THE LIGHTBULB

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally Wednesday evening in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

On Wednesday evening, an evidently gleeful President Trump gave a campaign-style speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in which he attacked some of his favorite objects of ire in front of diehard fans, including Democrats, the Russia investigation and the news media. 

Feisty following a Republican winning the fifth special election for a House seat in a heavily contested Georgia seat, Trump reiterated promises to cut taxes, rebuild infrastructure and repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. (Read more from by colleagues John Wagner and Jenna Johnson here.)

But in his meandering speech, Trump, perhaps tellingly, also focused ridicule at wind energy in Iowa, a state where the renewable energy industry makes up a significant portion of the energy portfolio. Only days earlier, Trump’s energy secretary, Rick Perry, delivered a strikingly different message to Congress, telling lawmakers the United States will pursue an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy production.

In his Iowa speech, Trump also made unrealistic claims about putting solar panels on his long-promised border wall with Mexico and outright misleading claims about the recently exited Paris climate accord.

It fits a pattern of misstatement about energy production that was also on display in Trump’s Rose Garden speech announcing U.S. withdrawal from the Paris deal. 

As The Energy 202 did then, let’s break down the claims:

CLAIM #1: “I don’t want to just hope the wind blows to light up your house and your factory as the birds fall to the ground,” Trump said in Iowa in a remark in line with his past comments about wind energy. Before becoming president (or even running for office), Trump disparaged wind turbines as “ugly” and claimed wind power “kills all the birds.”

THE PROBLEM: There are at least two. As he did occasionally on the campaign trail, Trump is overstating the impact wind turbines have on bird populations. According to the National Audubon Society, wind turbines cause about 234,000 bird deaths a year, or less than 0.1 percent of all human-related bird deaths. Tall buildings and automobiles cause significantly more fatalities.

Second, Iowa got more than a third of its net energy generation from wind production last year, a higher percentage than any other state, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Only Texas produced more wind energy outright.

Wind turbines — and the federal tax credits that support them — are also politically popular in the state. “If he wants to do away with it,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in August of then-GOP nominee Trump and federal wind-energy tax credits, which Grassley helped write, “he’ll have to get a bill through Congress, and he’ll do it over my dead body.”

Trump may have been reminded of the many wind turbines dotting Iowa prairies with a stop at a community college with a 240-foot-tall wind turbine on campus:

Later in the speech, the president dialed back his critique of wind energy and stayed on message with his administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy: « We use electric. We use wind. We use solar. We use coal. We use natural gas. We will use nuclear if the right opportunity presents itself.”

CLAIM #2: “They all say it’s non-binding,” Trump claimed of the Paris climate accord, riling the crowd about his decision to withdraw the United States from the international agreement. “Like hell it’s non-binding.

THE PROBLEM: The Paris accord is non-binding.

Under the agreement, countries voluntarily set their own greenhouse-gas emissions targets. That’s its key virtue, the reason Trump’s predecessor, President Obama, was able to convince nearly every other nation on Earth to sign onto it. Previous international efforts to reduce climate-warming emissions, most notably the Kyoto Protocol, were not able to generate that level of consensus in the international community, and get 195 nations to sign on in 2015, precisely because those treaties were legally binding.

CLAIM #3: “We’re thinking about building the wall as a solar wall, so it creates energy, and pays for itself,” Trump said in Iowa. “And this way Mexico will have to pay much less money, and that’s good.”

The president later asked: “Pretty good imagination, right? Good? My idea.”

THE PROBLEM: It was not his idea.

At the very least, Thomas Gleason had the idea before President Trump. Gleason, a business owner in North Las Vegas, Nev., submitted a bid back in April to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency with designs for a border wall covered with solar panels, according to the Las-Vegas Journal Review.

More significantly, experts who have taken the solar-paneled border wall proposal seriously say such a structure would have significant issues. Vertically fixed panels could lead to an efficiency loss of around 50 percent, according to an analysis by the Financial Times.

And that’s just the beginning. As Sophie Yeo reported for The Post earlier this month:

In addition, solar panels degrade over time. The requirements dictated by the security aspects of the border wall — bricks and spray paint, for example — could further reduce efficiency.

Then there is the question of finding a market for any electricity that would be generated by a solar wall in a remote section of the country.

With less than 2 percent of the U.S. population living within 40 miles of the Mexico border, the electricity generated by the wall would mostly be useless — unless costly transmission lines were built to take the electricity to other areas of the country.

President Trump shakes hands with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after speaking about the U.S. role in the Paris climate change accord in the Rose Garden of the White House. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

— Three heavyweight researchers who study various aspects of the science and politics of climate change — Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT; and Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard — wrote a searing critique of an idea espoused by New York University professor Steven Koonin and embraced by EPA  Administrator Scott Pruitt to conduct a “Red Team/Blue Team” process for climate science.

They write in an op-ed in The Post:

The basic premise of these “Red Team/Blue Team” requests is that climate science is broken and needs to be fixed. The implicit message in the requests is that scientists belong to tribes, and key findings of climate science — such as the existence of a large human-caused warming signal — have not undergone adequate review by all tribes. This tribalism could be addressed, Koonin believes, by emulating Red Team/Blue Team assessment strategies in “intelligence assessments, spacecraft design, and major industrial operations.”

In Koonin’s view, “traditional” peer-review processes are flawed and lack transparency, and international scientific assessments do not accurately represent “the vibrant and developing science.” He implicitly accuses the climate science community of “advisory malpractice” by ignoring major sources of uncertainty. To use present-day vernacular, both Koonin and Pruitt are essentially claiming that peer-review systems are rigged, and that climate scientists are not providing sound scientific information to policymakers.

We do not consider ourselves to be members of any team or tribe. Our goal is not to “win” against “the other side.” Our prime motivation is to understand the natural world, and to use that knowledge and understanding to inform sensible decisions on important public policy questions. Whether we succeed in doing so is what we are ultimately judged on.

The peer-review system criticized by Koonin and Pruitt is imperfect, but it is the best system we have, and has served science well for several centuries.

In this file photo, miles of pipe ready to become part of the Keystone Pipeline are stacked in a field near Ripley, Okla.(AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)

— Oil will continue to flow through the Dakota Access pipeline pending a new review of its environmental impact. A federal judge said Wednesday that he will decide later this year whether to shut the pipeline down in the meantime. In court Wednesday, an attorney for the Army Corps of Engineers Matthew Marinelli said he « cannot give you a time frame » for how long the additional review would take. « The corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court identified, » according to EE News. A federal judge ruled last week that the Army Corps of Engineers did not consider how oil spills may impact the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and ordered a redo of its environmental review, the Associated Press reported. 

— With the strong rebound in the U.S. shale-il drilling and production, crude oil prices have tumbled more than 20 percent over the last 10 months, The Post’s Steven Mufson reports. U.S. consumers benefit as a result: Gasoline prices are hitting lows at the start of the summer driving season, a time when increased demand typically bumps up the cost of gas. And the low oil prices will help keep a lid on inflation and, because the United States is a major oil importer, will reduce the trade deficit.

This is happening despite Saudi Arabian efforts to cut output by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and to coordinate with Moscow to trim Russian supplies. In May, OPEC and non-OPEC members led by Russia extended supply cuts through the first quarter of 2018 in a bid to drain plentiful global inventories.

Natural gas is flared off at a plant outside of the town of Cuero, Texas. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

— What states are releasing the most carbon into the air? Bloomberg took a look at a report from Ceres, Bank of America, Exelon Corp., and the Natural Resources Defense Council among others that analyzed power plant emissions by state. 

Texas was found to have the highest level of emissions, more than twice any other state, followed by Florida. Bloomberg’s Mark Chediak reported that « despite a surge in wind power there, Texas still depends on fossil fuel-burning generators to serve a large and growing population. » 

When focused on emission rates, or carbon dioxide released per megawatt-hour of electricity, Texas drops to 20th and Florida to 27th place. Instead, Wyoming, Kentucky and West Virginia take the top rankings for a high use of coal. And California ranks near the bottom of the list for emission rates, using minimal amounts of coal-fired power generation, and accessing electricity from renewables, Bloomberg reported. 

— State regulators say that an ambitious « clean coal » power plant in Mississippi run by Southern Co. should switch to burning natural gas. The Wall Street Journal’s Russell Gold reports: « Mississippi regulators said they wanted the Kemper power plant, which has already taken $7.5 billion and seven years to finish, to run using natural gas henceforth, and don’t want to pass on additional costs to electricity customers. The plant has primarily been running on natural gas, not coal, because the company has struggled to make the clean coal technology consistently work. »

Last July, that plant was subject to a thorough New York Times investigation that found the project « has been plagued by problems that managers tried to conceal. » 

Fish swim over a patch of bleached coral in Hawaii’s Kaneohe Bay off the island of Oahu. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones, File)

— Turning to the ocean, there’s some good news and bad news from government scientists:

Good news: An ongoing global coral bleaching event, one that’s affected more than 70 percent of tropical reefs worldwide, may finally be coming to a close. A new forecast from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggests that the high ocean temperatures that lead to bleaching are no longer widespread in the Indian Ocean, potentially signaling the end of what’s been a worldwide event for the past three years, Chelsea Harvey reports for The Post.

Bad news: An oxygen-poor “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, which can prompt harmful algae blooms and threaten marine life, could approach the size of New Jersey this summer, federal scientists say, making it the third-largest the Gulf has seen. A new forecast, again from NOAA, predicts that the annual dead zone will reach an area of nearly 8,200 square miles in July, more than 50 percent larger than its average size, Chelsea Harvey reports.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

— A meteorological research group is firing off on Energy Secretary Perry for his claim that carbon dioxide is not a main driver of climate change, suggesting he does not have a « fundamental understanding » of science. 

In a Wednesday letter, the executive director of the American Meteorological Society wrote to Perry that « it is critically important that that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause. This ia a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. » 

The letter added that « skepticism and debate are always welcome and are critically important to the advancement of science, » but that « skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue. » 

Capital Weather Gang’s Angela Fritz tweeted the full letter: 

And Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) seemed to share in AMS’s message: 

The letter follows after the energy secretary’s remark about carbon dioxide on national television.

When asked on CNBC if CO2 was « primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate, » Perry said: « No, most likely the primary control knob is ocean waters and the environment that we live in. » 

 Los Angeles Fire Dept. firefighter paramedics practice caring for mock earthquake victims during the Great Southern California ShakeOut, simulating a mass casualty earthquake. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

— Fake earthquake: A staff member at the California Institute of Technology erroneously sent out an alert for a large magnitude 6.8 earthquake on Wednesday afternoon for a quake that happened off the Santa Barbara coast in 1925. When the staffer tried to correct data on the location of the 92-year-old quake, a new report went out instead, the Los Angeles Times reported.

There was not a 6.8 earthquake in Isla Vista. The USGS just alerted a quake that happened in 1925. Story to come.

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 21, 2017

The alert went out at 4:51 p.m. PDT, the Los Angeles Times reported. And some on Twitter began to wonder why they hadn’t felt such a large magnitude quake: 

Shortly after, U.S. Geological Survey tweeted about the mistake, saying that the notification was « caused by a revision of the historic 1925 M6 Santa Barbara earthquake and was misinterpreted by software as a current event »: 

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke listens to a question during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Today

• Zinke will also testify about the department’s budget during a hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources.
• Perry will testify before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the department’s budget.
• The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard will hold a hearing on marine debris.
• The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials will hold a hearing on rail infrastructure. 

President Trump talks about his proposed border wall at last night’s rally in Iowa: 

Watch how a bizarre experiment studies pumas reacting to political talk shows:

Stephen Colbert says Republicans want a vote, not a debate, on health care: 

THE PROGNOSIS

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his GOP leadership team. They’re presenting a health-care discussion draft to rank-and-file this morning. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Senate GOP leaders are poised to release an Obamacare overhaul that clearly tries to woo the moderate members of their party while also keeping spending in check and giving conservatives a few goodies, too.

Yesterday afternoon, The Health 202 scooped the major details of the draft health-care legislation that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to bring up for a vote next week. Like the the House bill passed in May, the Senate version would put big dents in the Affordable Care Act, repealing just about all of its taxes, pulling back on Medicaid expansion and ditching the individual mandate to buy coverage and the employer mandate to offer it.

But the Senate bill contains three elements McConnell is betting will win over a half dozen or so moderates who remain skeptical but whose votes are crucial to overall passage (remember: the majority leader needs only 50 votes since arcane budget rules are being applied to the measure, meaning he can lose just two Republicans). McConnell’s draft, hashed out behind closed doors, basically retains Obamacare’s insurance subsidy structure — with just a few tweaks — takes a gentler approach than the House bill in the short-term to Medicaid expansion, and wouldn’t allow states to opt out of key protections for patients with preexisting conditions.

The idea, aides and lobbyists say, is to provide a softer landing for people at lower ends of the income spectrum than under the House bill. That measure based the subsidies only on age and didn’t peg them to actual premiums, resulting in estimates of dramatic cost spikes for some Americans and prompting a heavy onslaught of public criticism that spooked many House moderates.

The Senate bill tries to fix that problem — sort of. Its subsidies closely mirror Obamacare subsidies, which are currently available to Americans earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Starting in 2020, under the Senate bill, this assistance would be capped for those earning up to 350 percent — but anyone below that line could get the subsidies if they’re not eligible for Medicaid. As under the ACA, the subsidies would be pegged to a benchmark insurance plan each year, ensuring that the assistance grows enough over time to keep coverage affordable for customers.

McConnell is also offering moderates an approach to Medicaid he hopes will be more politically palatable to them. It’s true the draft proposes even deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House version by tying federal spending to a slower growth index. But that wouldn’t kick in for another seven years, well past moderate senators’ next reelection battles. And it doesn’t fully end the ACA’s Medicaid expansion until five years from now, gradually easing down the extra federal payments over three years starting in 2021.

The Senate bill also retains the ACA’s protections for patients with preexisting conditions. It eliminates the House bill’s pathway for states to lift a ban on insurers from charging people with serious medical conditions higher premiums, which would have been another political hotbed for moderates. It does expand the use of certain « 1332 waivers » to give states more flexibility — a provision that conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wanted — but those waivers don’t open the door to ducking the preexisting protections.

The Senate bill would also provide funding in 2018 and 2019 for extra Obamacare subsidies to insurers to cover the cost-sharing discounts they’re required to give the lowest-income patients. Insurers have been deeply concerned over whether the subsidies will continue, as the Trump administration has refused to say whether it will keep funding them in the long run.

With this approach that sticks a little closer to existing law, McConnell is hoping to win over Republicans in states that embraced parts of the ACA, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Dean Heller of Nevada. Their votes are absolutely crucial to the whole effort to repeal and replace parts of Obamacare, the promise Republicans made time and time again over the past seven years and which McConnell is determined to fulfill. He will present the draft to his wary members at a 9:30 meeting this morning in a pivotal gathering.

Even yesterday, many members expressed deep skepticism toward elements in the draft as it took shape. “Up to this point, I don’t have any new news — tomorrow we will see it definitively — that would cause me to change that sentiment,” Capito told my colleagues Sean Sullivan, Kelsey Snell and Juliet Eilperin yesterday.

Many moderates are still likely to be displeased that the Senate draft will almost certainly result in significantly more uninsured people than under the ACA, although it could look a little better than the House version on that measure, which is estimated to cost 23 million people their coverage in a decade. All of this won’t be known for sure until the Congressional Budget Office score is released, likely on Monday. Furthermore, the measure retains a provision to strip Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood clinics for one year, potentially alienating Murkowski, who supports abortion rights.

So what do conservatives get out of this bill? Big cuts to Medicaid further down the road and a repeal of nearly all of Obamacare’s taxes. Under the Senate draft, federal Medicaid spending would remain constant for three years. In 2021, it would be transformed from an open-ended entitlement to a system based on per-capita enrollment. Starting in 2025, the measure would tie federal spending on the program to an even slower growth index, which in turn could prompt states to reduce the size of their Medicaid programs.

Conservatives, and the health-care industry at large, will also be pleased that the draft proposes repealing all of Obamacare’s taxes except for its so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans in language similar to the House version. Senators previously toyed with the idea of keeping some of the ACA’s taxes.

But there’s a strong chance the Senate bill could spark a revolt on the right. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity wanted to erase Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion right away, and they’re also likely to view the Senate GOP’s approach to subsidies as another big, bad government entitlement. Antiabortion groups may oppose the measure too since it could remove the House bill language restricting federally subsidized health plans from covering abortions, which may have run afoul of complex budget rules.

Aides stress the GOP plan is likely to undergo more changes to garner the votes Republicans need. It’s in discussion draft form, meaning elements could be added or stripped out over the next week as Republican leaders try to propel it toward a vote before the end of next week. And there are ongoing conversations with the Senate parliamentarian over which provisions can even be included under rules governing what can go in a budget reconciliation bill.

And don’t forget that even if this bill passes the Senate, there’s another steep hurdle. It would have to pass muster with the more conservative House before heading to President Trump’s desk for a signature. And the House already had a difficult time passing its own version, meaning none of this is assured to become law.

Stay tuned…

To help you follow along, The Fix’s Amber Phillips and the Post’s graphic team will keep tabs on who supports and who opposes the Senate bill in the runup to the expected vote next week with a Whip Count. And the Post will write about developments as the draft gets released this morning here and here with our health-care liveblog.

Some observers noted the similarities between the Senate bill and the ACA. From the senior VP of the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Reports of the Senate health bill look like Obamacare-lite for private insurance. The Medicaid changes are a horse of a different color.

— Larry Levitt (@larry_levitt) June 21, 2017

If the Senate health bill cuts off premium subsidies at 350% of poverty, the effect will be greatest for older people in high premium areas.

— Larry Levitt (@larry_levitt) June 21, 2017

The associate director of the Kaiser foundation noted the effect the measure would have on people who don’t qualify for subsidies:

More observations:

Sen. Ron Johnson just called their health care bill a « modification » of the House bill. So at least they’re admitting that now.

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 21, 2017

Trump in Iowa says he wants health care « with heart. »
“I’ve been talking about a plan with heart. I’ve said, ‘Add some money to it.’ »

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 22, 2017

From a veteran Democratic operative and Hillary Clinton deputy press spokesman:

Looks like Trump still opposes Senate GOP’s health care repeal

Leaked Senate details are clear it has no more heart than House (maybe less) https://t.co/oIlnSdSjrU

— Jesse Ferguson (@JesseFFerguson) June 22, 2017

A former Obama aide called those who drafted the Senate bill « monsters: »

From Bernie:

You’re not improving health care when you defund Planned Parenthood and deny millions of women their provider of health care.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) June 21, 2017

Democrats continued to attack the secret process:

As did Paul:

The HealthCare.gov website, where people can buy health insurance, is displayed on a laptop screen. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

OOF: Insurance giant Anthem has announced it will leave the Obamacare marketplaces in Indiana and Wisconsin in 2018, my colleague Carolyn Johnson reports. The company said in a statement that the business of selling health coverage on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces has become « difficult due to a shrinking and deteriorating individual market, as well as continual changes and uncertainty in federal operations, rules and guidance, including cost sharing reduction subsidies and the restoration of taxes on fully insured coverage. »

Anthem’s announcement came yesterday, the deadline for insurers to tell federal regulators whether they plan to keep selling marketplace plans next and if so, how much they would like to charge. The deadline applied to all 39 states whose marketplaces are run by the federal government. An evolving map by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that 44 counties in four states, where about 30,000 people buy insurance through the marketplaces, are at risk for having no insurance options next year.

The day was something of a moment of truth for the marketplaces, whose health depends on how many insurers participate, Carolyn writes.

« So far, states are seeing mixed results: One major insurer has made a big pullout, while a different one announced it would expand into new states, » Carolyn reports. « Oscar Health, a start-up company that was co-founded by Ivanka Trump’s brother-in-law, announced it would expand in Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Tennessee, California and New York. »

In Indiana, MDwise Marketplace announced it would leave that state’s marketplace, putting four counties at possible risk of having no insurer next year, although a different Centene has announced it is expanding in the state. A spokeswoman for Centene said the company was still working through the filing process and would not share information until it was complete, Carolyn reports.

As the marketplace situation becomes more clear over the next few days, it will influence the urgency with which Republicans pass a bill replacing big parts of the ACA and puts more pressure on the Trump administration to respond to insurers asking for more certainty.

« To date, there has not been a county with zero insurers selling policies on its marketplaces, and it’s not totally clear what will happen if a county is left without any plans. It’s possible, however, that without a functional exchange, would-be participants would have to shoulder the full costs of their health insurance — or go without, » Carolyn writes.

AHH:  President Trump is still calling for a final health-care plan “with heart.” As Senate Republicans prepared to released their discussion draft this morning, and details of the draft were starting to emerge, the president expressed his desires for the bill to an audience at a rally in Iowa last night.

“I can’t guarantee anything, but I hope we’re going to surprise you with a really good plan,” Trump said in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

« We basically can’t lose anybody, » he added.

His comments follow reports that he had privately called the House version of the bill “mean.” This was after Trump had celebrated the passage of the bill with members of the House in the Rose Garden.

Democrats, including Rep. Al Franken (D-Minn), jumped on the opportunity to use the presidents words against him. 

What do you call a bill that would reinstate annual and lifetime caps? MEAN.

— Sen. Al Franken (@SenFranken) June 21, 2017

What do you call a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood, which provides critical health services for millions of women? MEAN.

— Sen. Al Franken (@SenFranken) June 21, 2017

What do you call a bill that will cause 23 million more people to be uninsured? MEAN.

— Sen. Al Franken (@SenFranken) June 21, 2017

What about a bill that guts Medicaid (which covers 1 in 5 adult women pays for 1/2 of all births) to give tax breaks to richest few? MEAN.

— Sen. Al Franken (@SenFranken) June 21, 2017

OUCH: According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll, the Republican health-care bill has become less popular than when the House advanced its version last month. Just 35 percent of voters support the House version of the bill, and 49 percent disapprove of it. That’s down from 38 percent approval and 44 percent disapproval immediately after the bill passed in May.

Dr. Wei Shin sequences DNA as part of an investigation for a Zika vaccine candidate on the campus of National Institutes of Health in  Maryland. (Photo by Jared Soares for The Washington Post)

Today

• The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies holds a hearing on the budget request for the National Institutes of Health on Thursday.

Coming Up

• The American Enterprise Institute is holding a discussion on the government’s role in medical innovation and funding on June 29.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan on health care: « This law is collapsing »

See Trump blame Democrats for the health-care deadlock: