Overnight Finance: Trump floats entering Pacific trade pact he once called 'a disaster' | Senators worry over Mulvaney's power at consumer bureau | Battle for CFPB control heads to appeals court | House fails to pass balanced budget amendment

View in your browser     Happy Thursday and welcome back to Overnight Finance, the first-class newsletter at an economy-class price. 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.   THE BIG DEAL: President Trump once called the Trans-Pacific Partnership a "disaster" backed by "special interests who want to rape our country." Now, the president is considering re-entering the trade pact to open up markets for U.S. farmers set to take heavy losses amid a tariff battle with China. Trump on Thursday instructed top administration officials to explore re-entering the TPP -- a trade pact he pulled the U.S. out of last year. Speaking after a trade meeting with Trump, Republican senators said the president told White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to look into joining the deal, which 11 other Pacific Rim nations signed in March.  "The president multiple times reaffirmed in general to all of us and looked right at Larry Kudlow and said, 'Larry, go get it done,'" Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), a vocal proponent of free trade, told reporters at the White House. White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said the president would only re-enter TPP if the deal was made "substantially" better. "He has asked Amb. Lighthizer and Director Kudlow to take another look at whether or not a better deal could be negotiated," she said in a statement. The Hill's Jordan Fabian and Vicki Needham break down what happened today.  Why it matters: Trump's push is in its early stages and the president is known for his ideological flexibility and off the cuff policy decisions. If the U.S. were to reenter the TPP, it would be a remarkable about-face for Trump, who made his oppositions to the deal a focal point of his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump's instructions come at a time when he is engaged in a roiling trade dispute with China and is pushing to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, who are also parties to the TPP. Trump earlier this year opened the door to reentering the trade deal if the terms were more favorable for the United States. "I would do TPP if we were able to make a substantially better deal," Trump told CNBC during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.     LEADING THE DAY Senators gripe over Mulvaney's power at consumer bureau: Members of a Senate panel and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney agreed on just one thing Thursday: No one is happy with his power as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). While Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee praised Mulvaney for using his expansive, unchecked authority to rein in an agency they've loathed for half a decade, they expressed deep concerns about what that power could yield under another official. Several questioned whether the CFPB should even exist, while others called for strict checks and fundamental changes to the agency's structure. Democrats who had long defended the CFPB portrayed Mulvaney as a usurper who has chained up a once powerful protector of consumers. "He's hoping that if he does a bad enough job running the CFPB, Congress will take away the CFPB's ability to protect consumers," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), the Banking panel's ranking Democrat. "Congress should not fall for it." Mulvaney, who also appeared before the House on Wednesday, urged lawmakers to take control over the CFPB's funding, install an independent inspector general and disperse the director's power to regulate and litigate among a broader array of bureau leaders. Even so, Mulvaney made it clear that he saw no reason for the CFPB to exist at all. "You could protect consumers without me being here,"  Mulvaney said. Here's more from me on his showdown with the Senate.   Reactions: "You'll bring a ray of sunshine to a black hole of democracy I like what you're trying to do." -- Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). "It's job is clear: to fight for hard working families against unfair, abusive and deceptive practices." -- Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). "You better be damn sure willing to list out all of the other people who are suffering because of the regulatory overreach." -- Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) to the bureau's defenders.   Mulvaney vs. Warren: After months of sniping at each other through heated letters and public barbs, Mulvaney and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had their first face-to-face battle. Warren accused Mulvaney of derailing the agency out of politically motivated spite, insisting he has been "hurting real people to score cheap political points." "You've taken obvious joy in talking about how the agency would help banks much more than consumers, and how upset that would make me," Warren said. "But this isn't about me."   The backstory: Warren is considered the architect of the CFPB, laying the foundation for the bureau as an adviser to then-President Obama in 2011. She has become one of the CFPB's most vocal defenders since her 2012 election to the Senate. Mulvaney has said the previous CFPB regime waged an ideological crusade against lenders spurred by Warren's constant criticism of banks. "I don't want us to be Elizabeth Warren's baby," Mulvaney said Monday at a conference of community bankers. He also singled out a small minority of CFPB staffers aligned with "the Elizabeth Warren view of the world that lending money for profit is evil" that he alleges has undermined the bureau with misleading leaks to reporters.   Battle for control of CFPB heads to appeals court: The fight over who should lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) hit the nation's second most powerful court on Thursday. CFPB Deputy Director Leandra English urged a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule that she is the rightful leader of the bureau, not the man that President Trump put in place, budget director Mick Mulvaney. The court grappled with the language of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and how it squares with the president's authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) to temporarily fill vacancies. The Hill's Lydia Wheeler was there to break it all down for us.  If you want to know more about how we got here, these stories are a good start: CFPB deputy director sues Trump to block Mulvaney as interim leader, Nov. 26, 2017 Court sides with Trump in consumer agency fight, Nov. 28 Judge denies CFPB official's injunction against Mulvaney, Jan. 10, 2018   Balanced budget amendment fails: A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution went down to defeat in the House on Thursday after conservatives failed to garner the supermajority needed to send it to the Senate. The vote was 233-184, short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage. While fiscal hawks in Congress backed the proposal-- which would require Congress not to spend more than it brings in -- Democrats argued the vote was a gimmick to help Republicans save face amid an explosion in federal deficits. The bill was brought to the floor under an agreement made between Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) in October. The Speaker agreed on a vote in exchange for conservative support to overcome a procedural hurdle paving the way for the party's signature tax reform. The Hill's Juliegrace Brufke and Niv Elis explain here.   Tax rules will be subject to more OMB review: Certain tax rules will be subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under a memo released Thursday by OMB and the Treasury Department. The memo follows a debate over whether OMB should have more oversight of tax rules, as Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) work to implement the new tax-cut law. Under a 1983 document, IRS rules were largely exempted from review by OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Conservative groups and some GOP lawmakers had been pushing for more OMB oversight and for tax rules to undergo a cost-benefit analysis, arguing that doing so would improve the quality of the tax rules and make IRS rules subject to the same process as those from other agencies. But other lawmakers, as well as some tax experts and members of the business community, had expressed concerns that more OMB oversight of IRS rules would slow down much-sought guidance by the agency on the new tax law. The Hill's Naomi Jagoda tells us what this means for the new tax code.   MARKET CHECK: Stocks had a strong day, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising 1.2 percent with a 293-point gain. The Nasdaq rose 1 percent, while S&P 500 index increased by 0.82 percent.   GOOD TO KNOW China says it 'will not hesitate to fight back' against proposed US tariffs. More than 100 business groups on Thursday sent a letter to Congress calling on lawmakers to ensure that U.S. consumers don't pay the price for a crackdown on China's unfair trading practices. The attorney general of West Virginia on Thursday filed suit against Equifax, accusing the credit reporting agency of failing to secure its systems, resulting in the data breach that affected roughly 148 million people in the United States. Bank earnings are coming, and they're going to be huge, according to CNBC.   ODDS AND ENDS Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is struggling in an otherwise thriving home-goods retail sector with shares of the company plummeting 19.5 percent in Thursday trading. (Marketwatch)     Write us with tips, suggestions and news: slane@thehill.com, vneedham@thehill.com, njagoda@thehill.com, and nelis@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @SylvanLane,  @VickofTheHill, @NJagoda, and @NivElis.         Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up for Finance Newsletters     Forward Finance Newsletters       Privacy Policy  |  Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe  |  Email to a friend  |  Sign Up for Other Newsletters   The Hill 1625 K Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington DC 20006 ©2016 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

Overnight Health Care: Opioid distributors summoned before Congress | Judge sets trial date in massive opioid lawsuit | Senators press DOJ to stop blocking medical marijuana

View in your browser     Happy Thursday, and welcome to Overnight Health Care. In today's edition: the House and Senate are pressing ahead with their investigations into the causes of and responses to the country's opioid epidemic. Also, an unlikely Senate pair are championing medical marijuana and House Republicans are pushing for abortion restrictions in family planning grants.    Congress has summoned representatives of five drug distributors to testify on why they dumped millions of painkillers in small West Virginia towns, and what role it could have played in the state's ongoing opioid epidemic. The Energy & Commerce Committee has been investigating "pill dumping" in West Virginia for the past year, uncovering some startling numbers. In one case, Miami-Luken, Inc. sent 4 million pain pills to Oceana, a town of 1,390 people, from 2008 to 2015. That's about 689 pills for every man, woman and child. "Today, we have a more complete picture of what happened in places like West Virginia, and we will hold all parties accountable for their actions," said Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. "I, along with my colleagues, urge our witnesses to help us complete this puzzle so we can ensure this will never happen again."   Why it matters: Opioid distributors and manufacturers are facing many lawsuits from state and local governments, and the hearing could be a watershed moment for the pharmaceutical industry, akin to the hearings with tobacco executives in the same committee during the 1990s.        Read all the details here.     Speaking of which... a federal judge has scheduled a trial in a massive lawsuit against opioid distributors The first trial dealing with part of the case will occur in March 2019. Judge Dan Polster has said he wants to reach a settlement, but the trial could help both sides test the waters and move the process forward.   Why is this a big deal? The case could have major implications for the distribution of opioids. Polster, who was nominated by Clinton to the bench, said in January that "my objective is to do something meaningful to abate this crisis." "I'm confident we can do something to dramatically reduce the number of opioids that are being disseminated, manufactured and distributed," he said. "Just dramatically reduce the quantity and make sure that the pills that are manufactured and distributed go to the right people and no one else."   Read more here.   This is one bipartisan pairing you don't see every day. Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif) want the DOJ to stop slowing medical marijuana research. Hatch, an 84-year-old Mormon Republican, has become one of the most unlikely champions of the benefits of medical marijuana, and is the sponsor of bipartisan legislation to ease researchers' access to marijuana for studies on its medical benefits. In a letter sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the senators said they are concerned by reports that the Justice Department is effectively blocking the DEA from taking action on more than two dozen requests to grow marijuana for use in research.   What do they want? The senators want Sessions to honor a new DEA policy. Sessions has been an outspoken opponent of marijuana throughout most of his career, and frequently speaks harshly about its use.   What's the change? To date, there is only one manufacturer -- the University of Mississippi -- licensed to produce marijuana for federally sanctioned research. But two years ago, recognizing an increased interest in marijuana research, the DEA changed its policy. At least 25 manufacturers have applied to produce research-grade marijuana, but the DEA has not approved any of the requests.   For the rest of the story, click here.   Republicans can't defund Planned Parenthood through Congress, so they're pushing HHS to act administratively. Members of the conservative Republican Study Committee are asking HHS to add abortion restrictions to Title X, the federally funded family planning grant program.   What they want: To ban recipients of Title X funds from offering abortion referrals. To require Title X organizations be physically and financially separated from facilities that provide abortions.     What this means: These restrictions are essentially identical to ones proposed and upheld by the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration. They never went into effect because then-President Bill Clinton took office. But if HHS issued a regulation bringing them back, it would make it harder for Planned Parenthood to participate in the program.   From Emily Stewart, Planned Parenthood's vice president of public policy: "That regulation would be designed to prevent women from coming to Planned Parenthood for birth control and cancer screenings, and other providers like Planned Parenthood ... Automatically, you would have 4 in 10 people in the program who would right away lose access to their health care provider."   From the RSC letter, led by Reps. Ron Estes (Kan.), Vicky Hartzler (Mo.) and Chris Smith (N.J.): "The Title X Family Planning Program is in dire need of review and updated regulations that ensure program integrity with respect to elective abortion." "Co-located centers may be vulnerable to misuse of funds in support of abortion activities and send a message that abortion is considered a method of family planning in federally funded family planning programs," the members write.   The big picture: Even though federal funds, like Title X, are prohibited from funding abortions, anti-abortion groups and Republicans have long argued funds to abortion providers can still indirectly support the procedure.   Thursday roundup: Dems question HHS over removal of LGBT, women's health web pages A group of 17 Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) sent a letter to President Trump expressing concern about the removal of LGBT health and scientific information from the HHS Office of Women's Health (OWH) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) websites. "We are troubled by these recent actions, which, coupled with other actions your administration has taken to restrict information for LGBT people, reveal a pattern of censorship that fosters discrimination and undermines access to evidence-based health care resources that aid millions across the country," the senators wrote. A watchdog group has been flagging the removal of resources and information aimed at improving health for lesbian and bisexual women, as well as information that focused on breast cancer. View the letter from the Democrats here.   FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb vs. drug companies and insurers, part 73 Gottlieb, the administration's de facto attack dog on drug prices, took another bite at drug companies and insurers -- this time, over the costs of cancer treatment. From his remarks at the Community Oncology Conference in National Harbor, Md. "I don't think that any patient should be penalized for their biology. The true purpose of insurance is to shelter patients from financial ruin in the event of a catastrophic illness. And a cancer diagnosis is the definition of a catastrophic illness. But the perverse reality of the market today is that cancer treatment comes with its own financial toxicity."   What we're reading: Trump court pick thinks Planned Parenthood 'kills over 150,000 females a year' (HuffPo) As cancer drug prices climb, value not keeping pace (Reuters) A giant gorilla and a winged wolf: Does 'Rampage' get the science of CRISPR right? (Stat)   State by state: These volunteers are battling Idaho's government to expand Medicaid (Buzzfeed) Medicaid expansion still unresolved in Virginia Assembly (Associated Press)   From our opinion page:  Naloxone is not a moral hazard -- it's a good tool for physicians to have in their kits  American leadership against deadly epidemics reaches a decision point      Send tips and comments to Jessie Hellmann, jhellmann@thehill.com; Peter Sullivan, psullivan@thehill.com; Rachel Roubein, rroubein@thehill.com; and Nathaniel Weixel, nweixel@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @thehill, @jessiehellmann, @PeterSullivan4, @rachel_roubein, and @NateWeixel.         Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up for Healthcare Newsletters     Forward Healthcare Newsletters       Privacy Policy  |  Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe  |  Email to a friend  |  Sign Up for Other Newsletters   The Hill 1625 K Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington DC 20006 ©2016 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

News Alert: Pompeo faces difficult panel vote after grilling by Dems

View in your browser     Pompeo faces difficult panel vote after grilling by Dems CIA Director Mike Pompeo on Thursday faced a grilling from Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggesting he faces uncertain prospects to win a panel vote to become the nation’s top diplomat. Pompeo declined to answer repeated questions from Democrats related to the ongoing Russia investigations and was challenged at several points to break with President Trump, as lawmakers voiced concerns that he would be too deferential as secretary of state. Read the full story here         SPONSORED CONTENT   Join Jump$tart April 12 for Financial Literacy Hill Day. Free buffet lunch sponsored by GM Financial, Intuit Financial Freedom Foundation, Lending Tree, SIFMA Foundation, SunTrust and Visa. http://jumpstart.org/hillday18             Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up for News Alerts     Forward News Alerts       Privacy Policy  |  Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe  |  Email to a friend  |  Sign Up for Other Newsletters   The Hill 1625 K Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington DC 20006 ©2016 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.