Obama casts climate talks as world's last best chance
'There is such a thing as being too late,' the president warns, quoting Martin Luther King Jr.
By Edward-Isaac Dovere
President Barack Obama urged the world to consider the climate talks that kicked off here Monday as potentially the last chance to make a meaningful impact on combating climate change.
What the world needs to agree on, Obama told the 150-odd other world leaders gathered in Paris for the two-week conference, is “not a stopgap solution, but a long-term strategy that gives the world confidence in a low-carbon future.”
Obama quoted Martin Luther King Jr., saying, “There is such a thing as being too late.”
“When it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us. But if we act here, now, if we place our short-term interests behind the air that our children will breathe and the water our children will drink,” Obama said, “then we will not be too late for them.”
Obama noted the backdrop of the Nov. 13 terror attacks, casting a climate agreement as a rebuke to the terrorists, much as he did in speaking at his news conference with French President François Hollande at the White House last week.
"We salute the people of Paris for insisting this crucial conference go on," Obama said, calling it "an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for our children."
"Through our presence here today, we show that we are stronger than the terrorists," German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed in her own remarks.
The summit, housed in a conference center in the suburbs of the French capital, will be seeking a collective, nonbinding agreement among nations setting their own plans to cut carbon emissions, largely through switching to renewable energy production over fossil fuels. The burden falls differently on countries at various stages of development: The United States and China, the two largest carbon emitters, are pledging to cut their own production and increase clean-up efforts, while developing countries worry that they will be left behind by restrictions that keep them from ever reaching that level of industrialization.
Obama addressed this imbalance directly, warning that all would suffer if the planet continues to grow warmer at its current pace, but that smaller economies could suffer most from drought, famine and other environmental impacts.
A future of rising seas and temperatures, Obama said, “is not one of strong economies, nor is it one where fragile states can find their footing. That future is one that we have the power to change, right here, right now. But only if we rise to this moment.”
Since the agreement being sought is nonbinding, it wouldn’t require congressional authorization if it comes through. Back home, there does seem to be a growing sense of the threat posed by climate change, with two-thirds of people calling it a serious threat in a new ABC News poll out Monday morning — but the sense of what to do about it isn’t falling where Obama would like: Just 43 percent of people believe most scientists agree on the causes (the number within the scientific community is close to 99 percent agreement about humans causing the changes), and only 47 percent say the federal government should do more than it is doing now to try to deal with global warming, down from a high of 70 percent under the Bush administration eight years ago.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reflected those sentiments in an interview on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” on Monday morning, calling Obama’s warning of global warming as a top threat “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics.”
“When we have large groups of people that want to blow up every one of our cities, that want to destroy our country, that want to kill our people, and he’s worried about global warming,” Trump said. “I think it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen, or perhaps most naive.”
“Tackling climate change is a shared mission for mankind. All eyes are now on Paris,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping, speaking shortly after Obama. Xi called for countries to determine their own best solutions and for an agreement that includes “global sustainable development at a high level and bring about new international cooperation featuring win-wins.”
Obama and Xi held a bilateral meeting before the speeches to reiterate their commitment to climate cooperation, as well as picking up on the cyber-hacking agreements they made during Xi’s visit to Washington in September, denuclearizing the Korean peninsula and fulfilling the commitments of the P5+1 agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called the conference “crucial,” saying he hopes it “proves to be a turning point … [in] reaching an ambitious, sustainable and international agreement to face climate change.”
“We know how large the phenomenon is, and we know how disastrous climate change can be for humanity,” Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said.
Unlike during the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, which collapsed without an agreement, this year’s conference front-loaded the speeches from leaders in an attempt to have them urge progress rather than try to head off another failure.
Obama took to that approach, putting an agreement in his well-worn frame of choosing hope over cynicism.
“Here in Paris, we can show the world what’s possible when we come together united by common effort and with a common purpose,” Obama said. “The next generation is watching what we do.”
November 30, 2015
Ethanol blow
Obama curbs ethanol in blow to corn growers
By Alex Guillén
The Obama administration delivered a blow to the corn industry on Monday, easing the amount of ethanol the nation must consume below the levels Congress had set nearly a decade ago — and potentially laying a political stumbling block for Hillary Clinton in Iowa.
The ethanol pullback comes as a slump in gasoline consumption and a domestic energy boom have lessened the fears of dependence on Mideast oil that inspired lawmakers to create the mandate during the George W. Bush administration. But the mandate is still popular in Iowa, home of the nation's first presidential caucus, where corn and ethanol producers have warned that they’ll view any weakening of the program as a cave-in to Big Oil.
That creates a political box for all the presidential candidates, but perhaps most of all for Clinton, who has already had to distance herself from President Barack Obama’s Arctic drilling policies and long indecision on the Keystone XL pipeline. She has offered few specifics about her opinions on the ethanol requirement, aside from calling earlier this year for the administration to put it “back on track.” And the program is increasingly unpopular with green groups that make up a powerful part of the national Democratic base.
The mandate that the EPA set on Monday calls for mixing 18.11 billion gallons of biofuels into the nation’s fuel market next year. That figure, which includes corn ethanol, biodiesel and next-generation "cellulosic" ethanol, is well below the 22.3 billion gallons required under a 2007 law.
The EPA put the target for traditional, corn-based ethanol at 14.5 billion. That's 500 million gallons below its target under the law, which the corn lobby had defended and oil interests attacked in a massive advertising and lobbying blitz.
Clinton and fellow Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have all called for a strong EPA Renewable Fuels Standard, particularly for more support for advanced biofuels, as have Republicans Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. But Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have attacked the mandate as a threat to free markets, while Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich have been harder to pin down on the issue. Rubio just last week said that he would not have voted for the program, but that he doesn’t believe the policy should be repealed now that farmers and fuel producers have made investments based on it.
The National Corn Growers Association took the news diplomatically, with President Chip Bowling saying in a statement that he was "pleased" EPA had released a number for the ethanol mandate that was higher than it had proposed in May, although "it is unfortunate that Big Oil’s campaign of misinformation continues to carry weight in the court of public opinion, and in this decision." The corn group is evaluating its options, he said, a hint it planned a lawsuit.
Other groups were more blunt. Brent Erickson of the Biotechnology Industry Organization slammed it as "a severe blow to American consumers and the biofuels industry." National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said the mandate "exacerbates the serious damage already done to the renewable fuels industry and America’s family farmers."
Dave Banks, executive vice president of the anti-RFS group American Council for Capital Formation, said it was pleased EPA "finally conceded to reality and came in with a number below the artificially inflated congressional targets, which haven’t been defensible for years."
The administration, which also issued its long-delayed ethanol mandates for 2014 and 2015 on Monday, defended its veering away from Congress' targets by citing market constraints that it says have essentially capped how much ethanol can be accommodated by the nation’s cars and trucks. At the same time, it argued that ethanol can ramp up over time back to where Congress wanted it.
"We’ve recognized that technology for advanced fuels, made from cellulosic feedstocks … have not developed as fast as Congress anticipated," acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told reporters on a conference call. The mandates will "provide for ambitious, achievable growth, especially in advanced fuels that maximize carbon emission reductions compared to gasoline," she added.
The corn and oil industries have skirmished for years over whether ethanol has hit a ceiling and whether biofuels are really better for the planet than oil is. Critics in the oil industry say that higher-blend biofuels can damage many vehicles, are less energy efficient and drive up food costs by sucking up 40 percent of the U.S. corn
Environmental groups have also grown disenchanted with the program, which has generated only modest quantities of cellulosic, non-food-based sources of fuel despite high hopes early in the last decade. Instead, greens blame the mandate for promoting fertilizer use and turning unfarmed lands into corn fields.
Despite the controversy, Congress is not expected to take action to change the RFS anytime soon. There is bipartisan support for measures that would reform the program, particularly a measure from Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would drop the ethanol requirement while keeping other biofuel mandates in place.
But a bipartisan chunk of Congress is dead set against any changes, and it has enough power to prevent any reform effort from getting very far off the ground.
Instead, the future of the ethanol mandate will play out largely in the White House and the courts.
The oil industry, with backup from drivers’ group AAA, argues that ethanol has hit a “blend wall” at about 10 percent of the U.S. market, and no more room exists for growth based on current gasoline consumption levels. But ethanol advocates say the oil industry is simply defending its market share by putting up roadblocks for consumers to higher ethanol-gasoline blends.
Citing that issue, EPA is relying on a part of the law that allows it to cut the ethanol mandate in case of an “inadequate domestic supply.” Ethanol groups argue that the provision was meant to protect against a shortage in U.S. biofuels production — not a slowdown in gasoline consumption that constricts how much ethanol can be sold.
For once, the oil industry is ready to defend EPA in court, but it remains unclear whether a judge will agree with the agency’s interpretation.
“That’s the $50 question,” said Stephen Brown, vice president for federal government affairs at the refiner Tesoro.
“Federal judges are increasingly unhappy with how the statute is constructed and how EPA is performing under it in terms of meeting its statutory obligations,” he said.
Whether EPA can continue to use such a waiver in the future will be decided in the courts, but the broader RFS faces other challenges in the meantime.
This year’s rule sets the stage for EPA to potentially set new annual biofuels targets, a sort of fail-safe that Congress built into the mandate in case the targets specified by lawmakers proved to be drastically off course — as has been the case with cellulosic biofuels, whose production has lagged far behind expectations.
If EPA is forced to waive the requirements significantly, the law gives the agency the ability to set new targets through 2022, the RFS’ end date. In theory, setting new targets would provide certainty for both biofuels and oil producers.
It remains unclear whether EPA will set new targets in the future for corn ethanol. Under the 2007 law, ethanol was supposed to top off at 15 billion gallons annually by this year, allowing the more advanced biofuels to continue to grow. McCabe told lawmakers this summer that setting new targets is a “significant undertaking” because the agency has to consider every year through 2022.
The environmental implications of the mandate are also likely to receive closer scrutiny in coming years.
Environmentalists largely disregard the program in favor of initiatives with more clear-cut climate benefits, and some, like the Environmental Working Group, actively argue against it. EPA’s inspector general recently began an inquiry into whether the agency has proven that the mandate is curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
Ethanol is ready and willing to defend its green profile, said Tom Buis, CEO of the ethanol group Growth Energy.
“You want to have a debate and comparison between us and oil and the over 10,000 oil spills every year, the biggest environmental and ecological disaster in our country’s history in the Gulf of Mexico, all the associated problems with fracking and tar sands oil and everything else?" he said.
"We’ll gladly have that debate.”
By Alex Guillén
The Obama administration delivered a blow to the corn industry on Monday, easing the amount of ethanol the nation must consume below the levels Congress had set nearly a decade ago — and potentially laying a political stumbling block for Hillary Clinton in Iowa.
The ethanol pullback comes as a slump in gasoline consumption and a domestic energy boom have lessened the fears of dependence on Mideast oil that inspired lawmakers to create the mandate during the George W. Bush administration. But the mandate is still popular in Iowa, home of the nation's first presidential caucus, where corn and ethanol producers have warned that they’ll view any weakening of the program as a cave-in to Big Oil.
That creates a political box for all the presidential candidates, but perhaps most of all for Clinton, who has already had to distance herself from President Barack Obama’s Arctic drilling policies and long indecision on the Keystone XL pipeline. She has offered few specifics about her opinions on the ethanol requirement, aside from calling earlier this year for the administration to put it “back on track.” And the program is increasingly unpopular with green groups that make up a powerful part of the national Democratic base.
The mandate that the EPA set on Monday calls for mixing 18.11 billion gallons of biofuels into the nation’s fuel market next year. That figure, which includes corn ethanol, biodiesel and next-generation "cellulosic" ethanol, is well below the 22.3 billion gallons required under a 2007 law.
The EPA put the target for traditional, corn-based ethanol at 14.5 billion. That's 500 million gallons below its target under the law, which the corn lobby had defended and oil interests attacked in a massive advertising and lobbying blitz.
Clinton and fellow Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have all called for a strong EPA Renewable Fuels Standard, particularly for more support for advanced biofuels, as have Republicans Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. But Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have attacked the mandate as a threat to free markets, while Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich have been harder to pin down on the issue. Rubio just last week said that he would not have voted for the program, but that he doesn’t believe the policy should be repealed now that farmers and fuel producers have made investments based on it.
The National Corn Growers Association took the news diplomatically, with President Chip Bowling saying in a statement that he was "pleased" EPA had released a number for the ethanol mandate that was higher than it had proposed in May, although "it is unfortunate that Big Oil’s campaign of misinformation continues to carry weight in the court of public opinion, and in this decision." The corn group is evaluating its options, he said, a hint it planned a lawsuit.
Other groups were more blunt. Brent Erickson of the Biotechnology Industry Organization slammed it as "a severe blow to American consumers and the biofuels industry." National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said the mandate "exacerbates the serious damage already done to the renewable fuels industry and America’s family farmers."
Dave Banks, executive vice president of the anti-RFS group American Council for Capital Formation, said it was pleased EPA "finally conceded to reality and came in with a number below the artificially inflated congressional targets, which haven’t been defensible for years."
The administration, which also issued its long-delayed ethanol mandates for 2014 and 2015 on Monday, defended its veering away from Congress' targets by citing market constraints that it says have essentially capped how much ethanol can be accommodated by the nation’s cars and trucks. At the same time, it argued that ethanol can ramp up over time back to where Congress wanted it.
"We’ve recognized that technology for advanced fuels, made from cellulosic feedstocks … have not developed as fast as Congress anticipated," acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told reporters on a conference call. The mandates will "provide for ambitious, achievable growth, especially in advanced fuels that maximize carbon emission reductions compared to gasoline," she added.
The corn and oil industries have skirmished for years over whether ethanol has hit a ceiling and whether biofuels are really better for the planet than oil is. Critics in the oil industry say that higher-blend biofuels can damage many vehicles, are less energy efficient and drive up food costs by sucking up 40 percent of the U.S. corn
Environmental groups have also grown disenchanted with the program, which has generated only modest quantities of cellulosic, non-food-based sources of fuel despite high hopes early in the last decade. Instead, greens blame the mandate for promoting fertilizer use and turning unfarmed lands into corn fields.
Despite the controversy, Congress is not expected to take action to change the RFS anytime soon. There is bipartisan support for measures that would reform the program, particularly a measure from Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would drop the ethanol requirement while keeping other biofuel mandates in place.
But a bipartisan chunk of Congress is dead set against any changes, and it has enough power to prevent any reform effort from getting very far off the ground.
Instead, the future of the ethanol mandate will play out largely in the White House and the courts.
The oil industry, with backup from drivers’ group AAA, argues that ethanol has hit a “blend wall” at about 10 percent of the U.S. market, and no more room exists for growth based on current gasoline consumption levels. But ethanol advocates say the oil industry is simply defending its market share by putting up roadblocks for consumers to higher ethanol-gasoline blends.
Citing that issue, EPA is relying on a part of the law that allows it to cut the ethanol mandate in case of an “inadequate domestic supply.” Ethanol groups argue that the provision was meant to protect against a shortage in U.S. biofuels production — not a slowdown in gasoline consumption that constricts how much ethanol can be sold.
For once, the oil industry is ready to defend EPA in court, but it remains unclear whether a judge will agree with the agency’s interpretation.
“That’s the $50 question,” said Stephen Brown, vice president for federal government affairs at the refiner Tesoro.
“Federal judges are increasingly unhappy with how the statute is constructed and how EPA is performing under it in terms of meeting its statutory obligations,” he said.
Whether EPA can continue to use such a waiver in the future will be decided in the courts, but the broader RFS faces other challenges in the meantime.
This year’s rule sets the stage for EPA to potentially set new annual biofuels targets, a sort of fail-safe that Congress built into the mandate in case the targets specified by lawmakers proved to be drastically off course — as has been the case with cellulosic biofuels, whose production has lagged far behind expectations.
If EPA is forced to waive the requirements significantly, the law gives the agency the ability to set new targets through 2022, the RFS’ end date. In theory, setting new targets would provide certainty for both biofuels and oil producers.
It remains unclear whether EPA will set new targets in the future for corn ethanol. Under the 2007 law, ethanol was supposed to top off at 15 billion gallons annually by this year, allowing the more advanced biofuels to continue to grow. McCabe told lawmakers this summer that setting new targets is a “significant undertaking” because the agency has to consider every year through 2022.
The environmental implications of the mandate are also likely to receive closer scrutiny in coming years.
Environmentalists largely disregard the program in favor of initiatives with more clear-cut climate benefits, and some, like the Environmental Working Group, actively argue against it. EPA’s inspector general recently began an inquiry into whether the agency has proven that the mandate is curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
Ethanol is ready and willing to defend its green profile, said Tom Buis, CEO of the ethanol group Growth Energy.
“You want to have a debate and comparison between us and oil and the over 10,000 oil spills every year, the biggest environmental and ecological disaster in our country’s history in the Gulf of Mexico, all the associated problems with fracking and tar sands oil and everything else?" he said.
"We’ll gladly have that debate.”
Cain beats a Bush
Herman Cain rips into Bush as he reveals plans to speak at Trump rally
By Eliza Collins
Donald Trump will be sharing the stage with another businessman-turned-political-figure at his rally in Georgia on Monday night — former presidential candidate Herman Cain.
Cain — a radio host who also was CEO of Godfather’s Pizza — ran for the 2012 Republican nomination before dropping out of the race in December 2011 as allegations of past sexual misconduct escalated (he denies the allegations). Cain announced his plans to speak at the evening rally on his website caintv.com, and he used the post as an opportunity to rip into Jeb Bush after the former Florida governor implied that people now leading in the polls could ultimately “flame out” like Cain.
“Someone should tell Jeb Bush that I’ve accepted an invitation to speak at Donald Trump’s rally this coming Monday in Georgia. I accepted for a simple reason: He asked,” Cain writes. “But Gov. Bush seems weirdly interested these days in the connection – if only in his own mind – between what he thinks happened to me and what he thinks is going to happen to Trump.”
Cain then goes on to explain his past poll standings, why he eventually dropped out of the race, and why Bush's campaign is in need of a major rethink.
“If you want to say I had a ‘fall,’ go ahead, I guess. You can’t fall when you’ve never gotten any higher than the floor in the first place, and that’s the state of the Jeb Bush campaign,” Cain said. “A guy with his name, his money and the team behind him should be one of the top-tier contenders, and he should certainly not be letting Donald Trump wipe the floor with him if Trump is as unserious and unqualified as Bush would have you believe.”
Cain also offers some guidance for Bush, saying, "But if I were to give Jeb Bush a piece of advice – not that he probably thinks he needs any from me – it would be to focus on coming up with a rationale for a Jeb Bush presidency. To date, I haven’t heard one that’s got many people very excited. And to judge from the polls, 94.5 percent of Republican primary voters agree with me."
By Eliza Collins
Donald Trump will be sharing the stage with another businessman-turned-political-figure at his rally in Georgia on Monday night — former presidential candidate Herman Cain.
Cain — a radio host who also was CEO of Godfather’s Pizza — ran for the 2012 Republican nomination before dropping out of the race in December 2011 as allegations of past sexual misconduct escalated (he denies the allegations). Cain announced his plans to speak at the evening rally on his website caintv.com, and he used the post as an opportunity to rip into Jeb Bush after the former Florida governor implied that people now leading in the polls could ultimately “flame out” like Cain.
“Someone should tell Jeb Bush that I’ve accepted an invitation to speak at Donald Trump’s rally this coming Monday in Georgia. I accepted for a simple reason: He asked,” Cain writes. “But Gov. Bush seems weirdly interested these days in the connection – if only in his own mind – between what he thinks happened to me and what he thinks is going to happen to Trump.”
Cain then goes on to explain his past poll standings, why he eventually dropped out of the race, and why Bush's campaign is in need of a major rethink.
“If you want to say I had a ‘fall,’ go ahead, I guess. You can’t fall when you’ve never gotten any higher than the floor in the first place, and that’s the state of the Jeb Bush campaign,” Cain said. “A guy with his name, his money and the team behind him should be one of the top-tier contenders, and he should certainly not be letting Donald Trump wipe the floor with him if Trump is as unserious and unqualified as Bush would have you believe.”
Cain also offers some guidance for Bush, saying, "But if I were to give Jeb Bush a piece of advice – not that he probably thinks he needs any from me – it would be to focus on coming up with a rationale for a Jeb Bush presidency. To date, I haven’t heard one that’s got many people very excited. And to judge from the polls, 94.5 percent of Republican primary voters agree with me."
OK....
Fiorina: I Will Not Be Bullied Into Telling Truth
By Andy Borowitz
Calling criticism of her misrepresentations about Planned Parenthood “typical left-wing tactics,” the Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said, on Sunday, “I will not be bullied into telling the truth.”
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the former Hewlett-Packard C.E.O. denied that spreading misinformation about Planned Parenthood was “in any way incendiary,” but added, “What is truly incendiary is demanding that someone who is seeking the highest office in the land stop lying.”
Fiorina noted that many of her rivals for the Republican nomination—including Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz—had successfully used lying as a key element of their campaign strategies. “All I am trying to do is level the playing field,” she said.
Additionally, she argued that she had not singled out Planned Parenthood as the subject of falsehoods during her campaign. “Look at the things I have said about my tenure at Hewlett-Packard,” she said. “I have steadfastly avoided facts from day one.”
Striking a defiant note, she said that she refused to allow a “tiny cabal of left-wing truth-fetishists” break her resolve. “Anyone who thinks I’m going to start suddenly telling the truth doesn’t know what Carly Fiorina is made of,” she said.
By Andy Borowitz
Calling criticism of her misrepresentations about Planned Parenthood “typical left-wing tactics,” the Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said, on Sunday, “I will not be bullied into telling the truth.”
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the former Hewlett-Packard C.E.O. denied that spreading misinformation about Planned Parenthood was “in any way incendiary,” but added, “What is truly incendiary is demanding that someone who is seeking the highest office in the land stop lying.”
Fiorina noted that many of her rivals for the Republican nomination—including Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz—had successfully used lying as a key element of their campaign strategies. “All I am trying to do is level the playing field,” she said.
Additionally, she argued that she had not singled out Planned Parenthood as the subject of falsehoods during her campaign. “Look at the things I have said about my tenure at Hewlett-Packard,” she said. “I have steadfastly avoided facts from day one.”
Striking a defiant note, she said that she refused to allow a “tiny cabal of left-wing truth-fetishists” break her resolve. “Anyone who thinks I’m going to start suddenly telling the truth doesn’t know what Carly Fiorina is made of,” she said.
False Attacks
Republican Candidates Finally Comment On Shooting, Continue False Attacks On Planned Parenthood
by Katie Valentine
Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabeee responded to the deadly shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Sunday by reiterating false claims that the organization sells babies’ body parts.
Trump said the attack was “terrible” and that Robert Lewis Dear, who allegedly killed two civilians and one police officer, was a “maniac.” But he didn’t directly comment on the potential political motives of the shooter, who, according to multiple outlets, said “no more baby parts” to law enforcement officials after the shooting.
Instead, he referenced claims that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue.
“I will tell you, there is a tremendous group of people that think it’s terrible, the videos that they’ve seen, with some of these people from Planned Parenthood talking about it like you’re selling parts to a car,” Trump said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Now I know some of the tapes were perhaps not pertinent. I know a couple of people that were running for office or are running for office on the Republican side were commenting on tapes that weren’t appropriate. But there were many tapes that are appropriate… and there are people that are extremely upset about it.”
The claims that Planned Parenthood is selling parts of aborted babies emerged over the summer, when a video of Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services was published online by a group that has close ties to an anti-abortion organization. In the video, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Deborah Nucatola explains — without the knowledge that she’s being filmed — how her organization deals with the donation of fetal tissue for research purposes. Anti-abortion activists and politicians have jumped on the video, saying it proves that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue. But in the video, Nucatola says the organization is involved in “tissue donation.” And in a scene that didn’t make the cut in the published, five-minute video, Nucatola says “Nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here.”
Fiorina also responded to the shooting Sunday, calling the attack a “tragedy.” But she denied that rhetoric about Planned Parenthood selling babies’ body parts could have contributed to violence towards the organization.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Sunday whether language by Fiorina, who Wallace called “one of the toughest critics… of Planned Parenthood’s alleged harvesting of body parts,” could have incited violence against the organization. Fiorina brushed off the idea and reiterated claims that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.
“First, it is not alleged,” she said. “Planned Parenthood acknowledged several weeks ago they would no longer take compensation for body parts, which sounds like an admission they were doing so.”
Fiorina has been hugely critical of Planned Parenthood during her campaign, calling for the organization to be defunded and using graphic language to describe abortions. But she reiterated Sunday that she doesn’t think that’s contributed to violence towards Planned Parenthood.
“This is so typical of the left to immediately demonize the messenger, because they don’t agree with the message,” she said. “What I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts is, this is typical left-wing tactics.”
Mike Huckabee also commented on the attack Sunday. On CNN’s State of the Union, Huckabee called the shooting “mass murder” and “absolutely unfathomable.” But, like Fiorina, he also brought up claims that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts.
“I think that’s a little bit disingenuous on the part of Planned Parenthood to blame people, who have a strong philosophical disagreement with the dismembering of human babies and with the selling of body parts, to say that we would like to retaliate by sending some mad man into a clinic to kill people,” he said.
Details are still coming out about the attack and about its alleged shooter, Dear. But Planned Parenthood responded to updates on the political motives of Dear on Saturday.
“We’ve seen an alarming increase in hateful rhetoric and smear campaigns against abortion providers and patients over the last few months,” Vicki Cowart, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, said. “That environment breeds acts of violence. Americans reject the hatred and vitriol that fueled this tragedy. We do not accept this environment as normal. We should not have to live in a world where accessing health care includes safe rooms and bullet proof glass.”
by Katie Valentine
Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabeee responded to the deadly shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Sunday by reiterating false claims that the organization sells babies’ body parts.
Trump said the attack was “terrible” and that Robert Lewis Dear, who allegedly killed two civilians and one police officer, was a “maniac.” But he didn’t directly comment on the potential political motives of the shooter, who, according to multiple outlets, said “no more baby parts” to law enforcement officials after the shooting.
Instead, he referenced claims that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue.
“I will tell you, there is a tremendous group of people that think it’s terrible, the videos that they’ve seen, with some of these people from Planned Parenthood talking about it like you’re selling parts to a car,” Trump said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Now I know some of the tapes were perhaps not pertinent. I know a couple of people that were running for office or are running for office on the Republican side were commenting on tapes that weren’t appropriate. But there were many tapes that are appropriate… and there are people that are extremely upset about it.”
The claims that Planned Parenthood is selling parts of aborted babies emerged over the summer, when a video of Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services was published online by a group that has close ties to an anti-abortion organization. In the video, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Deborah Nucatola explains — without the knowledge that she’s being filmed — how her organization deals with the donation of fetal tissue for research purposes. Anti-abortion activists and politicians have jumped on the video, saying it proves that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue. But in the video, Nucatola says the organization is involved in “tissue donation.” And in a scene that didn’t make the cut in the published, five-minute video, Nucatola says “Nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here.”
Fiorina also responded to the shooting Sunday, calling the attack a “tragedy.” But she denied that rhetoric about Planned Parenthood selling babies’ body parts could have contributed to violence towards the organization.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Sunday whether language by Fiorina, who Wallace called “one of the toughest critics… of Planned Parenthood’s alleged harvesting of body parts,” could have incited violence against the organization. Fiorina brushed off the idea and reiterated claims that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.
“First, it is not alleged,” she said. “Planned Parenthood acknowledged several weeks ago they would no longer take compensation for body parts, which sounds like an admission they were doing so.”
Fiorina has been hugely critical of Planned Parenthood during her campaign, calling for the organization to be defunded and using graphic language to describe abortions. But she reiterated Sunday that she doesn’t think that’s contributed to violence towards Planned Parenthood.
“This is so typical of the left to immediately demonize the messenger, because they don’t agree with the message,” she said. “What I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts is, this is typical left-wing tactics.”
Mike Huckabee also commented on the attack Sunday. On CNN’s State of the Union, Huckabee called the shooting “mass murder” and “absolutely unfathomable.” But, like Fiorina, he also brought up claims that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts.
“I think that’s a little bit disingenuous on the part of Planned Parenthood to blame people, who have a strong philosophical disagreement with the dismembering of human babies and with the selling of body parts, to say that we would like to retaliate by sending some mad man into a clinic to kill people,” he said.
Details are still coming out about the attack and about its alleged shooter, Dear. But Planned Parenthood responded to updates on the political motives of Dear on Saturday.
“We’ve seen an alarming increase in hateful rhetoric and smear campaigns against abortion providers and patients over the last few months,” Vicki Cowart, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, said. “That environment breeds acts of violence. Americans reject the hatred and vitriol that fueled this tragedy. We do not accept this environment as normal. We should not have to live in a world where accessing health care includes safe rooms and bullet proof glass.”
What is it????
They might look like trees on Mars, but they're not. Groups of dark brown streaks have been photographed by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on melting pinkish sand dunes covered with light frost. The above image was taken in 2008 April near the North Pole of Mars. At that time, dark sand on the interior of Martian sand dunes became more and more visible as the spring Sun melted the lighter carbon dioxide ice. When occurring near the top of a dune, dark sand may cascade down the dune leaving dark surface streaks -- streaks that might appear at first to be trees standing in front of the lighter regions, but cast no shadows. Objects about 25 centimeters across are resolved on this image spanning about one kilometer. Close ups of some parts of this image show billowing plumes indicating that the sand slides were occurring even while the image was being taken.
NGC 3521
This huge swirling mass of stars, gas, and dust occurs near the center of a nearby spiral galaxy. Gorgeous spiral NGC 3521 is a mere 35 million light-years distant, toward the constellation Leo. Spanning some 50,000 light-years, its central region is shown in this dramatic image, constructed from data from the Hubble Space Telescope. The close-up view highlights this galaxy's characteristic multiple, patchy, irregular spiral arms laced with dust and clusters of young, blue stars. In contrast, many other spirals exhibit grand, sweeping arms. A relatively bright galaxy in planet Earth's sky, NGC 3521 is easily visible in small telescopes, but often overlooked by amateur imagers in favor of other Leo spiral galaxies, like M65 and M66.
20,000 troops
John McCain and Lindsey Graham call for 20,000 troops in Syria and Iraq
Republican senators seek tripling of force levels in Iraq, with another 10,000 troops sent to Syria: ‘The aerial campaign is not turning the tide of battle’
From Reuters
Two senior senators called on Sunday for Washington to nearly triple military force levels in Iraq to 10,000 and send an equal number of troops to Syria as part of a multinational ground force to counter Islamic State in both countries.
Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticised Barack Obama’s incremental Islamic State strategy, which relies on airstrikes and modest support to local ground forces in Iraq and Syria, and said the need for greater US involvement was underlined by this month’s Paris attacks.
“The only way you can destroy the caliphate is with a ground component,” said Graham, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination. “The aerial campaign is not turning the tide of battle.”
McCain, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, recently proposed intervention in Syria by a European and Arab ground force backed by 10,000 US military advisers and trainers.
On Sunday, he and Graham told reporters during a visit to Baghdad that US personnel could provide logistical and intelligence support to a proposed 100,000-strong force from Sunni Arab countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Graham said special forces would also be included.
Obama last month ordered the deployment of dozens of special operations troops to northern Syria to advise opposition forces in their fight against Islamic State, adding to an increasingly volatile conflict in Syria.
Russia and Iran have ramped up their military support for President Bashar al-Assad’s fight against rebels in Syria’s four-and-a-half year civil war, while the Paris attacks, in which 130 people died and hundreds were injured, showed how Isis has extended its reach to western cities.
US counter-terrorism experts have warned that deploying ground troops risks backfiring by feeding Isis’s apocalyptic narrative that it is defending Islam against an assault by the west and its authoritarian Arab allies.
The US-led coalition which has been bombing Isis targets in Syria and Iraq for more than a year relies heavily on American resources despite including some 60 countries.
McCain said it would be possible but not easy to rally Arab allies to contribute to the proposed ground force in Syria.
“The question … is being asked all over the capitals of the west right now,” he said. “[Arab] countries for a long time have not seen what’s happening as a direct threat to them. Now I believe that they do.”
The senators said removing Assad, who is backed by Russia and Iran, was key to getting Arab Sunni states to back the proposed ground force.
In neighbouring Iraq, where about 3,500 US troops are advising and assisting Iraqi forces, Graham said an increased American presence would include forward air controllers and aviation assets as well as special forces to carry out raids, like one last month which resulted in the first US combat death in Iraq since 2011.
The senators met earlier with the Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, who they said had welcomed the idea of more US troops.
“If you went up to 10,000, you’re not getting pushback from the Iraqis,” said Graham. “The difference between 3,500 and 10,000 is meaningless politically inside the country [but] militarily significant.”
However, government spokesman Saad Hadithi said Abadi had not requested US combat troops on the ground but rather asked for more arms and advisers to increase air support for Iraqi forces. Hadithi declined to speculate about the number of additional personnel under discussion.
Leading Iraqi politicians have repeatedly voiced opposition to a greater role for US forces, which withdrew in 2011 after a nearly nine-year war that left tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.
Iranian-backed Shia Muslim militias seen as a critical bulwark in the fight against Isis have also resisted US involvement.
“One reason I’d want to have more American troops is it neutralises the Shia militia advantage to some extent,” said Graham.
Republican senators seek tripling of force levels in Iraq, with another 10,000 troops sent to Syria: ‘The aerial campaign is not turning the tide of battle’
From Reuters
Two senior senators called on Sunday for Washington to nearly triple military force levels in Iraq to 10,000 and send an equal number of troops to Syria as part of a multinational ground force to counter Islamic State in both countries.
Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticised Barack Obama’s incremental Islamic State strategy, which relies on airstrikes and modest support to local ground forces in Iraq and Syria, and said the need for greater US involvement was underlined by this month’s Paris attacks.
“The only way you can destroy the caliphate is with a ground component,” said Graham, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination. “The aerial campaign is not turning the tide of battle.”
McCain, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, recently proposed intervention in Syria by a European and Arab ground force backed by 10,000 US military advisers and trainers.
On Sunday, he and Graham told reporters during a visit to Baghdad that US personnel could provide logistical and intelligence support to a proposed 100,000-strong force from Sunni Arab countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Graham said special forces would also be included.
Obama last month ordered the deployment of dozens of special operations troops to northern Syria to advise opposition forces in their fight against Islamic State, adding to an increasingly volatile conflict in Syria.
Russia and Iran have ramped up their military support for President Bashar al-Assad’s fight against rebels in Syria’s four-and-a-half year civil war, while the Paris attacks, in which 130 people died and hundreds were injured, showed how Isis has extended its reach to western cities.
US counter-terrorism experts have warned that deploying ground troops risks backfiring by feeding Isis’s apocalyptic narrative that it is defending Islam against an assault by the west and its authoritarian Arab allies.
The US-led coalition which has been bombing Isis targets in Syria and Iraq for more than a year relies heavily on American resources despite including some 60 countries.
McCain said it would be possible but not easy to rally Arab allies to contribute to the proposed ground force in Syria.
“The question … is being asked all over the capitals of the west right now,” he said. “[Arab] countries for a long time have not seen what’s happening as a direct threat to them. Now I believe that they do.”
The senators said removing Assad, who is backed by Russia and Iran, was key to getting Arab Sunni states to back the proposed ground force.
In neighbouring Iraq, where about 3,500 US troops are advising and assisting Iraqi forces, Graham said an increased American presence would include forward air controllers and aviation assets as well as special forces to carry out raids, like one last month which resulted in the first US combat death in Iraq since 2011.
The senators met earlier with the Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, who they said had welcomed the idea of more US troops.
“If you went up to 10,000, you’re not getting pushback from the Iraqis,” said Graham. “The difference between 3,500 and 10,000 is meaningless politically inside the country [but] militarily significant.”
However, government spokesman Saad Hadithi said Abadi had not requested US combat troops on the ground but rather asked for more arms and advisers to increase air support for Iraqi forces. Hadithi declined to speculate about the number of additional personnel under discussion.
Leading Iraqi politicians have repeatedly voiced opposition to a greater role for US forces, which withdrew in 2011 after a nearly nine-year war that left tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.
Iranian-backed Shia Muslim militias seen as a critical bulwark in the fight against Isis have also resisted US involvement.
“One reason I’d want to have more American troops is it neutralises the Shia militia advantage to some extent,” said Graham.
EU-Turkey summit
Merkel forges new alliance on refugees
German chancellor upstages EU-Turkey summit with talks on resettling asylum-seekers.
By Hans von der Burchard and Jacopo Barigazzi
EU leaders agreed Sunday to give significant political and financial incentives to Turkey in exchange for its cooperation in stemming the flow of refugees from the Middle East to Europe.
The deal includes an initial payment of €3 billion from the EU to improve conditions for Syrian refugees currently in Turkey, an agreement to loosen visa restrictions on Turks traveling in Europe, and a promise from Brussels to “speed up the tempo” of negotiations on Ankara’s bid to join the EU, as European Council President Donald Tusk put it.
“We do not expect anyone to guard our borders for us,” Tusk said after the meeting between all 28 EU leaders and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. “That can and should only be done by Europeans. But we expect a major step towards changing the rules of the game when it comes to stemming the migration flow that is coming to the EU via Turkey.”
But there were divisions among some countries about how far to go in securing Turkish support in dealing with the refugee crisis, including the reopening of accession talks, as well as on how quickly asylum-seekers could be resettled from Turkey to the EU.
And the deal was partly upstaged by an effort from German Chancellor Angela Merkel — holding her own mini-summit earlier Sunday afternoon — to convince several countries to speed up implementation of a resettlement scheme for refugees from Turkey to the EU.
Merkel held talks with a breakaway group of leaders in an attempt to sideline those countries reluctant to take in asylum-seekers. She was joined by the leaders of Sweden, Finland, Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium and Greece at the talks, held two hours before their EU counterparts arrived for the full summit.
“The aim was to bring the implementation of the EU-Turkey action plan forward,” Merkel told reporters Sunday night. “We will start with this implementation within the next days, in cooperation with the Commission. We have no time to lose.”
No figures were discussed during the meeting, Merkel said, calling it a “question to decide in the future.”
Some of the countries involved in the group were reluctant to take part in new refugee resettlement programs because they are politically unpopular, a diplomat said.
Earlier on Sunday the German newspaper FAZ reported that Merkel hoped to convince the countries to agree to the resettlement of 400,000 refugees from Turkey to Europe, a figure that none of the participants would confirm upon arrival in Brussels.
The “coalition of the willing,” as it was branded by some diplomats, has asked the European Commission to put forward a proposal before the next scheduled summit of EU leaders in mid-December for a voluntary resettlement scheme, an EU official said, adding that also other countries could take part in it.
The EU-Turkey action plan, which was presented by the European Commission in October, offers Turkey €3 billion to improve the situation of refugees.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who was at the pre-summit talks, said he was “very much in favor” of the resettlement of Syrian refugees from Turkey to EU countries willing to accept them.
“Turkey hosts 2.5 million refugees today,” he said. “We must come to a system under which Turkey provides a maximum of border securing,” while Europe provides money and relieves part of the strain by taking some refugees. The aim would be to create “legal migration,” Juncker said.
Juncker was at pains to point out that the “group of the willing” was not evidence of a two-speed Europe.
Germany is frustrated by the lack of support for a new resettlement scheme for Syrian refugees from Turkey. At a meeting of EU ambassadors Friday, Berlin wanted a stronger commitment to resettlements in the final conclusions, the document that wraps up the decision of the summit, but its line was rejected, a diplomat said.
The final summit agreement offers to re-energize Turkey’s accession process, but makes no specific reference to any new areas of negotiation — known as chapters — being opened in Turkey’s EU accession bid, apart from one on further economic integration.
An earlier proposal to open several new areas of the accession talks, including on energy, judiciary and fundamental rights, and foreign, security and defense policy, had been taken out of the final conclusions because of objections from Cyprus, a diplomat said. The eastern Mediterranean island has blocked Turkey’s accession talks for years, citing the presence of Turkish troops in the north of the island.
During the summit Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and other leaders expressed concern over human rights issues, including the jailing of two prominent journalists in Turkey, said one EU official with knowledge of the talks.
The journalists, Cumhuriyet newspaper’s editor-in-chief Can Dundar, and the paper’s Ankara representative Erdem Gul, were charged with spying after reporting on alleged arms smuggling by Turkish security forces into Syria.
The final summit conclusions also state that €3 billion in aid that the EU will give Turkey is an “initial” payment, meaning that further financial support is likely.
European Council President Donald Tusk, a former prime minister of Poland, one of the countries most reluctant to take in refugees, warned EU states not to “be naive.”
“Let me stress that we are not re-writing the EU enlargement policy,” Tusk said. “The negotiating framework and the relevant conclusions continue to apply, including its merit-based nature and the respect for European values, also on human rights.”
German chancellor upstages EU-Turkey summit with talks on resettling asylum-seekers.
By Hans von der Burchard and Jacopo Barigazzi
EU leaders agreed Sunday to give significant political and financial incentives to Turkey in exchange for its cooperation in stemming the flow of refugees from the Middle East to Europe.
The deal includes an initial payment of €3 billion from the EU to improve conditions for Syrian refugees currently in Turkey, an agreement to loosen visa restrictions on Turks traveling in Europe, and a promise from Brussels to “speed up the tempo” of negotiations on Ankara’s bid to join the EU, as European Council President Donald Tusk put it.
“We do not expect anyone to guard our borders for us,” Tusk said after the meeting between all 28 EU leaders and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. “That can and should only be done by Europeans. But we expect a major step towards changing the rules of the game when it comes to stemming the migration flow that is coming to the EU via Turkey.”
But there were divisions among some countries about how far to go in securing Turkish support in dealing with the refugee crisis, including the reopening of accession talks, as well as on how quickly asylum-seekers could be resettled from Turkey to the EU.
And the deal was partly upstaged by an effort from German Chancellor Angela Merkel — holding her own mini-summit earlier Sunday afternoon — to convince several countries to speed up implementation of a resettlement scheme for refugees from Turkey to the EU.
Merkel held talks with a breakaway group of leaders in an attempt to sideline those countries reluctant to take in asylum-seekers. She was joined by the leaders of Sweden, Finland, Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium and Greece at the talks, held two hours before their EU counterparts arrived for the full summit.
“The aim was to bring the implementation of the EU-Turkey action plan forward,” Merkel told reporters Sunday night. “We will start with this implementation within the next days, in cooperation with the Commission. We have no time to lose.”
No figures were discussed during the meeting, Merkel said, calling it a “question to decide in the future.”
Some of the countries involved in the group were reluctant to take part in new refugee resettlement programs because they are politically unpopular, a diplomat said.
Earlier on Sunday the German newspaper FAZ reported that Merkel hoped to convince the countries to agree to the resettlement of 400,000 refugees from Turkey to Europe, a figure that none of the participants would confirm upon arrival in Brussels.
The “coalition of the willing,” as it was branded by some diplomats, has asked the European Commission to put forward a proposal before the next scheduled summit of EU leaders in mid-December for a voluntary resettlement scheme, an EU official said, adding that also other countries could take part in it.
The EU-Turkey action plan, which was presented by the European Commission in October, offers Turkey €3 billion to improve the situation of refugees.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who was at the pre-summit talks, said he was “very much in favor” of the resettlement of Syrian refugees from Turkey to EU countries willing to accept them.
“Turkey hosts 2.5 million refugees today,” he said. “We must come to a system under which Turkey provides a maximum of border securing,” while Europe provides money and relieves part of the strain by taking some refugees. The aim would be to create “legal migration,” Juncker said.
Juncker was at pains to point out that the “group of the willing” was not evidence of a two-speed Europe.
Germany is frustrated by the lack of support for a new resettlement scheme for Syrian refugees from Turkey. At a meeting of EU ambassadors Friday, Berlin wanted a stronger commitment to resettlements in the final conclusions, the document that wraps up the decision of the summit, but its line was rejected, a diplomat said.
The final summit agreement offers to re-energize Turkey’s accession process, but makes no specific reference to any new areas of negotiation — known as chapters — being opened in Turkey’s EU accession bid, apart from one on further economic integration.
An earlier proposal to open several new areas of the accession talks, including on energy, judiciary and fundamental rights, and foreign, security and defense policy, had been taken out of the final conclusions because of objections from Cyprus, a diplomat said. The eastern Mediterranean island has blocked Turkey’s accession talks for years, citing the presence of Turkish troops in the north of the island.
During the summit Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and other leaders expressed concern over human rights issues, including the jailing of two prominent journalists in Turkey, said one EU official with knowledge of the talks.
The journalists, Cumhuriyet newspaper’s editor-in-chief Can Dundar, and the paper’s Ankara representative Erdem Gul, were charged with spying after reporting on alleged arms smuggling by Turkish security forces into Syria.
The final summit conclusions also state that €3 billion in aid that the EU will give Turkey is an “initial” payment, meaning that further financial support is likely.
European Council President Donald Tusk, a former prime minister of Poland, one of the countries most reluctant to take in refugees, warned EU states not to “be naive.”
“Let me stress that we are not re-writing the EU enlargement policy,” Tusk said. “The negotiating framework and the relevant conclusions continue to apply, including its merit-based nature and the respect for European values, also on human rights.”
Bill collides
Mental health bill collides with guns — again
A sweeping mental health overhaul cast as a congressional response to gun violence could run afoul of ... gun control.
By Brianna Ehley
A sweeping mental health overhaul cast as a congressional response to gun violence is running afoul of ... gun control.
Which is precisely what happened the most recent time lawmakers tried to pass mental health legislation, after the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.
The spate of mass killings over the past year reignited mental health reform efforts in both chambers of Congress. A bipartisan bill is gaining momentum in the Senate, with the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions likely to take it up early next year. The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health recently approved a similar bill, and Speaker Paul Ryan this month said on “60 Minutes” that he wants Congress to move ahead on mental health.
But the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, has been working behind the scenes to drum up support for his own mental health legislation, which includes language endorsed by the National Rifle Association.
Cornyn says his bill would boost the federal background check system to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those with serious mental illness. His critics say the legislation actually loosens restrictions on gun purchases, under the umbrella of mental health reform.
“The net effect of this bill would be to weaken, not strengthen, our background check system, and make it easier for people struggling with dangerous mental illness to legally access a gun,” said Mark Prentice, spokesman for Americans for Responsible Solutions, former Rep. Gabby Giffords’ gun control advocacy group.
Cornyn told POLITICO he expects a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in January — and that he believes his bill will become “the engine that pulls the train” on mental health.
Any push to include guns could create a wedge in the bipartisan coalition that has been working on a mental health overhaul that doesn't involve the politically volatile issue.
Cornyn confirmed he’s talked to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a sponsor of the main bipartisan mental health initiative, about packaging the two bills together. A Cassidy spokesman said Cassidy is “supportive” of that idea. HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has vowed to hold a markup on the Cassidy mental health legislation, but he also recently floated the possibility of blending several bills into one big package.
But Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), co-sponsor with Cassidy of the bill gaining traction in HELP and a progressive who is pushing separate gun control legislation, is not on board with incorporating Cornyn's measures.
Murphy “thinks there are a lot of good ideas on the table,” his spokesman Chris Harris said. "But ultimately, he believes the final product has the greatest chance of passage if it maintains its singular focus on mental health, rather than venturing into other complex issues.”
The possibility of a schism is disturbing both to mental health advocacy groups — many of whom didn’t want to be quoted criticizing Cassidy or Alexander as they move the issue ahead — and to gun control advocates. The last time the Senate tried to pass ambitious mental health legislation, after Newtown, the bipartisan effort ground to a halt.
Sweeping proposals were whittled down, and what was left failed when it was tacked onto a gun background check measure that was defeated on the floor in 2013.
Since then, neither the full Senate nor the House has considered comprehensive mental health legislation, although a few more modest initiatives have passed.
Neither the Cassidy-Murphy bill nor the House version — sponsored by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) — is a done deal; there are plenty of disputes to resolve over patient privacy, court-ordered outpatient treatment and the price tag for an overhaul. But both pieces of legislation had begun to move as lawmakers looked for a way to respond to the mass shootings across the country.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who has long advocated both mental health legislation and tougher gun laws, wants to keep the two initiatives separate. On mental health, she sees a chance at finding the common ground that’s so elusive in Washington. But not if guns are added to the mix.
“This is something that needs to be done and stand on its own,” Stabenow said.
Gun control activists say Cornyn's language allows for patients’ gun rights to be restored immediately upon their release from involuntary treatment. In addition, they say it narrows the definition of who would actually be prohibited from buying a gun.
Cornyn's measure expands upon a grant program that gives incentives to states that share mental health records with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. The goal is to prevent anyone who has been adjudicated by a court as mentally ill from buying a gun.
On its website, the NRA says Cornyn’s bill would “protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens from continued bureaucratic abuse by the Obama Administration.” Under the system laid out in the bill, prohibiting someone from possessing a gun requires a “full hearing in which an individual has notice, the opportunity to participate, and the right to counsel.”
Cornyn's bill includes other mental health provisions, and he incorporated elements of Sen. Al Franken’s bill on mental health and criminal justice. But the Minnesota Democrat won’t back Cornyn’s legislation because of the gun element.
“We have issues with some language in the bill, so I am not signing on as a co-sponsor,” Franken said.
The House bill by Rep. Tim Murphy does not include any language on guns. However, Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) is pushing a companion measure to Cornyn’s bill, though it is unclear whether lawmakers will try to package the two together if Murphy’s bill makes it to the floor. His bill was approved by the House Energy and Commerce’s health subcommittee and is awaiting consideration by the full committee. While Murphy's bill has scant Democratic backing on his Energy and Commerce Committee, it does have support from several dozen Democrats in the House as a whole.
How the simmering Senate fight plays out won’t be clear for some time, and other procedural pathways could emerge.
Alexander is leaving his options open — including opening the door to Cornyn.
“I expect to see the HELP Committee report additional legislation in the upcoming months,” Alexander said during a mental health hearing this fall. “Then we will see what other committees are doing, what the Judiciary Committee might be doing, what the Finance Committee might be doing on Medicaid and Medicare and see if putting all those together, we have a better coordinated response toward mental health.”
A sweeping mental health overhaul cast as a congressional response to gun violence could run afoul of ... gun control.
By Brianna Ehley
A sweeping mental health overhaul cast as a congressional response to gun violence is running afoul of ... gun control.
Which is precisely what happened the most recent time lawmakers tried to pass mental health legislation, after the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.
The spate of mass killings over the past year reignited mental health reform efforts in both chambers of Congress. A bipartisan bill is gaining momentum in the Senate, with the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions likely to take it up early next year. The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health recently approved a similar bill, and Speaker Paul Ryan this month said on “60 Minutes” that he wants Congress to move ahead on mental health.
But the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, has been working behind the scenes to drum up support for his own mental health legislation, which includes language endorsed by the National Rifle Association.
Cornyn says his bill would boost the federal background check system to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those with serious mental illness. His critics say the legislation actually loosens restrictions on gun purchases, under the umbrella of mental health reform.
“The net effect of this bill would be to weaken, not strengthen, our background check system, and make it easier for people struggling with dangerous mental illness to legally access a gun,” said Mark Prentice, spokesman for Americans for Responsible Solutions, former Rep. Gabby Giffords’ gun control advocacy group.
Cornyn told POLITICO he expects a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in January — and that he believes his bill will become “the engine that pulls the train” on mental health.
Any push to include guns could create a wedge in the bipartisan coalition that has been working on a mental health overhaul that doesn't involve the politically volatile issue.
Cornyn confirmed he’s talked to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a sponsor of the main bipartisan mental health initiative, about packaging the two bills together. A Cassidy spokesman said Cassidy is “supportive” of that idea. HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has vowed to hold a markup on the Cassidy mental health legislation, but he also recently floated the possibility of blending several bills into one big package.
But Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), co-sponsor with Cassidy of the bill gaining traction in HELP and a progressive who is pushing separate gun control legislation, is not on board with incorporating Cornyn's measures.
Murphy “thinks there are a lot of good ideas on the table,” his spokesman Chris Harris said. "But ultimately, he believes the final product has the greatest chance of passage if it maintains its singular focus on mental health, rather than venturing into other complex issues.”
The possibility of a schism is disturbing both to mental health advocacy groups — many of whom didn’t want to be quoted criticizing Cassidy or Alexander as they move the issue ahead — and to gun control advocates. The last time the Senate tried to pass ambitious mental health legislation, after Newtown, the bipartisan effort ground to a halt.
Sweeping proposals were whittled down, and what was left failed when it was tacked onto a gun background check measure that was defeated on the floor in 2013.
Since then, neither the full Senate nor the House has considered comprehensive mental health legislation, although a few more modest initiatives have passed.
Neither the Cassidy-Murphy bill nor the House version — sponsored by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) — is a done deal; there are plenty of disputes to resolve over patient privacy, court-ordered outpatient treatment and the price tag for an overhaul. But both pieces of legislation had begun to move as lawmakers looked for a way to respond to the mass shootings across the country.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who has long advocated both mental health legislation and tougher gun laws, wants to keep the two initiatives separate. On mental health, she sees a chance at finding the common ground that’s so elusive in Washington. But not if guns are added to the mix.
“This is something that needs to be done and stand on its own,” Stabenow said.
Gun control activists say Cornyn's language allows for patients’ gun rights to be restored immediately upon their release from involuntary treatment. In addition, they say it narrows the definition of who would actually be prohibited from buying a gun.
Cornyn's measure expands upon a grant program that gives incentives to states that share mental health records with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. The goal is to prevent anyone who has been adjudicated by a court as mentally ill from buying a gun.
On its website, the NRA says Cornyn’s bill would “protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens from continued bureaucratic abuse by the Obama Administration.” Under the system laid out in the bill, prohibiting someone from possessing a gun requires a “full hearing in which an individual has notice, the opportunity to participate, and the right to counsel.”
Cornyn's bill includes other mental health provisions, and he incorporated elements of Sen. Al Franken’s bill on mental health and criminal justice. But the Minnesota Democrat won’t back Cornyn’s legislation because of the gun element.
“We have issues with some language in the bill, so I am not signing on as a co-sponsor,” Franken said.
The House bill by Rep. Tim Murphy does not include any language on guns. However, Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) is pushing a companion measure to Cornyn’s bill, though it is unclear whether lawmakers will try to package the two together if Murphy’s bill makes it to the floor. His bill was approved by the House Energy and Commerce’s health subcommittee and is awaiting consideration by the full committee. While Murphy's bill has scant Democratic backing on his Energy and Commerce Committee, it does have support from several dozen Democrats in the House as a whole.
How the simmering Senate fight plays out won’t be clear for some time, and other procedural pathways could emerge.
Alexander is leaving his options open — including opening the door to Cornyn.
“I expect to see the HELP Committee report additional legislation in the upcoming months,” Alexander said during a mental health hearing this fall. “Then we will see what other committees are doing, what the Judiciary Committee might be doing, what the Finance Committee might be doing on Medicaid and Medicare and see if putting all those together, we have a better coordinated response toward mental health.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)