Mediaboss Marketing

The Republican health care bill remained in shambles Thursday as House leaders threw up their hands and sent lawmakers home for a two-week recess. GOP chiefs announced a modest amendment to curb premium increases, but internal divisions still blocked their promised repeal of former President Barack Obama's law.

"This brings us closer to the final agreement that we all want to achieve," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said of the new amendment, flanked by about two dozen GOP lawmakers at a news briefing meant to project unity.

But in a sentiment echoed by other leaders, Ryan conceded "we have more work to do" over the "days and weeks ahead." That underscored the longer timeline Republican leaders acknowledge they'll need to resolve disputes between conservatives and moderates that blew up their legislation last month, dishing a mortifying defeat to Ryan and President Donald Trump.

Ominously, lawmakers from both ends of the party who've opposed the GOP legislation said Thursday's revision wasn't enough to turn them around. They included Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus, a hotbed of opposition, and moderate GOP Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey.

"I favor making sure no one is denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. So I doubt this would be enough," said Lance.

Frustration over the bill's dismal performance in Congress spilled out during a meeting Ryan and other House leaders attended late Wednesday at the White House, according to several Republicans who'd been told about the session.

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and others expressed unhappiness that the legislation remained unfinished, and the fanfare accompanying the amendment introduced Thursday was a direct result of that meeting, the Republicans said.

"The president and the speaker had a very good, long conversation last night and they remain fully on the same page on the path ahead," Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said. Trump and Ryan spoke after the White House meeting.

The new language was aimed at containing premiums by providing an additional $15 billion over a decade to help insurers cover the costs of seriously ill people, said Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., a sponsor of the amendment. Such customers' expensive care can drive up premiums for all consumers.

The money would be on top of a $100 billion fund already in the GOP bill that states could use for various purposes, including high-risk insurance pools where people with medical problems can get coverage.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., emailed GOP lawmakers that if a breakthrough on the bill occurred during the recess, "We will advise members immediately and give you sufficient time to return to Washington." The prospects for that seemed remote, at best.

Two weeks ago, Ryan called off a House vote on the measure repealing much of the 2010 health care overhaul. The GOP legislation replacing it would scale back the federal role in health care, covering 24 million fewer people over time while cutting taxes for upper-income earners.

Deep differences among hardliners and moderates have impeded the Republican march. Each side blames the other, and the recess could drain more momentum from the repeal drive.

A proposal discussed between the White House and leaders of the Freedom Caucus would let states seek federal waivers of two insurance requirements the law established.

One forbids insurers from charging higher premiums on account of people's medical problems or pre-existing conditions. The other spells out categories of benefits, like hospitalization and substance abuse treatment, that all insurance plans must cover.

Conservatives who want the federal government out of health care argue that those provisions have driven up premiums and decreased choice.

Critics say eliminating those insurance requirements would raise premiums for people with serious medical problems and threaten to leave many people without coverage they need.

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Republican health bill in shambles, House commences two-week break - Chicago Tribune

The March 31 opinion piece, LGBT conservatives have political clout. It's time they stop using it to enable GOP bigotry, was equal parts histrionic and uninformed. Author Nico Lang breathlessly declared: Advocating for inclusion and compassion from Republican leaders is a noble goal. But it clearly isnt working.

Give me a break.

In his zeal to promote a liberal worldview of LGBTQ rights, Lang overlooks an inconvenient truth that Democrats rarely admit: The victories we have achieved as a community would not have been possible without Republican support.

Liberals such as Lang are fond of talking a big game when it comes to Democratic support for the LGBTQ community, but the last time Democrats held concurrent majorities in the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives and the presidency, LGBTQ rights advanced very little, and what victories we did achieve happened only because of GOP involvement.

In 2010, the militarys discriminatory dont ask, dont tell policy was repealed with the votes of 22 Republicans in a lame duck Democratic Congress compelled to act only because of a lawsuit initiated by Log Cabin Republicans.

In 2011, Republicans provided the key margin of victory that legalized marriage equality in New York state. That vote was also held in a Republican-controlled Senate. When the same vote came up two years before at a time when Democrats held both chambers of the Legislature and the governorship, it failed.

In 2013, the U.S. Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Longtime GOP allies of equality Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mark Kirk (Illinois) were joined by seven of their peers, Sens. Orin Hatch (Utah), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania), Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire), Dean Heller (Nevada), Rob Portman (Ohio) and John McCain (Arizona), to stand up against LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace. The bill would never even have come to the floor had it not been for their support.

And in 2015 the same year a Supreme Court justice appointed by President Reagan wrote a decision making marriage equality the law of the land in all 50 states the conservative state of Utah passed a landmark LGBTQ non-discrimination bill. Lang declares that the legislation was carried over the finish line by liberal LGBTQ activists. It wasnt. Collaboration in good faith among Republicans in the state Assembly and Senate, Utahs Republican governor, Gary Herbert, leaders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the states dominant faith) and liberal LGBTQ activists are what led to historic protections for LGBTQ Utahans in legislation that could serve as a model for red-state America.

I dont pretend that the GOP is perfect, but the Democratic Party isnt either. Time and again, GOP support has been required to advance LGBTQ equality and it will be necessary to achieve further progress, whether Lang wants to admit it or not.

Right now Republicans have majority control of 32 state legislatures. In 25 of those states, Republicans control both legislative-chamber majorities and the governorships. Nationally, Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. If LGBTQ equality is going to become a reality outside the blue Northeast and the West Coast, we need to meet Republicans where they are and seek to strike balance; otherwise we are doomed as a nation to litigate an endless culture war with no viable means of resolution.

In his piece, Lang offers a dangerous bit of advice: The only way to change the Republican Party is to leave it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the contrary: If you put all your faith into a single political party, your destiny is to be ignored by one and taken for granted by the other a concept Lang would do well to understand.

Gregory T. Angelo is the president of Log Cabin Republicans, a national organization representing LGBTQ conservatives and straight allies.

This piece is part of Blowback, our online forum for rebuttals to the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed and would like to participate in Blowback, here are our FAQs and submission policy.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook.

Read the original:
Without Republican support, much of the recent progress on LGBTQ rights would have been impossible - Los Angeles Times

Photo: Carolyn Kaster, STF

Michael Conaway, Texas Republican, to take over House Russia probe

WASHINGTON Texas U.S. Rep. Michael Conaway was tapped Thursday to lead the House Intelligence Committee probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, which has been hampered by weeks of partisan discord over its chairman, Devin Nunes, who agreed to step aside.

For Conaway, a Republican from Midland and a senior member of the intelligence panel, the assignment represents a sudden leap into the center of a gripping national drama over the U.S. intelligence and diplomatic apparatus, Russian agents, and leading figures in both the Trump and Obama administrations.

"I have been a member of the House Intelligence Committee for over eight years now, and it is a responsibility I take with the utmost seriousness," Conaway said. "My profession as a CPA and auditor has taught me to be objective and methodical, and that is how I intend to help lead this investigation.

Conaway's new role was announced by House Speaker Paul Ryan, who acceded to Democratic calls for Nunes, who worked on President Donald Trump's campaign, to step aside in the face of fresh ethics complaints over his role in helping the White House parry criticism of the president's unsubstantiated claim that he was wiretapped by former President Barack Obama.

While saying that Nunes, a California Republican, continues to have his trust, Ryan said the new ethics probe would be a "distraction," and called on Conaway to take the lead on the Russia investigation. "I am confident that he will oversee a professional investigation into Russia's actions and follow the facts wherever they lead," Ryan said in a statement.

Conaway also said Nunes continues to have his full support, and emphasized that his new leadership role in the Russia probe is temporary.

Conaway has handled sensitive assignments before as a former chairman of the House Ethics Committee, which investigates allegations of wrongdoing against members of Congress, generally considered one of the most thankless jobs in Washington.

A certified public accountant by training, he also once led an audit committee that uncovered fraud in hundreds of thousands of dollars of missing funds in National Republican Congressional Committee bank accounts.

The 68-year-old lifelong Texan has deep ties to the Bush family, including doing CPA work for an oil and gas company run by former President George W. Bush.He graduated in 1966 from Permian High School in Odessa, where he was a standout player for the Permian Panthers and a member of the first Permian State Championship team in 1965. He went on to Texas A&M and served in the U.S. Army. Among his assignments is the Committee on Armed Services.

In May, acting along with nine other House committee chairmen, Conaway endorsed Trump for president.

But as the current chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Conaway generally maintains a low profile overseeing commodity and nutrition programs that keep him far away from the national spotlight.

That is about to change, with Democrats and allied groups alleging that the House Republicans are seeking to stifle the progress of an investigation centered on potential cooperation between Trump campaign aides and Russian government and industry officials.

So far, he has only briefly flirted with controversy when he told the Dallas Morning News in January that Mexican singers and soap opera stars who appeared at Hillary Clinton campaign events influenced the election as much as Russian hackers did.

"Those are foreign actors, foreign people, influencing the vote in Nevada. You don't hear the Democrats screaming and saying one word about that," Conaway said.

The comment was widely decried by Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, who tweeted, "This is a pathetic and offensive attempt to try to diminish the consensus that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to boost Donald Trump."

Conaway, who has represented Texas' 11th congressional district since 2005, will take temporary control of the controversial Russia investigation with fellow Republicans Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, and Tom Rooney of Florida.

Despite the change in management, reactions from lawmakers on both sides Thursday suggested that the partisan dynamics of the Russia probe will be little changed.

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican from The Woodlands, defended Nunes' work and said he foresees little change in direction under Conaway. "Like Devin Nunes, he's a very thoughtful member of Congress and will go to the facts and to the truth of this," Brady said.

Democrats, meanwhile, continued to press for an independent investigation.

"Putting three Republicans in charge of an investigation that has been so bungled by one is not reassuring," said U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a San Antonio Democrat. "While Mike Conaway is an amiable and thoughtful colleague whom I respect, the only way to restore public confidence is with a nonpartisan, independent, comprehensive review of the Russian attacks and any possible involvement of Trump associates."

"Instead," Doggett continued, "as with the Trump tax returns cover-up, Republicans seem much more interested in protecting Trump than learning the truth."

Nunes, meanwhile, will retain his position as chairman of the intelligence committee.

"Despite the baselessness of the charges, I believe it is in the best interests of the House Intelligence Committee and the Congress for me to have Representative Mike Conaway, with assistance from Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney, temporarily take charge of the Committee's Russia investigation while the House Ethics Committee looks into this matter," Nunes said. "I will continue to fulfill all my other responsibilities as Committee Chairman, and I am requesting to speak to the Ethics Committee at the earliest possible opportunity in order to expedite the dismissal of these false claims."

Nunes has been under fire for his handling of information that Trump officials may have been swept up in surveillance of foreign agents. He said he briefed Trump on the information before telling other members of the committee.

The New York Times subsequently reported that White House officials were Nunes' sources on the information.

The committee's top Democrats, Adam Schiff of California, said he respected Nunes' decision to step aside.

Said Conaway: "I am confident that Ranking Member Schiff and I will be able to work together to conduct an effective, bipartisan investigation."

More:
Michael Conaway, Texas Republican, to take over House Russia - Chron.com

Unprompted, Hatch said he has a good relationship with Koskinen. It's an influential statement of support because Hatch serves as Senate president pro tem making him third in line to succeed the president. Hatch also led the Senate Finance Committee investigation of allegations the IRS targeted conservative groups for audits, and said Koskinen cooperated.

But Hatch's backing may not be enough to counter the ire against Koskinen from other Republicans, some of whom want him to step down before his five-year-term ends in November.

On Wednesday, 15 GOP members of the House Ways and Means Committee said trust in the IRS has hit rock bottom. They said that under Koskinen, the IRS destroyed evidence when Congress was investigating the tax agency for inappropriately singling out conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

"He also misled Congress in the process, intentionally degraded customer service at the agency, and has since lost the trust of the American people," the committee members wrote.

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, pointedly said he would not be inviting Koskinen to testify about the tax filing season.

Despite the fact that Koskinen was not at the IRS during the scandal over conservative groups, he has become a favorite whipping boy of House Republicans. They complained that he was slow to comply with their requests for information, hauling him before congressional panels dozens of times sometimes just to berate him.

President Barack Obama appointed Koskinen to the aftermath of the scandal over conservative groups. Koskinen is a turnaround specialist with extensive experience in the public and private sectors.

He came in to overhaul mortgage buyer Freddie Mac after its near-collapse in the financial crisis at the end of President George W. Bush's administration. He also helped restructure the assets of the largest failed life insurance company in U.S. history, Mutual Benefit Life, and helped reorganize the Penn Central Transportation Company after it became the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

Koskinen said he has not heard from anyone in the Trump administration about stepping down.

But in tense exchange at Thursday's hearing, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., asked Koskinen if he intends to finish his term.

"It gives me no pleasure and some degree of sadness," Roberts said. "I have been disappointed in your record at the agency."

Koskinen replied, "I regret that you're disappointed in the performance."

Koskinen went on to defend his record. He said the IRS has implemented every recommendation from every investigation into the IRS handling of conservative groups. He said no one at the tax agency hindered any of the investigations.

Tribune staff contributed to this report

Read the original post:
At least 1 top Republican in Congress really likes IRS head: Orrin Hatch - Salt Lake Tribune

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who previously stopped short of saying how she would vote on the nuclear option, argued that both parties "will rue the day" that led to the likely rule change.

"If it's necessary in order to get him confirmed, I may have to vote that way, but I certainly don't want to," Collins told reporters Monday night.

The nuclear option would lower the threshold for breaking a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee from 60 to 51, meaning the majority party could approve a nominee on a party line vote.

By permanently nixing the 60-vote threshold filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in the future, critics say it will give the party in power all the leverage and eliminate the Senate's tradition of needing at least some bipartisanship to advance nominees.

Collins said she was "very troubled" that Democrats "put us in the situation" and that they'll regret it one day because the rule change will make it easier for presidents to get more ideological justices approved for the Supreme Court down the road.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, should he proceed to the nuclear option, needs only a simple majority of 51 to vote for a change in rules. It's possible McConnell will have his whole party -- 52 votes -- behind him, but not all Republicans have explicitly said they will back him in the effort.

He can only afford to lose two Republican senators, in which case Vice President Mike Pence would be needed to break a tie. If McConnell loses more than three Republicans, the rule change would not pass.

Collins said Gorsuch deserves to be on the high court and that she's "committed" to making sure he gets confirmed. While she said she worked with Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin to try and hammer out a deal between the two parties, she said it was "not successful" and doubts there is any other option left but to go nuclear.

"And I think that is truly tragic," she said. "It gets bad for the Senate as an institution, and I think it is bad for the court, as well."

Other moderate Republicans didn't want to directly confirm they would vote for the rule change, even as they suggested they would if it was needed to get Gorsuch confirmed.

"I'm going to vote for Judge Gorsuch," was all Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would say when asked if she would vote for the change in rules.

Pressed again if that meant she would vote for the rule change, she would not directly answer the question. "Meaning I'm going to support Judge Gorsuch," Murkowski replied.

When a reporter noted again that she had not actually answered the question, Murkowski responded: "I am working to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court. That' s my interest," perhaps hinting that she would support nuclear option but perhaps not.

She's not the only Republican declining to directly answer the question.

Senators don't exactly want to go on the record saying they're in support of the rule change -- in fact, many of them personally aren't. Rather, they're only using language saying they'll confirm Gorsuch, one way or the other, and blaming Democrats for putting them in the situation.

Moderates are concerned about how voters in their states -- including Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans -- will react to them voting for the nuclear option.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, was equally vague when it came to saying if he would vote for the nuclear option. When a reporter asked why he was being coy, he denied it.

"I'm not being coy at all. Of course, I'm going to vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch. I'm absolutely outraged about what the Democrats are doing," Alexander said, again without directly answering the question. "I will vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch one way or another. One way or the other I'll vote for him. I've said everything I've got to say about it."

Conservative Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi was part of bipartisan talks in 2013 to avert the nuclear option when Democrats were considering -- and ultimately used -- the rule change on lower court judges.

On Gorsuch, he says Republicans will do whatever it takes.

"The Senate will confirm Judge Gorsuch despite the filibuster," he told CNN.

Democrats, meanwhile, push back by saying Republicans launched the ultimate filibuster last year by blocking President Barack Obama's pick of Merrick Garland from getting a hearing or committee vote, keeping the seat vacant until a new president was sworn in.

Pressed by reporters on whether he will vote for the nuclear option, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley refused to say yes. But he insisted that he is "going to do whatever it takes" to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

Read the original post:
Frustrated Republicans prepare for the nuclear option - CNN