Tag Archives : Build House

Reconciliation is a fiscal wreck for the states

In a deal announced on July 27, 2022, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) revived parts of the Build Back Better Act (BBBA). Despite claims that the legislation represents a “compromise,” it would increase taxes during a recession and dramatically expand the size, scope, and power of the federal government. Like its predecessor, the grossly misnamed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) will only make things worse for the American people and continue to erode critical constitutional barriers between states and the federal government. 

The IRA includes dozens of provisions that would make states implement progressive policies through restrictive grants, including tying federal funding to “environmental justice” initiatives like “climate mitigation” aid for “underserved forest landowners” and $1.5 billion in “competitive grants” to states “for tree planting and related activities.” It sets aside $700 million for states to “acquire land and interests in land” with a focus on applicants “that offer significant natural carbon sequestration benefits or provide benefits to underserved populations.”  

There is also money for state agencies to aid and monitor “whole-house energy saving retrofits,” the primary aim of which is “to achieve maximum greenhouse gas emissions reductions” in addition to reducing household energy costs. Viewed in the context of the growing trend of cities forcing residents to abandon the use of natural gas, states should be wary of requirements for “green” energy alternatives regardless of the end cost to consumers, which may run afoul of existing state laws that constrain the ability of local governments to ban the use of natural gas. 

If this legislation is enacted, states would become forced participants in the Biden administration’s efforts to implement key features of the radical Green New Deal. At no point does the legislation explain how tree planting, buying land for carbon sequestration, or stopping residential and commercial properties from using natural gas will reduce energy or food prices. 

It will only be after federal agencies promulgate rules and regulations with these tentacles attached that it will be possible to determine the long-term financial burden of this legislation. State and local taxpayers will be left holding the bag when federal aid for the IRA programs run out, bearing the costs of policies that are not widely supported across the country.   

The Schumer-Manchin “inflation reduction” bill comes as the American people continue to suffer from unaffordable prices at the gas pump and the grocery store and states remain awash with cash from the federal government’s spending binges. The current state of the economy should provide a warning for anyone demanding more spending. The $4.5 trillion allocated to supposedly provide relief from the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2021 has not only led to inflation, but also a recession. Even former President Jimmy Carter, to whom President Biden has most often been compared, did not raise taxes during his inherited recession. Instead, he cut them by $18.7 billion at the end of 1978.   

More government spending that will leave states on the hook for parts of the Green New Deal down the road will not reduce inflation or alleviate the impact of the recession. Spending $369 billion on climate virtue signaling is a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who are struggling to put food on their table, gas in their cars, and paying the energy bills to cool their homes in the sweltering days of summer or keep warm this coming winter.  

Like the original BBBA, the Schumer-Manchin proposal seeks to co-opt the states into becoming unwilling pawns in a plan that will reduce innovation, bankrupt the American people, and raise taxes on millions of Americans, including those making under $400,000, all under the guise of “economic relief.”   

Instead of reducing costs, the IRA will add to the already soaring prices Americans are experiencing in every aspect of their lives. With hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and spending, the implementation of dangerous drug price controls that will reduce the availability of new life-saving medicines in the future, unprecedented increase in the Internal Revenue Service budget, and intrusion on state sovereignty, the Inflation Reduction Act is a disastrous bill masquerading as economic relief. Congress should pull the plug on this latest effort to pervert America’s system of federalism and bury for good any efforts to enact any part of the Build Back Better Act.   

Ryan Lanier is state government affairs associate at CAGW.

Source: TEST FEED1

NotedDC — Kansas abortion vote sends shockwaves

“One-hundred percent, I never imagined it was going to be a decisive victory.”  

That’s what a Kansas lobbyist told us Wednesday, a day after the state’s residents voted ‘no’ on a measure to lift protections for abortion. 

Democrats say the result – nearly 60 percent voted against giving the state legislature more power to restrict the procedure – further crystallized what they already knew: Abortion will energize and sway voters this November. 

The abortion rights victory came as a shock to many. Polls had indicated that the vote would go the other way, and Kansas is a more conservative state in the Midwest, despite currently being led by a Democratic governor. 

“I could not have dared to predict that,” the lobbyist said, adding that Republicans in the state told her that they don’t want Kansas to be like Alabama or Texas, which enforced near-total abortion bans after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. 

With fewer than 100 days until midterms, Democrats are likely to try to harness that momentum into other states, where Republicans have downplayed abortion rights as a top issue and a motivator for voters to turn out, our colleague Max Greenwood writes. 

“I don’t think that fear of recession and economic security is going to be enough of a driving message to counteract the opportunity Democrats have to expand their reach with new voters who are pro-choice,” Kansas Republican operative Joseph Dozier said. 

The vote comes as good news to Democrats in tough reelection races in battleground states like Arizona, New Hampshire and Nevada, where Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has already made abortion rights a hallmark of her reelection campaign and recent legislative priorities.  

“Nevada is a pro-choice state, and we need leaders who will defend our rights – not call them ‘absurd,'” Cortez Masto tweeted on Wednesday about her Republican opponent Adam Laxalt.  

While it’s too soon to tell how this will change Republicans’ messaging in tight races – despite their already prominent focus on inflation – officials have suggested they see opportunity in focusing on moderate Republican candidates in blue states. 

One race that we’re watching is the battle between Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Republican candidate Joe O’Dea, who is pro-abortion rights.  

• The National Republican Senatorial Committee is launching ads against Bennet, according to Politico, just a month after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that he was “all in” to flip the seat red, as reported by Axios. 

“I don’t think this vote in Kansas or post-Dobbs decisions changes where they [Republicans] are, but it might change where our elected officials and where our candidates are,” Dozier said about the party’s stance on abortion. 

Welcome to NotedDC: Your guide to politics, policy and people of consequence in D.C. Have some news, juicy gossip, insight or other insider info? Send us tips: Elizabeth Crisp and Kelsey Carolan. 

📨 Encourage your friends to sign up here: thehill.com/noted.

Meanwhile in Washington…

IN CONGRESS, a bipartisan bill to codify abortion rights into federal law faces an uphill battle after a similar effort failed in May. 

The bill, introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), would protect a right to abortion up to viability, or when the fetus could survive outside the womb, though the bill does not define that timeline. 

It’s considered a compromise to Republicans since it would allow health providers to opt out of providing abortions for religious reasons, a problem some Republicans pointed out in a previous, unsuccessful Democratic-only proposal. 

The filibuster, or the need to achieve 60 votes, still stands in the way of passing the bill. And as our colleague Nathaniel Weixel notes, it will likely get opposition from Democrats for being too conservative. 

• Who already said they won’t support it: On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told NBC News that she would vote against the bill because it is “not an obvious improvement of where we stand now.” 

AT THE WHITE HOUSE, President Biden signed an executive order directing the directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consider using Medicaid to pay for expenses for those who cross state lines to seek abortions, with his powers limited on acting more aggressively. 

As our colleague Morgan Chalfant writes, this is the second executive order Biden has signed since the Court overturned Roe, redefining his once-held position, while a senator, of being less open to abortion rights.  

It’s unclear what role the White House will play in advocating for the legislation to codify abortion rights, but Biden implored Congress to “restore the protections of Roe as federal law” after the Kansas abortion referendum on Tuesday. 

“If Congress fails to act, the people of this country need to elect senators and representatives who will restore Roe and protect the right to privacy, freedom and equality,” Biden said on Wednesday. 

Read more from our colleague Peter Sullivan. 

Sinema stirs up suspense in the Senate 

Sinema broke her silence on the tax reform and climate bill Wednesday afternoon, suggesting changes to the legislation but still staying mum on whether she’ll vote for it. 

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) signaled to reporters on Tuesday that he would consider her suggestions if it meant she would support the Inflation Reduction Act, and Sinema reportedly wants to toss the provision that closes the carried interest tax loophole. 

Her request isn’t that unexpected since she previously opposed closing the loophole, which allows asset managers to use a favorable tax rate on income. 

Senators are stuck on Sinema since she could be the single Democrat to derail the bill, like Manchin did last December, throwing away the final chance for what is potentially the Biden administration’s biggest legislative victory. 

We also have our eyes on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) after he blasted the bill’s fossil fuel provisions and some of the tax measures in a floor speech Tuesday night, pledging to offer amendments to modify it. 

“This is legislation which has some good and important provisions pertaining to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, but, at the same time, provides massive giveaways to the fossil fuel industry whose emissions are destroying the planet,” Sanders said. 

The clock cannot tick any faster as senators are itching to leave town for August recess while also dodging an apparent COVID-19 outbreak in the Senate.  

(Spoiler alert: They’ll probably be here at least through the weekend.) 

WILL THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT REDUCE INFLATION? 

There’s been a lot of discussion about whether the bill would actually reduce record levels of inflation, and you’re likely not going to get the same answer from Republicans and Democrats. 

Two key analyses didn’t have great news for Dems: 

• The Penn Wharton Budget Model (a group that Manchin has previously consulted) found that the bill would “very slightly increase inflation until 2024 and decrease inflation thereafter” and indicated “low confidence” that it would have any real impact. 
• Moody’s Analytics found that the bill would “modestly reduce inflation over the 10-year budget horizon,” suggesting it would have a “marginal” impact in the next five years.

But another key focus for Dems is how it will reduce the deficit, which is proving to be a more optimistic message: 

• The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Wednesday that the bill will reduce the deficit by a net $102 billion from 2022 to 2031. As our colleague Aris Folley notes, that amount doesn’t factor in what will come from payfors, so it will be a greater total. 

Pelosi leaves a mark on Taiwan

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) continues her travels across Asia but she’s already done with the most high-profile portion of the trip: her stop in Taiwan. 

FlightRadar24, which shows live aircraft flight tracking information, reports that Pelosi’s flight to Taiwan was the most tracked flight in the site’s history.  

Pelosi is traveling with a delegation that includes Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.).

They’ve now made it to South Korea after leaving Taiwan Wednesday. 

But the trip has ruffled feathers with members of the Chinese government, who view Taiwan as an occupied territory. 

“Pelosi is being oblivious to the plethora of problems within her country and does not care about the livelihoods and wellbeing of her fellow Americans, but she has been pulling political stunts and repeating what has been proven by numerous facts to be the lie of the century,” Chinese assistant minister of foreign affairs Hua Chunying said on Twitter. 

Hoyer names his social media ‘all stars’

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has revealed the latest list of “all stars” — the members who’ve earned the most social media engagement in the past month — in the chamber’s majority.  

Perhaps of little surprise, Democrats on the select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol saw lots of growth after two primetime, televised hearings.  

Behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), who had a prominent role in a hearing last month, saw the biggest growth in her social media presence, according to Hoyer’s tally. She got nearly 50,000 new followers on Twitter and 500 on Facebook. 

Committee members Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Pete Agulair (D-Calif.) all saw big spikes in their follower bases.  

Review the full list here. 

DEMOCRATS FACE NEW CRITICISM ON MIDTERM STRATEGY 

Democrats are facing a round of fresh criticism for meddling in GOP primaries. 

One of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, Rep. Peter Meijer (Mich.), became the latest target of the Democrats’ strategy of boosting pro-Trump candidates in Republican primaries in the hopes they will be easier to beat in November — and was ultimately defeated on Tuesday. 

Our colleague Max Greenwood writes that while the strategy has been employed successfully in other races before this one, it sparks new criticism since some of these candidates, many of whom deny the 2020 presidential election results, could ultimately be elected. 

“If Peter’s opponent wins and goes on in November to win, the Democrats own that,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the Jan. 6 House committee, said Tuesday on CNN. 

PART OF THE SUCCESS of this strategy in November may be reliant on whether Republican and independent voters believe the Jan. 6 House committee’s probes tarnished the reputations of former President Trump and his endorsed candidates. 

And as our colleague Rebecca Beitsch reports, the Justice Department’s investigation into Jan. 6, as well as the House committee’s probe, isn’t winding down anytime soon. 

Press Club to honor CNN’s Ward 

JUST IN: CNN’s Clarissa Ward, the chief international correspondent based in London who has documented Russia’s attack on Ukraine, among other assignments, is being honored by the National Press Club this year with a D.C. gala in honor of her selection for its prestigious Fourth Estate Award.  

The dinner is a fundraiser for the National Press Club Journalism Institute. Tickets are $150 for National Press Club members and $300 for non-members. It’ll take place at the National Press Club headquarters in DC on Dec. 7. 

Stay with TheHill.com for the latest and recommend NotedDC to others: thehill.com/noted. See you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

White House flags fly at half-staff in honor of Indiana Republican

The White House said its flags will fly at half-staff through Thursday in honor of Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who was, along with two congressional aides, killed in a car accident on Wednesday.  

President Biden mourned Walorski’s passing in a statement, noting that the congresswoman, as co-chair of the House Hunger Caucus, was working with his staff to plan for an upcoming White House conference on hunger, nutrition and health.  

“We may have represented different parties and disagreed on many issues, but she was respected by members of both parties for her work on the House Ways and Means Committee on which she served,” Biden said in a statement issued hours after news of the congresswoman’s death became public.  

“We send our deepest condolences to her husband, Dean, to the families of her staff members, Zachery Potts and Emma Thomson, who lost their lives in public service, and to the people of Indiana’s Second District who lost a representative who was one of their own,” he continued. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) similarly ordered flags at the U.S. Capitol to be flown at half-staff in recognition of Walorski.  

News of the Indiana representative’s passing in a car accident in her home state shocked Capitol Hill on Wednesday. According to local authorities, the two-car crash occurred when an incoming car veered left of center and hit the vehicle carrying Walorski, 58, and two aides, Zachery Potts, 27, and Emma Thompson, 28.  

“This news is absolutely devastating,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a statement. “Jackie was a dear friend, trusted advisor, and the embodiment of integrity who achieved the admiration and respect of all her colleagues in the House.” 

Lawmakers and officials across the aisle expressed condolences upon news of Walorski’s passing.  

“Hoosiers everywhere mourn the loss of Rep. Jackie Walorski and her staffers Zachery Potts and Emma Thomson. Condolences to their families,” White House chief of staff Ron Klain, a native of Indianapolis, tweeted.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Hillicon Valley – Big business threatens privacy bill

The comprehensive data privacy bill introduced in June has become one of the most lobbied bills in Congress, and the corporate efforts could imperil the legislation’s path forward.  

Meanwhile, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Wednesday said he was worried there are too many cooks in the kitchen when it comes to leading the federal government’s cybersecurity efforts.  

This is Hillicon Valley, detailing all you need to know about tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. Send tips to The Hill’s Rebecca Klar and Ines Kagubare. Someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.

Industry weighs in on privacy proposal 

Industry lobbying could imperil a comprehensive privacy bill that would fundamentally shift the way companies collect user data online.  

Since its introduction in June, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act has been one of the most lobbied bills in Congress, drawing attention from more than
180 corporate clients, including Amazon, Disney and Target, according to data from research group OpenSecrets.  

• The bipartisan bill, which represents a breakthrough for lawmakers after years of negotiations, would restrict the kind of data companies can collect from online users and the ways they can use that data.  
• Its provisions would impact companies in every consumer-centric industry — including retailers, e-commerce giants, telecoms, credit card companies and tech firms — that compile massive amounts of user data and rely on targeted ads to attract customers.   

“The gist of the bill is to have companies not collect any more data than they need to provide you with the service that you’re engaging with,” said Sara Collins, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, an interest group that backs the bill.   

Some success: Corporate interests have already successfully softened some sections of the bill, which advanced through the House Energy and Commerce Committee by an overwhelming 53-2 vote last month. But other policy battles threaten to completely upend the privacy effort.   

Read more here.

Portman warns against cyber overlap 

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Wednesday said he was worried there are too many cooks in the kitchen when it comes to leading the federal government’s cybersecurity efforts.  

Portman’s remarks came during a nomination hearing for Nathaniel Fick, President Biden’s nominee to be the ambassador at large for a new cyber bureau launched within the State Department in April. 

“What I’m concerned about is that we have overlapping responsibilities and authorities with regard to our cyber defense,” Portman said. 

“We seem to keep adding more and more top cybersecurity positions to our government,” he added. 

The State Department bureau was established to deal with international issues related to cyber and emerging technologies. 

Read more here. 

SENATORS TO DEBATE JOURNALISM COMPETITION BILL 

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up a bill aimed at giving news publishers the power to bargain with dominant tech platforms over the distribution of their content on Thursday.  

The senators will be voting on whether to advance the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, a bipartisan bill led by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).  

The bill would allow news publishers to enter into bargaining agreements with tech companies about their content in a way that supporters say would help local news outlets with the ride of digital ad revenue giants like Google and Facebook.  

But it may face challenges in the committee, despite the bipartisan support. Earlier this year during a Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee hearing on the proposal, subcommittee ranking member Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) voiced opposition to the proposal.  

Moreover, the debate on the bill comes as Klobuchar’s other bipartisan antitrust bills targeting tech giants face a dwindling legislative deadline. The Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Online Choice Act advanced out of the committee earlier this year but have yet to be called for a floor vote. 

WIKIMEDIA RESTRICTIONS 

Wikipedia is setting restrictions on Wednesday for new and unregistered users who try to edit the page about recession. 

A spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, the company behind the online encyclopedia, told The Hill that starting Wednesday, new account users and anonymous users will be able to make changes to the English recession page, but their edits will be subject to review from volunteer editors. 

After the Commerce Department announced last week the nation’s economy shrank for the second quarter in a row, the recession page drew a frenzy of users who debated the definition of a recession and how it should be reflected in the article. 

Read more here.

BITS & PIECES

An op-ed to chew on: Student privacy laws remain the same, but children are now the product 

Notable links from around the web: 

FTC Under Khan Faulted by Watchdog on Hiring Unpaid Experts (Bloomberg / Leah Nylen) 

Arizona Republicans exaggerate voting issues to sow fresh doubt about elections (The New York Times / Stuart A. Thompson) 

The crypto crackdown begins (Vox / Sara Morrison) 

One more thing: Pelosi’s Taiwan trip stirs controversy

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has stirred a storm of controversy, heightening tensions with China and captivating the world’s attention. 

For the California Democrat, however, the trip is something much more personal. 

Pelosi has a long track record of confronting Chinese leaders head-on, particularly on issues of human rights, stretching back decades to include the massacre of pro-democracy activists on Tiananmen Square. 

Her decision to visit Taiwan — a self-governing democracy that Beijing claims as its own — ranks among the most conspicuous exhibitions of that advocacy campaign; Pelosi on Tuesday became the highest-ranking U.S. official to set foot in Taiwan in
25 years. 

Read more here.

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Technology and Cybersecurity pages for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

Health Care — Biden points to Kansas vote, signs abortion order

Welcome to Overnight Health Care, where we’re following the latest moves on policy and news affecting your health. For The Hill, we’re Peter Sullivan, Nathaniel Weixel and Joseph Choi. Someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.

Cheese lovers may have reason to rejoice after researchers identified a Norwegian cheese that could help prevent bone thinning and osteoporosis. 

Today in health care, the focus was on abortion rights after Tuesday’s vote in Kansas, and President Biden signed an executive order on the issue. 

Biden signs executive order on abortion travel 

President Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consider working with states to use Medicaid waivers to pay for expenses for women who cross state lines to receive abortions.   

The executive order was the second that Biden has signed over the past month in response to the Supreme Court’s June ruling striking down the landmark 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade.   

“I believe Roe got it right, and it’s been the law for close to 50 years,” Biden, who is isolating with COVID-19, said in virtual remarks at a meeting of an interagency task force on reproductive health care.   

Biden administration officials did not provide many specifics about what the Medicaid waivers could look like, leaving the details up to HHS.  

Officials said Biden’s new order paves the way for Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to invite states to apply for Section 1115 Medicaid waivers to cover certain costs related to traveling for abortion.  

Hyde problems: The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for most abortions, with exceptions given for cases of rape, incest and when the life of the pregnant person is endangered. The Medicaid waivers are likely to face Republican-led legal challenges.  

• White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insisted that the executive order did not run afoul of the Hyde Amendment. She later seemed to clarify that the waivers could be used to support transportation, contraception and abortion procedures in some cases.  

Read more here. 

Biden: Kansas vote a ‘powerful signal’ for elections

President Biden on Wednesday called Kansas’s vote in favor of abortion rights a “powerful signal” about elections ahead of November’s midterms, as Democrats look to harness energy sparked by the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. 

“The voters of Kansas sent a powerful signal that this fall the American people will vote to preserve and protect the rights, and refuse to let them be ripped away by politicians,” Biden said in remarks at the opening of his administration’s task force meeting on reproductive health care.   

The president called on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade. 

“If Congress fails to act, the people of this country need to elect senators and representatives who will restore Roe and protect the right to privacy, freedom and equality,” he said, seeking to highlight the stakes of the midterm elections.   

The decisive victory for abortion rights supporters against an amendment to remove abortion protections from the Kansas Constitution on Tuesday has given Democrats new hope about the electoral power of the issue heading into the fall.   

• Unlike in the single-issue Kansas vote, midterm voters this November will be deciding on lawmakers based on a range of factors, including inflation, that could drag down Democrats.   

Read more here. 

POLL: DRUG PRICE CAP MOST POPULAR PART OF RECONCILIATION BILL

A provision that limits the price of prescription drugs included in Democrats’ climate, health care and tax deal is the most popular piece of the legislation, according to a new Morning Consult-Politico poll. 

The poll asked respondents to voice their opinion on 12 different aspects of the reconciliation bill.  

Fifty-one percent indicated they strongly supported caps on prescription drug prices, and 77 percent of voters said they at least somewhat supported the provision, which clocked in as the element with the highest level of support. 

The legislation would require pharmaceutical companies to pay rebates if they hike the prices of existing drugs faster than inflation in either the Medicare or private markets. 

Seventy-two percent of respondents indicated support for a provision that would cap Medicare beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs at $2,000 by 2025. Forty-four percent said they strongly supported the element. 

Read more here. 

PROGRESSIVES URGE INCLUSION OF UNINSURED IN INSULIN PROPOSAL

House progressives are calling on leadership to include people without health insurance in any legislation that limits out-of-pocket costs for insulin.  

Senate Democrats are pushing to include a $35 cap on out-of-pocket insulin costs as part of a larger reconciliation bill, though it’s still unclear if such a provision would be allowed under the arcane Senate rules for passing the legislation. 

In a letter to bipartisan House and Senate leaders, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Tri-Caucus (comprised of the Black, Hispanic and Asian and Pacific American caucuses) said any cost savings should also apply to the uninsured.  

“Failure to do so will deepen health disparities and increase long-term healthcare costs,” the lawmakers wrote. 

How would it work? The lawmakers said a universal cap on insulin costs could be accomplished either by using existing Medicaid payment structures to reimburse pharmacies or by establishing a fund in the Department of Health and Human Services that reimburses insurance providers and pharmacies. 

Read more here. 

Biden positive for fifth straight day after ‘rebound’ infection

President Biden tested positive for COVID-19 again on Wednesday but continues to feel “well,” his physician, Kevin O’Connor, said in a new update that noted Biden is coughing less frequently.  

O’Connor said that he examined Biden on Wednesday morning after the president enjoyed a “light workout” and that Biden has no fever and his vital signs remain normal.   

“The President continues to feel well,” O’Connor wrote in a memorandum released by the White House. “He is still experiencing an occasional cough, but less frequently than yesterday. He remains fever-free and in good spirits. His temperature, pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation remain entirely normal. His lungs remain clear.”  

Wednesday was the fifth day in a row that Biden tested positive for the coronavirus in what his doctor described as a “rebound” infection that has been seen in some patients who take the antiviral treatment Paxlovid.   

Biden is expected to continue to isolate in the White House residence until testing negative.   

Read more here.

WHAT WE’RE READING

• Music festivals embrace overdose reversal drugs, but fentanyl testing kits remain taboo (Nashville Public Radio) 
• CDC expected to ease Covid-19 recommendations, including for schools, as soon as this week (CNN) 
• Red Cross beginning to screen blood donors for monkeypox (Stat) 

STATE BY STATE

• R.I. to expand monkeypox vaccination clinics, open eligibility to at-risk populations (Boston Globe) 
• Sen. Johnson suggests ending Medicare, Social Security as mandatory spending programs (Washington Post) 
• Minnesota Department of Health: Adverse health events up 33% in 2021 (KSTP) 

THE HILL OP-EDS

Post Roe: Women still have the right to emergency medical treatment 

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Health Care page for the latest news and coverage. See you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

Hawley is only senator to vote against Finland, Sweden NATO membership

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was the only senator to vote against a resolution on Wednesday backing Finland and Sweden’s entry to NATO.

The Senate approved the resolution in a 95-1 vote. One senator, Rand Paul (R-Ky.), voted present.

The resolution backs Finland and Sweden joining NATO. The House approved a resolution in a bipartisan 394-18 vote last month that formally supported the two Nordic countries joining the military alliance. All opposition in the House came from the Republican Party.

Hawley’s vote against the resolution did not come as a surprise. He had announced his intent to vote against the resolution earlier this week, outlining his opposition in an op-ed published by The National Interest.

He said he does not believe the U.S. should not expand its security commitments in Europe because America’s “greatest foreign adversary” is China.

Hawley argued that growing the U.S.’s security commitments in Europe would make Americans less safe.

“Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia,” Hawley wrote.

“I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe,” he added.

The Missouri Republican elaborated on his stance in remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday, arguing that adding Finland and Sweden to NATO is not in the U.S. national security interests.

“Finland and Sweden want to expand NATO because it is in their national security interest to do so, and fair enough. The question that should properly be before us, however, is is it in the United States’ interests to do so? Because that’s what American foreign policy is supposed to be about, I thought,” Hawley said.

“Expanding NATO will require more United States forces in Europe, more manpower, more firepower, more resources, more spending. And not just now, but over the long haul. But our greatest foreign adversary is not in Europe. Our greatest foreign adversary is in Asia. And when it comes to countering that adversary, we are behind the game. I’m talking, of course, about China, the communist government of Beijing has adopted a policy of imperialism,” he added.

Paul voted “present” on the resolution shortly after the Senate defeated his amendment to the measure in a 10-87 vote. Nine Republicans joined him in supporting the addition.

The amendment sought to emphasize that Article 5 of the NATO treaty does not supersede Congress’ control over declaring war.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday delivered remarks in support of the resolution and wished those opposed to the measure “good luck” in finding a “defensible excuse” for their “no” votes.

“If any senator is looking for a defensible excuse to vote ‘no,’ I wish them good luck. This is a slam dunk for national security that deserves unanimous bipartisan support,” McConnell said.

“There’s just no question that admitting these robust democratic countries with modern economies and capable interoperable militaries will only strengthen the most successful military alliance in human history,” he added.

This story was updated at 7:04 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

These 11 GOP senators voted against the Honoring Our Pact Act

The U.S. Senate passed the Honoring Our PACT Act on Tuesday night in an 86-11 vote, expanding health care for 3.5 million of America’s veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits in the post 9/11-era.

The legislation also covers health benefits for other veterans exposed to chemicals, such as Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, during their military service.

The measure was sent to the White House after Republicans had blocked the legislation last week, objecting to the inclusion of $400 billion in mandatory spending that would not be subject to annual appropriations review — unlike the usual discretionary spending for federal agencies and programs that Congress reviews and approves annually.

Republicans argue that under the PACT Act, Democrats could theoretically spend $40 billion annually over 10 years on other needs unrelated to veteran care because the $400 billion authorization over a decade is considered mandatory.

But supporters of the bill noted that Republicans had previously supported the measure’s mandatory spending. Democrats argued the GOP was shifting its position because it was unhappy with a separate deal worked out by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on climate change, health care and taxes.

The GOP came under tremendous pressure to shift from veterans who were camped out on the U.S. Capitol steps. Those veterans had a high-profile ally in Jon Stewart, the former “Daily Show” host.

Before the vote on final passage, the Senate agreed to three cost-controlling amendments on the bill, which led a number of Republicans to back it.

But these 11 GOP senators still voted against the package on final passage. The Hill has reached out to all 11.

Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.)

Toomey led the opposition effort to the bill last week when he complained about the mandatory spending, which he called a “budgetary gimmick” on the Senate floor.

“My concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill,” Toomey said. “This budgetary gimmick is so unrelated to the actual veterans issue that has to do with burn pits, that it’s not even in the House version of this bill.”

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)

Shortly before the Senate voted Tuesday, Paul railed against the bill and said it would put the economy at risk.

“This bill would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when the national debt is climbing over $30 trillion and inflation is at a 40-year high,” Paul said on the Senate floor.

Sen. Mike Crapo (Idaho)

Crapo told The Hill he has co-sponsored four other bills in the Senate that would address veterans exposed to toxic burn pits and related injuries.

In a statement, the senator said he is “committed to ensuring health and disability benefits are provided to veterans exposed to toxic substances while on their tours of duty.”

He ultimately did not support the PACT Act because he said it authorized a “slush fund” in mandatory spending.

“I have a strong record of supporting veterans to ensure they have access to high-quality health care, opportunities to thrive following their transition from the military and protecting their Second Amendment rights,” Crapo said.

“I, too, remain committed to Idaho veterans impacted by burn pits and toxic exposure and will continue to support bipartisan legislation that can withstand necessary fiscal standards to ensure solvency and endurance, not additional slush fund spending placed on the American people,” he added.

Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.)

Tillis told the Raleigh News Observer he had doubts about the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to deal with backlogs and wait times for veterans seeking care.

“Congress has an obligation to ensure the VA can effectively and efficiently implement any comprehensive toxic exposure legislation and, unfortunately, I continue to have reservations about the Department’s ability to do so,” he told the news outlet.

The PACT Act will aid veterans who were exposed to toxic chemicals at North Carolina military bases Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River.

Sen. James Lankford (Okla.)

In a Facebook live video Tuesday night, Lankford said the legislation “limits access to outside physicians,” creating roadblocks for veterans who wish to seek care at places other than the VA.

“Many want to go to a family physician or one that’s closer to them,” Lankford said. “With many areas in rural Oklahoma, the people have to drive a very long way to be able to get to a VA hospital and I am very passionate about them getting to one that’s close to them.”

And like Tillis, the senator raised additional concerns with wait times, suggesting the bill increases waiting periods at the VA and does not resolve lengthy backlogs for veterans seeking care.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah)

The Hill has requested comment from Lee’s office.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.)

On Tuesday night, Lummis said 168,000 vets were currently waiting for VA services, which she called “unacceptable.”

“If we pass the PACT Act, as is, that number jumps to over a million,” she tweeted, offering another bill from her colleague, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), which would allow veterans to seek care at facilities in their communities.

Sen. James Risch (Idaho)

A spokesperson for Risch’s office said the senator was a strong supporter of veterans but did not support the $400 billion in mandatory spending.

“Unfortunately, Democrats wrote in a $400 billion hole in the discretionary budget they can fill with spending totally unrelated to veterans,” the spokesperson said. “It is inappropriate to use a bill for veterans as a backdoor to usher in huge sums of unrelated spending.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah)

Romney’s office pointed to remarks the senator made in June about the legislation, when he raised concerns about adding “hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt” and with implementing a “dramatic expansion of qualifying conditions that aren’t necessarily service-connected disabilities.”

“We should absolutely help veterans who have contracted illnesses as a direct result of toxic exposure during their service. However, the scope and cost of this bill is astronomical and unjustified,” he said, according to the remarks forwarded to The Hill.

“We have a collective responsibility to the veterans who have served our country, and I would support legislation that better targets disability eligibility requirements based on scientific evidence and research,” the senator added.

Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.)

Shelby tweeted Tuesday night that he “remained a strong advocate for our veterans” but could not support the $400 billion mandatory spending provision.

“The PACT Act would reclassify nearly $400 billion in VA funding, allowing Dems to instead spend that on their liberal wish list,” he wrote. “I want to support the PACT Act, but this budget gimmick must be fixed.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.)

In a Twitter thread on Tuesday night, Tuberville said he was concerned about the “many provisions in the bill that require amending to ensure the VA can deliver on this law.”

“I want to know that the VA can implement this comprehensive bill in a fair and effective way, and right now, I am not confident that that is the case,” the senator wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Iowa school district sued over transgender student policy

A parental rights group is suing an Iowa school district over its adoption of a new policy designed to support transgender students, alleging the policy violates the constitutional rights of students and excludes parents from important conversations about their children’s gender identity.

The group Parents Defending Education (PDE) on Tuesday filed a complaint in federal court against the Linn-Mar Community School District in eastern Iowa arguing that a policy adopted by school board members in April violates students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Under the district policy in question, transgender students may use school facilities like restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity and should be identified by faculty and staff using their preferred names and pronouns.

Students may meet at any time with a school counselor or administrator to develop a “gender support plan,” according to the policy. A meeting with school staff will be held within 10 school days of a student’s request for support, and the student may choose whether or not they want their parents to be in attendance.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

According to the policy, students in the seventh grade or higher will have priority of their gender support plan “over their parent [or] guardian.” Information about a student’s support plan will be kept in the student’s temporary records, which are not accessible to parents.

The school district under the new policy is also not required to disclose a transgender student’s gender identity to their parents.

The complaint filed Tuesday claims the policy authorizes children “to make fundamentally important decisions about their gender identity without any parental involvement and to then hide these decisions from parents.”

The suit also alleges that the policy violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty by requiring them to use a transgender student’s correct pronouns. An “intentional” or “persistent” refusal to do so constitutes a violation of district anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies, as well Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.

“Nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent makes two things clear: parents have a constitutional liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children, and students do not abandon their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” the complaint states, accusing the school district of “flouting both of these constitutional guarantees” by adopting the policy.

In a news release announcing the lawsuit, PDE said it had asked the court to declare that the district’s policy violates the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Linn-Mar’s gender policy demonstrates a deep contempt for the constitutional rights of its students and families,” PDE President Nicole Neily said in a statement, adding that the group is “proud to fight on behalf of our members to put a stop to these unconstitutional policies.”

The Linn-Mar Community School District did not respond to Changing America’s request for comment.

Source: TEST FEED1

The future of farm and food policy

Congress will soon begin the process of reauthorizing legislation that will navigate the future of federal farm and food policy. Hearings on the next farm bill have already begun at a time of substantial political divide. Historically, the farm bill reauthorization process has been a beacon of bipartisanship. After all, no matter your political affiliation — everyone needs food.

Reauthorization comes at a time when farmers are facing challenges on several fronts. The harsh realities of climate change are coming to the surface, with nearly 93 percent of the western part of the U.S. currently experiencing drought conditions. Historic supply chain disruptions are unveiling distribution gaps and bottlenecks. Inflation is at a 40-year high and threatens the food security of low-income American families. The dollar is at a 20-year high against the Euro and multi-month peaks against other major currencies, making U.S. commodities more expensive in overseas markets. Prices for critical inputs like fertilizer and diesel fuel have risen dramatically. Farmers are watching their margins shrink thinner and thinner as production costs continue to rise.

Addressing challenges in the 2023 Farm Bill will be no small feat. With 12 separate titles in the current farm bill, there are a number of competing priorities that will make maintaining an official Congressional Budget Office (CBO) budget baseline difficult. The sluggish economic recovery, looming threat of a recession, budget constraints and high commodity prices are reminiscent of the environment in which the 2008 Farm Bill was reauthorized. That legislation involved a temporary extension of the 2002 Farm Bill and overriding two presidential vetoes. Bipartisanship and coalescence across a broad range of stakeholders including farmers, food companies, nutrition advocates and conservation interests will be required to pass the 2023 Farm Bill before the current legislation expires at the end of FY2023.

The 2018 Farm Bill allocated 99 percent of the total budget to four of the 12 farm bill titles. The Commodities and Crop Insurance titles represent the safety net for farmers when adverse conditions affect farm revenue and collectively account for 16 percent of the budget. The Conservation title, which funds the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other conservation programs, accounts for 7 percent of the budget. The Nutrition title, which funds the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and provides assistance for low-income families, accounts for 76 percent of funding. The remaining eight titles share 1 percent of the total budget, including research and rural development — two areas woefully underfunded under current legislation.

The CBO baseline forthcoming in early 2023 will likely establish the budget for the new farm bill. Under zero baseline budgeting, an increase in funding for one of the 12 titles must accompany a decrease in one or more other titles unless additional federal funding is found. Because of this, competition for funding each individual title will be high.

As congressional hearings are ongoing to gather firsthand insights from farmers and other stakeholders on how to restructure the new farm bill, I see several ways the next farm bill can be updated to enhance sustainability in agriculture and meet the nutritional needs of consumers.

First, statutory reference prices that trigger income support payments should be re-evaluated to measure efficacy if crop prices fall while input prices remain high. Many major commodity prices could fall by more than 33 percent before a support payment is triggered, and that payment would not be made until October of the following year. Meanwhile, the prices paid for key inputs like fertilizer and fuel have more than doubled. Rising interest rates also mean higher interest on operating loans. With no commodity program support, farmer profits could decline substantially and affect the ability to service existing farm debt. That’s why re-evaluating reference prices in the context of existing variable costs, much like the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program, deserves consideration in the new farm bill.

Second, the Crop Insurance title offers another essential safety net for farmers who face the unpredictability of escalating weather conditions and declining harvest prices. However, only 2 percent of all policies sold by crop insurance agents are Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policies. Many insurance providers shy away from writing policies for diversified operations due to the WFRP’s complexity, further encouraging monocrop production. In the upcoming farm bill, Congress must not only ensure more coverage of diversified crop and livestock operations but also ensure the affordability of meaningful insurance coverage typically required by farm lenders.

Third, nutrition assistance provided under the SNAP program suggested by the May 2022 CBO baseline drops significantly when COVID-19 pandemic assistance expires. Support levels are currently based on the Thrifty Food Plan while the concept of a living wage is traditionally based on the Low-Cost Food Plan which provides a higher monthly food budget. The Nutrition title was the most contentious during the 2018 Farm Bill negotiations. It is highly unlikely a new farm bill will pass without a strong commitment to the SNAP program that addresses food insecurity amid inflationary pressure in both urban and rural areas.

Last, conservation programs must be prioritized in the 2023 Farm Bill. Some argue declining enrollment in the CRP indicates funding should be placed elsewhere. Instead, conservation funding should be restructured rather than reduced. Only 31 percent of EQIP applications and 42 percent of Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) applications were accepted from 2010 to 2020. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program has received over 450 proposals, each ranging from $5 million to $100 million, far exceeding the $1 billion allotted by the USDA. Rather than focusing on land retirement programs, the 2023 Farm Bill should redirect a portion of funding to expand programs that focus on land restoration. That way farmers can reap the benefits of favorable commodity prices while simultaneously improving the climate resilience of their operations.

At the end of the day, the farm bill affects every single one of us. Domestic food security is a national security issue. Agricultural stakeholders are stepping up in different ways to ensure the voice of agriculture is a driving force behind what the future of farm and food policy will look like. If lawmakers do one thing in the 2023 Farm Bill, I hope they clarify an uncertain future by providing accessible technical support and safety net programs that address the viability of our nation’s farmers and ranchers while maintaining a reliable food system that supports the nutrition needs of all Americans.

John Penson, Ph.D., is the chief economist and advisory board member at AgAmerica, a nationwide agricultural land lender.

Source: TEST FEED1

Durbin calls on DOD watchdog to probe 'wiped' Jan. 6 texts

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is calling for an investigation following news that the texts for top Department of Defense (DOD) officials were not preserved, losing their communications on Jan. 6. 

American Oversight, a group that had sued for the texts following a public records request, disclosed that DOD notified them in March that it “wiped” the phones of former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and former Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy in the days after the attack on the Capitol.

“The disappearance of this critical information could jeopardize efforts to learn the full truth about Jan. 6. I don’t know whether the failure to preserve these critical government texts from Jan. 6 is the result of bad faith, stunning incompetence, or outdated records management policies, but we must get to the bottom of it,” Durbin said, noting that he would ask DOD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate the matter.

The disclosure follows news that numerous officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also had their messages erased during the transition, including former acting Secretary Chad Wolf and his deputy Ken Cuccinelli. Both had their phones reset following the inauguration, losing any texts from Jan. 6 in the process.

DOD provided a similar explanation.

“DOD and Army conveyed to Plaintiff that when an employee separates from DOD or Army he or she turns in the government-issued phone, and the phone is wiped. For those custodians no longer with the agency, the text messages were not preserved and therefore could not be searched,” the agencies wrote in a March court filing.

The effort to obtain Pentagon texts could have shed light on why the National Guard faced delays in getting approval to go to the Capitol as it was under siege.

The suit sought the military leaders’ communications with former President Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence and Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows. The request also asked for communications from Kash Patel, Miller’s chief of staff; Paul Ney, the Defense Department general counsel; and James E. McPherson, the Army’s general counsel.

DOD OIG said it would consider the request.

“The DOD OIG is aware of Senator Durbin’s press release and is awaiting his letter to Acting DOD Inspector General Sean O’Donnell,” a spokeswoman for the office said in an email to The Hill.

“We will review the letter once we receive it.”

Source: TEST FEED1