s office are just an excuse to avoid moving the bill to the left and alienating moderates.

Jayapal has been adamant that her amendment needs to be included.

Click Here: pandora Bangle cheap

“We’re fine with strengthening it, but not to the point where we’re going to strip it, that’s not going to happen,” she said, noting her staff had communicated this message to leadership. “It’s either this or it’s better, but it’s not gone.”

She declined to say if she would vote against the bill if her amendment is omitted.

“I’m just going to keep pushing to get it in,” she said.

More broadly, she said she did not understand why moderates were objecting to further changes to strengthen the legislation.

“I really don’t understand why, because this is not a partisan bill,” she said. “Everybody ran on prescription drug pricing.”

Rep. Ron KindRonald (Ron) James KindHouse Democrats clash over Pelosi’s drug pricing bill America’s workers and small business owners need the SECURE Act Blood cancer patients deserve equal access to the cure MORE (D-Wis.), a centrist, said leadership and committee chairmen had struck a “sensitive balance” in the legislation.

“Developing consensus on something as important as drug pricing is always a challenge around here,” he said.

Increasing the number of drugs to be negotiated, a move backed by progressives, could lead to “capacity” problems at the Department of Health and Human Services, Kind warned.

He said he supports the bill as it is but wouldn’t say whether that stance would change if it moves further left. “Let’s see what the final product looks like,” he said.

Lobbyists expect that the only drug pricing measures that have a chance of being signed into law are much smaller, bipartisan measures that increase competition from cheaper generic drugs. Those smaller bills have a greater chance of being attached to a must-pass government funding package.

Drug company lobbyists are still fighting Pelosi’s bill, though, and have targeted moderate House Democrats to try to get some of them to vote against it.

Brindisi, the Blue Dog co-chairman, said he plans to vote for Pelosi’s bill as it currently stands.

“I’m going to support it,” he said. “It’s not going to see the light of day in the Senate.”

More than 20 Democratic senators called on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to investigate a loan servicer’s handling of a loan forgiveness program for public service workers.

The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) is one of several institutions tasked with handling the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program, which, according to recent reports, has denied 99 percent of applicants.

ADVERTISEMENT

“For several years now, government watchdogs have repeatedly found that PHEAA’s missteps, errors, and mismanagement of the PSLF program caused public service workers to be denied the loan forgiveness that they had earned,” the 23 senators wrote.

In a 2017 report by the CFPB’s student loan ombudsman, the office said PHEAA’s “flawed payment processing” and paperwork errors had contributed to loan forgiveness denials, while a 2018 Government Accountability Office report blamed PHEAA’s failure to “properly account for qualifying payments and reliance on inaccurate information.”

Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWarren says college athletes should be able to unionize after NCAA move Andrew Yang launches six-figure digital ad buy in early voting states Overnight Health Care: Judge temporarily blocks Alabama near-total abortion ban | Sanders dismisses calls for ‘Medicare for All’ funding plan | Dems urge Trump not to back down on vaping flavor ban MORE (I-Vt.), Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWarren says college athletes should be able to unionize after NCAA move Andrew Yang launches six-figure digital ad buy in early voting states Overnight Health Care: Judge temporarily blocks Alabama near-total abortion ban | Sanders dismisses calls for ‘Medicare for All’ funding plan | Dems urge Trump not to back down on vaping flavor ban MORE (D-Mass.), Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharSteyer has spent seven times more than Trump on campaign ads 23 senators call for investigation into troubled student loan forgiveness program Sanders takes lead in new poll of New Hampshire MORE (D-Minn.) and Sherrod BrownSherrod Campbell Brown23 senators call for investigation into troubled student loan forgiveness program GM reaches deal with union to end strike Booker: ‘Democrats don’t need more candidates to enter’ MORE (D-Ohio) were among the most notable lawmakers to sign the letter to CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger. 

“Tens of thousands of dedicated public service workers and their families are paying the price for PHEAA’s incompetence and the CFPB’s failure to act,” the letter states. “These women and men have served their communities for years, and relied on the government’s promise of loan forgiveness to make important life decisions about where to work, when to start a family, and when to buy their first home. They deserve better.”

Click Here: pandora Bangle cheap

Immigrant rights groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging a new White House proclamation that would require people trying to enter the U.S. with certain visas to have health insurance or otherwise prove they can afford to pay for medical costs.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Justice Action Center, Innovation Law Lab and Sidley Austin, LLP filed the lawsuit in federal court in Oregon claiming that the policy could possibly block nearly two thirds of potential legal immigrants. 

“Suspending the entry of potentially two thirds of all legal immigrants to the United States, the Proclamation represents an unprecedented abuse of… power,” the suit said. 

The legal filing also noted, “The Proclamation, like the recent Public Charge Rule, attempts to radically rewrite Congressional decision about which immigrants may enter the country based on wealth considerations.”

AILA Federal Litigation Director Jesse Bless was abhorred by the policy, stating that the proclamation targeted immigrant families from specific countries of origin. 

“It is terrifying for U.S. citizens to think that they may never be able to reunite in person with their loved ones because of this proclamation. The proclamation represents the latest attempt to separate families and undermine due process solely on the basis of cultural and national origin-based bias. It’s as unAmerican as the public charge rule,” he said in a statement. 

The White House earlier this month issued the  seeking to halt entry for people pursuing visas who “will financially burden the United States healthcare system.”

Click Here: pandora Bangle cheap

Under the policy, a migrant would be considered a “burden” if they are not covered by approved health insurance within 30 days of their arrival unless they have enough money to  “pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.”

“While our healthcare system grapples with the challenges caused by uncompensated care, the United States Government is making the problem worse by admitting thousands of aliens who have not demonstrated any ability to pay for their healthcare costs,” the proclamation said.

Immigrant rights groups pushed back on the proclamation at the time, arguing that it targeted low-income migrants. 

The move is the latest by the Trump administration to limit both legal and illegal immigration. 

The administration had previously attempted to create a “public charge” rule that would have made people using designated public benefits less likely to receive green cards. The rule was temporarily blocked this month by a federal judge. 

Christophe Henrotay claims the Belgian goalkeeper would have been happy to remain at Stamford Bridge had his children been alongside him in London

Thibaut Courtois would not have left Chelsea for Real Madrid if his children lived in London, claims the goalkeeper’s agent Christophe Henrotay.

The Belgium international completed a €35 million (£31m/$40m) switch to the Santiago Bernabeu late in the Premier League transfer window, forcing those at Stamford Bridge to piece together a record-breaking €80m (£72m/$91m) deal for Kepa Arrizabalaga.

Courtois, who was entering the final year of his contract, had made no secret of his desire to be reunited with his young family in Spain as speculation surrounding his future mounted.

He eventually got his wish, but his representative claims the 26-year-old did not push for a switch because he was desperate to get out of Chelsea.

Henrotay told Sportsweek on BBC Radio 5 Live: “There has been a misunderstanding that he wanted to get a move for the wrong reasons, but he was pushing to go out of Chelsea because of his children.

“If the family were in London it would have been totally different. He would have stayed, there is no reason to leave a club like Chelsea, he could have won trophies.

“Unfortunately his kids are living with the mother in Madrid.

“He had the contract and it depended on Chelsea, but running close to the end of his contract, Chelsea had an interest to find a deal with Madrid, which they did.

“It is personal reasons so we have to respect this. Chelsea understood the situation and really helped to get the deal.

“They did a really quick and easy deal together, understanding the humanity of the situation. It is not doing something against their fans it is about getting the best of a situation that is not ideal.”

Courtois previously spent three seasons in Madrid on loan at Atletico, with a return to the Spanish capital proving to be an emotional move for all concerned.

Henrotay added: “It’s a move he wanted because of his family and he had the opportunity to go back to Madrid – a city he loves and to such a big club in Real Madrid.

“When we arrived in Madrid to make the signing, I had his parents, his brother, his sister, his child, the mother of the child, everyone is there and I said to him that I am delighted to make a great deal for him in going to Real Madrid but also it’s a family coming together.

“I could see tears in their eyes and it delighted me to be able to do something not only for a player, for a client, but for a family, which is great.

“I fully understand the fans of Chelsea and no one has reason to blame that feeling.

“Thibaut is such a great goalkeeper and he did his best at Chelsea to bring titles and trophies so it is not a great feeling to lose such a player.”

The former Barcelona wideman has signed a five-year deal with the Molineux outfit to become their fifth signing of the summer

Wolves have completed the £18 million ($23.3m) signing of Middlesbrough winger Adama Traore in a club-record deal.

The former Barcelona youngster has signed a five-year deal with the newly-promoted outfit after two seasons at the Riverside Stadium.

In 71 appearances he scored five goals and laid on 10 assists for Boro, though his breathtaking speed ensured he was always a threat for opposition defences.

He is just the latest high-profile signing at Molineux this summer, with Joao Moutinho and Rui Patricio among those to have joined up with Nuno’s squad during the summer of 2018.

In total he becomes the club’s fifth signing of the transfer window, with full-back Jonny Castro and forward Raul Jimenez having also been brought in by the Championship winners.

Click Here: cheap nrl jerseys

Traore began his career at Camp Nou but struggled to break through – making just four appearances for the senior team.

The Spain Under-21 international moved to Aston Villa in 2015 but struggled with consistency before being left out of the side due to disciplinary issues as the Villains were relegated.

He suffered relegation again during his first campaign with Middlesbrough in 2016-17 but was one of the Championship’s most dangerous attackers as Tony Pulis’ team finished fifth, only to be knocked out in the play-offs by Villa.

Traore could now make his Wolves debut on Saturday as they host Everton in their first match back in the top flight.