Happy Wednesday 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

THE BIG DEAL–Fed holds steady on rates in end to challenging year: The Federal Reserve’s policymaking arm kept interest rates steady Wednesday after its final meeting of 2019, capping off a volatile and momentous year for the bank.

The Fed was widely expected to leave interest rates unchanged Wednesday after a string of strong jobs reports and solid consumer spending stifled fears of a recession that dominated the summer.

• After cutting interest rates in three consecutive meetings between July and October, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell suggested last month that the bank would hold tight unless the economy slumped or inflation spiked.
• While President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by AdvaMed – House panel expected to approve impeachment articles Thursday Democrats worried by Jeremy Corbyn’s UK rise amid anti-Semitism Warren, Buttigieg duke it out in sprint to 2020 MORE has kept his pressure on the Fed to slash interest rates even further, Powell told lawmakers in November that matching the “very, very low and even negative rates that we see around the world would not be appropriate for our country.”

I’ve got more on how we got here and what the Fed expects in 2020. 

 

“I don’t think anybody saw it coming.” 2019 marked a challenging year for Powell and the Fed:

ADVERTISEMENT

The bank kicked off the year under fire for raising interest rates in December 2018 amid a sharp stock market downturn and slumping economic growth. 

• The Fed held rates steady for most of 2019 even as economic growth and job gains slowed from their torrid 2018 pace. But summer turmoil in the bond market, looming recessions in Europe and Asia, and trade-related economic anxiety pushed the bank to cut rates in July.
• Powell in July played down the Fed’s first cut since 2008 as a “mid-cycle adjustment,” expressing confidence in the U.S. economy. Even so, the Fed cut again in September and October, reducing interest rates to the range following Powell’s first rate hike in March 2018.

“I don’t think anybody saw it coming. The challenges that we faced this year, I think they were a surprise,” Powell said Wednesday. “Towards the end of 2018 there was still a sense the economy was growing at around 3 percent.”

 

What comes next: The Fed’s winter hibernation may still rile Trump as he seeks to cement a trade deal with China and ride a strong economy into the 2020 presidential election. Trump has berated Powell and the Fed for refusing to match the ultra-low and negative interest rates in countries teetering on the brink of recession.

Read more: Fed chief says deal on new NAFTA could settle economic jitters

 

LEADING THE DAY

House panel votes to temporarily repeal SALT deduction cap: The House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday approved legislation to temporarily repeal a controversial provision in President Trump’s 2017 tax-cut law, taking action on a key priority for many Democratic lawmakers in states such as New York, New Jersey and California.

In a nearly party-line vote, 24-17, the committee advanced a bill that would eliminate for two years the tax law’s $10,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Rep. Tom ReedThomas (Tom) W. ReedOn The Money: Fed holds rates steady in end to challenging year | Powell says deal on new NAFTA could settle economic jitters | CEOs’ economic outlook drops for seventh straight quarter House panel votes to temporarily repeal SALT deduction cap Bipartisan lawmakers introduce amendment affirming US commitment to military aid to Israel MORE (R-N.Y.) joined with most Democrats in voting for the bill, while Rep. Stephanie MurphyStephanie MurphyOn The Money: Fed holds rates steady in end to challenging year | Powell says deal on new NAFTA could settle economic jitters | CEOs’ economic outlook drops for seventh straight quarter House panel votes to temporarily repeal SALT deduction cap Blue Dogs issue new call for House leaders to abide by pay-go rule MORE (D-Fla.) voted with most Republicans against it.

The bill, unveiled late Monday, would do away with the cap for 2020 and 2021. It would also raise the cap for married couples to $20,000 for 2019, addressing the fact that under current law, the cap is $10,000 both for single filers and married couples filing jointly.

The Hill’s Naomi Jagoda breaks it down here.

 

Survey: CEOs’ economic outlook drops for seventh straight quarter: A survey of CEOs released Wednesday found their economic outlook falling for the seventh quarter in a row.

The Business Roundtable’s quarterly survey of CEOs found a modest decline in expected growth linked to worries over trade, as well as a broader slowdown in the global economy and a contracting manufacturing sector at home.

The CEOs projected growth at 2.1 percent for 2020, significantly below the 3 percent target set by the Trump administration, but somewhat higher than other economic forecasts.

The survey results, which are bundled into an index, found a 2.5-point drop in the fourth quarter, bringing the index to 76.7, below the historical average of 82.7. The Hill’s Niv Elis walks us through the data here.

 

GOOD TO KNOW

• Paul Volcker, who served as Federal Reserve chairman under Presidents Carter and Reagan, criticized President Trump’s attacks on the central bank in an essay written shortly before his death.
• Lawmakers are dismissing China’s threat to retaliate against U.S. technology companies and vowing not to back down on limiting the use of Chinese telecom products from Huawei and ZTE, which they see as a threat to national security.
• The New York Times: “This Is What Racism Sounds Like in the Banking Industry”
• The Washington Post: “2019: The year the Federal Reserve admitted it was wrong”

The House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday put out its own, rival proposal to protect patients from surprise medical bills. 

The proposal from Reps. Richard NealRichard Edmund NealExpiring tax breaks set off year-end scramble Ways and Means Committee announces rival surprise medical billing fix House panel votes to temporarily repeal SALT deduction cap MORE (D-Mass.) and Kevin BradyKevin Patrick BradyExpiring tax breaks set off year-end scramble Overnight Health Care — Presented by That’s Medicaid — House panel unveils rival fix for surprise medical bills | Democrats punt vote on youth vaping bill | Pelosi drug bill poised for passage after deal with progressives Ways and Means Committee announces rival surprise medical billing fix MORE (R-Texas), the chairman and ranking member of the panel, comes on top of the deal announced by a different panel on Sunday. That panel, the Energy and Commerce Committee, on Sunday announced a bipartisan deal on surprise medical bills that included the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, Sen. Lamar AlexanderAndrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderWays and Means Committee announces rival surprise medical billing fix Impeachment surprise: Bills Congress could actually pass in 2020 Overnight Health Care — Presented by That’s Medicaid — Deal on surprise medical bills faces obstacles | House GOP unveils rival drug pricing measure ahead of Pelosi vote | Justices to hear case over billions in ObamaCare payments MORE (R-Tenn.). 

But the rival proposal from Ways and Means could throw an obstacle into speedy passage of legislation. Neal said Wednesday that he thinks his proposal will be better than the Energy and Commerce bill. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“I’ve been consistent in my career that my approach is better than everybody else’s,” Neal said with a laugh. 

All of the measures have the goal of protecting patients from getting medical bills for thousands of dollars when they go to the emergency room and one of their doctors happens to be outside their insurance network. The subject is seen as a rare area of possible bipartisan action. 

But there are multiple competing approaches for the details of the proposals, with doctors and hospitals lobbying hard to stop the leading bill, from Energy and Commerce, which they worry would lead to damaging cuts to their payments.

The measure from Ways and Means, announced Wednesday, would take a different approach. It would at first let insurers and doctors try to work out payment on their own, and if they cannot come to agreement, an arbitration process would begin. Full text was not yet available. The Energy and Commerce proposal, in contrast, relies in large part on essentially setting a payment rate based on the average price for that service in the geographic area.

A spokesman for Energy and Commerce Republicans on Wednesday defended their committee’s legislation. “The White House backs our bill. Bipartisan House and Senate Committee leaders back our deal. This is the only bipartisan package that can become law, and we need to act now,” the spokesman said.  

ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats and Republicans had hoped to pass legislation addressing surprise billing this year, but they have a limited number of working days left in 2019. 

Rep. Donna ShalalaDonna Edna ShalalaOvernight Health Care — Presented by That’s Medicaid — House panel unveils rival fix for surprise medical bills | Democrats punt vote on youth vaping bill | Pelosi drug bill poised for passage after deal with progressives House Democrats to vote on flavored e-cigarettes ban next year Ways and Means Committee announces rival surprise medical billing fix MORE (D-Fla.), an author of one of the surprise billing measures, said she doubts anything will pass this year because the three committees of jurisdiction haven’t reached an agreement. Only Energy and Commerce has passed a surprise billing measure. A markup in the Education and Labor Committee was delayed in September and hasn’t been rescheduled. 

“Ways and Means hasn’t weighed in yet, and we just have to reach an agreement,” she said, estimating there will be a floor vote in January or February. 

This story was updated at 4:47 p.m.

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the bureau and the Justice Department, alleging privacy violations over her text messages with former FBI agent Peter Strzok.

In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Page says the agencies unlawfully released to the press text messages between her and Strzok in December 2017 for “multiple improper reasons,” including currying favor with President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Bombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Lawmakers dismiss Chinese retaliatory threat to US tech MORE after he publicly attacked the Department of Justice (DOJ) and then-Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsLisa Page sues DOJ, FBI over alleged privacy violations Sessions leads GOP Senate primary field in Alabama, internal poll shows Trump rebukes FBI chief Wray over inspector general’s Russia inquiry MORE.

“They did so by summoning DOJ beat reporters to the Department to review the messages at night, prohibiting the reporters from copying or removing the set of messages from the building, and instructing them not to reveal DOJ as the source,” the lawsuit states, calling this approach inconsistent with the traditional disclosure process for materials in the public interest.

ADVERTISEMENT

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Page has been a frequent target of Trump since the disclosure of her affair with Strzok and messages they exchanged critical of him, which were central to his repeated claims the DOJ investigation of his 2016 campaign was politically motivated.

Strzok was removed from special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerTrump says he’ll release financial records before election, knocks Dems’ efforts House impeachment hearings: The witch hunt continues Speier says impeachment inquiry shows ‘very strong case of bribery’ by Trump MORE‘s team after the messages were disclosed and was later fired from the FBI.

A report from the DOJ’s inspector general, released Monday, found that no political bias motivated the investigation into Russia’s election interference, although it said agents omitted certain key information in applications to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page in 2016. 

The public interest in disclosure, Page’s complaint states, did not outweigh her own privacy.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Indeed, prior to the disclosure on December 12, DOJ and/or FBI officials could not in good faith have determined that public disclosure was warranted on that basis, given the preliminary nature of [the office of inspector general’s] review of the text messages,” the lawsuit states. 

“Nor would agency officials acting in good faith and with a reasonable basis for the lawfulness of their conduct have released the messages in the manner that officials chose here: ushering reporters to DOJ premises after business hours; allowing them to view, but not copy or remove, the set of messages; and forbidding them from sourcing the material to DOJ,” it adds.

Moreover, it states, there was no legal exemption or exception that covered the release of the records to the media.

The disclosure of the records, Page writes, has damaged her reputation to the point of “permanent loss of earning capacity” and imposed on her family the cost of child care during investigative interviews and appearances before Congress and other costs related to protecting her personal information and therapy related to harassment caused by the disclosure.

“I take little joy in having done so,” Page tweeted Tuesday afternoon in reference to the lawsuit. “But what they did in leaking my messages to the press was not only wrong, it was illegal.”

Updated: 4:53 p.m.

Click Here: Argentina Rugby Shop

The U.S. government deficit rose by 12 percent in the first two months of the 2020 fiscal year, hitting $342 billion, according to new estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The deficit is on track to surpass $1 trillion in the 2020 fiscal year, which began on October 1. CBO has called the deficit path “unsustainable” and warns that the increasing debt burden will push down economic growth and could worsen future financial crises.

In the first two months of the fiscal year, CBO estimated that spending increased $49 billion to reach $813 billion, largely due to increases in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Department. An increase in the cost of subsidizing education loans also contributed to the increased outlays.

Meanwhile, revenues only increased half as quickly, rising $12 billion in comparison to last year and reaching $471 billion.

Income and payroll tax revenue grew 4 percent. CBO noted that a 14 percent spike in corporate tax income was not representative of most corporate taxation, as most companies don’t have to pay their taxes until December 16th.

The deficit has ballooned since President TrumpDonald John TrumpLawmakers release defense bill with parental leave-for-Space-Force deal House Democrats expected to unveil articles of impeachment Tuesday Houston police chief excoriates McConnell, Cornyn and Cruz on gun violence MORE took office, as the GOP tax law cut into revenues and bipartisan spending agreements pushed up funding for both defense and domestic priorities.

Click Here: Tonga Rugby Shop

A group of veterans are meeting with congressional lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday and Wednesday, calling for them to “put country over politics” and support impeachment. 

Defend American Democracy, a coalition of veterans and groups focused on national security, are talking with Republicans and moderate Democrats to push them to support impeachment, directly after the House Democrats released two articles of impeachment Tuesday morning.  

Alex Babcock, an Army veteran from Sanford, Fla., said in an interview that the group is meeting with lawmakers from purple districts and states that they expect to be “convincible,” who could vote either way in the impeachment proceedings. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“We feel like they may be more apt to listen to a message that resonates, that might sway them away from their traditional party line, which is just back the president, no matter what,” Babcock said. “We’re appealing to their values as individual leaders to think for themselves and to embrace our perspective.”

The veterans had scheduled Tuesday meetings with Rep. David SchweikertDavid SchweikertGroup of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ Live updates on impeachment: Schiff fires warning at GOP over whistleblower Ethics Committee releases new details on allegations against Arizona GOP lawmaker MORE (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Will HurdWilliam Ballard HurdGroup of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ CNN’s Bianna Golodryga: ‘Rumblings’ from Democrats on censuring Trump instead of impeachment Republicans preview impeachment defense strategy MORE (R-Texas) along with the staff of Sen. Pat ToomeyPatrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyNSA improperly collected US phone records in October, new documents show Overnight Defense: Pick for South Korean envoy splits with Trump on nuclear threat | McCain blasts move to suspend Korean military exercises | White House defends Trump salute of North Korean general WH backpedals on Trump’s ‘due process’ remark on guns MORE (R-Pa.), Sen. Cory GardnerCory Scott GardnerRepublicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Group of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ Here are the Senate Republicans who could vote to convict Trump MORE (R-Colo.), Sen. Thom TillisThomas (Thom) Roland TillisGroup of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ The real US patent ‘crisis’ Graham: FBI investigation in 2016 turned into a ‘criminal conspiracy’ MORE (R-N.C.), Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioGOP senator blocks bill aimed at preventing Russia election meddling Group of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ Overnight Health Care — Presented by That’s Medicaid — Deal on surprise medical bills faces obstacles | House GOP unveils rival drug pricing measure ahead of Pelosi vote | Justices to hear case over billions in ObamaCare payments MORE (R-Fla.) and Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsRepublicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Group of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ Defense bill includes fix for military families’ survivor benefits MORE (R-Maine), according to a schedule obtained by The Hill. 

They are working on meeting with Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Sen. Martha McSallyMartha Elizabeth McSallyGroup of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ Here are the Senate Republicans who could vote to convict Trump Overnight Health Care: House to vote next week on drug prices bill | Conway says Trump trying to find ‘balance’ on youth vaping | US spent trillion on hospitals in 2018 MORE (R-Ariz.), Rep. Ann WagnerAnn Louise WagnerGroup of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, ‘put country over politics’ Mnuchin expresses concerns about proposed taxes on financial trades Fed’s top regulator takes heat from both parties MORE (R-Mo.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) or their staffs.

Click Here: Tonga Rugby Shop

Babcock said veterans have a “critical role in democracy,” as people “may be more apt to listen” to their perspective. He also seeks to counter the narrative that all military veterans back the president.

“We’re doing this because we truly believe in this, and we believe in our country, which is why we signed up in the first place,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Tashandra Poullard, a Navy veteran from Houston, said she volunteered to speak to lawmakers because she does not want to witness foreign interference in the U.S. election process. 

“And the last thing I want is for my legacy to be blemished by serving people who did not understand nor respect the Constitution of the United States of America,” she said. 

She wants to ask Republican lawmakers particularly, “Is it more important to protect and defend the Constitution or protect one individual that feels that they are above the law?”

Defend American Democracy recently funded a seven-figure ad campaign, asking constituents to call at least 14 Republican House members across 10 states to tell them to “put country over politics” and back impeachment.

House Democrats announced two articles of impeachment against the president Tuesday morning: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House Judiciary Committee said a House vote on impeachment could come as early as next week.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Bombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Lawmakers dismiss Chinese retaliatory threat to US tech MORE faces possible impeachment after a complaint from a whistleblower informed Congress that the president asked the Ukrainian president to investigate former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenRepublicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Trump trade deal likely to sow division in Democratic presidential field Trump supporters at Pa. rally ‘upset’ after Democrats introduce impeachment articles MORE, shortly after withholding military aid from the country. 

Since the end of September, House Democrats have held closed-door and public hearings with former and current Trump officials who had knowledge on the White House’s relationship with Ukraine.

The Trump administration will appeal a federal judge’s ruling that blocked the president from using Defense Department funds to construct a border wall, White House press secretary Stephanie GrishamStephanie GrishamWhite House vows to appeal ruling blocking use of military funds for border wall On The Money: Pelosi, Trump tout deal on new NAFTA | McConnell says no trade vote until impeachment trial wraps up | Lawmakers push spending deadline to Thursday Trump, White House rip Democrats over impeachment articles MORE said Wednesday. 

The White House’s announcement comes a day after Judge David Briones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction on using the Pentagon funds on the wall. 

“The district court issued a nationwide injunction on the theory that building the wall is causing ‘reputational’ harm and economic disruption to a Texas county and an advocacy group in that county,” Grisham said in a statement. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“But the court’s injunction sweeps far broader than that and blocks multiple projects that are hundreds of miles away and have nothing to do with these plaintiffs,” she continued. “The Supreme Court has already stayed one erroneous injunction blocking the use of a different statutory authority to build the border wall and the Administration plans to immediately appeal this incorrect decision, too.”

Briones, a Clinton appointee, ruled in favor of El Paso County, Texas, and Border Network for Human Rights, which argued that Trump’s national emergency declaration using Pentagon money for the wall was an overreach. 

The plaintiffs also accused the White House of using the funds for a situation that did not meet the requirements for an “emergency” under the National Emergencies Act. 

“After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction shall be granted in Plaintiffs’ favor,” Briones wrote in the Tuesday ruling.

A second federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the administration could not use military funds for border wall construction. 

Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., an Obama appointee with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled that the White House’s plans to reallocate defense funding for the border construction was unlawful. 

A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond when asked if the administration plans to appeal the Wednesday ruling, as well. 

Legal protections for technology companies are still in the free-trade deal between the United States, Mexico and Canada that was endorsed by Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiTrump trade deal likely to sow division in Democratic presidential field Trump supporters at Pa. rally ‘upset’ after Democrats introduce impeachment articles California GOP candidate arrested on stalking charges MORE (D-Calf.) on Tuesday despite her efforts to remove them. 

 

“I had one disappointment… 230, but I was too late coming in on it,” Pelosi said Tuesday during a press conference announcing the deal between House Democrats and the White House on the trade deal. 

 

Pelosi announced last Thursday that she would try to remove the language from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This language gives platforms legal immunity for content posted by third-party users while also giving them legal cover to take good-faith efforts to moderate their platforms.

“I lost – they had 230 in the agreement, there are some members that wanted that… it’s a real gift to big tech,” Pelosi said Tuesday. “But I had said to the trade representative that we’re not adding any more issues to the discussion.”

Pelosi’s last minute decision to press on that issue came after lawmakers from both sides of the aisle for months raised concerns that including the legal protections could damage domestic efforts to amend the Section 230 law, which has come under increased scrutiny as Silicon Valley has fallen out of favor with Washington.

The chair and ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Greg WaldenGregory (Greg) Paul Walden’Medicare for All’ backers notch win with high-profile hearing Democrats declare victory for eliminating drug protections in trade deal Impeachment surprise: Bills Congress could actually pass in 2020 MORE (R-Ore.), sent a letter to U.S. trade representative Robert LighthizerRobert (Bob) Emmet LighthizerGOP senator warns quick vote on new NAFTA would be ‘huge mistake’ Pelosi casts doubt on USMCA deal in 2019 Pelosi sounds hopeful on new NAFTA deal despite tensions with White House MORE in October urging that language from Section 230 to be stripped from the deal.

Pelosi said Tuesday that she had received that letter “after I made the pledge of not moving any goalposts.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The inclusion of the protections is a major win for tech interest groups, many of which released laudatory statements Tuesday.

“In its protections on the internet and digital economy – such as forced data localization prohibitions, balanced copyright provisions and intermediary liability protections – the new NAFTA gives us a key opportunity to cement our nation’s leadership as the best place in the world to develop talent and build companies,” said Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, a trade association which represents major tech companies including Amazon, Google and Facebook.

“This landmark agreement contains the strongest digital and intellectual property chapters found in any free-trade agreement to-date, which will foster innovation for American companies across industries and will help ensure North America’s leadership for future technology R&D and manufacturing,” Cinnamon Rogers, an executive at the tech trade group the Computing Technology Industry Association, said.

 

Calls for an end to so-called forever wars are being bolstered this week by a bombshell report detailing how U.S. officials lied when they claimed progress in the 18-year war in Afghanistan.

Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, have responded to the revelations with demands for hearings and calls to withdraw from America’s longest war.

That the war in Afghanistan is not going as well as officials claim is not surprising, with the running joke among defense watchers being that the war has turned so many corners it is going in circles.

ADVERTISEMENT

But private interviews conducted by a government watchdog and published this week by The Washington Post document in stark detail how officials from the Bush administration to the present were providing grim outlooks behind closed doors even as they painted a rosy picture in their public statements.

“We ought to call for public hearings on Afghanistan based on the Post’s reporting of the ‘Afghanistan Papers,’ and we’ll ask what our mission has been, why did it go wrong, who all lied to the American people,” said Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Armed Services chair calls defense bill ‘most progressive in the history of the country’ after criticism Lawmakers release defense bill with parental leave-for-Space Force deal MORE (D-Calif.), a progressive member of the House Armed Services Committee.

“Subpoena all of the people who were mentioned and have them account and explain to the American people in some cases why they lied and in other cases why they were utterly incompetent,” Khanna added.

The trove of documents published Monday by the Post include more than 2,000 pages of notes and transcripts from 428 of interviews with U.S. officials, as well as several audio recordings.

The Post dubbed the documents “The Afghanistan Papers,” invoking the Pentagon Papers published in the 1970s by the Post and The New York Times that revealed a secret history of the Vietnam War.

The interviews were conducted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) as part of the research it did for its “Lessons Learned” series of reports. SIGAR has been among the harshest critics of the war, but the Lessons Learned reports omitted the bluntest language found in the interviews.

ADVERTISEMENT

The raw interviews show officials acknowledging that “we didn’t know what we were doing,” “we clearly failed in Afghanistan,” and that the strategy included “so many priorities and aspirations, it was like no strategy at all.”

Officials also called the goal to build a strong central government in Afghanistan “idiotic,” blamed a flood of U.S. aid dollars for the “development of mass corruption” that was “somewhere between unbelievably hard and outright impossible to fix,” and labeled the plan to train Afghan forces into an effective military “insane.”

They admitted that “every data point was altered to present the best picture possible” and that Taliban attacks were cited as signs of progress “to make everyone involved look good, and to make it look like the troops and resources were having the kind of effect where removing them would cause the country to deteriorate.”

The Afghanistan Papers gave fodder to those in Congress who have long pushed for a withdrawal.

“We need to withdraw,” Khanna said. “We need to have a negotiation, come out with an agreement within six months, and withdraw.”

Others called for hearings into the issue.

Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Gabbard calls for congressional inquiry over Afghanistan war report Overnight Defense: Bombshell report reveals officials misled public over progress in Afghanistan | Amazon accuses Trump of ‘improper pressure’ in Pentagon contract decision | House Judiciary holds final impeachment hearing MORE (D-N.Y.) penned a letter to the leaders of the committee calling for a hearing “to examine the questions raised by this reporting and provide clarity with respect to our strategy in Afghanistan, a clear definition of success, and an honest and complete review of the obstacles on the ground.”

Fellow committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tweeted that the panel “must investigate & immediately hold public hearings with [Defense] Secretary [Mark] Esper & other top national security leadership.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Gabbard calls for congressional inquiry over Afghanistan war report Defense bill includes fix for military families’ survivor benefits MORE (R-Okla.) said he would wait to make a decision on holding a public hearing until after a previously scheduled closed-door briefing Wednesday with Gen. Scott Miller, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and Randall Schriver, assistant secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs.

“Let’s see what we hear first,” Inhofe told reporters Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the House Armed Services Committee held its own previously scheduled closed-door briefing on Afghanistan on Tuesday morning with Miller and Schriver. The committee also has a public hearing with Esper on Wednesday on Syria. Afghanistan is now expected to be raised as well.

Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Overnight Defense: Dems unveil impeachment articles against Trump | Saudi military flight students grounded after shooting | Defense bill takes heat from progressives | Pentagon watchdog to probe use of personnel on border Armed Services chair calls defense bill ‘most progressive in the history of the country’ after criticism MORE (D-Wash.) said members brought up the Afghanistan Papers in Tuesday’s briefing.

“The main concern is to make sure that we get a clear picture going forward, that they don’t try to make it look artificial and rosy,” Smith said of the situation in Afghanistan. 

Smith added that he doesn’t yet have a clear plan for making sure that officials stay honest and accountable in their reporting of the war to Congress and the public in the future. 

“I don’t have any really good ideas at the moment, but we are looking at it and trying to figure it out, because we are deeply concerned about it,” he said.

Rep. John GaramendiJohn Raymond GaramendiBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Krystal Ball: New Biden ad is everything that’s wrong with Democrats The Hill’s Morning Report – Impeachment of Trump resumes MORE (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said he left halfway through the briefing after lawmakers expressed concern over the Afghanistan Papers but “went on to hear what we’ve heard before” from the Defense officials. He also said questions were more focused on the present than the past.

“The members were asking what kind of detail we’d get past what we’ve heard over and over and over,” he said. “We learned nothing that could not have been said in public.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ House Democrats expected to unveil articles of impeachment Tuesday House approves two-state resolution in implicit rebuke of Trump MORE (D-N.Y.) also announced Tuesday he would hold a hearing with SIGAR early next year.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The war in Afghanistan has gone on too long and I’m disgusted by the failures in U.S. policy-making which have kept our forces there for years after they should have departed,” Engel said in a statement. “This week’s reporting confirms many of my concerns about the lack of a coherent and achievable strategy to ending the war in Afghanistan, and the committee will continue to seek answers about what went wrong in Afghanistan and how to bring the war to an end.”

Despite the revelations, the response on Capitol Hill was somewhat muted as impeachment proceedings consumed much of Washington’s attention.

Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamRepublicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Bombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Hillicon Valley: Apple, Facebook defend encryption during Senate grilling | Tech legal shield makes it into trade deal | Impeachment controversy over phone records heats up | TikTok chief cancels Capitol Hill meetings MORE (S.C.), one of the GOP’s most prominent defense voices, said Tuesday he hadn’t yet read the report because he’s “been so focused on this other stuff.” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim RischJames (Jim) Elroy RischBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Hillicon Valley: FTC rules Cambridge Analytica engaged in ‘deceptive practices’ | NATO researchers warn social media failing to remove fake accounts | Sanders calls for breaking up Comcast, Verizon Bipartisan senators call on FERC to protect against Huawei threats MORE (R-Idaho) also said he hadn’t read the report.

Sen. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Mellman: Looking to Iowa Potential Dem defectors face pressure on impeachment MORE (R-Utah), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee with oversight of the Afghanistan War, said he read the report but not the underlying documents and would refrain from commenting until he had done so. The top Democrat on the subcommittee, Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyBombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Why the Democrats’ impeachment drive is in trouble — and what Nancy Pelosi needs to do about it The Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by AdvaMed – A crucial week on impeachment MORE (Conn.), said he hasn’t read the report.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Bombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Lawmakers dismiss Chinese retaliatory threat to US tech MORE has repeatedly expressed a desire to withdraw from Afghanistan, where 13,000 U.S. troops are still fighting.

The U.S. mission in Afghanistan officially is twofold: to train, advise and assist Afghan forces in the fight against the Taliban and to conduct counterterrorism operations against groups such as al Qaeda and ISIS.

Trump opened up direct U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for the first time and was on the precipice of a deal earlier this year that would have seen U.S. troops withdraw. Talks collapsed for months after Trump invited, then uninvited Taliban leaders to Camp David, but negotiations resumed this past weekend.

House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiTrump trade deal likely to sow division in Democratic presidential field Trump supporters at Pa. rally ‘upset’ after Democrats introduce impeachment articles California GOP candidate arrested on stalking charges MORE‘s bill that would let Medicare negotiate prices with drug companies would save the government $456 billion over ten years, according to an analysis released Tuesday.

The bill, which will get a vote on the House floor this week, would require that federal health officials negotiate the prices of at least 35 brand-name drugs per year.

 

Medicare price negotiation, which is prohibited under current law, has been presented by Democrats as a solution to rising drug costs. 

 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congress’ nonpartisan scorekeeper, cautioned in its report that the estimates are “uncertain.” 

 

But the estimate is a win for House Democrats, who argue they won back the House majority in 2018 in part because they promised to work on lowering drug prices and health care costs.

 

The bill would also provide dental, vision and hearing benefits to Medicare beneficiaries, with the CBO putting the cost at $358 billion over ten years. In all, the CBO estimates the bill would reduce the deficit by $5 billion over ten years. 

 

Republicans have argued allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would lead to fewer new drugs being introduced in the U.S. 

 

The CBO estimates the bill would result in eight fewer drugs being introduced to the market over the 2020-2029 period. Under current law, about 30 new drugs are approved by the Food & Drug Administration every year. 

This week’s poll is about your pants and jeans preferences, and more specifically about the widths of their hems. You are on Team Tapered Hems if you prefer pants and jeans with narrower hem openings. You are on Team Wide Hems if you prefer the hems of your pants and jeans a little or a lot wider. Note that the distinctions are trickier than they seem. For example, trendy pants and jeans at the moment can be baggy and pleated on the hips and thighs but taper to a narrower hem. This silhouette qualifies as a tapered hem even though the silhouette is roomy. Bootcuts are very fitted on the hips and thighs, but flare out from the knee to a wider hem. Bootcuts therefore qualify as wide hems.

Silhouettes like skinnies, jeggings, leggings, jodhpur pants, harem pants, lantern pants, cigarette pants, boyfriend jeans, joggers and narrow straight legs fall under tapered hems despite the fact that some of the silhouettes are very roomy. Silhouettes like bootcuts, baby bootcuts, wide legs, wide crops, palazzo pants, cropped flares, culottes and wide straight legs fall under wide hems because the hems flare out instead of tapering back in towards the body.

Despite the fact that fashion has generally been moving away from skinnies, cigarette styles and tapered hem silhouettes, I’m willing to bet that Team Tapered Hems will win this poll. Pants and jeans silhouettes with wide and roomy hems is where it’s at trends wise, but the tapered hem is more practical, streamlining, less fussy, and easy to style. Most of my clients have included wide hems back into their styles, but continue to enjoy tapered hems. A handful of clients only wear wide hems and welcomed the less trendy skinny and narrow straight leg with open arms.

I’m on a current wide hem kick. I’ve bought many pairs of cropped flares, wide crops, a pair of bootcuts, and very roomy straights over the last five years. I’ve also bought a few pairs of full-length denim wide legs. But I continue to enjoy tailored and dressy cigarette pants and straight legs and added a few more of those to my wardrobe this year too. I enjoy a wide hem as much as a tapered hem, so I’m sitting this one out on the bench with butternut and orange soup laced with lots of ginger and cumin, cheese tosties, a crisp green salad, and Greg’s delectable lemon meringue pie with perfect ginger crust for dessert.

Click Here: South Africa Rugby Shop

Over to you. Do you bat for Team Tapered Hems or Team Wide Hems? Tell us why and no batting for both teams. But feel free to join me on the bench, although I have dibs on seconds of my favourite pie.