(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday asked about the whereabouts of an Indiana congresswoman who was killed in a car crash earlier this year, prompting reporters to ask the White House to explain why he appeared confused and not be satisfied with the answer.
The misstep happened as Biden spoke at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, where his administration pledged $8 billion in an effort to end hunger and decrease diet-related diseases by 2030.
As he often does at such events, Biden was thanking the lawmakers involved in the issue when he mentioned late Rep. Jackie Walorski, who represented Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District as a Republican for nine years. Walorski and two of her aides were killed in a car crash on Aug. 3.
“I want to thank all of you here,” Biden said, “including bipartisan, elected officials like representative of government Sen. Braun, Sen. Booker, Representative Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie? I think — she was gonna be here — to help make this a reality.”
It seemed like Biden perhaps realized mid-sentence, when he said, “I think — she was gonna be here.”
Walorski served as co-chair of the House Hunger Caucus, and worked with Sens. Cory Booker, Mike Braun and Jim McGovern to pass the bill to convene the White House conference on hunger — the first in 50 years.
After her passing in August, Biden released a statement commending Walorski’s work on food insecurity.
“We may have represented different parties and disagreed on many issues, but she was respected by members of both parties … My team and I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America,” Biden said.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was hit with repeated questions on Biden’s mistake during Wednesday’s briefing.
“What happened in the hunger event today?” ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega asked. “The president appeared to look around the room for an audience member, a member of Congress who passed away last month. He seemed to indicate she may be in the room.”
Jean-Pierre responded by saying Walorski was “top of mind” for Biden as he mentioned those in Congress who championed the effort to convene the second-ever hunger conference, and because Walorski’s family will be at the White House on Friday to celebrate the bill signing in her honor.
“So, of course, she was on his mind,” Jean-Pierre said, adding Biden looks “forward to discussing her remarkable legacy of public service with them when he sees her family this coming Friday.”
“But he said Jackie, are you here?” Vega pressed. “Where’s Jackie? She must not be here.”
“I totally understand. I just explained, she was on top of mind,” Jean-Pierre responded.
Several other reporters in the room also pressed Jean-Pierre on the error, with one reporter asking if the late congresswoman were “top of mind,” why Biden appeared to think she may have been in the room. Jean-Pierre stuck to her answer that Walorski was top of Biden’s mind. The apparent gaffe comes as some Republicans question Biden’s mental acuity.
ABC News’ Ben Gittleson contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The White House said this week that large leaks in undersea gas pipelines running from Russia to Germany were the result of “apparent sabotage.”
U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Tuesday night that he had spoken with his Danish counterpart about the leaks in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, which he labeled “apparent sabotage.”
“I spoke to my counterpart Jean-Charles Ellermann-Kingombe of Denmark about the apparent sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines,” Sullivan tweeted. “The U.S. is supporting efforts to investigate and we will continue our work to safeguard Europe’s energy security.”
On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also said the leaks of the pipelines were the result of “apparent sabotage.”
The pipelines, which run under the Baltic Sea, were not actually supplying gas to Europe at the time, although both did still contain gas.
“We have been in touch with our European partners there about the apparent sabotage of the pipelines,” she told reporters. “We are supporting European efforts to investigate this. The investigation is still underway, and it could take some time.”
Asked whether the United States would consider the leaks an attack on a NATO ally worthy of retaliation, Jean-Pierre said she wouldn’t “get ahead of the investigation.”
“We have to see who is behind this at this time,” she said.
Some European leaders have gone further than U.S. officials have.
Denmark’s prime minister said Tuesday that “it is the authorities’ clear assessment that these are deliberate actions — not accidents,” although she added that “there is no information indicating who could be behind it,” according to the Associated Press.
The Kremlin said accusations that Russia could be behind the leaks were “absurd,” according to the Russian news agency Interfax.
“It is quite predictable and predictably ridiculous and absurd to make up such theories,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday, noting “this gas costs a fortune but it is now siphoning off into the air.”
Poland’s prime minister called the development “an act of sabotage,” and Sweden’s acting prime minister said “it is probably a case of sabotage,” the Associated Press reported.
Experts told ABC News that only one country — Russia — stood to benefit from the pipeline leaks, although officials have yet to offer evidence Russia was behind them.
“No one aside from Russia stands to gain from sabotaging these pipelines,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
An act of sabotage on this scale fits neatly into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts “to sow confusion and panic in Europe and weaken European solidarity,” Cahill said, but also carries tremendous risk for Moscow.
“If it is true that Russia is culpable, this is Putin cutting off his nose to spite his face,” said Matthew Schmidt, director of the International Affairs program at the University of New Haven.
Also Wednesday, the United States announced $1.1 billion in new security assistance for Ukraine, including long-range missile systems, armored vehicles, radars and more.
ABC News’ Matthew Seyler contributed reporting to this article.
(WASHINGTON) — As Hurricane Ian began barreling across Florida, President Joe Biden detailed his administration’s efforts to prepare for the storm and warned residents to heed warnings from officials.
“It’s life-threatening,” Biden said of the Category 4 storm as he spoke at a White House conference on hunger and nutrition. “You should obey all warnings and directions from emergency officials. Don’t take anything for granted. Use their judgment, not yours.”
Hurricane Ian grew stronger overnight, nearing a Category 5, and was set to bring devastating floods, storm surges and winds to Florida as it made landfall on Wednesday afternoon.
Biden said he talked with GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis “for some time” on Tuesday evening, marking the first time the two leaders had spoken directly about the storm.
Biden said members of his team have been in constant contact with the governor “since the beginning.”
“Message has been absolutely clear, is that we are on the alert and in action,” Biden said Wednesday. “We’ve approved every request Florida has made for temporary assistance, emergency assistance and long-term assistance that I’ve received.”
Later Wednesday, after Hurricane Ian made landfall, the White House said Biden made calls to several local Florida officials and was able to reach Fort Myers Mayor Kevin Anderson.
“They discussed Fort Myers’ ongoing needs including support for the elderly members of the community, families that live in mobile homes and other community members who are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the storm,” the White House said.
The storm poses a major test for both Biden and DeSantis, often foes on numerous issues, just six weeks before the midterm elections.
When asked by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega about the tone of the Tuesday conversation between Biden and DeSantis, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said it was about how the two can work as partners on the issue.
“There’s no politics in this when we talk about extreme weather,” Jean-Pierre responded.
Past presidents have faced political consequences over natural disasters. George W. Bush was widely criticized for his response to Hurricane Katrina, especially after he praised the Federal Emergency Management Agency for its work despite the agency being blamed for failing to act fast enough.
Biden said Wednesday the federal government will be “ready to help in every single way possible” during Hurricane Ian, noting he’s developed and deployed a search-and-rescue team that’s already on the ground, and to help Florida rebuild after the storm.
Biden also delivered a stern message to oil and gas companies, warning them not to raise prices amid the storm or else he’ll ask officials to investigate any potential price gouging.
“Do not, let me repeat, do not — do not use this as an excuse to raise gasoline prices or gouge the American people,” the president said, noting experts told his administration only 2% of U.S. daily oil production will be impacted in the short-term from Hurricane Ian.
Biden will be visiting FEMA headquarters in Washington on Thursday, Jean-Pierre announced at Wednesday’s press briefing.
Jean-Pierre also provided additional details on the administration’s response, telling reporters: “We have more than 1,300 federal response workers on the ground in Florida. There are 3.7 million meals and 3.5 million liters of water pre-positioned in Alabama [and] 110,000 gallons of fuel and 18,000 pounds of propane are pre-staged for immediate deployment. Three-hundred Army Corps personnel are on the ground to support power and fuel assessments. Three-hundred ambulances are supporting local officials, and multiple federal disaster medical assistance teams are deployed to Florida and Georgia.”
DeSantis, who’s up for reelection in November and is widely considered to be a Republican contender for the 2024 nomination, took a moment this week to thank the White House for their assistance.
“The effects of this are going to be broad and we appreciate the Biden administration’s consideration to the people of Florida during this time of need,” DeSantis said at a press conference on Wednesday.
DeSantis warned Wednesday that millions will be without power as the storm hits and highlighted the 200 shelters open in southwest Florida for those who need a place to stay during the storm.
“This is going to be something that is going to be there for days and weeks and months and unfortunately, in some circumstances, even years,” DeSantis said as he talked about the impacts of Hurricane Ian.
ABC News’ Justin Gomez and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — A broad bipartisan group of senators who worked for months on legislation to reform the nineteenth-century law governing the Electoral College process and counting of votes after presidential elections scored two major victories on Tuesday.
First, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky threw his influential support behind their bill and then every member of the Senate Rules Committee — except Texas’ Ted Cruz — voted to send it to the floor for consideration.
“I strongly support the modest changes that our colleagues in the working group have fleshed out after literally months of detailed discussions. I will proudly support the legislation, provided that nothing more than technical changes are made to its current form,” McConnell announced in a floor speech, repeatedly calling the changes to current law “common sense” and “modest.”
The rules panel — meeting in a rare session on Tuesday to formally consider the proposed Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) authored by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., along with 18 other senators — made a handful of changes to the bill that lawmakers hope will help ensure states, Congress and future vice presidents can never overturn presidential election results.
The legislation addresses a number of apparent loopholes and procedural vagueness in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which prescribes how presidential electors are counted every four years.
The law was a major focus of then-President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden, the House’s Jan. 6 committee has said. Trump and his allies wanted his vice president, Mike Pence, to reject the electors for Biden and hijack what is historically a ceremonial role in overseeing the certifying of each state’s slate of electoral votes.
The ECRA specifies the vice president’s role in the certification is ceremonial.
The bill would dramatically raise the number of congressional objectors required to challenge a state’s election results — up from one lawmaker in each chamber to 20% of members in both the House and Senate.
The ECRA would also clarify that states may not select electors after Election Day, as Trump and his allies sought unsuccessfully to do, according to the Jan. 6 committee; and the legislation would dictate what happens if an alternate slate of electors is presented to Congress, which the Jan. 6 committee has said was another element of Trump’s push to reverse his loss.
“These are provisions … that will achieve a strong bipartisan consensus, and we should be very proud of this bill,” Senate Rules Committee Chair Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said alongside the panel’s top Republican, Roy Blunt, a former Missouri secretary of state. The pair worked together to craft some additional changes to the Collins-Manchin bill that was approved Tuesday.
The original ECRA proposal struck a provision of the 19th-century law that could be used by a state to declare a “failed election.” Instead, a state would have been permitted to modify the period of its elections only in the event of extraordinary and catastrophic circumstances. But Klobuchar and Blunt went further in their revisions.
The “failed election” provision would only be triggered by “force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic,” according to the newly approved legislation. Klobuchar and Blunt said in a statement that this would “ensure that only unforeseen emergencies trigger extended elections and guard against bad faith exploitation of the extended election provision for political reasons. While the original bill is a significant improvement on the ‘failed election’ provision in the current Electoral Count Act, this clarification provides an important safeguard against political gamesmanship through attempts to manipulate these provisions while ensuring states have flexibility to respond to genuine emergencies.”
The Klobuchar-Blunt changes would also “prevent further delay in certification of elections by clarifying that each state governor must ‘immediately’ transmit a certificate of electors to Congress and the Archivist of the United States once the state’s election is certified,” according to the lawmakers’ statement.
Not everyone was in agreement Tuesday.
“This bill is a bad bill. It’s a bad bill, bad law and poses serious problems for democracy,” Sen. Cruz, a committee member and constitutional lawyer, said during Tuesday’s hearing. “It’s exceptionally bad policy … This bill is all about Donald J. Trump.”
Cruz argued the ECRA “enhanced the federalization of elections” and added, “I do not understand why Republicans support it.”
But the bipartisan backing shown Tuesday points to a likely high GOP vote count when the upper chamber deals with the legislation later this year.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who chairs the intelligence committee and was part of the election reform working group, said he hopes lawmakers will consider future changes that take into account cybersecurity events.
Both parties have, in recent decades, sought — largely through symbolic objections and speeches from lawmakers — to use the country’s arcane federal election law to partisan advantage in what is usually a simple, barely noticed ceremony at the heart of a peaceful transfer of power in the U.S.
The legislation approved in committee on Tuesday is designed to close the door on some of that.
The House voted out its own reform bill last week with nine Republicans supporting it, none of whom will be on the ballot in November after either choosing to retire or losing their primaries.
Of the seven Republican senators on the rules committee who voted for the bill Tuesday, only two — Blunt and Richard Shelby of Alabama — are retiring. Sen. Cindy Hyde Smith, who also backed the proposal in committee, was one of the GOP objectors to the certification of Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, 2021.
McConnell made clear Tuesday that the House bill would go nowhere in the Senate.
“It’s clear that only a bipartisan compromise originating in the Senate can become law,” he said at the committee meeting. “We have one shot to get this right.”
Lawmakers are expected to deal with the legislation when they return from the November midterm elections in a lame-duck session.
(WASHINGTON) — Ahead of President Joe Biden’s conference Wednesday where his administration will call to end hunger and decrease diet-related diseases by 2030, the White House announced that the private and public sector are committing more than $8 billion to reach that goal.
“These range from bold philanthropic contributions and in-kind donations to community-based organizations, to catalytic investments in new businesses and new ways of screening for and integrating nutrition into health care delivery,” the White House said in a fact sheet released Wednesday.
The first White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health was held more than 50 years ago, according to the administration.
The White House noted that at least $2.5 billion will be used to back start-up companies finding solutions to hunger and food insecurity, while over $4 billion will go toward philanthropy that strengthens access to healthy food, encourages healthy choices and expands physical activity.
A senior administration official told reporters on a call that over 100 organizations “have committed to bold and, in some cases, paradigm shifting commitments that will meaningfully improve nutrition, promote physical activity and reduce hunger and diet related disease over the next seven years.”
Actions to achieve the president’s goal are spread across five pillars: improving food access and affordability, integrating nutrition and health, empowering consumers to make and have access to healthy choices, supporting physical activity for all and enhancing nutrition and food security research, according to the White House.
The administration announced that wholesale restaurant food distributor Sysco will give $500 million to advance healthy eating for its serving communities and Warner Bros. Discovery will give 600 million meals to children experiencing food insecurity.
Google will also introduce new features in its products to help people obtain public food benefits and health care services, it said.
Last year, 10.2% of American households experienced food insecurity at some point, the Department of Agriculture said.
The White House also announced that the National Restaurant Association will increase its Kids Live Well program to 45,000 more restaurants. Major fast-food chains, including Subway, Burger King and Chipotle, have already committed to the initiative, which helps restaurants create healthier meal choices for children.
Restaurants in this program commit to certain standards like only offering water, milk or juice for kids’ meals, rather than soda, the fact sheet said.
For at least one million Americans at risk for a diet-related disease, MyFitnessPal will grant them free and premium-level membership on its app by 2030, White House said. The Special Olympics will also introduce an initiative that will, in part, increase SNAP-Ed benefits for people with intellectual disabilities.
Starting next year, the White House said the Rockefeller Foundation and the American Heart Association aim to mobilize $250 million in partnership with Kroger to build the first national “Food is Medicine Research Initiative” to integrate healthy food into the healthcare approach.
“The Biden-Harris Administration envisions an America where no one wonders whether they will have enough money to put food on the table, where the healthy food choice is the easier choice, and where everyone has the same opportunity to be physically active,” the administration said in an executive summary of the White House’s National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.
Some of the initiatives in the strategy, like expanding free school lunches, would require congressional cooperation, but that seems unlikely to happen in the near future.
In the summary, the White House noted “the rising prevalence of diet-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and certain cancers,” and how the consequences of them and food insecurity “disproportionately impact historically underserved communities.”
Obesity was more common in Black adults than other adult groups, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found last year, which increases their risk of serious diseases and health conditions.
Almost 50% of Black adults were obese, compared to 45.6% of Hispanics, 41.4% of Whites and 16.1% of Asians.
“Food insecurity and diet-related diseases are largely preventable, if we prioritize the health of the nation,” the White House said.
Held in the nation’s capital, the conference is expected to draw more than 500 attendees — from farmers to business leaders and academics to activists.
(WASHINGTON) — An about-face from Sen. Joe Manchin on Tuesday evening helped to set the Senate on an unexpected glide path to averting a Friday night shutdown.
The funding bill, which will keep the government running through Dec. 16, easily earned the 60 votes necessary to clear a procedural hurdle during a Tuesday vote. Seventy-two Senators supported moving forward with the proposal.
It was not expected to be so easy.
For several weeks, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has been carefully balancing his promise to Manchin to include Manchin’s permitting change proposal on a must-pass bill before the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 — despite a growing coalition of members on both sides of the aisle vowing to block any short-term funding bill that included Manchin’s changes.
Schumer gave assurances to Manchin in order to secure the West Virginia Democrat’s essential support for the party’s major social spending and tax bill this summer, the Inflation Reduction Act.
As recently as Monday, Manchin was holding firm to that promise. He spent the weekend working the phones, rallying support and publishing op-eds extolling the benefits — according to him — that his legislation would heap upon both renewable and non-renewable energy sources, over cries from critics that it would support further fossil fuel development. He believed there was a path to 60 votes.
But then he relented.
In a statement on Tuesday just half an hour before the Senate was set to vote down a short-term funding bill that included permitting changes, Manchin announced that he had requested Schumer remove his language from the bill.
“It is unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk. The last several months, we have seen firsthand the destruction that is possible as Vladimir Putin continues to weaponize energy. A failed vote on something as critical as comprehensive permitting reform only serves to embolden leaders like Putin who wish to see America fail,” Manchin said in a statement. “For that reason and my firmly held belief that we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics, I have asked Majority Leader Schumer to remove the permitting language from the Continuing Resolution we will vote on this evening.”
Schumer, in floor remarks moments later, said he would advance a short-term funding bill without Manchin’s proposal.
“Senate Republicans have made clear they will block legislation to fund the government if it includes bipartisan permitting reform, because they’ve chosen to obstruct instead of work in a bipartisan way to achieve something they’ve long claimed they want to do,” Schumer said.
Republicans were largely united in their intention to block a funding bill that included Manchin’s permitting language. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky actively whipped against it.
Though much of the GOP conference supports permitting changes, many saw this vote as an opportunity to push back on Manchin for what they saw as his betrayal when he pivoted from opposing the Democrats’ sweeping climate and health bill to cast the deciding “yes” vote — an unexpected reversal this summer that, until it was revealed, had lured some Republicans into backing a separate bill on domestic computer-chip manufacturing.
In floor remarks before Manchin’s call to remove his permitting language from the bill, McConnell called the inclusion of Manchin’s proposal a “phony fig leaf.”
“The poison pill is a phony attempt to address an important topic of permitting reform,” McConnell said. “It is much too difficult to build things in America an unleash American energy. Liberal regulations are the problem.”
But Republicans weren’t the only ones working to block the funding bill when it included Manchin’s language.
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders had vowed to vote against it too, citing concerns about the adverse environmental impact that speeding up permitting projects for non-renewable energies could have. In a scathing letter to his colleagues on Friday, Sanders urged Democrats to make what he called an environmentally conscious choice.
“In my view, the time has come for Congress to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of our planet,” Sanders wrote.
He also found Schumer and Manchin’s behind-the-scenes deal making on the IRA objectionable, branding the agreement that helped yield the Democrats’ climate and health bill last year as a “disastrous side deal.”
With permitting changes now sidelined, the Senate will likely pass a bill to fund the government as soon as Wednesday. The bill also provides emergency funding for a variety of bipartisan priorities.
Money to Ukraine in their fight against Russia’s invasion remains a priority. There’s a combined $12.3 billion in aid to Ukraine that includes $3 billion for security assistance, $4.5 billion in economic support and $3.7 in drawdown authority for weapons.
The funding bill would provide $35 million “to respond to potential nuclear and radiological incidents in Ukraine, assist Ukraine partners with security of nuclear and radiological materials, and prevent illicit smuggling of nuclear and radiological material.”
This comes in the wake of Russian President Vladimir Putin last week suggesting that tactical nuclear weapons could be used to change the course of his invasion of Ukraine, groundlessly accusing the West of threatening Russia’s territorial integrity.
But the funding bill also centers domestic aid.
Jackson, Mississippi, would see a $20 million influx of cash to assist with the ongoing water crisis that has left many of its citizens without clean drinking water for more than a month. New Mexico, ravaged by wildfires last year, would get $2.5 billion to assist in rebuilding efforts.
And, as conversations about the cost of energy swirl, there’s language in the bill to provide $1 billion in low-income heating assistance.
The legislation also averts a potential funding crisis at the Food and Drug Administration by including reauthorization for FDA user fees. But Democrats’ long sought COVID-19 priorities have once again fallen by the wayside.
The Biden administration wanted Congress to approve an additional $22 billion in funds to combat COVID-19 via vaccine research and additional testing. Republicans have blocked multiple efforts to secure these funds, arguing that there are still remaining monies yet to be utilized and questioning the necessity of additional spending.
GOP lawmakers once again prevailed in blocking COVID funds, this time by keeping supplemental funding off of the short-term bill.
During her weekly press conference on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre vowed the administration will keep working to secure funds.
“We are not going to give up,” Jean-Pierre said. “We need to protect and build on the progress we have made. We will continue that process.”
Once the Senate passes the short-term funding bill, that legislation will need to pass the House before the Sept. 30 fiscal year deadline. The House could begin considering it as soon as Thursday.
(WASHINGTON) — The House Jan. 6 committee scheduled for Wednesday has been postponed because of Hurricane Ian.
The storm is expected to make landfall in Florida at about the same time as the hearing was to take place.
“In light of Hurricane Ian bearing down on parts of Florida, we have decided to postpone tomorrow’s proceedings,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. ‘We’re praying for the safety of all those in the storm’s path. The Select Committee’s investigation goes forward and we will soon announce a date for the postponed proceedings.”
Rep. Stephanie Murphy, a Democratic member of the panel, represents Florida’s 7th Congressional District.
The committee was set to reconvene Wednesday after a two-month hiatus for a midday hearing.
But the rapid advancement of Hurricane Ian is now dominating airwaves, with the storm currently a Category 3 hurricane and expected to grow stronger.
Thompson previously told reporters that the committee would be airing “substantial footage” and “significant witness testimony” but didn’t give any more details on what the public can expect to see or what the focus of the hearing would be.
Lawmakers held eight televised hearings from June to July detailing what they described as former President Donald Trump’s “sophisticated” efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, which they said led to the events that took place on Jan. 6, 2021.
The hearings, two of which were held in prime-time, were produced to capture the public’s attention more than a year and half after the riot.
At the last hearing on July 21, the committee focused on the 187 minutes that passed between Trump’s speech at the Ellipse and his taped statement later that afternoon telling rioters to leave the Capitol. Using testimony from former White House officials, the committee said Trump resisted pressure to act as he watched the violence unfold on television.
“President Trump did not fail to act during the 187 minutes between leaving the Ellipse and telling the mob to go home,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said. “He chose not to act.”
Since then, the committee has requested information from several people with ties to election denialism and Trump, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has agreed to a voluntary interview with the committee, her attorney confirmed last week.
There’s also the looming question of whether the committee will call former Vice President Mike Pence to testify before it wraps up the investigation.
Cheney told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that she hopes Pence will speak with lawmakers. The former vice president said he’d consider testifying if asked, but then implied that there could be constitutional constraints to any potential appearance.
Cheney also told Karl that she expects transcripts, records and other materials gathered by the committee over the course of its probe to be made public.
Wednesday’s hearing was anticipated to be the last before the committee releases a final report of its findings and recommendations by the end of the year.
(COLUMBIA, SC) — The South Carolina House rejected a bill Tuesday that would’ve banned nearly all abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected. The proposed ban would have made exceptions for when the mother’s life or health is in danger, for fetuses with fatal anomalies and first-trimester pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest.
The bill was introduced by the state Senate in September after it rejected an abortion ban proposed by the House. The proposed legislation comes as the state Supreme Court blocked a six-week ban on abortion from going into effect amid ongoing litigation.
The bill failed with a vote of 95 to 11, as lawmakers remain at odds over regulating abortion in the state.
The bill would have made it illegal to perform an abortion or administer or distribute drugs that induce an abortion. A person found guilty of providing an abortion would have faced a fine of $10,000 and jail time of up to two years.
The proposed bill would have also required physicians who provide abortion services in line with the exceptions for rape or incest to report the procedure to their county sheriff’s department within 24 hours of performing or inducing the abortion.
Physicians would have been required to report the name and contact information for the woman making the allegation and to preserve a DNA sample from the fetal remains and submit it as evidence to authorities.
The bill required abortion providers to add a note to the patient’s medical records stating that the abortion was performed under one of the exceptions.
Under the bill, Planned Parenthood would’ve also been prevented from utilizing state funds for any purposes related to abortions.
In August, the state House passed a near-total ban on abortion which only provided exceptions for pregnancies that are a result of rape and incest. The state Senate rejected the bill, passing its own abortion bill and sending it back to the House.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster had signaled he would sign an abortion ban into law, telling ABC News in August that he would “carefully consider any legislation that ultimately reaches his desk, but he believes this is a good starting point for the Senate to begin its deliberations,” referring to the first House bill.
McMaster also approved in February 2021 a package of bills banning abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected. The ban took effect after Roe was overturned, but is now blocked by the South Carolina Supreme Court while justices review a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood in July. The lawsuit claims that the ban is an invasion of privacy and violation of equal protection under the state constitution.
(NEW YORK) — The Arizona court ruling on Friday upholding the state’s 1901 law banning abortions is rattling voters and elected officials.
The law provides no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities and makes performing abortions punishable by two to five years in prison.
ABC News’ Libby Cathey, who is covering the midterm elections in Arizona and one of the embeds featured on the Hulu show Power Trip, spoke with “Start Here” Monday about how this ruling, and the battle for abortion rights since the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, will affect the races.
START HERE: So, first of all, can you just explain this ruling to me because we saw some states change their laws right after Roe fell, but this seemed to catch a lot of people way off guard.
LIBBY CATHEY: Yes. So, just to backtrack, there’s this law on the books in Arizona dating back to 1864 that bans all abortions and dishes out two to five years of jail time for those who help with one, except to save a mother’s life. And it feels like this law was really forgotten about. It dates back to before Arizona was even a state, but when the Supreme Court overturned Roe with the Dobbs decision in June, the Republican attorney general here, Mark Brnovich, said he will enforce this law. He will prosecute doctors who try to help women get an abortion.
So Planned Parenthood sued him, saying this was unconstitutional, this violates privacy rights, and the court had put an injunction in place that providers had hoped would stay. That did not happen. So on Friday afternoon, a state judge in Arizona reinstated this territorial era, near-total ban on abortion. And the timing was big too, because on Saturday, a ban on abortions after 15 weeks was set to go into effect. That was passed earlier this year by the legislature, signed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. And Ducey says this slightly less restrictive ban after 15 weeks is the law of the land.
START HERE:So it’s about to be less restrictive and all of a sudden it’s way, way, way more restrictive than anyone thought.
CATHEY:Right. So, and at the same time, the Republican attorney general, Mark Brnovich, is saying that this more restrictive law is the law of the land. So you can have two conflicting statements here. And this all just happened over the weekend, and I think there’s a lot of confusion about it.
START HERE:Yes. So as a result of this, what is the current rule in Arizona like? What can a pregnant woman do or not do? What can an abortion provider do or not do?
CATHEY:So the reality is abortion is illegal in the state of Arizona right now. If women want to get an abortion, they’ll need to go to California or go to another state to get one. And Planned Parenthood clinics are still open. They can help point women to other resources and provide contraception. But medical abortions, essentially, medication given to end a pregnancy before ten weeks, oftentimes before women even know they’re pregnant. All of those services have stopped.
I was at a press conference on Saturday where a doctor said all the chatter among her physicians, Facebook groups, [and] among doctors in Arizona is they feel their hands are tied. She used the words moral injury. And abortion rights supporters protesting outside the state capitol this weekend, they all say, point blank, women and girls will die because of this law. It will be like going back into a time when women resort to really desperate measures to end a pregnancy or women die themselves because of pregnancy complications, especially when doctors here can get two to five years of jail time for helping them.
START HERE:And just so I’m crystal clear, no exceptions at all?
CATHEY:There is no exception to rape or incest in either of those two abortion bans we just talked about. Both of them do have an exception to save the mother’s life. But again, because of that, the prosecution — and I think it scares a lot of people. So a lot of people will be having to go out the state or just not get an abortion at all. Democrats here say it’s one of the more restrictive laws in the country. And Arizona is a very red state, or it has been…but this has the potential to change a lot of things.
START HERE:And that’s what I’m wondering next, because I’m looking at Arizona’s House races right now where they have nine House seats. FiveThirtyEight’s forecast says at this moment, Republicans are expected to win five of those nine House seats like bare majority. Could something like this change the landscape of the midterms in a place like Arizona?
CATHEY:This has the potential to be a big game-changer. One Republican consultant told me that all the polling we’ve seen in Arizona that you’ve just mentioned here, it can be thrown out of the window. You have a Democratic candidate for attorney general here, Kris Mayes. She won’t prosecute any abortion ban violations. She thinks all these bans are unconstitutional. You have Democrat Katie Hobbs. She’s running for governor. She’s been trying to get abortion at the forefront of the race for governor against Kari Lake. Lake is proudly against abortion. And so this ruling may very well help them here in a few weeks when ballots go out. I mean, Republicans want to be talking about inflation and immigration and crime, but now they’re going to have to address this.
START HERE:Well, I don’t think I quite understood this until now, that, like, normally you’re voting because you think someone might affect abortion rights in your state. Say it really matters to you. Here you got the Democrats saying, “I will not enforce this law.” You got the Republicans saying, “I will enforce this law.” Hence, whoever votes for the attorney general or maybe the governor, you are deciding directly how abortion rights are about to be treated.
CATHEY: Exactly. And then that’s what Democrats and their supporters are at least saying. And that’s what they’re trying to drive home with voters. The Republicans say they’d enforce these bans. The Democrats say they wouldn’t. And to that, to that matter, to in the Senate race, you’ve got Blake Masters and Mark Kelly and you’ve got Democrats there saying that Blake Masters would support a total ban on abortion at a national level. So these are all issues that are being resurfaced because of this ruling. And while it’s not like Kansas, where there’s a literal initiative on the issue of abortion, Democrats and their supporters here say abortion is certainly on the ballot in Arizona.
(WASHINGTON) — Congress has just three legislative days remaining to avert a fast-approaching government shutdown at the end of the week, and much of its ability to keep the government running will depend upon whether lawmakers can navigate an impasse over energy policy.
In the few days that remain, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will try to lead the Senate in passage of a short-term funding bill that is expected to include Sen. Joe Manchin’s energy permitting reform legislation. Schumer struck a deal with Manchin to include energy permitting reform, a top priority for the West Virginia moderate Democrat, on a must-pass piece of legislation before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 in order to secure Manchin’s crucial support for Democrats’ keystone Inflation Reduction Act.
But with the passage of the health care and environmental bill now in the rearview mirror, Schumer’s behind-the-scenes deal making has come home to roost. The fiscal year ends on Friday, leaving the Democratic caucus in both chambers deeply divided with just days to a shutdown.
On Tuesday, the Senate will take a key test vote to determine the fate of Manchin’s legislation as it considers a bill to fund the government through mid-December.
Schumer, with the backing of the White House, is sticking to his promise to include the Manchin legislation, introduced Wednesday, in the short-term funding bill. The Manchin bill would accelerate energy projects mandating that federal environmental reviews essentially be completed in two and a half years, a substantial increase from today’s process.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Sunday, Manchin argued that his proposed legislation would bring the country in line with allied countries like Canada and Australia by reducing timelines on energy products from the current five to 10 years.
He called his bill, which speeds up permitting process for both renewable projects like wind and solar as well as non-renewable energies like oil and gas, “the kind of balanced and all-of-the-above energy approach America needs if we are to defend this nation’s energy security from those who seem hell-bent on weakening it.”
But it’s proven a tough pill to swallow for some progressives, many of whom knew of the outlines of the Schumer-Manchin deal before the IRA vote but not the specifics, which were just unveiled at the end of last week. They’re pushing back against what they see as a deal that goes counter to the very progress the IRA is expected to make against climate change.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., is organizing a letter to Schumer — signed by a number of liberal senators, including Sen. Bernie Sanders — asking that a vote on legislation speeding up permits occur separately from one on funding the government, according to an aide to the Oregon Democrat.
But the Senate group, like the more than 80 House progressives who oppose the deal in the House, stopped short of threatening to vote against the government funding bill if permitting reform is attached.
Sanders, however, has said unequivocally he intends to vote against funding the government if it includes Manchin’s bill.
In a scathing dear colleague letter on Friday, Sanders urged his fellow lawmakers to block the “disastrous side deal recently introduced by Senator Manchin to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to destroy the planet and pollute the environment.”
“Next week, Congress has a fundamental choice to make. We can listen to the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers who are spending huge amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions to pass this side deal. Or we can listen to the scientists and the environmental community who are telling us loudly and clearly to reject it,” Sanders wrote.
It is that Sanders’ opposition in the narrowly divided Senate that has put Schumer in something of a bind. He needs GOP votes on government funding, but Republicans — feeling they have leverage — are anxious to pay Manchin back for what they see as his betrayal when he pivoted from opposing the Democrats’ sweeping climate and health bill to casting the deciding “yes” vote.
Manchin, in his Sunday op-ed, accused GOP leadership of playing politics in standing in the way of his legislation while promoting a competing, though slightly more expensive, bill by his home state GOP colleague, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. The bills are remarkably similar, especially in that both guarantee the approval of a top project for West Virginia — the as-yet-unbuilt Mountain Valley Pipeline which is intended to carry natural gas some 300 miles from northern West Virginia into southern Virginia. The project is tied up in litigation.
It’s in part because of the greenlighted Mountain Valley Pipeline project that Capito said she intends to support Manchin’s legislation when it comes to the floor. She’ll back the short term funding bill with Manchin’s legislation attached during Tuesday’s test vote.
But it’s not clear if other Republicans will be ready to give Manchin another win.
According to an aide, Manchin spent the weekend working the phones and shored up the support of several other Republicans. He’s still confident there’s a path to the 60 votes necessary to clear Tuesday’s procedural vote on the short term funding bill that will include his legislation.
Despite Manchin’s optimism, that vote faces major headwinds. That’s why there’s a backup plan to keep the government funded.
If the bill fails to get the necessary 60 votes to proceed, Schumer is largely expected to strip Manchin’s permitting reform legislation and barrel forward. That’s essential not only to keep the lights on in Washington but also to secure funds for a few other bipartisan priorities.
There is support from both parties for additional funding to assist Ukraine in the ongoing war against Russia. The short term funding bill is expected to include at least $12 billion in economic and humanitarian aid for Ukraine.
The bill is also expected to include disaster aid for Jackson, Mississippi’s ongoing water crisis. A flood in Jackson last month brought to a head years of water system failures in the area, leaving residents without access to clean drinking water.
A potential funding crisis at the Food and Drug Administration will also be averted. After months of behind-the-scenes squabbling, negotiators reached an agreement late last week to include language reauthorizing FDA user fees in this short term package. Authorization for those fees on companies which seek authorization from the FDA for new drugs must be renewed every five years. Current authorization expires Friday.
The FDA uses the user fees to fund an expedited approval process for new and innovative drugs and medical technologies. By including this language in the short term bill, the FDA won’t be sending pink slips to workers who helped authorize COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.
But other COVID-19 priorities are expected to fall by the wayside, yet again.
The administration wanted Congress to approve an additional $22 billion in funds to combat COVID-19 to fund vaccine research and additional testing. Republicans have blocked multiple efforts to secure these funds, arguing that there is still remaining funding that’s yet to be utilized, and questioning the necessity of additional spending.
The administration’s efforts to secure COVID money were not helped, however, by Biden’s comments on “60 Minutes” earlier this month that “the pandemic is over.”
Republican Whip John Thune told reporters last week that Biden’s comments make it “eminently harder for sure” to persuade the GOP to support additional funds.
The fate of a separate $4 billion request from the White House to combat monkeypox remains uncertain.
The Senate is expected to act sometime this week to avert a shutdown, at which point the House will have to swiftly take up and pass the legislation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the chamber may work through the weekend to secure funding if necessary.
