Politics

(WASHINGTON) — In order for the bipartisan infrastructure bill and larger social spending package to pass, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Sunday the $3.5 trillion budget resolution price tag will likely be lowered.

“Three and a half trillion should be a minimum, but I accept that there’s gonna have to be a give and take,” Sanders told ABC “This Week co-anchor Jonathan Karl.

House progressives have warned leadership they will not vote on President Joe Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill until the larger human infrastructure bill is also ready for a vote. The budget resolution calls for investments in climate change policy, child care and other social programs, and is wider in scope than the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which includes measures to improve the nation’s physical infrastructure.

“Both these bills are going forward in tandem,” Sanders said, reiterating the progressive call to hold out on passing infrastructure until the social spending bill is also passed.

Moderate Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., have said they will not support the bill’s $3.5 trillion price tag. Due to the slim Democratic majority in the Senate, neither bill will pass unless they have all the votes of the Democrats.

Sinema released a statement Saturday accusing progressives of “an ineffective stunt” and slammed House Democratic leadership for failing to pass the bipartisan infrastructure deal.

“Denying Americans millions of good-paying jobs, safer roads, cleaner water, more reliable electricity and better broadband only hurts everyday families,” Sinema wrote.

Asked by Karl to respond to her statement, Sanders said he thinks Sinema is “wrong” and said both bills must go forward together, adding that he voted for the infrastructure bill.

“We’re not just taking on or dealing with Sen. Manchin and Sen. Sinema, we’re taking on the entire ruling class of the country,” Sanders responded. “Right now the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the fossil fuel industry are spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent us from doing what the American people want.”

“This really is a test on whether democracy can work,” Sanders said. “I hope very much and I expect that the Democratic caucus and the president — I know he will — stand firm.”

Biden spent last week negotiating with members and visited Capitol Hill on Friday to meet with House Democrats. According to sources in the room for the meeting, the president suggested lowering the price tag for his social policy bill to a number ranging from $1.9 to $2.2 trillion to reach a compromise.

Sanders said he’s not sure it is “accurate” to say Biden would settle on a reconciliation package around $2 trillion.

“The president also said that a smaller investment could create historic achievements, but [for] you, $2 trillion is not enough?” Karl pressed.

“What the president is saying is that what we are trying to do is for the working families of this country, for the children, for the elderly, we’re trying to pass the most consequential piece of legislation since the Great Depression, and he’s right,” Sanders responded.

Sanders also said “no” when asked by Karl if a $2 trillion price tag for the larger bill would be enough.

Manchin has said he will not vote to go over $2 trillion on the reconciliation bill. Asked how they can proceed without his vote, Sanders said the bill is paid for by increasing taxes on “the wealthiest people not paying federal taxes.”

“If Manchin wants to pay for it, I’m there, let’s do it, and by the way, you could pay for it at $3.5 trillion, you can pay for it at $6 trillion,” Sanders said. “We have massive income and wealth inequality in this country.”

Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe has called the $3.5 trillion price tag too high. Pressed on whether the Democratic infighting will not only hurt Democrats in the midterms, but also hurt McAuliffe in his November race, Sanders said he “wishes Terry McAuliffe the best of luck” and emphasized the popularity of the reconciliation bill.

“What we are fighting for is precisely what the American people want,” Sanders said.

Sanders emphasized his confidence in passing both bills.

“At the end of the day, I am absolutely convinced we’re going to have a strong infrastructure bill, and we’re going to have a great consequential reconciliation bill which addresses the needs of the American people,” Sanders said.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After two days of Democratic infighting and drama, the fate of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure agenda remained unclear Friday night after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to repeatedly put off a vote on a bipartisan infrastructure bill because progressive Democrats had vowed to vote against it — unless there’s a deal on a larger spending package.

The feuding has so jeopardized Biden’s top legislative priorities that he went to Capitol Hill Friday afternoon to meet with House Democrats to make clear he wants both the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and the $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate policy measure to pass.

“It doesn’t matter when. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in six minutes, six days, or six weeks. We’re gonna get it done,” Biden told reporters as he emerged.

Behind closed doors, Biden suggested that a smaller topline social policy bill price tag ranging from $1.9-$2.2 trillion could be the compromise in tense negotiations involving the White House, Democratic progressives, moderates and two key Senate Democrats, according to sources in the room.

Such an investment, together with the $1.2 trillion bipartisan highway bill, would still be a huge investment, he told the caucus, the sources said.

“Even a smaller bill can make historic investments,” they quoted Biden as saying.

The bipartisan infrastructure bill “ain’t going to happen until we reach an agreement on the next piece of legislation,” he added, according to the sources. “Let’s try to figure out what we are for in reconciliation … and then we can move ahead.”

He made clear he campaigned on the proposals in the larger package, they said, but did not suggest or endorse a specific timeline for votes in the House or Senate.

One Democrat inside the room told ABC News Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott they were “massively disappointed.”

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the lawmaker told her “when the president of the United States comes, it’s to close the deal — not to say hello.” The member added, “Most of us are at a loss for words. There was no plan. No strategy. No timing.”

Earlier Friday, Pelosi and House Democrats held another caucus meeting for more than two-and-a-half hours as they tried to find a path forward on their policy agenda after Democratic leadership and the White House failed to bring progressives and moderates together behind the president’s broader agenda.

Inside that closed-door gathering, which typically has the feel of a pep rally-turned-group therapy session, Pelosi seized the opportunity to take the temperature of her caucus. Centrist members from swing districts pushed for an immediate vote on the Senate-passed infrastructure bill. Progressives insisted that they will block it unless the Senate first approves the massive social policy package – hardening the stance they have taken for several weeks.

“No. We need a vote,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said outside the morning caucus meeting. “We need to be real. Are we going to deliver universal pre-K to this country, or not? Are we going to expand health care to our seniors and improve vision and dental, or not?”

Pelosi told members that Democrats ought to move quickly and that the situation was “perishable,” according to sources familiar with her comments.

“We cannot and I will not ask you to vote for the BIF (Capitol Hill shorthand for bipartisan infrastructure framework) until we have the best possible offering that we can stick with,” Pelosi told Democrats. “And it’s not just me. This is about the president of the United States.”

“So, that’s why it is our intention to bring up the vote today. It is our intention to win the vote today,” she added, according to sources familiar with her comments.

As she arrived at the Capitol Friday morning, ABC News asked Pelosi whether she was trying to get members on board by promising a second reconciliation bill early next year in an effort to appease members now, after vowing again on Thursday that a reconciliation bill would follow the vote on the bipartisan package.

“I don’t know about that but a reconciliation bill is not excluded. It’s not necessarily connected to this,” she said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer arrived a minute ahead of Pelosi, telling reporters only “we’ll see” when asked whether the House would vote on the measure before the end of the day.

Pelosi had insisted for two mornings that she planned to go ahead with a vote on the Senate-passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., exiting the morning caucus meeting on Friday, said she’s “seen more progress in the last 48 hours than we’ve seen in a long time on reconciliation.”

She reiterated the progressives’ position that they’ll vote “no” unless there is agreement with the moderate Democratic senators on a larger social spending package to accompany it.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who along with and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. object to the larger bill’s cost, told reporters on Thursday he already conveyed to leadership his topline number is $1.5 trillion — far below progressives $3.5 trillion number.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — With at-home rapid COVID-19 tests hard to come by and many stores limiting purchases, the White House on Friday acknowledged the current supply crunch, promising to double the number of rapid tests available for sale within the next two months.

“You’re right that the at-home rapid test is under a lot of demand,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said, emphasizing that “overall, testing capacity across the country remains robust.”

“The manufacturing is scaling up significantly, doubling across the next couple of months, and we’re just going to keep at it to encourage those manufacturers to increase capacity and to drive down the cost of those tests.”

The White House has touted the effectiveness of its new vaccine mandates and employee testing requirements, and it has committed to shoring up testing by investing billions of dollars.

Yet the U.S. has struggled since the start of the pandemic to meet demand for tests. As he began his tenure, President Joe Biden pledged a World War II-style production push to ramp up supply. But while PCR tests, which rely on labs to process them and take longer to produce results, are now widely available, the at-home rapid tests are hard to find.

Demand for testing generally has soared some 300% to 650% in some areas of the country, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told senators Thursday, making the case that while “sufficient supply” remains, the issue becomes “getting [it] to the right places.”

Senators on both sides of the aisle grilled Becerra on the testing shortage they’re seeing in their states, saying that even though the federal government has supplied billions of dollars for schools and businesses to acquire tests, actually securing them has become a challenge.

“You need to know that right now there is a real crush to be able to get the testing that can get the results back in a timely enough manner to make a difference,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said, adding that schools and businesses have told her “there’s no place to get the testing, or certainly not to get the rapid test.”

Consumers have felt that crush at checkout.

“Due to high demand, deliveries may be delayed,” reads a banner across the CVS at-home testing page. “We appreciate your understanding as our associates work around the clock to support you.”

“We may experience intermittent delays in supply in some locations and are working with the all of our testing partners to meet patient demand,” Walgreens corporate spokesperson Erin Loverher told ABC News.

Following the doubling of testing volume in June to July, with much of the heightened consumption coming from the southern surge states, Walgreens is seeing “incredible demand,” the Loverher said. As such, a cap has been placed on over-the-counter at-home COVID testing products “in an effort to help improve inventory,” while the company continues to “work diligently with our partners to best meet demand.”

CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette told ABC News the company has also begun to ration rapid test-kit purchases.

In order to preserve the straining supplies of point-of-care and over-the-counter rapid tests, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked labs in September to use laboratory-based tests over rapid ones whenever possible to “meet the current test demand” despite what it called a “temporary shortage.”

In late September, the Biden administration struck a new $1.2 billion deal for millions more rapid COVID-19 tests from Abbott and Celltrion, part of the $2 billion already announced by the White House to expand testing.

Abbott spokesperson John Koval told ABC News that the company would be ramping up production significantly, and by the end of October it aims to produce “as many or more” rapid tests as at the height of their production — surging capacity up to at least​ 50 million tests a month.

The company is restarting production at its Illinois plant and rehiring in Maine after laying off several hundred workers when demand was down, Koval said.

“Overall, we’ll continue to pull every lever we can to further expand the manufacturing and the production of these tests in order to make them more widely available and to drive down the cost per test,” Zients said Friday.

ABC News’ Anne Flaherty and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden went to Capitol Hill Friday afternoon to meet with House Democrats, White House officials said, amid party infighting that has put his legislative agenda in jeopardy.

Biden, who has kept a low public profile most of the week while negotiating behind the scenes trying to break the impasse, spoke behind doors with liberal and moderate lawmakers for about half an hour.

As he emerged, he told reporters, “I’m telling you, we’re gonna get this done.”

He added, “It doesn’t matter when. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in six minutes, six days, or six weeks. We’re gonna get it done.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has twice had to delay a vote on a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan Biden supports because progressive Democrats are vowing to defeat it unless they also get a vote on $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate policy measure he also supports — but one that two moderate Democratic senators have objected to as too costly.

Beforehand, some Democrats said they were excited to be hearing from Biden directly and some had complained in recent days that he was not more involved in negotiations.

“He’s going over there to make the case for his legislative agenda, which includes the infrastructure bill, and it includes his Build Back Better agenda that would be in the reconciliation package, so he wants to speak directly to members, answer their questions and make the case for why we should all work together to give the American people more breathing room,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters shortly before Biden was scheduled to leave for the Capitol.

Asked whether he expected to walk out of there with an agreement, Pskai said, “I’m not going to make a prediction of whether there will or won’t be a vote. I’ll leave that to Speaker Pelosi to determine when she will call a vote. But he’s making the case he believes it’s — it’s the right time for him to go up there.”

“The case that the White House is making is that compromise requires everybody giving little. That’s the stage we’re in. But no matter where we end, if we can get something done here, we’re going to have a historic piece of legislation passed Congress that’s going to have a huge impact on the American people,” she added.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a wide-sweeping set of police reform laws Thursday, including one that would prevent an officer from being employed by another police department after being convicted of misconduct.

The new legislation also raises the minimum age to become a law enforcement officer from 18 to 21; sets limits on the use of rubber bullets and tear gas to protect protesters; and establishes new accountability measures.

The legislation, SB2, also known as the “Kenneth Ross Jr. initiative,” will decertify law enforcement officers after conviction for misconduct or serious crimes and prevents them from moving to other departments. Officers can be decertified for excessive force, sexual assault, demonstration of bias and dishonesty.

The bill was named after 25-year-old Kenneth Ross Jr. who was fatally shot by Gardena Police Department Officer Michael Robbins in April 2018 while running away from police in Rowley Park, local Los Angeles ABC station KABC reported. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office determined that the officer “acted lawfully in self-defense” because he believed Ross was an active shooter.

“I’ve lived here 52 years. I knew every officer by first name. When I heard about this shooting I did not know who this officer was and the reason why is because he transferred from Orange County after being involved in three questionable shootings there,” Assemblyman Steven Bradford, a Democrat representing Gardena, said at the signing ceremony.

Bradford said the legislation would end the “wash, rinse, repeat cycle” where an officer can commit a crime and leave a department and get hired by another agency.

The new law means California will join 46 other states that have decertification processes for officers due to bad conduct, Bradford said.

The bill-signing ceremony took place at Rowley Park in Ross’ memory where his mother, Fouzia Almarou, spoke.

“He was the love of my life. I’ll never see Kenneth again. This bill means a lot because it’ll stop police from attacking, targeting and being racist towards Black and brown people,” Almarou said.

Newsom also signed the George Floyd Bill, which requires officers to intervene when witnessing another officer using excessive force and report the incident in real time. Those who don’t could be disciplined in the same way as the cop who used excessive force.

Assemblymember Chris Holden, a Democrat representing Pasadena, authored the bill.

“Derek Chauvin was charged for killing of George Floyd, but justice for George Floyd doesn’t rest in Chauvin’s conviction alone – there were three additional officers who simply stood by and watched him die,” Holden said in a statement.

Another bill, AB490, bans officers from using restraints that can cause position asphyxiation, which occurs when a person is restrained and cannot breathe.

“While many of us witnessed the untimely death of George Floyd last year, Angelo Quinto a native veteran from Northern California also lost his life at the hands of law enforcement when [they] used similar restraints,” Assemblymember Reggie Jones Sawyer, a Democrat representing south Los Angeles, said.

“The new law will not hinder law enforcement from utilizing restraints they might need to use in dangerous situations … but it will place a limit on those restraints as to not keep someone from breathing and the result be an unnecessary death,” he added.

Last year, Newsom signed legislation banning police chokeholds in wake of Floyd’s death in Minneapolis where officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck for over eight minutes.

Assemblymember Sawyer also thanked the governor for signing the PEACE Act, which raises the minimum age of officers from 18 to 21.

The act will also have experts from community colleges and community advocates develop a framework for officers to receive a higher education that’ll include psychology, history, ethnic studies, law and emotional intelligence.

“This framework will equip officers with the skills necessary for de-escalation while also guaranteeing they develop an understanding of the history of communities from diverse backgrounds and cultures,” Sawyer said.

Another bill regulates the use of rubber bullets and tear gas at protests. It bans officers from “indiscriminately firing these weapons into a crowd or aiming them at the head, neck or other vital organs,” bill author Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, a Democrat representing San Diego, said in a release.

Newsom touted the reforms as “another step toward healing and justice for all.”

“Too many lives have been lost due to racial profiling and excessive use of force. We cannot change what is past, but we can build accountability, root out racial injustice and fight systemic racism. We are all indebted to the families who have persevered through their grief to continue this fight and work toward a more just future,” he said in a statement.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden will head to Capitol Hill Friday afternoon to meet with House Democrats, White House officials said, amid party infighting over passing his agenda.

Biden, who has kept a low public profile most of the week while negotiating behind the scenes trying to break the impasse, is set to meet with Democrats at 3:30 p.m.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has twice had to delay a vote on a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan Biden supports because progressive Democrats are vowing to defeat it unless they also get a vote on $3.5 trillion social and climate policy measure he also supports — but one that two moderate Democratic senators have objected to as too costly.

Some Democrats said they were excited to be hearing from Biden directly and some had complained in recent days that he was not more involved in negotiations.

“He’s going over there to make the case for his legislative agenda, which includes the infrastructure bill, and it includes his Build Back Better agenda that would be in the reconciliation package, so he wants to speak directly to members, answer their questions and make the case for why we should all work together to give the American people more breathing room,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters shortly before Biden was scheduled to leave for the Capitol.

Asked whether he expects to walk out of there an agreement, Pskai said, “I’m not going to make a prediction of whether there will or won’t be a vote. I’ll leave that to Speaker Pelosi to determine when she will call a vote. But he’s making the case he believes it’s — it’s the right time for him to go up there.”

“The case that the White House is making is that compromise requires everybody giving little. That’s the stage we’re in. But no matter where we end, if we can get something done here, we’re going to have a historic piece of legislation passed Congress that’s going to have a huge impact on the American people,” she added.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After failing to keep her promise on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday Democrats are “on a path” toward a vote on a bipartisan infrastructure bill as she arrived at the Capitol, despite progressives continuing to vow to vote “no” unless a deal on a larger spending package is reached.

The speaker suggested that talking to reporters later on would be more useful than during her arrival at the Capitol — an indication no progress was achieved overnight.

Pelosi and House Democrats held a caucus meeting Friday morning as they continue trying to find a path forward on their policy agenda after Democratic leadership and the White House failed to bring progressives and moderates together behind a path forward for President Joe Biden’s broader agenda.

The breakfast meeting gave leadership an opportunity to brief members on the status of the discussions with Senate moderates and the White House — and lawmakers a chance to address each other.

ABC News asked Pelosi on Friday whether she is trying to get members on board by promising a second reconciliation bill early next year in an effort to appease members now, after vowing again on Thursday that a reconciliation bill would follow the vote on the bipartisan package.

“I don’t know about that but a reconciliation bill is not excluded. It’s not necessarily connected to this,” she said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer arrived a minute ahead of Pelosi, only telling reporters “we’ll see” when asked whether the House will vote on the measure before the end of the d

Pelosi has insisted for two mornings now that she plans to go ahead with a vote on the Senate-passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill — despite progressive Democrats vowing to defeat it.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., reiterated on Thursday progressives’ position that they’ll vote “no” unless there is agreement with the moderate Democratic senators on a larger social spending package to accompany it.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., who along with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., is not agreeing with Democrats on a larger bill, told reporters on Thursday he already conveyed to leadership his topline number is $1.5 trillion — far below progressives $3.5 trillion number, putting the House vote in even more jeopardy.

Biden, meanwhile, has remained largely out of the public eye this week as negotiations continue behind closed doors, other than stopping at the congressional baseball game to rub elbows with lawmakers.

“The President is grateful to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer for their extraordinary leadership, and to Members from across the Democratic Caucus who have worked so hard the past few days to try to reach an agreement on how to proceed on the Infrastructure Bill and the Build Back Better plan,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement Thursday night.

“A great deal of progress has been made this week, and we are closer to an agreement than ever. But we are not there yet, and so, we will need some additional time to finish the work, starting tomorrow morning first thing,” she said.

On Thursday, Pelosi left the Capitol just after midnight and told reporters that progressives and moderates were closer to reaching an agreement on the size of their social policy package than it appeared earlier in the week.

“We’re not trillions of dollars apart,” she said.

Asked about the vote that didn’t take place Thursday as she promised, Pelosi said, “There will be a vote today,” an apparent reference to the legislative calendar, by which, because the House was in recess, Friday was still considered to be “Thursday.”

Notably, Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” that she’s “never bringing a bill to the floor that doesn’t have the votes” — raising questions of whether she’ll be able to have a vote this week at all.

If Democratic leaders and the White House can reach an “agreement” or get Manchin and Sinema to accept a public commitment co-signed by Biden, that could be enough to meet progressive demands, and get their support for the delayed $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan in the House.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Lawyers from the Justice Department and the state of Texas squared off in court Friday as the Biden administration seeks an order that would halt enforcement of the state’s restrictive abortion law.

In an overnight filing, DOJ officials accused Texas of mounting a “brazen” effort to enact a law purely designed to obstruct women’s right to an abortion while evading all traditional methods of judicial review.

“S.B. 8’s novel enforcement scheme is calculated to accomplish what no state should be able to do in our federal system: deter, suppress, and render moot rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,” department officials said in their filing. “The State does not dispute that S.B. 8 has virtually eliminated previability abortions after six weeks of pregnancy in the State. Moreover, the approach Texas has taken need not be confined to the abortion context. If this mechanism works here, it would serve as a blueprint for the suppression of nearly any other constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court but resented by a state government.”

S.B. 8, or the ‘Texas Heartbeat Act,’ bars physicians from providing abortions once they detect a so-called fetal heartbeat — which can be seen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. But the language of the law makes it so private citizens can sue anyone they “reasonably believed” provided an abortion, and effectively removes any government officials from being part of its enforcement.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced last month that the Justice Department would sue Texas over its law just one week after the U.S. Supreme Court let it take effect. Soon after, the department filed for an emergency injunction seeking to halt enforcement of the law entirely as the legal fight plays out.

In a filing Wednesday, Texas officials urged District Judge Robert Pitman to dismiss DOJ’s request for an injunction — arguing the Biden Administration had no standing to pull it before a federal judge and that the matter should instead be resolved before state courts.

“The federal government asks the Court to dispense with the normal cause-of-action requirement based on unfounded fears that the Texas Heartbeat Act will otherwise “evade judicial review.” Nothing could be further from the truth,” officials wrote in their filing. “The constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act can be reviewed in the same way that virtually all of state tort law is: State-court defendants raise constitutional defenses before neutral judges sworn to follow the U.S. Constitution and, if necessary, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Also in their brief, Texas officials made an eyebrow-raising counterargument to DOJ’s contention that the abortion law hinders interstate commerce — the state instead pointed to reports of women seeking an abortion being forced to travel out of the Texas to Oklahoma, saying that “is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel.”

It’s not clear when Judge Pitman might rule on DOJ’s request for an emergency injunction — though the ruling is likely to face a quick appeal from either Texas or DOJ to try and put the matter before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a separate challenge previously ruled the law could take effect.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Justice Brett Kavanaugh has tested positive for COVID-19, the Supreme Court said on Friday.

Kavanaugh tested positive during a routine test ahead of an investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

He has been vaccinated since January and currently has no symptoms, the court said. His family has also tested negative.

The court said Kavanaugh was informed Thursday evening that he tested positive.

“On Thursday, per the Court’s regular testing protocols, Justice Kavanaugh had a routine Covid test ahead of Justice Barrett’s investiture on Friday. On Thursday evening, Justice Kavanaugh was informed that he had tested positive for Covid-19,” the court’s spokesperson Patricia McCabe said in a press release.

“As a precaution, Justice and Mrs. Kavanaugh will not attend Justice Barrett’s investiture this morning,” McCabe said.

Barrett is scheduled to have an investiture photo op on Friday coming down the steps of the Supreme Court Building with the Chief Justice and her husband.

The news comes three days before the court is scheduled to begin its new term on Monday.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In today’s world of permanent campaigning, “leadership PACs” — political action committees established by individual politicians — have served as an invaluable vehicle for members of Congress to support their political allies.

Leadership PACs were approved in 1978 as a way for politicians to raise money and then make contributions to other candidates. The money cannot be used on a politician’s own election expenses.

But a new report by the good-government groups Campaign Legal Center and Issue One shows that numerous lawmakers have been dedicating most of their leadership PAC spending to overhead and fundraising for the PAC — often at fancy restaurants and luxury resorts — while spending comparatively little on actual contributions to other candidates or political allies.

During the 2020 election cycle, there were at least 120 members of Congress whose leadership PACs reported that less than 50% of their spending was in the form of political contributions to other candidates, political allies, or parties, according to the report.

Of those, 43 members’ leadership PACs devoted less than 25% of their overall spending to political contributions during that cycle, while a handful of members’ leadership PACs spent more than five figures without making any political contributions whatsoever.

Early in 2019, then-North Carolina GOP Rep. George Holding’s leadership PAC made two such contributions, giving a total of $5,000 to a fellow North Carolina Republican House hopeful running in a GOP primary.

But a few months later in December, Holding announced that he would not seek reelection in 2020 — and that $5,000 remained the PAC’s only political contributions throughout the 2020 cycle. All the while, Holding’s PAC continued to rake in contributions from supporters, while the PAC spent nearly $200,000 on airfare and car services and on food and drink at restaurants and clubs, including the exclusive East India Club in London and the Union Club in New York City, according to the report.

The report notes that none of the donor funds beyond the $5,000 contributions went toward supporting Holding’s political allies.

“Most members of Congress use their leadership PAC for their intended purposes — aiding other candidates, their parties, and political allies,” Issue One Research Director Michael Beckel told ABC News. For a typical member, Beckel said, 70% of their leadership PAC’s expenditures go toward political expenditures.

But other members use their leadership PAC funds to spend lavishly on expensive meals, trips to elite resorts and rounds of golf at premier courses, which is “purportedly done for the purpose of political fundraising,” Beckel and his co-authors wrote in the report. However, the authors wrote, “this explanation rings hollow when just a fraction of the money raised goes toward political contributions.”

“Some politicians are simply raising money at one posh location to pay for the next fundraiser at the next fancy destination — creating an endless fundraising cycle at luxurious restaurants and resorts, much of which is paid for by special interest money, with no cost to lawmakers’ own pocketbooks,” the authors wrote.

When Holding launched his leadership PAC, Conservative Roundtable, in 2014, it devoted nearly 70% of its funds to supporting fellow Republicans running for office that year, past disclosure filings show. But over the years, according to the report, the PAC gradually spent less and less on supporting GOP allies. Out of the $202,000 the PAC spent in the last election cycle — besides the $5,000 in political contributions and the funds spent on social clubs, airfare and lodging — the bulk of the PAC’s expenditures went to a fundraising firm.

Holding’s PAC did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment, but the then-congressman told CQ Roll Call in a statement last year that as co-chair of the U.K. Caucus and co-chair of the British American Parliamentary Group, he “traveled to London at no expense to the taxpayer for the purpose of developing and maintaining a leadership role on U.K./U.S. issues.”

“In addition, I have developed a supporter base with the American expatriate community in the U.K,” Holding said in the statement. It’s unclear from the report or from committee disclosure filings if his trips to London were paid for by his leadership PAC.

GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s leadership PAC, Reinventing a New Direction, spent only 12% of its expenditures on political contributions out of the nearly $1 million it spent during the 2020 cycle, according to the report, with a big chunk of the PAC’s money going to political research and consulting, as well as to fundraising.

Tens of thousands of dollars of Paul’s PAC money also went to travel, lodging and meals at high-end establishments, including The Breakers, a five-star resort in Palm Beach, Florida, and BLT Prime at former President Donald Trump’s hotel in Washington, D.C. Paul’s PAC also spent money on tickets at Nationals Park, home of Washington’s Major League Baseball team, and at Karlštejn Castle, a tourist destination outside Prague in the Czech Republic, according to the report.

Paul’s spokesperson did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore’s leadership PAC also reported using just 12% of its total spending during the 2020 election cycle on direct political contributions, while spending tens of thousands of dollars on fundraising, lodging and airfare. The PAC spent roughly $32,000 on meals and catering, including thousands of dollars at steakhouses and for delivery services, and spent thousands of dollars on event tickets purchased through Live Nation, StubHub and Ticketmaster, according to the report.

Moore’s PAC did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

While some PACs may be skimping on direct political contributions to political allies, a number of lawmakers say they’ve found other ways for their PACs to support their political interests.

GOP Sen. Ted Cruz’ leadership PAC, while spending just 18% of its $2.2 million in total expenditures on directly supporting other Republican candidates and political groups in the 2020 cycle, spent more than 70% of its funds on media buys and online advertising promoting Republican political causes.

Cruz’ spokesperson told ABC News that “in addition to making direct contributions to candidates, his strong fundraising has permitted Jobs, Freedom & Security PAC to go above and beyond the typical Leadership PAC by investing heavily in advertisements and messaging that empower and help give voice to the conservative movement.”

Cruz’ PAC also spent more than $12,000 for facility and equipment rentals from the Houston Astros baseball team, as well as big sums on airfare and boutique hotels, according to the report.

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton’s two leadership PACs reported spending just 8% on political contributions out of their combined total expenditures of $1.7 million during the 2020 cycle, with the vast majority of their funds being spent on salaries, consulting and fundraising. In contrast, during the 2016 cycle, the majority of Moulton’s Serve America PAC money — more than 84% — went to other Democratic campaigns, past campaign disclosure filings show.

Moulton, however, told ABC News in a statement that his PACs’ political contributions to Democratic allies were lower in the 2020 election cycle because he had been mobilizing his donors to contribute directly to other candidates rather than asking them to cut a check to his PACs to then be forwarded along. Through this strategy, Moulton said, his team raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for then-candidate Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and for Democratic Georgia Senate candidates.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.