(WASHINGTON) — Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham was swiftly rebuked by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for remarks he made suggesting that Russians ought to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service,” Graham tweeted Thursday evening. “Unless you want to live in darkness for the rest of your life, be isolated from the rest of the world in abject poverty, and live in darkness you need to step up to the plate.
Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?
The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.
You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service.
Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., tweeted, “I really wish our members of Congress would cool it and regulate their remarks as the administration works to avoid WWIII. As the world pays attention to how the US and its leaders are responding, Lindsey’s remarks and remarks made by some House members aren’t helpful.”
But some of Graham’s fellow Republicans were equally miffed by his comments. Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz called Graham’s suggestion an “exceptionally bad idea”.
“Use massive economic sanctions; BOYCOTT Russian oil & gas; and provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves,” Cruz tweeted. “But we should not be calling for the assassination of heads of state.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., known for her frequently controversial positions on Twitter, also rebuked Graham, calling his position “irresponsible, dangerous & unhinged.”
“We need leaders with calm minds & steady wisdom. Not blood thirsty warmongering politicians trying to tweet tough by demanding assassinations,” Greene tweeted. “Americans don’t want war.”
The administration has imposed a series of sanctions on Russia aimed at chocking their economy. Some lawmakers have called for the Biden White House to go even further, urging additional sanctions and a ban on Russian oil imports to the United States.
But Graham’s call, which he repeated on Fox News Thursday night, is far beyond what other lawmakers have sought.
The White House has stopped short of even calling for Putin’s ouster.
During an interview on ABC News’ Good Morning America on Thursday, co-anchor George Stephanopoulos pressed Vice President Kamala Harris on what the United States hopes is the end game for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
“What is the best possible outcome here? Does the United States want the Russian people and Putin’s fellow oligarchs to rise up and depose him?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“Well, what we want is that he will leave Ukraine. What we want is that the Ukrainian people will be free and that they will be safe,” Harris said, stopping short of calling for Putin to be removed from power.
Graham has been a vocal critic of Putin for years, and has in recent weeks called on the administration to impose harsher sanctions of the Russian leader, his oligarchs and his exports.
On Thursday, Graham led a bipartisan group of senators in introducing a resolution encouraging the investigation of Russia for war crimes abuses in Ukraine.
(WASHINGTON) — Bipartisan calls are growing on Capitol Hill for the United States to ban imports of oil from Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, but the White House stopped short of an outright ban — and experts said the impact would be limited.
The United States and other Western nations have imposed an unprecedented raft of sanctions on Russia, but they have created exceptions for the oil and gas sector — from which the Russian government derives much of its income — because of fears cutting off the supply would drive up energy prices around the world.
But Republican members of Congress have for weeks been calling for a ban on imports of Russian crude oil and petroleum products, saying it would kneecap Russian President Vladimir Putin more than the Biden administration’s sanctions have so far.
“Putin’s major source of revenue is selling oil and gas and Biden’s given an exception,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Wednesday. “You can continue getting billions of dollars to fund the invasion of Ukraine.”
Experts predict muted impact on Russia
Just 1% of Russia’s total crude oil exports in 2020 went to the United States, according to U.S. government figures.
So while cutting off that trade would force Russia to find other buyers for that relatively small amount of oil, it would not have as significant of an impact as if Europe — where Russia sends nearly half its oil — stopped them, experts told ABC News.
And the crippling financial sanctions on Russia’s banks and other parts of its economy have already turned off potential buyers of Russian oil who are wary of doing business in a country quickly becoming a financial pariah, the experts said.
“Russian oil has already been de facto sanctioned” by the United States and its partners, Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told ABC News.
The global market has already started to react, according to Ben Cahill, an expert on energy security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“For Russia, this is part of a bigger set of challenges — which is a lot of people don’t want to buy their oil,” Cahill said. “There’s a lot of self-sanctioning happening in the marketplace.”
The U.S. relies on Russian oil more than Russia depends on sending its oil to the U.S., with about 7 to 10% of the United States’ imports of crude oil and petroleum products coming from Russia in recent years.
De Haan said cutting off the supply would likely raise gas prices in the U.S. in the short term.
But Cahill said the switch would be “manageable,” with the U.S. potentially turning to countries like Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia and Canada to replace the Russian oil.
Growing bipartisan support runs up against White House reluctance
Still, a slew of Democratic senators, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on Thursday threw their support behind cutting off Russian oil imports.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by moderate Democrat Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Republican Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, introduced legislation Thursday that would declare a national emergency and direct President Joe Biden to impose a ban.
But Biden already has such authority.
And while the White House has not completely ruled out the possibility, it has expressed concern it could lead to higher energy prices for Americans who are already being hit at the gas pump by record-high inflation rates.
“The president’s objective has been to maximize impact on President Putin and Russia, while minimizing impact to us and our allies and partners,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday.
The group backing Manchin’s proposal is bipartisan. Nine Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors. And Democratic supporters span the caucus from traditionally moderate members like Sen. Jon Tester, of Montana, to more progressive members like Hawaii Sens. Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, and Connecticut’s Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
“Putin has weaponized energy,” Tester said. “I don’t believe this country should be importing anything from Russia, but the fact of the matter is energy is something Putin depends upon for his finances, and he is depending on it to fight this war in Ukraine.”
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., has offered a separate bill that would also ban Russian oil imports. In addition, his legislation would require a report identifying entities involved in the import of Russian crude oil and petroleum products into the U.S. — and impose sanctions on those entities based on the report’s findings.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the effort her stamp of approval Thursday.
“I’m all for that,” Pelosi told reporters. “Ban it. Ban the oil coming from Russia.”
Manchin said Americans should be willing to make a sacrifice.
“You talk about an inconvenience, can you imagine if you lived in Ukraine right now?” Manchin said. “If there was a poll being taken and they said, ‘Joe, would you pay 10 cents more a gallon to support the people of Ukraine and stop, basically, the support of Russia?’ I would gladly pay 10 cents more a gallon.”
Republicans call for new drilling on US public lands
Pelosi was clear that she did not back an increase on oil and gas drilling on federal land, which the Biden administration has restricted — and which Republicans want.
While the bipartisan bill makes no mention of domestic production, many Republican lawmakers — and some Democrats, including Manchin — see the two policies going hand in hand.
An increase in U.S. production would blunt rising oil prices and provide a global alternative to Russian oil, they argue.
“We must dramatically increase domestic production of energy to support the energy needs of American consumers without causing increased financial burden,” Manchin said in a statement Tuesday.
Increasing U.S. oil production is a controversial move. Many Democrats applauded steps taken by the administration for sidelining the Keystone XL pipeline project last year and taking steps to pare back production in favor of greener energy sources earlier this year.
But the White House says oil companies have access to plenty of places to drill, and the Biden administration supports investing in clean energy in the long term to prevent a reliance on foreign oil.
Cahill said there are signs U.S. producers are already reacting to demand that increased even before the war in Ukraine — and that most of the new drilling would take place on private land.
“This industry mostly takes its signals from Wall Street, and the market is going to take care of some of this on its own,” Cahill said. The White House lending its rhetorical support could help, though, he said.
Murkowski echoed that sentiment.
“If the president were to come before the American people and give a speech and say we in this country need to embrace the role that we can take on as a full energy producer,” she said, “I think that that would do as much to send a signal to help calm the markets to help address what we are seeing with the daily prices of fuel at the pump.”
ABC News’ Zunaira Zaki contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — They labored together in the shadows of legal giants on the nation’s highest court, seeing firsthand what it takes to be a justice. Now, a group of two-dozen former law clerks from the 1999 Supreme Court term want one of their own to don a black robe.
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained first by ABC News, the former clerks extoll the intellect and character of Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson with whom they served.
“We hold diverse points of view on politics, judicial philosophy, and much else. Yet we all support Judge Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” the group writes, “because we know her to be eminently qualified for this role in intellect, character, and experience.”
The letter comes as Jackson faces questions about her experience and qualification following nomination by President Joe Biden last month as the first Black woman ever elevated to the Supreme Court.
Jackson, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C., is a former clerk of Justice Stephen Breyer. The letter is signed by three other fellow former Breyer clerks from her year, as well as clerks for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter.
“During our Term at the Court, we had the opportunity to work closely with Judge Jackson on a host of some of the most significant and contested issues of the times,” the group writes. “We came to know Judge Jackson as someone of exceptional intellectual gifts and unimpeachable character who approached her work with great care and professionalism.”
While clerks are not always ideological carbon copies of their bosses, justices in recent years have increasingly tended to select young lawyers who are “ideologically compatible,” research shows. Jackson’s boosters say the endorsement by former clerks of conservative justices corroborates a cross-cutting appeal.
Several highly respected conservative legal luminaries have also endorsed Jackson in recent days, including former federal appellate judges J. Michael Luttig and Thomas B. Griffith, and attorney William Burck, who represented several former Trump White House officials.
Jackson began a blitz of introductory one-on-one meetings with Republican and Democratic senators on Capitol Hill this week ahead of televised confirmation hearings later this month.
Biden has said he hopes to have Jackson confirmed to the bench with bipartisan support before Easter, though she would not be sworn in until Breyer retires at the end of June.
Clerks, who are recent law school graduates at the top of their classes, assist the justices with legal research, preparation of questions for oral argument and drafting opinions. Each justice accepts three to four clerks per term.
“A clerkship does give you an inside look on the dynamics of the court,” said Rachel Barkow, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and former Harvard Law School classmate of Jackson. “In the year that you’re there, you can witness how personalities may matter, sometimes how you run your chambers might matter and how cases are presented to you.”
Six of the nine current Supreme Court justices were clerks on the high court before they were later nominated and confirmed.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. on Thursday announced new sanctions against members of the Russian elite, including Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, and said it would block 19 oligarchs and 47 of their relatives and close associates from traveling to the United States.
The United States will sanction Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, as well as one of Russia’s richest men, Alisher Usmanov, according to the White House.
Germany had already seized Usmanov’s superyacht, and the White House said both the boat and Usmanov’s private jet — which it said was one of the largest privately-owned aircraft in Russia — would be blocked for use in the U.S. or by Americans.
“These are significant steps that will impact the people who are closely around President Putin,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters.”We want him to feel the squeeze. We want the people around him to feel the squeeze.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — The House on Thursday approved a bill that would provide millions of veterans with expedited health care and disability payments related to illnesses caused by toxic exposure from burn pits.
The final vote was 256-174.
Thirty-four Republicans voted with all Democrats to support the bill.
The push to support military veterans plagued with health issues caused by toxic exposure to burn pits got a significant boost during President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address Tuesday — his support coming just before the House was set to vote Thursday.
“I’m calling on Congress: pass a law to make sure veterans devastated by toxic exposures in Iraq and Afghanistan finally get the benefits and comprehensive health care they deserve,” Biden said, calling it part of “a sacred obligation to equip all those we send to war and care for them and their families when they come home.”
Biden lamented the dangers of the toxic smoke from burn pits, which have resulted in enduring health issues for military veterans stationed overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and Southwest Asia.
The open-air combustion of trash and other waste in burn pits is a common practice of military operations. Common materials incinerated in burn pits included human waste, paint, metal cans, food waste, unexploded ordnance, lubricant products, plastics, rubber, wood and even jet fuel.
Active-duty service members who have been exposed to these toxic chemicals are often plagued with life-threatening diseases and illness.
“And they come home, many of the world’s fittest and best-trained warriors in the world, never the same,” Biden told lawmakers. “Headaches. Numbness. Dizziness. A cancer that would put them in a flag-draped coffin.”
Biden poignantly recalled the memory of his late son, Beau Biden, who died from brain cancer in 2015.
“We don’t know for sure if a burn pit was the cause of his brain cancer, or the diseases of so many of our troops,” Biden said. “But I’m committed to finding out everything we can.”
Approximately 82% of post-9/11 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan reported being exposed to burn pits and/or airborne toxic materials during their service, according to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonprofit organization.
About half of those exposed believe they have symptoms associated with the exposure, and another 41 percent are unsure if their symptoms are related.
“My eyes burned. It was hard to take a deep breath when I coughed and it made chest hurt and it made me cough,” Katie Purswell, a former veteran and director of health policy at the American Legion, said during a press conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
“I choked on the odor from the winds when they would pick up after a while. I started waking up with bloody noses. It was difficult and painful to breathe. After I got home, I had bronchitis for a year. I don’t think my runtime has ever recovered. I just can’t take a deep breath anymore,” she said, describing the symptoms she faced following prolonged exposure to toxic burn pits while stationed overseas.
Purswell was joined by former veterans, advocates, members of Congress, and comedian Jon Stewart at the Capitol Wednesday in support of a bill the House intends to pass Thursday.
Stewart and fellow advocate and 9/11 first responder John Feal have long lobbied Congress for veterans and first responder health care, often challenging lawmakers in emotional testimony — protesting what they believe is inadequate care for the nation’s veterans.
“Last night, they were seen,” Stewart said of the president’s national address. “The president of the United States saw their struggle.”
The group is calling on Congress to pass the bill, Honoring Our PACT Act, that aims to improve health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances.
The bill would specifically designate 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers as likely linked to toxic exposures related to military burn pits and airborne hazards exposure.
Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs decides these exposure claims on a case-by-case basis, with the exception of those filed for asthma, rhinitis or sinusitis. The burden of proving one’s illness is related to a burn pit exposure falls on the veteran, leading to delays in health care.
“There is no other toxic exposure legislation in Congress like it in scope or soundness,” Rep. Mark Takano, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said Wednesday.
The California Democrat authored the legislation that has bipartisan support in the House.
“Without hesitation, our veterans raised their right hand to protect and defend this nation. And many are now sick as a result of that service. We made a pact with these individuals — a pact I’m afraid to say we have not yet honored,” Takano said.
Takano said his bill will address the full gamut of issues affecting toxic exposed-veterans, access to health care and benefits, while also reforming the VA’s “presumptive” decision-making process to provide health care to more than 3.5 million veterans who have been exposed.
The White House on Monday announced that the Department of Veterans Affairs is also making efforts to rework their policies – the VA proposed a rule that would recognize nine new respiratory illnesses as conditions that are presumed linked to a veterans’ military service, which would help fast track them for payouts and medical care.
Dennis McDonough, secretary of Veterans Affairs, alluded to the proposed changes during an interview with ABC News last month.
McDonough, acknowledging the “cumbersome” process veterans must go through to prove their illnesses are linked to exposure to burn pits, told ABC News that the department is working to establish the evidence to suggest even more illnesses are linked to burn pit exposure that he hopes the department will soon recognize.
The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is undertaking its own effort to address the issue of toxic exposure for veterans as part of a three-step, bipartisan approach. But advocates, including Stewart and Feal, say the Senate’s effort doesn’t go as far in scope.
Some senators, however, are concerned that the House’s version of the bill is too pricey: the House bill calls for nearly $300 billion in spending over 10 years.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called out Republicans who voted against the bill for its hefty price tag at her press briefing Thursday.
“It really amazed me, and I’m rarely amazed and surprised around here,” Pelosi remarked to reporters.
“Oh really?” she went on, directing her ire at Republicans.
“You just gave tax cuts in 2017 to the richest people in America,” she said, referring to the Republican tax plan that went into effect under the Trump administration.
“Tax cuts for the rich. Cancer for our veterans. That’s how we see this discussion and this debate,” she added.
During Wednesday’s press conference with advocates, Pelosi — flagged by Stewart and Feal — defended the price tag.
“Don’t even talk to us about the price,” Pelosi said. “This is a cost of war that we should recognize … it’s going to be worth it. But it’s going to have a big price tag.”
“Because what we are looking at is the value of what this does for our country,” she said.
Sources familiar with the process told ABC News that members of the House and Senate will have to figure out their policy differences and take their respective bills to conference in the coming months to reach a final compromise.
The process could delay passage in the Senate for months to come before it would eventually reach Biden’s desk for his signature.
Stewart and Feal had a stark message for members of the Senate.
“Once this is done, make no mistake, then the battle shifts to the Senate. And as you know, they are excellent at killing things that are necessary. And we cannot allow it to happen,” Stewart said. “And you cannot allow this feeling of unity and hope and finally being seen to dissipate. We need all of your help to put the pressure on to make sure that the comprehensive needs that they have are passed.”
Feal warned Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that he plans to lobby him hard.
“Let Schumer know that we want a bill compatible to the honorable PACT Act. If he does not do that, then I will make his life miserable,” Feal said.
A spokesman to Schumer said in a statement to ABC News: “Leader Schumer believes strongly in this bill and will do everything he can to pass it.”
(WASHINGTON) — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack said Wednesday it has evidence that former President Donald Trump and some of his associates may have illegally tried to obstruct Congress’ count of electoral votes and “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States” in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
The committee argued in a federal court filing Wednesday that Trump may have committed two crimes as it challenged a bid by former Trump lawyer John Eastman to block investigators from obtaining thousands of pages of emails.
The panel argued that the records should not be protected by attorney-client privilege under the crime fraud exception, given that Eastman’s legal advice may have helped Trump commit multiple crimes.
“The facts we’ve gathered strongly suggest that Dr. Eastman’s emails may show that he helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power,” Reps. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, and Liz Cheney, R-Wyoming, the leaders of the panel, said in a statement.
Eastman’s lawyer, Charles Burnham, said in a statement to ABC News that Eastman “has a responsibility to protect client confidences, even at great personal risk and expense.”
“The Select Committee has responded to Dr. Eastman’s efforts to discharge this responsibility by accusing him of criminal conduct,” Burnham said. “Because this is a civil matter, Dr. Eastman will not have the benefit of the Constitutional protections normally afforded to those accused by their government of criminal conduct. Nonetheless, we look forward to responding in due course.”
Representatives for Trump did not respond to requests for comment.
The new filing marks the first time the committee has formally accused Trump of specific criminal activities, by working to disrupt the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 and by waging a campaign to overturn the results in key states and promote unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.
“As the courts were overwhelmingly ruling against President Trump’s claims of election misconduct, he and his associates began to plan extra-judicial efforts to overturn the results of the election and prevent the president-elect from assuming office,” the committee wrote in its filing.
“At the heart of these efforts was an aggressive public misinformation campaign to persuade millions of Americans that the election had in fact been stolen. The president and his associates persisted in making ‘stolen election’ claims even after the president’s own appointees at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, along with his own campaign staff, had informed the president that his claims were wrong,” it stated.
While lawmakers on the panel cannot formally charge Trump with a crime, they have suggested their investigation would result in a criminal referral to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to prosecute the former president.
In making their case that Trump and key allies tried to stop the counting of electoral votes and pressure former Vice President Mike Pence “to manipulate the results in his favor,” the committee cited several interviews with senior White House officials and aides to Pence, including his attorney and chief of staff.
“The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort,” the committee wrote in the filing.
Eastman was subpoenaed by the committee in January for his role in crafting two legal memos that argued Pence had the authority to overturn the election results on Jan. 6.
He continued making the case for Pence to overturn the results even as pro-Trump rioters clashed with Capitol Police and sent the vice president into hiding on Capitol Hill.
“We are now under siege,” Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob wrote to Eastman, placing blame on him in a Jan. 6 email released by the committee Wednesday.
“The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so that the American people can see for themselves what happened,” Eastman replied to Jacob in the middle of the riot.
Later that evening, Eastman again wrote to Jacob, “I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the Electoral Count Act] and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here,” according to another email released by the committee.
In the court filing, the committee wrote that this email correspondence suggests Eastman “knew what he was proposing would violate the law, but he nonetheless urged the vice president to take those actions.”
Earlier this week, the State Bar of California announced an investigation into whether Eastman violated state ethics laws for attorneys in his work with Trump challenging the 2020 election results.
Exhibits released as part of Wednesday’s court filings also included excerpts of depositions from several key witnesses the committee interviewed over the last few months, including Trump adviser Jason Miller, former Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short, and former Pence national security advisor Keith Kellogg. The interviews show what kinds of conversations took place among key figures within the Trump circle leading up to and on Jan. 6.
According to one exhibit, Miller, a senior advisor to Trump described that, “soon after the election, a campaign data expert told the President ‘in pretty blunt terms’ that he was going to lose.”
But Trump disagreed with the campaign data expert, Miller said, according to the exhibit.
In another exhibit released on Wednesday, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue told the Jan. 6 committee that Trump repeatedly pressed the Justice Department to “publicly say that the election is corrupt or suspect or not reliable” even though Donoghue himself had “personally informed” Trump “in very clear terms” that the Justice Department concluded that there’s no evidence to support major allegations of voter fraud.
Another exhibit shows a text message from Ben Williamson, an aide to Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadow on Jan. 6 warning Meadows: “Would recommend POTUS put out a tweet about respecting the police over at the Capitol — getting a little hairy over there.”
(WASHINGTON) — The push to support military veterans plagued with health issues caused by toxic exposure to burn pits got a significant boost during President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address Tuesday — his support coming just before the House was set to vote Thursday on a bill that would expedite health care and disability payments for millions of veterans.
“I’m calling on Congress: pass a law to make sure veterans devastated by toxic exposures in Iraq and Afghanistan finally get the benefits and comprehensive health care they deserve,” Biden said, calling it part of “a sacred obligation to equip all those we send to war and care for them and their families when they come home.”
Biden lamented the dangers of the toxic smoke from burn pits, which have resulted in enduring health issues for military veterans stationed overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and Southwest Asia.
The open-air combustion of trash and other waste in burn pits is a common practice of military operations. Common materials incinerated in burn pits included human waste, paint, metal cans, food waste, unexploded ordnance, lubricant products, plastics, rubber, wood and even jet fuel.
Active-duty service members who have been exposed to these toxic chemicals are often plagued with life-threatening diseases and illness.
“And they come home, many of the world’s fittest and best-trained warriors in the world, never the same,” Biden told lawmakers. “Headaches. Numbness. Dizziness. A cancer that would put them in a flag-draped coffin.”
Biden poignantly recalled the memory of his late son, Beau Biden, who died from brain cancer in 2015.
“We don’t know for sure if a burn pit was the cause of his brain cancer, or the diseases of so many of our troops,” Biden said. “But I’m committed to finding out everything we can.”
Approximately 82% of post-9/11 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan reported being exposed to burn pits and/or airborne toxic materials during their service, according to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonprofit organization.
About half of those exposed believe they have symptoms associated with the exposure, and another 41 percent are unsure if their symptoms are related.
“My eyes burned. It was hard to take a deep breath when I coughed and it made chest hurt and it made me cough,” Katie Purswell, a former veteran and director of health policy at the American Legion, said during a press conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
“I choked on the odor from the winds when they would pick up after a while. I started waking up with bloody noses. It was difficult and painful to breathe. After I got home, I had bronchitis for a year. I don’t think my runtime has ever recovered. I just can’t take a deep breath anymore,” she said, describing the symptoms she faced following prolonged exposure to toxic burn pits while stationed overseas.
Purswell was joined by former veterans, advocates, members of Congress, and comedian Jon Stewart at the Capitol Wednesday in support of a bill the House intends to pass Thursday.
Stewart and fellow advocate and 9/11 first responder John Feal have long lobbied Congress for veterans and first responder health care, often challenging lawmakers in emotional testimony — protesting what they believe is inadequate care for the nation’s veterans.
“Last night, they were seen,” Stewart said of the president’s national address. “The president of the United States saw their struggle.”
The group is calling on Congress to pass the bill, Honoring Our PACT Act, that aims to improve health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances.
The bill would specifically designate 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers as likely linked to toxic exposures related to military burn pits and airborne hazards exposure.
Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs decides these exposure claims on a case-by-case basis, with the exception of those filed for asthma, rhinitis or sinusitis. The burden of proving one’s illness is related to a burn pit exposure falls on the veteran, leading to delays in health care.
“There is no other toxic exposure legislation in Congress like it in scope or soundness,” Rep. Mark Takano, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said Wednesday.
The California Democrat authored the legislation that has bipartisan support in the House.
“Without hesitation, our veterans raised their right hand to protect and defend this nation. And many are now sick as a result of that service. We made a pact with these individuals — a pact I’m afraid to say we have not yet honored,” Takano said.
Takano said his bill will address the full gamut of issues affecting toxic exposed-veterans, access to health care and benefits, while also reforming the VA’s “presumptive” decision-making process to provide health care to more than 3.5 million veterans who have been exposed.
The White House on Monday announced that the Department of Veterans Affairs is also making efforts to rework their policies — the VA proposed a rule that would recognize nine new respiratory illnesses as conditions that are presumed linked to a veterans’ military service, which would help fast track them for payouts and medical care.
Dennis McDonough, secretary of Veterans Affairs, alluded to the proposed changes during an interview with ABC News last month.
McDonough, acknowledging the “cumbersome” process veterans must go through to prove their illnesses are linked to exposure to burn pits, told ABC News that the department is working to establish the evidence to suggest even more illnesses are linked to burn pit exposure that he hopes the department will soon recognize.
The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is undertaking its own effort to address the issue of toxic exposure for veterans as part of a three-step, bipartisan approach. But advocates, including Stewart and Feal, say the Senate’s effort doesn’t go as far in scope.
Some senators, however, are concerned that the House’s version of the bill is too pricey: the House bill calls for nearly $300 billion in spending over 10 years.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, standing next to Stewart and Feal during Wednesday’s press conference, defended the price tag.
“Don’t even talk to us about the price,” Pelosi said. “This is a cost of war that we should recognize … it’s going to be worth it. But it’s going to have a big price tag.”
“Because what we are looking at is the value of what this does for our country,” she said.
Sources familiar with the process told ABC News that members of the House and Senate will have to figure out their policy differences and take their respective bills to conference in the coming months to reach a final compromise.
The process could delay passage in the Senate for months to come before it would eventually reach Biden’s desk for his signature.
Stewart and Feal had a stark message for members of the Senate.
“Once this is done, make no mistake, then the battle shifts to the Senate. And as you know, they are excellent at killing things that are necessary. And we cannot allow it to happen,” Stewart said. “And you cannot allow this feeling of unity and hope and finally being seen to dissipate. We need all of your help to put the pressure on to make sure that the comprehensive needs that they have are passed.”
Feal warned Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that he plans to lobby him hard.
“Let Schumer know that we want a bill compatible to the honorable PACT Act. If he does not do that, then I will make his life miserable,” Feal said.
A spokesman to Schumer said in a statement to ABC News: “Leader Schumer believes strongly in this bill and will do everything he can to pass it.”
(NEW YORK) — An Indiana bill to ban transgender girls from participating in girls sports in K-12 schools passed the state Senate on Tuesday. State legislators voted 32-18 in favor of the bill.
The bill now goes to Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb’s desk for signature. He has not explicitly said if he will sign it into law.
Holcomb previously stated that he agrees “adamantly that boys should be playing boys’ sports and girls should be playing girls’ sports.” It is unclear whether his definition of “boys” and “girls” is trans-inclusive.
Several organizations have spoken out against the legislation and called for Holcomb’s veto since Tuesday.
“With so much going on at home and abroad, it’s disappointing to see Indiana lawmakers prioritize regulating transgender student-athletes,” Amit Paley, CEO and executive director of The Trevor Project, a nonprofit focused on LGBTQ suicide prevention and crisis intervention, told ABC News. “This will likely become the second anti-trans bill enacted in 2022 and the 11th anti-trans sports ban across the country. While the rationale for these bills is based on myth and misunderstanding, the impacts they’re having are very real.”
Advocates say the bill will have a serious negative effect on transgender students’ mental and physical well-being.
“Trans kids — like all kids — just want to be able to play with their friends. This regressive and damaging legislation hurts transgender youth and doesn’t address any actual problem,” Cathryn Oakley, Human Rights Campaign state legislative director and senior counsel, said in a statement on Tuesday.
“This bill puts already vulnerable youth in more danger, and threatens the health and safety of all children in Indiana,” Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, an anti-LGBTQ defamation organization, said in a statement. “Every child should have the chance to play with their friends and to belong, just as they are, and experience the lifelong benefits that being on a team can offer.”
Jay Brown, senior vice president of programs, research and training at The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, spoke on the stigma and potential consequences that bills like HB 1041 can perpetuate in the organization’s 2021 Epidemic of Violence report.
“When lawmakers discuss bills banning transgender and non-binary youth from accessing medical care, playing school sports or using restrooms, it sends a message that even from an early age transgender and non-binary people are different and unwelcome,” he said.
Authored by Republican Indiana state Rep. Michelle Davis, HB 1041 is one of several anti-trans bills being proposed around the country.
“I want to make sure that all the opportunities are provided for our young females and we protect the fair competition for them so they have all those possibilities,” Davis said at a hearing in January. Davis admitted under questioning during the hearing she could not cite any examples in Indiana of a cisgender student losing a chance to compete to a trans athlete, according to Indianapolis ABC affiliate WRTV.
Another Republican-backed bill, SB 435 or the “Save Girls’ Sports Act,” which similarly calls for a ban on transgender boys and girls participating in high school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity, passed in the Georgia Senate last week. It will have to pass in the House before going to Gov. Brian Kemp, a sponsor of the bill, for review.
ABC News’ Kiara Alfonseca and Tony Morrison contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., introduced a bill on Tuesday calling for strict limitations on no-knock warrants in drug-related investigations.
The bill, named for Amir Locke, would also ban “quick-knock” warrants, nighttime warrants, and the use of explosive devices, chemical weapons, and military grade firearms while warrants are carried out.
Locke, a Black Minnesota native, was 22 when he was fatally shot by Minneapolis SWAT officer Mark Hanneman during an early morning execution of a no-knock search warrant on Feb. 2.
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner has ruled the death of Locke, who was not named on the warrant, a homicide.
Hanneman has not been charged with any crime and is currently on paid administrative leave while the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigates the shooting.
Outcry to ban no-knock warrants once again surged after Locke’s death, leading to protests reminiscent of those immediately following the shooting death of Breonna Taylor in 2020. While Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey issued a moratorium on the request and execution of no-knock warrants in the city, concerned citizens and legislators have called for a more permanent solution.
Neka Gray, Locke’s aunt, asked that an end be put to no-knock warrants when a coalition of Black women and mothers met at Minneapolis City Hall to demand justice for Locke.
“Unfortunately, Amir won’t benefit from it. But the next person will,” Gray said. “And so what we’re asking is that this no-knock warrant, that this policy that was put in place where it only affects people that look like me, people that look like Amir, people that look like many people that are standing behind me, we’re just asking that that is changed.”
Omar discussed her bill during a press call on Tuesday.
“The use of no-knock warrants has a deep-rooted history in division, racism and the criminalization of Black and brown people,” she said. “This is yet another occurrence of police in Minneapolis utilizing tactics that deny human dignity,” she added, referring to the events that led to Locke’s death.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said President Joe Biden supports the end of no-knock warrants in a press briefing last month following Locke’s death.
“We have been engaging with, as you know, civil rights groups, a number of law enforcement groups. All agree on the need to reform the use of no-knock warrants,” she said.
Psaki also spoke about a Department of Justice policy announced by United States Attorney General Merrick Garland in September that regulates federal use of chokeholds, carotid restraints, and no-knock warrants.
The policy states that “federal agents are generally required to “knock and announce” their identity, authority and purpose, and demand to enter before entry is made to execute a warrant in a private dwelling” before entering after a “reasonable amount of time”. Exceptions may be made “in the most compelling circumstances.”
Biden briefly mentioned the Department of Justice’s policy at the State of the Union, before calling for funding the police and drawing applause.
The Locke family’s legal team issued a statement on Tuesday in response to the proposed legislation:
“We join the Locke family in applauding U.S. Rep. Omar for introducing this critically important bill. There is no doubt that no-knock warrants are a tragic and devastating failure of policy — a policy that directly led to the deaths of Amir Locke, Breonna Taylor and countless other Black and Brown people throughout the country for the past several decades.”
The statement said that while the “ultimate goal” is a ban on all no-knock warrants “it is a significant step forward.”
“We implore other members of Congress to champion this life-saving cause and pass this legislation to protect the lives and safety of those they swore an oath to serve,” it said.
ABC News’ Sejal Govindarao contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, began traditional courtesy calls with senators on Wednesday as Democrats announced her confirmation battle would get underway later this month.
The hearings will start on Monday, March 21 and conclude on Thursday March 24, setting Jackson on the path to what Democrats hope will be a speedy final confirmation vote, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin said Wednesday.
“There’s no reason to wait or delay, as far as I’m concerned,” Durbin, D-Ill., said, setting the goal to get Jackson confirmed by the full Senate by the Easter recess starting April 8.
Biden announced Friday he would nominate Jackson to fill the seat of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. Jackson, a Harvard law graduate, was confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit in a bipartisan vote last June, but faces a tougher confirmation battle for her spot on the high court. If confirmed, she will be the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court.
Jackson began her day on Capitol Hill with a 40-minute meeting with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Before their meeting, Schumer said he looked forward to “hashing out all the great things that we read about and are seeing” about Jackson.
Following their closed-door discussion, he praised what he said were Jackson’s family values, empathy and ability to see things from both sides.
“I think she deserves support from the other side of the aisle, and I am hopeful that a good number of Republicans will support her, given who she is,” he said.
A few hours after their meeting, Schumer started Wednesday’s Senate session with even more praise.
“Now that I’ve met her, I’ll add another word: Belongs. She’s not only brilliant and beloved, but belongs on the Supreme Court,” Schumer said. “America will be better off — much better off — with someone like Judge Jackson on the Supreme Court.”
Former Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones, designated by the White House to help shepherd Jackson’s nomination across the finish line, escorted her to a similar meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, before taking her to spend time with Durbin.
Speaking to reporters afterward, Durbin said he expects Judge Jackson will garner bipartisan support, saying he is hoping to have at least a handful of GOP senators vote to confirm her.
“I think it would be good for the Senate, good for the Supreme Court if that happens,” Durbin said, adding he wants the process to be fair.
In the evenly divided Senate, Democrats can confirm Jackson to the court without any Republican support. But that’s not how Durbin and other Democratic leaders hope it will go. While three Senate Republicans voted to confirm Jackson to the federal appeals court, several have said their previous votes will not determine how they vote on Jackson.
The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, echoed Durbin’s sentiment after his conversation with Judge Jackson. The two talked for just under 10 minutes.
He told reporters it is his responsibility to make sure the Senate has a fair and dignified process.
“We’re going to meet our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent with dignity and fairness and most importantly, thoroughness. Everybody expects us to do our job,” Grassley said.
When asked how her conversation with Grassley went, Judge Jackson replied, “Good, thanks.”
Senator Durbin has set the goal to confirm Jackson before the Senate’s easter recess, which starts April 8.
ABC’s Allison Pecorin and Trish Turner contributed to this report.
