(WASHINGTON) — In a surprise move Wednesday, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin announced that not only had he reached a deal with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on a major health care-focused spending package — he had also signed onto climate and energy provisions.

It was a reversal of sorts for the conservative Democrat who just two weeks ago backed away from climate measures being included in any spending bill, telling a radio host that inflation was “absolutely killing many, many people” and that he would have to wait until July inflation numbers were out before considering such measures. Democrats were sure then that they would be left with a health care-only bill. Some other Senators had openly begun making their peace with it.

It was unclear Wednesday why Manchin had changed course.

“Today, we are pleased to announce an agreement,” Manchin and Schumer said in a joint statement, noting “many months of negotiations.”

The pair said they had “finalized legislative text” that, if approved, would reduce the deficit by some $300 billion while investing $369.75 billion in “Energy Security and Climate Change programs” over the next decade.

“The investments will be fully paid for by closing tax loopholes on wealthy individuals and corporations. In addition, the expanded Affordable Care Act program will be extended for three years, through 2025,” the senators said.

With Manchin’s approval, Democratic leaders in the evenly-divided chamber are now aiming to have the bill approved by the end of next week using a fast-track process known as reconciliation that allows passage of such legislation with a simple majority (and Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote).

The House, according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would then return sometime in August to pass the measure.

If approved, it would be a major victory for President Joe Biden, who announced his support for the deal in a statement Wednesday night after speaking to both Manchin and Schumer. Biden had tried but failed to get his party united behind a sweeping $2 trillion “Build Back Better” economic and social safety net bill that included provisions like universal pre-K, Medicaid expansion and paid family leave, but Manchin previously balked at that price tag amid rising inflation, tanking that bill.

Similar, if scaled-down, proposals since have all failed to garner sufficient support among Democrats, with Republicans opposed.

Wednesday’s deal was likewise swiftly condemned by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who tweeted, “Democrats have already crushed American families with historic inflation. Now they want to pile on giant tax hikes that will hammer workers and kill many thousands of American jobs. First they killed your family’s budget. Now they want to kill your job too.”

While Democrats await the Senate’s rule-keeping parliamentarian scrubbing through the new deal to ensure all provisions meet the strict guidelines of reconciliation, details of what exactly are in the bill are not yet known. But according to Schumer and Manchin’s portrayal, the bill “lowers energy costs, increases cleaner production, and reduces carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030,” measures that Democrats say will cost roughly the $369 billion.

Democrats also plan to extend for three years the pandemic-era subsidies for those lower-income Americans who buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. It was important for Democrats to push through those changes, they said, because insurance companies typically announce their premium increases in August.

The agreement, known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, brings in far more revenue — $739 billion — than the government would spend under this measure, according to Democrats. Together, the climate and ACA provisions would cost the government roughly $433 billion, and Democrats plan to put at least $300 billion of that toward deficit reduction.

That was at the insistence of Manchin, in a bid to bring down record inflation.

To bring in the needed money, Democrats said they plan to target big corporations and the “ultra-wealthy” by implementing a 15% corporate minimum tax as well as collecting more through IRS tax enforcement, both measures bringing in nearly $440 billion.

Republicans for weeks have warned that those tax hikes would hit small and mid-size businesses disproportionately, but Sens. Manchin and Schumer insisted in their news release that under their plan, there will be “no new taxes on families making $400,000 or less and no new taxes on small businesses” — a key campaign promise by President Biden.

“Senate Democrats can change the name of Build Back Broke as many times as they want, it won’t be any less devastating to American families and small businesses. Raising taxes on job creators, crushing energy producers with new regulations, and stifling innovators looking for new cures will only make this recession worse, not better,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement.

Most Senate Democrats have not yet seen the legislative text, though many appeared to be supportive.

Chris Coons of Delaware said he was “very encouraged.”

“I am pleased to report that this will be, by far, the biggest climate action in human history,”said Hawaii’s Brian Schatz. “Nearly $370 billion in tax incentives, grants, and other investments in clean energy, clean transportation, energy storage, home electrification, climate-smart agriculture, and clean manufacturing makes this a real climate bill.The planet is on fire. Emissions reductions are the main thing. This is enormous progress. Let’s get it done.”

A meeting of the entire Senate Democratic caucus is expected at 9 a.m. Thursday to run through the details of the new plan.

But not every member of the caucus was happy with the deal.

Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, bristled, telling reporters on Wednesday: “Last I heard, Sen. Manchin is not the majority leader, despite what you may think. Last I heard, he is not the only [a] member of the Democratic caucus. I will look at it and we’ll go from there.”

Democrats need each of their 50 votes to remain united and healthy to seal the deal — not an easy feat considering Manchin himself has been quarantined this week with COVID-19.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(TOPEKA, Kan.) — When Kansans head to the polls on Aug. 2 to vote in their primary election, they will also decide on a critical ballot measure that could impact the future of abortion legislation in their state.

Kansas is the first state in the nation to vote on reproductive freedom after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion. It is one of at least five states voting on reproductive rights this year, alongside California, Kentucky, Montana and Vermont. A measure that would amend the Michigan constitution to guarantee the right to reproductive freedom has also been proposed.

If the amendment passes, Kansas will be the fifth state to amend its state constitution to say it does not grant the right to abortion, joining Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia.

The amendment has drawn national attention, particularly in the wake of the last month’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“I think a lot of people see the vote here as a kind of indicator of where politics might be headed,” Richard E. Levy, JB Smith Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Kansas School of Law, told ABC News.

Here’s what to know about the Kansas ballot measure, dubbed Value Them Both.

2019 state Supreme Court decision

The ballot measure is in response to a 2019 state Supreme Court decision on abortion restrictions. The ruling stemmed from a 2015 case challenging a Kansas law that aimed to largely ban dilation and evacuation, a method used in most second-trimester abortions.

In striking down the ban on the procedure, the judges ruled 6 to 1 that the Kansas constitution protects the “right of personal autonomy.”

“This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy,” the opinion states while prohibiting Kansas from restricting the right to an abortion “unless it is doing so to further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest.”

“The court adopted the most rigorous form of constitutional analysis, known as strict scrutiny,” Levy said. “So that in Kansas, under current law, regulations on abortion are valid only if they serve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to that interest.”

Since the ruling, a lower court has upheld that a ban on dilation and evacuation is “unconstitutional and unenforceable.” Another law pertaining to abortion in the state has also been blocked. The statute, what would be considered a TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law by abortion rights advocates, would impose certain requirements on abortion providers.

Nearly a dozen other regulations on abortion remain in effect and have not been challenged, including mandated waiting periods and ultrasounds for patients, required parental consent, a ban on abortion after viability except where necessary to preserve a woman’s life or health, and limits on the use of public funding for abortion.

What’s on the ballot

In the wake of the 2019 ruling, the Republican-led state legislature attempted to pass a ballot measure that would reverse the decision. That measure failed in 2020 before passing the state House and Senate in 2021 to get on the ballot this year.

This is what voters will see as they head to the polls:

Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.

A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.

If the amendment wins with a simple majority, this passage, included on the ballot as well, will be adopted into the state constitution:

§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.

What voting ‘yes’ means

Voting “yes” on the ballot measure supports amending Kansas’ constitution to state that it does not grant the right to an abortion and leaves regulation in the hands of the state legislature.

“The Kansas state Supreme Court overreached in 2019,” Mallory Carroll, a spokesperson for SBA Pro-Life America, which is part of a coalition working to pass the amendment, told ABC News. “The purpose of the amendment is to neutralize this decision so that this is an area for the people to use the tools of democracy to decide through their elected officials, not judges.”

The ballot measure is not an abortion ban. However, opponents, including the coalition Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argue that the bill’s language could open the door to one.

“If the amendment passes, there will be an effort by the legislature to quickly ban abortion with no or very few exceptions,” Ashley All, a spokesperson for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, told ABC News, pointing to a failed bill introduced in the last legislative session that would have criminalized abortion in most cases.

“The language very clearly says that legislators may pass any law they want regarding abortion, and even in situations of rape, incest and the life of the mother. So we’re pretty confident that that’s where we’re headed,” All said.

Carroll said “anything is possible” when it comes to future abortion legislation if the amendment passes.

“That’s exactly because they’ll be using the tools of democracy to debate and find consensus,” she said. “We don’t know what consensus is going to look like in Kansas.”

One thing is clear — if the amendment passes, the laws targeting abortion providers and the second-trimester abortion procedure will “go into effect almost immediately,” Levy said. With no “trigger law” in place in Kansas, a general abortion ban would require further legislative action, he said.

What voting ‘no’ means

A “no” vote would maintain the status quo and affirm that reproductive rights are protected by the state constitution. The current enacted regulations on abortion would remain in effect, Levy said.

“There would still be a lot of regulations in place,” he said. “Some of those limitations might be vulnerable, but it’s unlikely.”

Opponents of the amendment have argued that abortion is already “heavily regulated” in Kansas even after the state Supreme Court ruling, while proponents are pushing for stronger pro-life policies.

If the amendment fails, Levy wagers that the state legislature might work to “test the limits” of the abortion protections in the state constitution.

Voter turnout a question

The ballot measure is being voted on in a primary election, which is expected to favor abortion opponents. Primary elections also historically draw fewer voters than general elections and might alienate independents, who otherwise have no reason to show up to the polls.

The primary coming weeks after the Dobbs decision may have helped generate interest in the ballot measure, Levy said. Early voter turnouts have been reported to be higher than usual in some areas as well.

“People are paying attention,” Levy said. “Whether that translates into high turnout, that’s another question.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Two leading House Democrats are requesting a government watchdog step away from an investigation into deleted text messages sent by the Secret Service around the time of the U.S. Capitol attack.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair of House Homeland Security Committee, and New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, sent the request Tuesday to the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

In their letter, Thompson and Maloney wrote they have “grave concerns” about Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general — including what they said was his failure to promptly notify Congress of “crucial information” while investigating Jan. 6.

“Inspector General Cuffari failed to provide adequate or timely notice that the Secret Service had refused for months to comply with DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) requests for information related to the January 6 attack and failed to notify Congress after DHS OIG learned that the Secret Service had erased text messages related to this matter,” Thompson and Maloney wrote.

“These omissions left Congress in the dark about key developments in this investigation and may have cost investigators precious time to capture relevant evidence,” Thompson and Maloney argued.

The letter raises other concerns about Cuffari’s performance, including “reports that he sought to censor findings of domestic abuse and sexual harassment by DHS employees” and his past refusal to investigate Secret Service actions.

The inspector general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Thompon and Cheney’s request for a new inspector general to complete the Jan. 6-related investigation comes amid myriad questions about how and why the Secret Service texts were deleted — after being sought — and why they may not be able to be recovered.

The DHS watchdog had requested the messages sent and received by 24 Secret Service members between December 2020 and January 2021, the period around the Jan. 6 attack.

But the agency said the texts in question were deleted as part of a “device-replacement program” even as the inspector general said that the deletions occurred only after his office requested the messages. The Secret Service insisted they had not acted “maliciously” and sought full cooperation with investigators.

A letter to the House Jan. 6 committee obtained by ABC News last week showed that the Secret Service ultimately provided a single text exchange from that day.

A criminal probe was opened by the DHS inspector general earlier this month.

The House committee subpoenaed the agency for the records on July 15.

The Secret Service has said it is working with the Jan. 6 committee, and spokesman Anthony Guglielmi told ABC News last week that the agency also delivered an initial set of records in response — including “thousands of pages of documents, Secret Service cell phone use and other policies, as well as operational and planning records.”

But the House panel has gone so far as to suggest the agency’s handling of the electronic communications may be a violation of federal record-keeping laws.

“Four House committees had already sought these critical records from the Department of Homeland Security before the records were apparently lost,” the Jan. 6 committee said in a statement last week. “Additionally, the procedure for preserving content prior to this purge appears to have been contrary to federal records retention requirements and may represent a possible violation of the Federal Records Act.”

Thompson and Maloney are asking the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to respond to their request by Aug. 9.

The Secret Service has already been under heightened scrutiny amid the Jan. 6 hearings.

Testimony from several witnesses suggested former President Donald Trump wanted to join his supporters at the Capitol last year and clashed with members of his security detail when they refused to take him there.

The agency has said it will respond to the testimony but has yet to make any official statement.

Last week, in the Jan. 6 committee’s second prime-time hearing, witnesses revealed that members of the security detail for Vice President Mike Pence were greatly concerned for his safety and well as their own as the violence at the Capitol escalated.

“The members of the VP detail at this time were starting to fear for their own lives,” a witness the committee identified only as a “White House security official” said in an interview.

– ABC News’ Jack Date contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — Texas’ “trigger” law, which raises the penalty for performing abortions, is set to go into effect on Aug. 25, after the U.S. Supreme Court formally issued its judgement overturning Roe v. Wade on Tuesday.

“Trigger” laws only take effect when certain events occur, in this case the law required a judgement overturning Roe, which had established a constitutional right to abortion at the federal level, or a case establishing states’ right to regulate abortion.

The so-called trigger law will establish civil and criminal penalties for performing banned abortions and prohibit nearly all abortions, with few exceptions including cases where a pregnancy poses a risk of death or serious impairment of a pregnant woman. The law will not apply to individuals seeking or attempting abortions, according to the law’s documentation.

The law criminalizes any attempt by a medical professional to perform, induce or attempt an abortion, making it a second-degree felony. However, if the pregnancy is successfully aborted, the offense becomes a first-degree felony, according to the law.

According to the Texas Penal Code, the punishment for a first-degree penalty could be up to life in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The penalty for a second-degree felony is up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

The law also states that the Texas attorney general “shall file an action” seeking civil damages for those who perform abortions of no less than $100,000 per abortion performed, in addition to the possibility of requesting attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

Any physician or provider who attempts, performs or induces an abortion could also have their medical license revoked. Medical licenses are regulated at the state level, not by the federal government.

While the court had released its opinion overturning Roe in June, it formally issued its judgement in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health on Tuesday, allowing so-called trigger laws in states, including Texas, to take effect.

The Texas “trigger” law, passed in September 2021, will go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court issued its judgement, according to the Texas State Law Library.

Another Texas law in place, called SB8, places a near-total ban on abortions at 6 weeks and allows people to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an illegal abortion, to collect a bounty of at least $10,000.

Idaho and Tennessee also previously enacted laws that would ban nearly all abortions 30 days after the Supreme Court issues its judgment overturning Roe.

At least 13 states have ceased nearly all abortion services. Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas have near-total bans. Abortion providers in Arizona and Wisconsin have suspended abortion services due to confusion over the law. Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee have banned abortions after embryonic cardiac activity is detected — which is generally around six weeks — before many women know they are pregnant.

Earlier this month, Texas’ attorney general sued President Joe Biden’s administration after it issued an executive order telling doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies.

-ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Ely Brown contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.