Joe Biden’s pitch during the 2020 campaign to unseat President Donald Trump was simple: Trade in a stubborn, immovable leader for one with a proven record of taking half a loaf when a full one is out of reach.

That approach appears to have brought Biden to the precipice of victory on a $2 trillion deal that could begin to define his legacy as a successful Oval Office legislative architect, one who is reshaping government spending and doing so by the narrowest of margins in a country with deep partisan and ideological chasms.

But the bill is certain to be far smaller than what he originally proposed, and far less ambitious than he and many of his allies had hoped. It won’t make him the one who finally secured free community college for everyone. Seniors won’t get free dental, hearing and vision coverage from Medicare. And there won’t be a new system of penalties for the worst polluters.

“Look — hey, look, it’s all about compromise,” Biden said at a CNN town hall meeting on Thursday, shrugging off the doubters as he sought to close the deal with lawmakers and the public.

But accepting less and calling it a win has its limits — and consequences.

By spending the last several months pushing for an even larger and more ambitious agenda, knowing that he would most likely have to pare it back, Biden has let down some supporters who believed he could deliver on his soaring rhetoric about the need for better higher education, expanded Medicare services and bold advances in the fight against climate change.

“In order to make real progress, you have to inspire people about the importance of the work,” said Doug Elmendorf, the dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And then any compromise is a disappointment.”

Negotiations are continuing on the package’s final framework. But after pushing for months for a $3.5 trillion bill, the president is likely now to end up with a measure that includes less than $2 trillion in spending on various social programs and anti-climate-change initiatives.

Once the spending bills are behind him, Biden still faces challenges that are not so easily solved by compromise. On Thursday, he appeared to acknowledge that reality by hinting that he was open to altering the Senate’s longstanding filibuster rules if that is what it takes to break through Republican opposition to protecting voting rights and passing other parts of the Democratic agenda.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indecency-turkeys-erdogan-orders-expulsion-of-10-ambassadors-423377">Also read |&nbsp;'Indecency': Turkey's Erdogan orders expulsion of 10 ambassadors</a>

“We’re going to have to move to the point where we fundamentally alter the filibuster,” he told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.

That is a dramatic concession for a politician like Biden, who embraced the often arcane rules of the Senate during the three decades he served there. Like other institutionalists in the chamber, Biden has resisted demands from liberal activists to shatter those rules, fearful of the consequences the next time Republicans are in charge.

But the Washington that Biden often reminisces about the one in which Democrats and Republicans work together toward common goals is largely a distant memory. If he wants to make progress on voting rights, climate change, prison reform, an immigration overhaul and more, he most likely won’t be able to lean on the same instincts that have animated most of his political life and defined the brand that helped him win the White House.

The political differences are stark: Republicans argue the president’s spending program would burden future generations with more debt and serve as a drag on the economy. They insist the voting rights legislation is intended to benefit Democrats, and they oppose many of the president’s climate policies because they say they will be bad for jobs and business.

John Podesta, who served as former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, said Biden “has done a pretty good job of pushing as far as he could in the style that he was a champion of.” But he said that beyond the spending bills, “it’s hard to see how he gets that same spirit of collaboration, good will, honorable compromise.” The issue of voting rights may be the clearest example in the months to come.

Just this week, Republicans used the filibuster to block an already watered-down Democratic voting rights bill for the third time since Biden took office. The takeaway? If Democrats want federal legislation to stop what they view as an assault on voting in Republican-controlled states, they will need to play hardball.

That very likely means persuading all 50 Democrats and independents in the chamber to vote for changing the filibuster rule — if he can.

“President Biden and Senate Democrats need to fulfill campaign promises and defend our democracy — there’s too much at stake,” leaders of Fix Our Senate, a group that favors eliminating the filibuster, said in a statement on Friday. “After three Republican filibusters of common sense voter protection laws, it’s time to end the filibuster and protect the right to vote for all Americans.”

Advocates for immigrants’ rights are poised to make a similar argument on behalf of fixing what most agree is a broken system. The idea of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, which Biden proposed on his first day in office, has stalled amid opposition from Republican lawmakers.

An attempt to use the spending bill to provide a path to citizenship for millions of people in the country illegally was blocked by special Senate rules on the budget. If Biden wants to make good on his promised immigration overhaul, it would require a separate bill, and he may have no choice but to change the filibuster rules for that issue as well.

But perhaps the biggest promise Biden made during the campaign was to be the president who would finally confront the environmental dangers facing the planet. On Thursday, he put it in the bluntest possible terms: “The existential threat to humanity is climate change.”

Biden and his party are likely to face that threat alone in the coming months and years. Most Republicans have shown little appetite for aggressive action to counter the environmental damage from cars, manufacturing and other economic activities.

And even within his own party, the president faces divisions that make it difficult to convince the rest of the world that the United States is serious about reducing the emissions that are causing global warming.

For Biden, then, the question will be: Is he willing to treat the debate of core issues like the climate, voting rights and immigration as a “break the glass” moment in which he and his Democratic allies have no choice but to change the rules, even if it means Republicans will take advantage of the chance to advance their own agenda once they return to power?

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cop26-climate-deal-will-be-harder-than-paris-accord-says-alok-sharma-423292">Also read |&nbsp;Cop26 climate deal will be harder than Paris accord, says Alok Sharma</a>

Of course, the president can’t change the filibuster by himself. Doing so would take the votes of all 50 Democratic and independent senators, along with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris. And already, some of the same Democratic senators who forced him to accept less spending have said they oppose altering the filibuster.

But the president is the leader of his party, and his voice matters. If he decides it’s time to “fundamentally alter the filibuster,” as he said on Thursday, members of his party may listen.

One argument at his disposal: Changing the rules to allow more of the Democratic agenda to pass could be vital for the party’s success at the polls.

Strategists say enthusiasm among core Democratic voters is critical to defeating the Republican Party in the midterm elections of 2022 (and perhaps Trump, its leader, two years later). If crucial parts of the president’s coalition remain unhappy because they are disappointed in the compromise bill, that could threaten Democratic hopes to remain in power in Congress and the White House.

“The political costs of this will be large,” Elmendorf said.

Podesta, who advised Hillary Clinton during her runs for the presidency, agreed. He said it was a “big problem” if Democrats couldn’t deliver on the fundamental promises. Biden’s approval ratings have already fallen into the low-to-mid-40s.

“Particularly younger voters,” he said. “You are seeing it among independents, African American and Latino voters. They are just feeling like these guys are not delivering.”

Biden might turn the enthusiasm gap around by making progress on the rest of his agenda, including voting rights, immigration and climate change.

He vowed on Thursday that he would continue to press for parts of his agenda that were left on the cutting room floor during the debate over the spending bills. He called increasing Pell Grants for college students “a start” but he pledged to keep trying for free community college&nbsp;in part to satisfy the demands of his wife, Jill Biden, who is a longtime college professor.

“I’m going to get it done,” he vowed, adding with a smile at his wife in the front row, “and if I don’t, I’ll be sleeping alone for a long time.”

Joe Biden’s pitch during the 2020 campaign to unseat President Donald Trump was simple: Trade in a stubborn, immovable leader for one with a proven record of taking half a loaf when a full one is out of reach.

Joe Biden’s pitch during the 2020 campaign to unseat President Donald Trump was simple: Trade in a stubborn, immovable leader for one with a proven record of taking half a loaf when a full one is out of reach. That approach appears to have brought Biden to the precipice of victory on a $2 trillion deal that could begin to define his legacy as a successful Oval Office legislative architect, one who is reshaping government spending and doing so by the narrowest of margins in a country with deep partisan and ideological chasms. But the bill is certain to be far smaller than what he originally proposed, and far less ambitious than he and many of his allies had hoped. It won’t make him the one who finally secured free community college for everyone. Seniors won’t get free dental, hearing and vision coverage from Medicare. And there won’t be a new system of penalties for the worst polluters. “Look — hey, look, it’s all about compromise,” Biden said at a CNN town hall meeting on Thursday, shrugging off the doubters as he sought to close the deal with lawmakers and the public. But accepting less and calling it a win has its limits — and consequences. By spending the last several months pushing for an even larger and more ambitious agenda, knowing that he would most likely have to pare it back, Biden has let down some supporters who believed he could deliver on his soaring rhetoric about the need for better higher education, expanded Medicare services and bold advances in the fight against climate change. “In order to make real progress, you have to inspire people about the importance of the work,” said Doug Elmendorf, the dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And then any compromise is a disappointment.” Negotiations are continuing on the package’s final framework. But after pushing for months for a $3.5 trillion bill, the president is likely now to end up with a measure that includes less than $2 trillion in spending on various social programs and anti-climate-change initiatives. Once the spending bills are behind him, Biden still faces challenges that are not so easily solved by compromise. On Thursday, he appeared to acknowledge that reality by hinting that he was open to altering the Senate’s longstanding filibuster rules if that is what it takes to break through Republican opposition to protecting voting rights and passing other parts of the Democratic agenda. Also read | 'Indecency': Turkey's Erdogan orders expulsion of 10 ambassadors “We’re going to have to move to the point where we fundamentally alter the filibuster,” he told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. That is a dramatic concession for a politician like Biden, who embraced the often arcane rules of the Senate during the three decades he served there. Like other institutionalists in the chamber, Biden has resisted demands from liberal activists to shatter those rules, fearful of the consequences the next time Republicans are in charge. But the Washington that Biden often reminisces about the one in which Democrats and Republicans work together toward common goals is largely a distant memory. If he wants to make progress on voting rights, climate change, prison reform, an immigration overhaul and more, he most likely won’t be able to lean on the same instincts that have animated most of his political life and defined the brand that helped him win the White House. The political differences are stark: Republicans argue the president’s spending program would burden future generations with more debt and serve as a drag on the economy. They insist the voting rights legislation is intended to benefit Democrats, and they oppose many of the president’s climate policies because they say they will be bad for jobs and business. John Podesta, who served as former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, said Biden “has done a pretty good job of pushing as far as he could in the style that he was a champion of.” But he said that beyond the spending bills, “it’s hard to see how he gets that same spirit of collaboration, good will, honorable compromise.” The issue of voting rights may be the clearest example in the months to come. Just this week, Republicans used the filibuster to block an already watered-down Democratic voting rights bill for the third time since Biden took office. The takeaway? If Democrats want federal legislation to stop what they view as an assault on voting in Republican-controlled states, they will need to play hardball. That very likely means persuading all 50 Democrats and independents in the chamber to vote for changing the filibuster rule — if he can. “President Biden and Senate Democrats need to fulfill campaign promises and defend our democracy — there’s too much at stake,” leaders of Fix Our Senate, a group that favors eliminating the filibuster, said in a statement on Friday. “After three Republican filibusters of common sense voter protection laws, it’s time to end the filibuster and protect the right to vote for all Americans.” Advocates for immigrants’ rights are poised to make a similar argument on behalf of fixing what most agree is a broken system. The idea of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, which Biden proposed on his first day in office, has stalled amid opposition from Republican lawmakers. An attempt to use the spending bill to provide a path to citizenship for millions of people in the country illegally was blocked by special Senate rules on the budget. If Biden wants to make good on his promised immigration overhaul, it would require a separate bill, and he may have no choice but to change the filibuster rules for that issue as well. But perhaps the biggest promise Biden made during the campaign was to be the president who would finally confront the environmental dangers facing the planet. On Thursday, he put it in the bluntest possible terms: “The existential threat to humanity is climate change.” Biden and his party are likely to face that threat alone in the coming months and years. Most Republicans have shown little appetite for aggressive action to counter the environmental damage from cars, manufacturing and other economic activities. And even within his own party, the president faces divisions that make it difficult to convince the rest of the world that the United States is serious about reducing the emissions that are causing global warming. For Biden, then, the question will be: Is he willing to treat the debate of core issues like the climate, voting rights and immigration as a “break the glass” moment in which he and his Democratic allies have no choice but to change the rules, even if it means Republicans will take advantage of the chance to advance their own agenda once they return to power? Also read | Cop26 climate deal will be harder than Paris accord, says Alok Sharma Of course, the president can’t change the filibuster by himself. Doing so would take the votes of all 50 Democratic and independent senators, along with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris. And already, some of the same Democratic senators who forced him to accept less spending have said they oppose altering the filibuster. But the president is the leader of his party, and his voice matters. If he decides it’s time to “fundamentally alter the filibuster,” as he said on Thursday, members of his party may listen. One argument at his disposal: Changing the rules to allow more of the Democratic agenda to pass could be vital for the party’s success at the polls. Strategists say enthusiasm among core Democratic voters is critical to defeating the Republican Party in the midterm elections of 2022 (and perhaps Trump, its leader, two years later). If crucial parts of the president’s coalition remain unhappy because they are disappointed in the compromise bill, that could threaten Democratic hopes to remain in power in Congress and the White House. “The political costs of this will be large,” Elmendorf said. Podesta, who advised Hillary Clinton during her runs for the presidency, agreed. He said it was a “big problem” if Democrats couldn’t deliver on the fundamental promises. Biden’s approval ratings have already fallen into the low-to-mid-40s. “Particularly younger voters,” he said. “You are seeing it among independents, African American and Latino voters. They are just feeling like these guys are not delivering.” Biden might turn the enthusiasm gap around by making progress on the rest of his agenda, including voting rights, immigration and climate change. He vowed on Thursday that he would continue to press for parts of his agenda that were left on the cutting room floor during the debate over the spending bills. He called increasing Pell Grants for college students “a start” but he pledged to keep trying for free community college in part to satisfy the demands of his wife, Jill Biden, who is a longtime college professor. “I’m going to get it done,” he vowed, adding with a smile at his wife in the front row, “and if I don’t, I’ll be sleeping alone for a long time.”

Biden the dealmaker finds that compromise can have consequences

In a call, US President Joe Biden and French counterpart Emmanuel Macron discussed strengthening European defences. &nbsp;

The statement said, the two leaders "discussed efforts to enable a stronger and more capable European defence while ensuring complementarity with NATO." &nbsp;

The two leaders are due to meet in Rome later this month. The statement said Biden looked forward to the chance to "take stock of the many areas of US-France cooperation, and reinforce our shared interests." The French presidency also issued a similar statement. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-to-contain-beijing-anger-after-biden-vows-taiwan-defense-423109" hreflang="en">US seeks to contain Beijing anger after Biden vows Taiwan defense</a>

This development comes as the US is looking to mend ties after the crisis over AUKUS row. &nbsp;

On September 22, the two presidents had last spoken to each other. It was their first conversation since the spat. &nbsp;

After the call, Macron ordered the French ambassador to return to the US. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Macron and Biden had vowed to initiate 'in-depth consultations' to bring back the friendship and confidence between the two countries. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-american-neera-tanden-appointed-bidens-staff-secretary-reports-423070" hreflang="en">Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports</a>

"The two leaders agreed that the situation would have benefitted from open consultations among allies on matters of strategic interest to France and our European partners," the statement reads. &nbsp;

Earlier, the French president had openly criticised Australia for ditching a submarine deal with the European nation for a new defence pact with the US and UK, especially without letting Macron know in advance. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

In a call, US President Joe Biden and French counterpart Emmanuel Macron discussed strengthening European defences. The statement said, the two leaders "discussed efforts to enable a stronger and more capable European defence while ensuring complementarity with NATO.

In a call, US President Joe Biden and French counterpart Emmanuel Macron discussed strengthening European defences. The statement said, the two leaders "discussed efforts to enable a stronger and more capable European defence while ensuring complementarity with NATO." The two leaders are due to meet in Rome later this month. The statement said Biden looked forward to the chance to "take stock of the many areas of US-France cooperation, and reinforce our shared interests." The French presidency also issued a similar statement. Also Read: US seeks to contain Beijing anger after Biden vows Taiwan defense This development comes as the US is looking to mend ties after the crisis over AUKUS row. On September 22, the two presidents had last spoken to each other. It was their first conversation since the spat. After the call, Macron ordered the French ambassador to return to the US. Macron and Biden had vowed to initiate 'in-depth consultations' to bring back the friendship and confidence between the two countries. Also Read | Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports "The two leaders agreed that the situation would have benefitted from open consultations among allies on matters of strategic interest to France and our European partners," the statement reads. Earlier, the French president had openly criticised Australia for ditching a submarine deal with the European nation for a new defence pact with the US and UK, especially without letting Macron know in advance. (With inputs from agencies)

In call, Biden, Macron discuss strengthening European defences  

In a CNN town hall discussion, US President Joe Biden stated that the US would defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China.

"Yes, we have a commitment to do that," Biden said on Thursday when asked if the US would protect Taiwan if China attacked it.&nbsp;

Biden said people should not worry about Washington`s military strength because "China, Russia and the rest of the world know we're the most powerful military in the history of the world," 
 
Watch | The tension between China and Taiwan at their highest

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-tension-between-china-and-taiwan-at-their-highest-421423/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"What you do have to worry about is whether or not they're going to engage in activities that would put them in a position where they may make a serious mistake," Biden said.

Taiwan's Defence Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng warned last month that military tensions between Taiwan and China are at their highest in more than 40 years, adding that China will be capable of conducting a "full-scale" invasion by 2025. 
 
Watch | China boosting military presence around Taiwan

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-boosting-military-presence-around-taiwan-421394/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Taiwan is claimed by China as its land, which should be seized by force if necessary.

Taiwan asserts its independence and vows to protect its liberties and democracy.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

In a CNN town hall discussion, US President Joe Biden stated that the US would defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China. "Yes, we have a commitment to do that," Biden said on Thursday when asked if the US would protect Taiwan if China attacked it.

In a CNN town hall discussion, US President Joe Biden stated that the US would defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China. "Yes, we have a commitment to do that," Biden said on Thursday when asked if the US would protect Taiwan if China attacked it. Biden said people should not worry about Washington`s military strength because "China, Russia and the rest of the world know we're the most powerful military in the history of the world," Watch | The tension between China and Taiwan at their highest "What you do have to worry about is whether or not they're going to engage in activities that would put them in a position where they may make a serious mistake," Biden said. Taiwan's Defence Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng warned last month that military tensions between Taiwan and China are at their highest in more than 40 years, adding that China will be capable of conducting a "full-scale" invasion by 2025. Watch | China boosting military presence around Taiwan Taiwan is claimed by China as its land, which should be seized by force if necessary. Taiwan asserts its independence and vows to protect its liberties and democracy. (With inputs from agencies)

China, Russia aware of US’ military might, will defend Taiwan if Beijing attacks: Biden

US President Joe Biden recently said that his Build Back Better plan is "a bigger darn deal" than Obamacare. During a CNN town hall Thursday night, Anderson Cooper recalled Biden’s comment in 2010 during the signing of Obamacare.

After grinning at the question, Biden said that his current legislative agenda is “bigger” than Obamacare. It includes a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and a multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package. “The answer is yes, this is bigger," Biden said.&nbsp;

“It is bigger because..not because what he did wasn't enormous, he broke the ice, enormous. But part of what I have in here is we also increased access to the Affordable Care Act and we reduced the price an average of 60 bucks a month for anyone who is in the Affordable Care Act. Plus on top of that we have another $300 billion worth of health care in it,” he continued.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-backed-12-trillion-infrastructure-bill-passes-key-hurdle-404062">Also read |&nbsp;Biden-backed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passes key hurdle</a>

“So it's -- I would say this is a bigger darn deal,” the president emphasised.&nbsp;

The comments come as lawmakers are almost at the end of a months-long negotiating period for the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and the multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package.

A $1.2 trillion bill aimed at improving the US' roads, highways, bridges, and high-speed internet gained the support of 18 Republican senators and 49 Democratic senators.

With the addition of Republican senators to Democrats, on Saturday, the massive infrastructure bill passed a key procedural hurdle, ensuring its final passage in the upper chamber.

US President Joe Biden recently said that his Build Back Better plan is "a bigger darn deal" than Obamacare. During a CNN town hall Thursday night, Anderson Cooper recalled Biden’s comment in 2010 during the signing of Obamacare.

US President Joe Biden recently said that his Build Back Better plan is "a bigger darn deal" than Obamacare. During a CNN town hall Thursday night, Anderson Cooper recalled Biden’s comment in 2010 during the signing of Obamacare. After grinning at the question, Biden said that his current legislative agenda is “bigger” than Obamacare. It includes a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and a multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package. “The answer is yes, this is bigger," Biden said. “It is bigger because..not because what he did wasn't enormous, he broke the ice, enormous. But part of what I have in here is we also increased access to the Affordable Care Act and we reduced the price an average of 60 bucks a month for anyone who is in the Affordable Care Act. Plus on top of that we have another $300 billion worth of health care in it,” he continued. Also read | Biden-backed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passes key hurdle “So it's -- I would say this is a bigger darn deal,” the president emphasised. The comments come as lawmakers are almost at the end of a months-long negotiating period for the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and the multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package. A $1.2 trillion bill aimed at improving the US' roads, highways, bridges, and high-speed internet gained the support of 18 Republican senators and 49 Democratic senators. With the addition of Republican senators to Democrats, on Saturday, the massive infrastructure bill passed a key procedural hurdle, ensuring its final passage in the upper chamber.

Democrats' spending plan is 'bigger' than Obamacare, says Biden

On Thursday (October 22), China's foreign ministry stated that it will not make concessions or compromises on matters concerning its vital interests and sovereignty.

China also advised the United States to exercise caution in Taiwan after President Joe Biden stated that the US would defend the self-ruled island against Chinese assault.&nbsp;

"China has no room for compromise on issues involving its core interests, " foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said, warning that Washington "should act and speak cautiously on the Taiwan issue." 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-russia-aware-of-us-military-might-will-defend-taiwan-if-beijing-attacks-biden-422795">Also read | China, Russia aware of US’ military might, will defend Taiwan if Beijing attacks: Biden</a> 
 
Earlier, US President Joe Biden said in a CNN town hall meeting that the United States would come to Taiwan's defence if it came under attack by China.

"Yes, we have a commitment to do that," Biden said on Thursday when asked if the United States would defend Taiwan if China attacked the country.

He also said that China and Russia know the United States has the most powerful military in the history of the world. 
 
Watch | The tension between China and Taiwan at their highest

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-tension-between-china-and-taiwan-at-their-highest-421423/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Communist China considers self-ruled Taiwan to be its own territory and has promised to take the island one day, using force if necessary.

Beijing's bellicose rhetoric has increased in recent years, fueling worries that the island of 23 million people could become a major global flashpoint.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

On Thursday (October 22), China's foreign ministry stated that it will not make concessions or compromises on matters concerning its vital interests and sovereignty.

On Thursday (October 22), China's foreign ministry stated that it will not make concessions or compromises on matters concerning its vital interests and sovereignty. China also advised the United States to exercise caution in Taiwan after President Joe Biden stated that the US would defend the self-ruled island against Chinese assault. "China has no room for compromise on issues involving its core interests, " foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said, warning that Washington "should act and speak cautiously on the Taiwan issue." Also read | China, Russia aware of US’ military might, will defend Taiwan if Beijing attacks: Biden Earlier, US President Joe Biden said in a CNN town hall meeting that the United States would come to Taiwan's defence if it came under attack by China. "Yes, we have a commitment to do that," Biden said on Thursday when asked if the United States would defend Taiwan if China attacked the country. He also said that China and Russia know the United States has the most powerful military in the history of the world. Watch | The tension between China and Taiwan at their highest Communist China considers self-ruled Taiwan to be its own territory and has promised to take the island one day, using force if necessary. Beijing's bellicose rhetoric has increased in recent years, fueling worries that the island of 23 million people could become a major global flashpoint. (With inputs from agencies)

'No compromise on sovereignty, act with caution over Taiwan': China warns US

US President Joe Biden has said that eh expects gasoline prices to fall by next year and that any further price reduction depends upon actions of Saudi Arabia.

US President Joe Biden expects petrol prices to fall in 2022

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion.

However, the substance of the message differs for newly elected hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and the Biden administration as Mr. Raisi toughens his negotiating position and the United States grapples with alternative ways of curbing the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme should the parties fail to agree on terms for the revival of the 2015 international agreement.

Iranians surveyed last month by Iran Poll and the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies were telling Mr. Raisi that they are looking to him to alleviate Iran’s economic and other problems and have little hope that a revived nuclear agreement will make the difference, given lack of trust in US and European compliance with any agreement reached.

The Iranians polled seemed in majority to endorse some form of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s notion of a “resistance economy” as a way of blunting the impact of the US sanctions imposed by former President Donald J. Trump after he walked away from the nuclear agreement in 2018. Some 65 per cent of the responders said they favoured a self-sufficient economy; 54.2 per cent expected the economy to at least improve somewhat in the next three years.

A large number expressed confidence that Mr. Raisi would significantly lower inflation and unemployment, increase Iran’s trade with other countries, control the pandemic and root out corruption.

Meanwhile, 63 per cent suggested that Iran’s economic situation would be the same, if not better, if there were no return to the agreement and the government continued to pursue a civil nuclear programme. The figure seemed at odds with the 80 per cent who said Iran’s economic situation would improve if Iran and the United States returned to the agreement and both fulfilled their obligations under the deal.

The divergence may be a function of the fact that the poll, unsurprisingly, indicated that Iranians (64.7 per cent) had little trust in the United States living up to its commitments even though they expected the Biden administration to return to the deal (57.9 per cent). As a result, 73.1 per cent of those surveyed said Iran should not make concessions given that world powers would not live up to commitments they make in return.

At the same time, 63 per cent blamed the troubled state of the economy on domestic mismanagement rather than US sanctions. Only 34.4 per cent believed that the sanctions were the main cause of their economic difficulty. Iranians pointing the finger at the government rather than external forces was also reflected in the 60.5 per cent of those polled blaming Iran’s water shortages on mismanagement and bad policies.

The poll suggested that by emphasising domestic mismanagement, Iranians were going to judge Mr. Raisi on his success or failure in countering the debilitating effect of the sanctions even though 77.5 per cent of those surveyed said that the sanctions had a negative or somewhat negative impact on the economy.

Implicitly, Iranians were holding former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responsible for the mismanagement given that Mr. Raisi only took office in August. Rated very favourable by 61.2 per cent of Iranians surveyed in 2015, Mr. Rouhani’s favorability dropped to 4.6 per cent in the most recent poll. By contrast, the favourable views of Mr. Raisi soared from 38.3 per cent in 2014 to 77 per cent last month. IranPoll and the Center have been conducting annual of surveys since 2014.

Mr. Raisi may have taken pleasure from that but more importantly, the poll implicitly suggested that he does not have much time to produce results before his significant public support starts to wane.

Of those polled, 66.7 per cent expected Mr. Raisi to improve Iran’s international standing, 55.7 per cent said he would be in a better position to negotiate with world powers, and 45.2 per cent predicted that he would enhance Iran’s security. Those expectations may have been to some degree validated in the public’s mind by last month’s acceptance of Iran’s application for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that groups China, Russia, India, Pakistan and several Central Asian states.

The survey results seemed to suggest that ordinary Iranians were framing their message to the United States differently from the assessment of prominent scholars and analysts. The divergence may well be one primarily of timing but nonetheless has implications for policymaking in Washington. The message of the respondents to the poll was one of immediate impact while analysts and scholars appear to be looking at the middle term.

Without referring to the poll, Vienna-based economist and strategic consultant Bijan Khajehpour argued this week, seemingly contrary to the poll, that “mismanagement and the Covid-19 pandemic have both contributed to Iran’s poor economic performance in recent years, but it remains that US sanctions…will be the key factor in determining Iran’s future prospects.”

Mr. Khajehpour went on to say that “high inflation, capital flight and the erosion of household purchasing power alongside mismanagement of resources and the deterioration of the country’s infrastructure have the potential to spark more protests and further undermine the already faltering legitimacy of the Islamic Republic in the eyes of the public.”

No doubt, the jury is out on how Iranians respond if and when Mr. Raisi fails to live up to their expectations. If the past is any indication, Iranians have repeatedly taken to the streets at often substantial risk to liberty and life to make their discontent with government performance evident as they did with the low turnout in this year’s election that brought Mr. Raisi to power.

The risk of renewed protests was reflected in the fact that responses to various questions regarding the electoral system, the limited number of presidential candidates (because many were barred from running), and the public health system showed that it was often a slim majority at best that expressed confidence in the system.

Add to that the fact that 68 per cent of respondents to the poll said that the objectives of past protests had been a demand that officials pay greater attention to people’s problems.

Yet, at the same time, they were telling the United States that its efforts to generate pressure on Iranian leaders to moderate their nuclear and regional policies by imposing harsh sanctions had for now backfired. Iranians were backing a tougher negotiating position by the Raisi government.

Ultimately that could be a double-edged sword for Mr. Raisi. He has to prove that he can be tough on the United States and simultaneously improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Failure to do so could have in Mr. Khajehpour’s words “unpredictable consequences.”

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion. However, the substance of the message differs for newly elected hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and the Biden administration as Mr.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion. However, the substance of the message differs for newly elected hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and the Biden administration as Mr. Raisi toughens his negotiating position and the United States grapples with alternative ways of curbing the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme should the parties fail to agree on terms for the revival of the 2015 international agreement. Iranians surveyed last month by Iran Poll and the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies were telling Mr. Raisi that they are looking to him to alleviate Iran’s economic and other problems and have little hope that a revived nuclear agreement will make the difference, given lack of trust in US and European compliance with any agreement reached. The Iranians polled seemed in majority to endorse some form of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s notion of a “resistance economy” as a way of blunting the impact of the US sanctions imposed by former President Donald J. Trump after he walked away from the nuclear agreement in 2018. Some 65 per cent of the responders said they favoured a self-sufficient economy; 54.2 per cent expected the economy to at least improve somewhat in the next three years. A large number expressed confidence that Mr. Raisi would significantly lower inflation and unemployment, increase Iran’s trade with other countries, control the pandemic and root out corruption. Meanwhile, 63 per cent suggested that Iran’s economic situation would be the same, if not better, if there were no return to the agreement and the government continued to pursue a civil nuclear programme. The figure seemed at odds with the 80 per cent who said Iran’s economic situation would improve if Iran and the United States returned to the agreement and both fulfilled their obligations under the deal. The divergence may be a function of the fact that the poll, unsurprisingly, indicated that Iranians (64.7 per cent) had little trust in the United States living up to its commitments even though they expected the Biden administration to return to the deal (57.9 per cent). As a result, 73.1 per cent of those surveyed said Iran should not make concessions given that world powers would not live up to commitments they make in return. At the same time, 63 per cent blamed the troubled state of the economy on domestic mismanagement rather than US sanctions. Only 34.4 per cent believed that the sanctions were the main cause of their economic difficulty. Iranians pointing the finger at the government rather than external forces was also reflected in the 60.5 per cent of those polled blaming Iran’s water shortages on mismanagement and bad policies. The poll suggested that by emphasising domestic mismanagement, Iranians were going to judge Mr. Raisi on his success or failure in countering the debilitating effect of the sanctions even though 77.5 per cent of those surveyed said that the sanctions had a negative or somewhat negative impact on the economy. Implicitly, Iranians were holding former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responsible for the mismanagement given that Mr. Raisi only took office in August. Rated very favourable by 61.2 per cent of Iranians surveyed in 2015, Mr. Rouhani’s favorability dropped to 4.6 per cent in the most recent poll. By contrast, the favourable views of Mr. Raisi soared from 38.3 per cent in 2014 to 77 per cent last month. IranPoll and the Center have been conducting annual of surveys since 2014. Mr. Raisi may have taken pleasure from that but more importantly, the poll implicitly suggested that he does not have much time to produce results before his significant public support starts to wane. Of those polled, 66.7 per cent expected Mr. Raisi to improve Iran’s international standing, 55.7 per cent said he would be in a better position to negotiate with world powers, and 45.2 per cent predicted that he would enhance Iran’s security. Those expectations may have been to some degree validated in the public’s mind by last month’s acceptance of Iran’s application for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that groups China, Russia, India, Pakistan and several Central Asian states. The survey results seemed to suggest that ordinary Iranians were framing their message to the United States differently from the assessment of prominent scholars and analysts. The divergence may well be one primarily of timing but nonetheless has implications for policymaking in Washington. The message of the respondents to the poll was one of immediate impact while analysts and scholars appear to be looking at the middle term. Without referring to the poll, Vienna-based economist and strategic consultant Bijan Khajehpour argued this week, seemingly contrary to the poll, that “mismanagement and the Covid-19 pandemic have both contributed to Iran’s poor economic performance in recent years, but it remains that US sanctions…will be the key factor in determining Iran’s future prospects.” Mr. Khajehpour went on to say that “high inflation, capital flight and the erosion of household purchasing power alongside mismanagement of resources and the deterioration of the country’s infrastructure have the potential to spark more protests and further undermine the already faltering legitimacy of the Islamic Republic in the eyes of the public.” No doubt, the jury is out on how Iranians respond if and when Mr. Raisi fails to live up to their expectations. If the past is any indication, Iranians have repeatedly taken to the streets at often substantial risk to liberty and life to make their discontent with government performance evident as they did with the low turnout in this year’s election that brought Mr. Raisi to power. The risk of renewed protests was reflected in the fact that responses to various questions regarding the electoral system, the limited number of presidential candidates (because many were barred from running), and the public health system showed that it was often a slim majority at best that expressed confidence in the system. Add to that the fact that 68 per cent of respondents to the poll said that the objectives of past protests had been a demand that officials pay greater attention to people’s problems. Yet, at the same time, they were telling the United States that its efforts to generate pressure on Iranian leaders to moderate their nuclear and regional policies by imposing harsh sanctions had for now backfired. Iranians were backing a tougher negotiating position by the Raisi government. Ultimately that could be a double-edged sword for Mr. Raisi. He has to prove that he can be tough on the United States and simultaneously improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Failure to do so could have in Mr. Khajehpour’s words “unpredictable consequences.” (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Iran poll contains different messages for Biden and Raisi

US President Joe Biden on Monday appointed Indian-American former diplomat Vinai Thummalapally as the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the federal agency dealing with trade and related issues.

Prior to this appointment, Thummalapally, 66, served as the Executive Director of SelectUSA, a US Department of Commerce initiative that facilitates job-creating business investment into the United States, from 2013 to 2017.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-canada-colluded-to-provoke-trouble-says-china-after-warships-sail-through-taiwan-strait-421574">US, Canada colluded to provoke trouble, says China after warships sail through Taiwan Strait</a>

"President Biden has appointed Vinai Thummalapally as USTDA's Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer. Thummalapally assumes the role of Acting Director of USTDA until a Director is confirmed by the Senate,&nbsp;USTDA said.

He also served as US Ambassador to Belize from 2009 to 2013, when he became the first Indian American ambassador in United States history.

"The US Trade and Development Agency has a global reputation for excellence, results, and setting the standard for American economic engagement overseas,&nbsp;said Thummalapally.

"It is an honour to lead this Agency and its exceptional team of professionals. I share their commitment to USTDA's mission of creating US jobs through exports, supporting the economic growth of the United States, and facilitating the development of sustainable infrastructure overseas using the best of what US industry has to offer,&nbsp;he said in a statement.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/first-world-problems-us-army-general-trolled-for-complaining-about-french-manicure-421301">First world problems? US Army General trolled for complaining about French manicure</a>

USTDA, in a statement said, Thummalapally has more than 30 years of experience in the private sector, including most recently as the Executive Chairman of Red Fort Strategies, a Washington, D.C.-based public affairs and government relations firm, and as the President of MAM-A Inc., a US manufacturer and distributor of archival recordable optical discs.

"His civic leadership experience includes service as a board member of the Indian American Impact Project, a non-profit promoting Indian Americans to run for public office, and as an advisor to the Asian American and Pacific Islanders Victory Fund. He has also served as a board member for Cyient, a global digital engineering and technology company,&nbsp;USTDA said.&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden on Monday appointed Indian-American former diplomat Vinai Thummalapally as the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the federal agency dealing with trade and related issues.

US President Joe Biden on Monday appointed Indian-American former diplomat Vinai Thummalapally as the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the federal agency dealing with trade and related issues. Prior to this appointment, Thummalapally, 66, served as the Executive Director of SelectUSA, a US Department of Commerce initiative that facilitates job-creating business investment into the United States, from 2013 to 2017. Also Read | US, Canada colluded to provoke trouble, says China after warships sail through Taiwan Strait "President Biden has appointed Vinai Thummalapally as USTDA's Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer. Thummalapally assumes the role of Acting Director of USTDA until a Director is confirmed by the Senate, USTDA said. He also served as US Ambassador to Belize from 2009 to 2013, when he became the first Indian American ambassador in United States history. "The US Trade and Development Agency has a global reputation for excellence, results, and setting the standard for American economic engagement overseas, said Thummalapally. "It is an honour to lead this Agency and its exceptional team of professionals. I share their commitment to USTDA's mission of creating US jobs through exports, supporting the economic growth of the United States, and facilitating the development of sustainable infrastructure overseas using the best of what US industry has to offer, he said in a statement. Also Read | First world problems? US Army General trolled for complaining about French manicure USTDA, in a statement said, Thummalapally has more than 30 years of experience in the private sector, including most recently as the Executive Chairman of Red Fort Strategies, a Washington, D.C.-based public affairs and government relations firm, and as the President of MAM-A Inc., a US manufacturer and distributor of archival recordable optical discs. "His civic leadership experience includes service as a board member of the Indian American Impact Project, a non-profit promoting Indian Americans to run for public office, and as an advisor to the Asian American and Pacific Islanders Victory Fund. He has also served as a board member for Cyient, a global digital engineering and technology company, USTDA said.

Indian American Vinai Thummalapally named to top USTDA post

President Joe Biden credited law enforcement agencies for upholding the US political system during the January 6th riot at the capitol, called for more resources to be allocated to law enforcement officers.

US: President Joe Biden speaks to hundreds of uniformed officers

President Joe Biden says he would prefer to cut the duration of programs in his big social services and climate change package rather than eliminate some entirely, as Democrats struggle to win support from moderates by trimming what had been a $3.5 trillion proposal.

Biden's comments on Friday, reassuring progressives on what he hopes will be a landmark piece of his legacy, marked his clearest indication yet on how he hopes negotiations over the bill will play out.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-offers-condolence-payments-relocation-to-kin-of-afghans-killed-in-botched-drone-attack-421207">US offers condolence payments, relocation to kin of Afghans killed in botched drone attack</a>

Appearing to side with a strategy preferred by progressive lawmakers, it marked at least a subtle break with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has suggested that most Democrats prefer to focus on establishing a few enduring programmes.

He also said there is no deadline for a deal.

I'm of the view that it's important to establish the principle on a whole range of issues without guaranteeing to get the whole 10 years,&nbsp;Biden told reporters before boarding Air Force One to return to Washington from a trip to Connecticut. "It matters to establish it.

So what happens is, you pass the principle and you build on it,&nbsp;he added. You look back and either it works or it doesn't work.

Pelosi, however, in a Monday note to fellow Democratic lawmakers, said, Overwhelmingly, the guidance I am receiving from members is to do fewer things well.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bali-earthquake-kills-three-injures-seven-421194">Bali earthquake kills three, injures seven</a>

Biden said Friday that although he expects the package to shrink, we're going to come back and get the rest&nbsp;after it's passed.

We're not going to get $3.5 trillion. We'll get less than that, but we're gonna get it. And we're going to come back and get the rest,&nbsp;Biden said during remarks at a child care center in Connecticut.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are working to reduce the sweeping package to about $2 trillion in spending, which would be paid for with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The proposal includes everything from free child care and community college to dental, vision and hearing aid benefits for seniors and a number of significant provisions meant to combat climate change. They're all key items for progressives, but moderates have balked at the original $3.5 trillion price tag.

One almost certain reduction would be in the proposal for free community college.

I doubt whether we will get the entire funding for community colleges but I'm not going to give up on community colleges as long as I'm president, Biden said. His wife, Jill, is a professor of English at Northern Virginia Community College.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-development-finance-corporation-chief-to-visit-india-to-boost-vaccine-manufacturing-421167">US Development Finance Corporation chief to visit India to boost vaccine manufacturing</a>

With slim margins in the House and the Senate, Democrats have no votes to spare on the bill. The whittling process has sparked concern from some progressives.

The party's internal debate was apparent as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wrote an opinion column for a West Virginia newspaper calling out that state's Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin by name for blocking the domestic package so far.

Sanders named Manchin as one of only two Democratic senators who remain in opposition&nbsp;to the measure, thwarting the unanimous support the party needs in the 50-50 Senate to approve the still-evolving legislation.

This is a pivotal moment in modern American history. We now have a historic opportunity to support the working families of West Virginia, Vermont and the entire country and create policy which works for all, not just the few,&nbsp;Sanders wrote in a piece scheduled to appear in Sunday's Charleston Gazette-Mail.

Manchin shot back in a statement late Friday, saying: It isn't the first time an out-of-stater has tried to tell West Virginians what is best for them." It's highly unusual for a senator to publicly criticize a colleague of the same party, particularly by wading into the other lawmaker's state.

Manchin has proposed holding the measure's overall 10-year cost to $1.5 trillion and has said he wants to limit some health care initiatives to benefit only lower-earning people.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-slammed-for-likening-former-senator-dodd-with-one-who-would-not-disrespect-a-waitress-421154">US President Joe Biden slammed for likening former Senator Dodd with one who would not 'disrespect a waitress'</a>

Sanders and Manchin stand, respectively, as among the Democrats' most progressive and conservative senators.

Biden has openly acknowledged the price tag of his package will have to come down. On Friday, he visited a child development center in Hartford to speak about a need for investments in child care and other social safety net programs, arguing they're imperative to keep America competitive in the global economy.

At the center, Biden promoted his proposal to make such care free for lower-income families, and ensure that families making up to 150% of their state's median income pay less than 7 per cent&nbsp;of their salaries on child care. It's part of a massive expansion of the social safety net that Biden has championed and is aiming to pass with just Democratic votes in Congress.

Too many folks in Washington still don't realize it isn't enough just to invest in our physical infrastructure. We also have to invest in our people,&nbsp;he said.

Biden briefly greeted some of the children at the center's playground, at one point kneeling to give a child a hug.

The president's sales pitch comes as his Democratic allies have raised concerns that the American public does not understand the benefits of his package.

Also Read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/police-seize-104-million-record-shipment-of-heroin-in-australia-421241">&nbsp;Police seize $104-million record shipment of heroin in Australia</a>

There is renewed urgency among Democrats to push it through ahead of an end-of-month deadline on transportation funding, Biden's upcoming foreign trip, and a closer-than-anticipated race for Virginia's next governor.

The fate of the legislation, branded Build Back Better" by Biden, is also holding up a more than $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate this summer. House progressives are balking at supporting that roads-and-bridges bill until agreement is reached on a path forward for the social safety net package.

In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, criticized Democrats including Biden over the lack of progress.

They all got to get their act together and vote,&nbsp;McAuliffe said. Asked specifically if he was calling out Biden, McAuliffe said, I put everybody there.&nbsp;McAuliffe is in a tight race with Republican newcomer Glenn Youngkin in a state Biden carried by 10 points last fall.

Biden also delivered remarks later at the dedication of the Dodd Center for Human Rights at the University of Connecticut, which is being renamed to honor a longtime friend, former Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, and Dodd's father, also a former senator.

President Joe Biden says he would prefer to cut the duration of programs in his big social services and climate change package rather than eliminate some entirely, as Democrats struggle to win support from moderates by trimming what had been a $3.

President Joe Biden says he would prefer to cut the duration of programs in his big social services and climate change package rather than eliminate some entirely, as Democrats struggle to win support from moderates by trimming what had been a $3.5 trillion proposal. Biden's comments on Friday, reassuring progressives on what he hopes will be a landmark piece of his legacy, marked his clearest indication yet on how he hopes negotiations over the bill will play out. Also Read | US offers condolence payments, relocation to kin of Afghans killed in botched drone attack Appearing to side with a strategy preferred by progressive lawmakers, it marked at least a subtle break with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has suggested that most Democrats prefer to focus on establishing a few enduring programmes. He also said there is no deadline for a deal. I'm of the view that it's important to establish the principle on a whole range of issues without guaranteeing to get the whole 10 years, Biden told reporters before boarding Air Force One to return to Washington from a trip to Connecticut. "It matters to establish it. So what happens is, you pass the principle and you build on it, he added. You look back and either it works or it doesn't work. Pelosi, however, in a Monday note to fellow Democratic lawmakers, said, Overwhelmingly, the guidance I am receiving from members is to do fewer things well. Also Read | Bali earthquake kills three, injures seven Biden said Friday that although he expects the package to shrink, we're going to come back and get the rest after it's passed. We're not going to get $3.5 trillion. We'll get less than that, but we're gonna get it. And we're going to come back and get the rest, Biden said during remarks at a child care center in Connecticut. Democrats on Capitol Hill are working to reduce the sweeping package to about $2 trillion in spending, which would be paid for with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The proposal includes everything from free child care and community college to dental, vision and hearing aid benefits for seniors and a number of significant provisions meant to combat climate change. They're all key items for progressives, but moderates have balked at the original $3.5 trillion price tag. One almost certain reduction would be in the proposal for free community college. I doubt whether we will get the entire funding for community colleges but I'm not going to give up on community colleges as long as I'm president, Biden said. His wife, Jill, is a professor of English at Northern Virginia Community College. Also Read | US Development Finance Corporation chief to visit India to boost vaccine manufacturing With slim margins in the House and the Senate, Democrats have no votes to spare on the bill. The whittling process has sparked concern from some progressives. The party's internal debate was apparent as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wrote an opinion column for a West Virginia newspaper calling out that state's Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin by name for blocking the domestic package so far. Sanders named Manchin as one of only two Democratic senators who remain in opposition to the measure, thwarting the unanimous support the party needs in the 50-50 Senate to approve the still-evolving legislation. This is a pivotal moment in modern American history. We now have a historic opportunity to support the working families of West Virginia, Vermont and the entire country and create policy which works for all, not just the few, Sanders wrote in a piece scheduled to appear in Sunday's Charleston Gazette-Mail. Manchin shot back in a statement late Friday, saying: It isn't the first time an out-of-stater has tried to tell West Virginians what is best for them." It's highly unusual for a senator to publicly criticize a colleague of the same party, particularly by wading into the other lawmaker's state. Manchin has proposed holding the measure's overall 10-year cost to $1.5 trillion and has said he wants to limit some health care initiatives to benefit only lower-earning people. Also Read | US President Joe Biden slammed for likening former Senator Dodd with one who would not 'disrespect a waitress' Sanders and Manchin stand, respectively, as among the Democrats' most progressive and conservative senators. Biden has openly acknowledged the price tag of his package will have to come down. On Friday, he visited a child development center in Hartford to speak about a need for investments in child care and other social safety net programs, arguing they're imperative to keep America competitive in the global economy. At the center, Biden promoted his proposal to make such care free for lower-income families, and ensure that families making up to 150% of their state's median income pay less than 7 per cent of their salaries on child care. It's part of a massive expansion of the social safety net that Biden has championed and is aiming to pass with just Democratic votes in Congress. Too many folks in Washington still don't realize it isn't enough just to invest in our physical infrastructure. We also have to invest in our people, he said. Biden briefly greeted some of the children at the center's playground, at one point kneeling to give a child a hug. The president's sales pitch comes as his Democratic allies have raised concerns that the American public does not understand the benefits of his package. Also Read | Police seize $104-million record shipment of heroin in Australia There is renewed urgency among Democrats to push it through ahead of an end-of-month deadline on transportation funding, Biden's upcoming foreign trip, and a closer-than-anticipated race for Virginia's next governor. The fate of the legislation, branded Build Back Better" by Biden, is also holding up a more than $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate this summer. House progressives are balking at supporting that roads-and-bridges bill until agreement is reached on a path forward for the social safety net package. In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, criticized Democrats including Biden over the lack of progress. They all got to get their act together and vote, McAuliffe said. Asked specifically if he was calling out Biden, McAuliffe said, I put everybody there. McAuliffe is in a tight race with Republican newcomer Glenn Youngkin in a state Biden carried by 10 points last fall. Biden also delivered remarks later at the dedication of the Dodd Center for Human Rights at the University of Connecticut, which is being renamed to honor a longtime friend, former Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, and Dodd's father, also a former senator.

Biden says he's open to shortening length of new programmes

Joe Biden’s administration recently issued a 40-page report warning that the climate crisis “poses serious and systemic risks to the US economy and financial system." It further said that setting out steps for action as “climate impacts are already affecting American jobs, homes, families’ hard-earned savings, and businesses”.

As a part of the new plan, the federal government will weigh up climate risks for employee benefit and retirement plan investments. They will also incorporate climate disasters into lending and budgeting decisions. The building standards will also be revised for homes at risk of flooding.&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden, in the report, said, "The intensifying impacts of climate change present physical risk to assets, publicly traded securities, private investments, and companies."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cop26-queen-finds-world-leaders-irritating-because-they-only-talk-and-dont-act-420982">Also read |&nbsp;COP26: Queen finds world leaders 'irritating' because they only 'talk' and don't 'act'</a>

He further added that the climate crisis “threatens the competitiveness of US companies and markets, the life savings and pensions of US workers and families, and the ability of US financial institutions to serve communities."

The new White House plan has been welcomed by environmental groups .

Gina McCarthy, Biden’s top climate advisor, said that the climate crisis “poses a risk to our economy and to the lives and livelihoods of Americans, and we must act now”.&nbsp;

McCarthy further added, “This roadmap isn’t just about protecting our financial system – it’s about protecting people, their paychecks and their prosperity.”

The report comes in as the crucial Cop26 global climate talks are due to begin in Scotland at the end of the month.

Joe Biden’s administration recently issued a 40-page report warning that the climate crisis “poses serious and systemic risks to the US economy and financial system.

Joe Biden’s administration recently issued a 40-page report warning that the climate crisis “poses serious and systemic risks to the US economy and financial system." It further said that setting out steps for action as “climate impacts are already affecting American jobs, homes, families’ hard-earned savings, and businesses”. As a part of the new plan, the federal government will weigh up climate risks for employee benefit and retirement plan investments. They will also incorporate climate disasters into lending and budgeting decisions. The building standards will also be revised for homes at risk of flooding. US President Joe Biden, in the report, said, "The intensifying impacts of climate change present physical risk to assets, publicly traded securities, private investments, and companies." Also read | COP26: Queen finds world leaders 'irritating' because they only 'talk' and don't 'act' He further added that the climate crisis “threatens the competitiveness of US companies and markets, the life savings and pensions of US workers and families, and the ability of US financial institutions to serve communities." The new White House plan has been welcomed by environmental groups . Gina McCarthy, Biden’s top climate advisor, said that the climate crisis “poses a risk to our economy and to the lives and livelihoods of Americans, and we must act now”. McCarthy further added, “This roadmap isn’t just about protecting our financial system – it’s about protecting people, their paychecks and their prosperity.” The report comes in as the crucial Cop26 global climate talks are due to begin in Scotland at the end of the month.

Climate crisis poses ‘serious risks’ to US economy, warns 40-page report

Under a plan announced by the Biden administration on Wednesday, seven major offshore wind farms would be developed on the east and west coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. This project comes as a part of Biden’s plan to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. This will further help in generating enough electricity to power more than 10 million homes.

If the target is met, it could mean jobs for more than 44,000 workers and 33,000 others in related employment, the White House said.

Deb Haaland, the interior secretary said that her department hoped to hold lease sales by 2025 off the coasts of Maine, New York and the mid-Atlantic, Carolinas, California, Oregon and the Gulf of Mexico.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hows-biden-doing-do-you-miss-me-yet-trump-pokes-fun-at-us-president-420630">Also read |&nbsp;'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President</a>

The officials said that the projects could avoid about 78m metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.&nbsp;

Apart from this, the interior department is also working with other federal agencies to increase renewable energy production on public lands, with a goal of at least 25 gigawatts of onshore renewable energy from wind and solar power by 2025.

Haaland and Amanda Lefton, director of department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have said that the officials hoped to reduce potential conflicts with fishing groups and other ocean users. Lefton in a statement said, “This means we will engage early and often with all stakeholders prior to identifying any new wind energy areas."

Under a plan announced by the Biden administration on Wednesday, seven major offshore wind farms would be developed on the east and west coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Under a plan announced by the Biden administration on Wednesday, seven major offshore wind farms would be developed on the east and west coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. This project comes as a part of Biden’s plan to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. This will further help in generating enough electricity to power more than 10 million homes. If the target is met, it could mean jobs for more than 44,000 workers and 33,000 others in related employment, the White House said. Deb Haaland, the interior secretary said that her department hoped to hold lease sales by 2025 off the coasts of Maine, New York and the mid-Atlantic, Carolinas, California, Oregon and the Gulf of Mexico. Also read | 'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President The officials said that the projects could avoid about 78m metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Apart from this, the interior department is also working with other federal agencies to increase renewable energy production on public lands, with a goal of at least 25 gigawatts of onshore renewable energy from wind and solar power by 2025. Haaland and Amanda Lefton, director of department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have said that the officials hoped to reduce potential conflicts with fishing groups and other ocean users. Lefton in a statement said, “This means we will engage early and often with all stakeholders prior to identifying any new wind energy areas."

US coastline to be dotted with wind farms, says Biden administration

Former President Trump relished in President Biden's troubles, asking voters whether congested supply lines, increasing gas costs, and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan made them miss him.&nbsp; 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/56-in-us-feel-cheating-affected-2020-presidential-election-outcome-says-poll-420060">Also read | 56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll</a> 
 
"Covid is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?" Trump said in a statement on Wednesday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW! 
 
“COVID is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?” <a href="https://t.co/xpxErrtH4P">pic.twitter.com/xpxErrtH4P</a>
— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1448275843197947915?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 13, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

It was posted on Twitter by his spokesperson, Liz Harrington.

A new survey shows that 70 percent of Republicans want him to run for president in 2024, and that he has a commanding lead over his major GOP opponents.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is having a difficult time on several fronts.

His legislative agenda is delayed as party officials attempt to mend internal squabbles over expenditure plans.

Officials at the White House are rushing to avert supply chain issues that they fear could result in more empty shelves and interruptions to holiday shopping.

Though the tone of the remark was similar to his trademark tweets, Trump was banned from Twitter in January – while still the president – after Twitter claimed his statements might be construed as encouraging violence in the aftermath of the disturbance at the US Capitol.

In a series of remarks subsequently, he has chastised Biden, whom he refuses to recognise as the actual president.

In the United States, annual inflation has reached 5.4 percent, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis.

(With inputs from agencies)

Former President Trump relished in President Biden's troubles, asking voters whether congested supply lines, increasing gas costs, and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan made them miss him.

Former President Trump relished in President Biden's troubles, asking voters whether congested supply lines, increasing gas costs, and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan made them miss him. Also read | 56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll "Covid is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?" Trump said in a statement on Wednesday. NEW! “COVID is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?” pic.twitter.com/xpxErrtH4P — Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) October 13, 2021 × It was posted on Twitter by his spokesperson, Liz Harrington. A new survey shows that 70 percent of Republicans want him to run for president in 2024, and that he has a commanding lead over his major GOP opponents. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is having a difficult time on several fronts. His legislative agenda is delayed as party officials attempt to mend internal squabbles over expenditure plans. Officials at the White House are rushing to avert supply chain issues that they fear could result in more empty shelves and interruptions to holiday shopping. Though the tone of the remark was similar to his trademark tweets, Trump was banned from Twitter in January – while still the president – after Twitter claimed his statements might be construed as encouraging violence in the aftermath of the disturbance at the US Capitol. In a series of remarks subsequently, he has chastised Biden, whom he refuses to recognise as the actual president. In the United States, annual inflation has reached 5.4 percent, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis. (With inputs from agencies)

'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.S. businesses, a reversal from Trump administration policies and the latest signal to millions of immigrants that they were not priorities for deportation.

Known as work-site raids, such arrests have long been criticized by immigration advocates for spreading fear and dissuading workers from reporting labor violations out of concern that they would be arrested. So far, these raids have not been a fixture during the Biden administration.

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement that enforcement efforts at work sites would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers, conduct illegal activities or impose unsafe working conditions.” He also asked for recommendations from the department’s immigration agencies over the next 60 days to identify policies and agreements that affected the enforcement of labor laws and how to “alleviate or mitigate” concerns and fear that workers without legal status had about exploitative employers.

The new policy comes during a critical labor shortage in the United States, precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic, and offers reassurances that workers in the U.S. illegally are not at risk of being deported en masse. The new strategy also reflects promises that President Joe Biden has made about taking a softer approach to immigration policy than his predecessor did.

Some companies that rely on such workers pay them below the market rate for jobs, exploiting immigrants and undercutting competitors.

“Refocusing resources to counter exploitative employers is a necessary step in protecting the American labor market and workers,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans criticized the new policy. “This makes our country LESS SAFE and LESS SECURE,” the Republican National Committee’s research arm wrote on Twitter.

Workplace raids, which Mayorkas described as “resource-intensive,” were a priority during the Trump administration, which targeted employers as well as immigrant workers. The goal was to dissuade immigrants from illegally crossing the border to work in the United States. The George W. Bush administration started high-profile work-site raids in a bid to push Congress to pass an immigration overhaul, but lawmakers failed to reach a consensus.

The Obama administration sought to focus work-site enforcement efforts on employers who hired workers who entered illegally rather than on the workers themselves, prioritizing audits of employee files. Still, the policy led to the firing of thousands of immigrant workers.

Employers are required by law to check whether the people they hire are legally permitted to work in the United States. Several administrations have pushed for a nationwide requirement to use a program known as E-Verify to confirm that employees have permission to work in the country. But it currently remains a voluntary program for most employers.

Immigration advocates commended the new work-site enforcement strategy, but they said it was not a substitute for creating a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the U.S. without permission.

“While we applaud today’s announcement by the administration to end workplace raids, we need more commitment from this administration to protect all 11 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, not just in their workplaces,” Nicole Melaku, the executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We need permanent protections now.”

Democrats tried to include a measure in a multitrillion-dollar spending package that would allow a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants without legal status, but their efforts have failed.

The work-site enforcement policy also echoes new guidance for immigration enforcement priorities that were partly devised to end the indiscriminate arrests that became commonplace during the Trump administration.

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.S. businesses, a reversal from Trump administration policies and the latest signal to millions of immigrants that they were not priorities for deportation. Known as work-site raids, such arrests have long been criticized by immigration advocates for spreading fear and dissuading workers from reporting labor violations out of concern that they would be arrested. So far, these raids have not been a fixture during the Biden administration. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement that enforcement efforts at work sites would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers, conduct illegal activities or impose unsafe working conditions.” He also asked for recommendations from the department’s immigration agencies over the next 60 days to identify policies and agreements that affected the enforcement of labor laws and how to “alleviate or mitigate” concerns and fear that workers without legal status had about exploitative employers. The new policy comes during a critical labor shortage in the United States, precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic, and offers reassurances that workers in the U.S. illegally are not at risk of being deported en masse. The new strategy also reflects promises that President Joe Biden has made about taking a softer approach to immigration policy than his predecessor did. Some companies that rely on such workers pay them below the market rate for jobs, exploiting immigrants and undercutting competitors. “Refocusing resources to counter exploitative employers is a necessary step in protecting the American labor market and workers,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Republicans criticized the new policy. “This makes our country LESS SAFE and LESS SECURE,” the Republican National Committee’s research arm wrote on Twitter. Workplace raids, which Mayorkas described as “resource-intensive,” were a priority during the Trump administration, which targeted employers as well as immigrant workers. The goal was to dissuade immigrants from illegally crossing the border to work in the United States. The George W. Bush administration started high-profile work-site raids in a bid to push Congress to pass an immigration overhaul, but lawmakers failed to reach a consensus. The Obama administration sought to focus work-site enforcement efforts on employers who hired workers who entered illegally rather than on the workers themselves, prioritizing audits of employee files. Still, the policy led to the firing of thousands of immigrant workers. Employers are required by law to check whether the people they hire are legally permitted to work in the United States. Several administrations have pushed for a nationwide requirement to use a program known as E-Verify to confirm that employees have permission to work in the country. But it currently remains a voluntary program for most employers. Immigration advocates commended the new work-site enforcement strategy, but they said it was not a substitute for creating a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the U.S. without permission. “While we applaud today’s announcement by the administration to end workplace raids, we need more commitment from this administration to protect all 11 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, not just in their workplaces,” Nicole Melaku, the executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We need permanent protections now.” Democrats tried to include a measure in a multitrillion-dollar spending package that would allow a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants without legal status, but their efforts have failed. The work-site enforcement policy also echoes new guidance for immigration enforcement priorities that were partly devised to end the indiscriminate arrests that became commonplace during the Trump administration.

Biden ends workplace immigration raids, reversing Trump policy

Indian ambassador to the United States Tranjit Singh Sandhu speaks exclusively to WION's principal correspondent Siddhant Sibbal on Indian PM Narendra Modi's US visit.

Modi-Biden chemistry visible to all, Indian envoy Taranjit Sandhu in an exclusive conversation

President Joe Biden has framed this moment as the country’s best chance to save the planet.

“The nation and the world are in peril,” he said weeks ago in the New York City borough of Queens, where 11 people drowned in their basement apartments after floodwaters from Hurricane Ida devastated communities from Louisiana to New York. “And that’s not hyperbole. That is a fact. They’ve been warning us the extreme weather would get more extreme over the decade, and we’re living in it real time now.”

Biden’s plan to try to fortify the United States against extreme weather — and cut the carbon dioxide emissions that are heating the Earth and fueling disasters — is embedded in two pieces of legislation pending on Capitol Hill. The future of both bills remains in question, with tension between moderate and progressive Democrats over the size and scope of many details.

Together, they contain what would be the most significant climate action ever taken by the United States. Because Democrats could lose control of Congress after 2022 and Republicans have shown little interest in climate legislation, it could be years before another opportunity arises — a delay that scientists say the planet cannot afford.

The climate provisions are designed to quickly transform energy and transportation, the country’s two largest sources of greenhouse gases, from systems that now mostly burn gas, oil and coal to sectors that run increasingly on clean energy from the sun, wind and nuclear power.

The impact will touch a broad cross section of American life, from the kinds of cars that Americans drive, to the types of crops grown by farmers, to the way homes are heated and buildings are constructed. One measure could shutter virtually all of the nation’s remaining coal plants, forcing sweeping change in communities dependent on mining but also, one study estimated, preventing as many as 50,000 premature deaths from pollution by 2030. And other measures would provide billions to replant in national forests, repair trails for hikers and clear brush to reduce the risk of wildfire.

“Each time you let these opportunities slip through your fingers, you’re passing a much harder problem on to the next generation,” said Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology and mother of four. “It’s a very hard thing to swallow that we are relegating children born today and not yet born to a future of dangerous climate impacts.”

The United States has contributed more to global warming than any other nation, and the action it takes will be felt well beyond its borders. Falling short would hamstring Biden next month, when he is expected to attend a major United Nations climate summit in Scotland to try to persuade other world leaders to take stronger climate action.

“The whole world is watching,” said Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a climate adviser for the U.N. secretary-general. “If these bills don’t come to pass,” she said, “then the U.S. will be coming to Glasgow with some fine words” but “not much else. It won’t be enough.”

As part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, nearly 200 nations agreed to try to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, compared with temperatures before industrialization. That’s the threshold beyond which scientists say the dangers of global warming — such as deadly heat waves, water shortages, crop failures and ecosystem collapse — grow immensely.

But the world is way off track to meet that goal. As countries continue to pump carbon emissions into the atmosphere, the Earth has already warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius. Nations must cut in half emissions by the end of the decade to avoid the most catastrophic effects of warming and start that change immediately, scientists say.

Biden has pledged to reduce U.S. emissions at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030, but his ambitions are constrained by razor-thin Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and the fate of the twin bills.

The first piece of legislation, a $3.5 trillion budget package proposed by House Democrats, with no Republican backing, has been a focal point of debate because it is filled with social programs including free community college, paid family and medical leave and expanded Medicare.

But it also contains hundreds of billions in tax credits for companies that build wind and solar power or retrofit polluting facilities to capture and bury their carbon dioxide emissions before they enter the atmosphere. And it expands tax incentives for Americans to buy electric vehicles, giving consumers as much as $12,500. It would also penalize oil and gas companies if they leak methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

The most potent climate measure in that legislation is a $150 billion Clean Electricity Performance Program, which would reward utilities that generate an increasing amount of electricity from wind, solar, nuclear or other clean energy sources and penalize those that do not. The policy aims for the United States to get 80% of its electricity from sources that don’t generate carbon dioxide by 2030, up from 40% today.

“If that came to pass, it would easily be the biggest thing Congress has ever done on climate,” said John Larsen, a director at the Rhodium Group, an energy research and consulting firm. In a recent study, Larsen found that the biggest climate provisions would only get the United States halfway to Biden’s emission pledge. But, he said, “getting halfway there in just one bill would be huge.”

It could transform states like Florida, Mississippi and Alabama that are still dominated by fossil fuel power plants.

“A policy like this would really have an outsized impact in the Southeast,” said Maggie Shober of the nonprofit Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “We’re generally lagging behind on clean energy.”

The second big bill in Congress, a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, has bipartisan support. It would provide the largest single infusion of money to prepare communities for extreme weather fueled by climate change that is already underway. It includes $47 billion over five years in resilience funding to improve the nation’s flood defenses, limit damage from wildfires, develop new sources of drinking water in areas plagued by drought and relocate some communities away from high-risk areas.

The bill comes after a record hot summer in the United States in which cascading disasters affected nearly every corner of the country: Overflowing rivers in Tennessee, a hurricane that dumped record amounts of rainfall and left a swath of destruction from Louisiana to New York; a heat wave that killed hundreds in the Pacific Northwest; and wildfires that blazed across the Sierra Nevada range, pumping so much smoke into the air that it was hazy in Boston.

The infrastructure bill would shift America’s approach to dealing with climate threats that can no longer be avoided. Instead of frantically reacting after disaster strikes, the country would better prepared to reduce damage.

“We’ve been telling lawmakers for a long time that climate change could further strain fresh water supplies in the West, and that we need to plan ahead before it’s a crisis,” said Dan Keppen, executive director of Family Farm Alliance, which represents farmers, ranchers and irrigation districts across 17 Western states.

This summer, as the worst drought in memory baked the American West, Keppen saw those dire warnings unfold. An irrigation district in Oregon had to shut off water in the summer before crops were ready for harvest at local vineyards and orchards. Ranchers in California had to ship their cattle away because there was no forage left.

Keppen said the infrastructure bill, which contains $8.3 billion in funding for water projects, could make a big difference by upgrading water storage and funding conservation measures. “If we had done this 20 years ago, I think we would be much better prepared for this year’s drought,” he said. “The one silver lining of this year’s drought is it really drew attention to the problem.”

The infrastructure bill also includes billions to make buildings more energy efficient. About 30% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from energy to heat, cool and power buildings.

“Too often, for so many of us, climate change feels like there’s not a damn thing we can do about it to stop it,” said Donnel Baird, who runs BlocPower, which aims to convert gas and oil heating systems to green electricity, particularly in low-income communities. “But no, we can actually green all of America’s buildings.”

Still, there is no guarantee that even the infrastructure bill will pass. Many House Democrats have said they will not vote for the legislation unless it passes in parallel with the reconciliation bill that aims to address the root causes of global warming.

Environmentalists fear that if Democrats in Congress can’t reach an agreement on the legislation this year, it could be the last chance for major climate action in a long time as the party could lose control of Congress in the midterms next fall. While many Republicans approve of funding for climate resilience, they have shown far less support for federal action to slash emissions.

How hot the world ultimately gets will depend on many factors — including how other big polluting countries like China and India handle their emissions. Even so, scientists say, the chance to constrain global warming to about 1.5 degrees or at least below 2 degrees is growing dim.

“Even if the window for 1.5 degrees slams shut, it’s still going to be worth doing everything we can to limit as much additional warming as possible,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton. “Every fraction of degree of warming leads to additional damages and risks.”

Delay is not an option, Oppenheimer said. “We’ve been doing that for 40 years, and now we’re finding out firsthand what that means,” he said.

President Joe Biden has framed this moment as the country’s best chance to save the planet. “The nation and the world are in peril,” he said weeks ago in the New York City borough of Queens, where 11 people drowned in their basement apartments after floodwaters from Hurricane Ida devastated communities from Louisiana to New York.

President Joe Biden has framed this moment as the country’s best chance to save the planet. “The nation and the world are in peril,” he said weeks ago in the New York City borough of Queens, where 11 people drowned in their basement apartments after floodwaters from Hurricane Ida devastated communities from Louisiana to New York. “And that’s not hyperbole. That is a fact. They’ve been warning us the extreme weather would get more extreme over the decade, and we’re living in it real time now.” Biden’s plan to try to fortify the United States against extreme weather — and cut the carbon dioxide emissions that are heating the Earth and fueling disasters — is embedded in two pieces of legislation pending on Capitol Hill. The future of both bills remains in question, with tension between moderate and progressive Democrats over the size and scope of many details. Together, they contain what would be the most significant climate action ever taken by the United States. Because Democrats could lose control of Congress after 2022 and Republicans have shown little interest in climate legislation, it could be years before another opportunity arises — a delay that scientists say the planet cannot afford. The climate provisions are designed to quickly transform energy and transportation, the country’s two largest sources of greenhouse gases, from systems that now mostly burn gas, oil and coal to sectors that run increasingly on clean energy from the sun, wind and nuclear power. The impact will touch a broad cross section of American life, from the kinds of cars that Americans drive, to the types of crops grown by farmers, to the way homes are heated and buildings are constructed. One measure could shutter virtually all of the nation’s remaining coal plants, forcing sweeping change in communities dependent on mining but also, one study estimated, preventing as many as 50,000 premature deaths from pollution by 2030. And other measures would provide billions to replant in national forests, repair trails for hikers and clear brush to reduce the risk of wildfire. “Each time you let these opportunities slip through your fingers, you’re passing a much harder problem on to the next generation,” said Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology and mother of four. “It’s a very hard thing to swallow that we are relegating children born today and not yet born to a future of dangerous climate impacts.” The United States has contributed more to global warming than any other nation, and the action it takes will be felt well beyond its borders. Falling short would hamstring Biden next month, when he is expected to attend a major United Nations climate summit in Scotland to try to persuade other world leaders to take stronger climate action. “The whole world is watching,” said Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a climate adviser for the U.N. secretary-general. “If these bills don’t come to pass,” she said, “then the U.S. will be coming to Glasgow with some fine words” but “not much else. It won’t be enough.” As part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, nearly 200 nations agreed to try to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, compared with temperatures before industrialization. That’s the threshold beyond which scientists say the dangers of global warming — such as deadly heat waves, water shortages, crop failures and ecosystem collapse — grow immensely. But the world is way off track to meet that goal. As countries continue to pump carbon emissions into the atmosphere, the Earth has already warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius. Nations must cut in half emissions by the end of the decade to avoid the most catastrophic effects of warming and start that change immediately, scientists say. Biden has pledged to reduce U.S. emissions at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030, but his ambitions are constrained by razor-thin Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and the fate of the twin bills. The first piece of legislation, a $3.5 trillion budget package proposed by House Democrats, with no Republican backing, has been a focal point of debate because it is filled with social programs including free community college, paid family and medical leave and expanded Medicare. But it also contains hundreds of billions in tax credits for companies that build wind and solar power or retrofit polluting facilities to capture and bury their carbon dioxide emissions before they enter the atmosphere. And it expands tax incentives for Americans to buy electric vehicles, giving consumers as much as $12,500. It would also penalize oil and gas companies if they leak methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The most potent climate measure in that legislation is a $150 billion Clean Electricity Performance Program, which would reward utilities that generate an increasing amount of electricity from wind, solar, nuclear or other clean energy sources and penalize those that do not. The policy aims for the United States to get 80% of its electricity from sources that don’t generate carbon dioxide by 2030, up from 40% today. “If that came to pass, it would easily be the biggest thing Congress has ever done on climate,” said John Larsen, a director at the Rhodium Group, an energy research and consulting firm. In a recent study, Larsen found that the biggest climate provisions would only get the United States halfway to Biden’s emission pledge. But, he said, “getting halfway there in just one bill would be huge.” It could transform states like Florida, Mississippi and Alabama that are still dominated by fossil fuel power plants. “A policy like this would really have an outsized impact in the Southeast,” said Maggie Shober of the nonprofit Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “We’re generally lagging behind on clean energy.” The second big bill in Congress, a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, has bipartisan support. It would provide the largest single infusion of money to prepare communities for extreme weather fueled by climate change that is already underway. It includes $47 billion over five years in resilience funding to improve the nation’s flood defenses, limit damage from wildfires, develop new sources of drinking water in areas plagued by drought and relocate some communities away from high-risk areas. The bill comes after a record hot summer in the United States in which cascading disasters affected nearly every corner of the country: Overflowing rivers in Tennessee, a hurricane that dumped record amounts of rainfall and left a swath of destruction from Louisiana to New York; a heat wave that killed hundreds in the Pacific Northwest; and wildfires that blazed across the Sierra Nevada range, pumping so much smoke into the air that it was hazy in Boston. The infrastructure bill would shift America’s approach to dealing with climate threats that can no longer be avoided. Instead of frantically reacting after disaster strikes, the country would better prepared to reduce damage. “We’ve been telling lawmakers for a long time that climate change could further strain fresh water supplies in the West, and that we need to plan ahead before it’s a crisis,” said Dan Keppen, executive director of Family Farm Alliance, which represents farmers, ranchers and irrigation districts across 17 Western states. This summer, as the worst drought in memory baked the American West, Keppen saw those dire warnings unfold. An irrigation district in Oregon had to shut off water in the summer before crops were ready for harvest at local vineyards and orchards. Ranchers in California had to ship their cattle away because there was no forage left. Keppen said the infrastructure bill, which contains $8.3 billion in funding for water projects, could make a big difference by upgrading water storage and funding conservation measures. “If we had done this 20 years ago, I think we would be much better prepared for this year’s drought,” he said. “The one silver lining of this year’s drought is it really drew attention to the problem.” The infrastructure bill also includes billions to make buildings more energy efficient. About 30% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from energy to heat, cool and power buildings. “Too often, for so many of us, climate change feels like there’s not a damn thing we can do about it to stop it,” said Donnel Baird, who runs BlocPower, which aims to convert gas and oil heating systems to green electricity, particularly in low-income communities. “But no, we can actually green all of America’s buildings.” Still, there is no guarantee that even the infrastructure bill will pass. Many House Democrats have said they will not vote for the legislation unless it passes in parallel with the reconciliation bill that aims to address the root causes of global warming. Environmentalists fear that if Democrats in Congress can’t reach an agreement on the legislation this year, it could be the last chance for major climate action in a long time as the party could lose control of Congress in the midterms next fall. While many Republicans approve of funding for climate resilience, they have shown far less support for federal action to slash emissions. How hot the world ultimately gets will depend on many factors — including how other big polluting countries like China and India handle their emissions. Even so, scientists say, the chance to constrain global warming to about 1.5 degrees or at least below 2 degrees is growing dim. “Even if the window for 1.5 degrees slams shut, it’s still going to be worth doing everything we can to limit as much additional warming as possible,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton. “Every fraction of degree of warming leads to additional damages and risks.” Delay is not an option, Oppenheimer said. “We’ve been doing that for 40 years, and now we’re finding out firsthand what that means,” he said.

Major climate action at stake in fight over twin bills pending in Congress

In a phone call, US President Joe Biden joked that putting Senators Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin in a room together to discuss the $2 trillion difference in their visions of the social safety net expansions may end in a "homicide".&nbsp;

Earlier this week, a Democrat from California, Rep Ro Khanna, suggested on the call that the only way to reach a deal on the bill is to put the West Virginia Democrat in a room with Sanders, whose agenda comprises much of the bill, reported CNN. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fbi-arrests-navy-engineer-wife-for-selling-restricted-nuke-info-in-peanut-butter-sandwich-in-us-419776" hreflang="en">FBI arrests Navy engineer, wife for selling restricted nuke info in peanut butter sandwich in US</a>

But the only issue is that their differences are too big that Biden didn't think they would be able to reach consensus. &nbsp;

Other Democrats also agreed with the idea. Montana Senator Joe Tester said, "Yes," when was asked about whether he is concerned about the duo's disagreements. &nbsp;

"I just think it's a matter of getting them in the same room," Tester said. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/richest-1-per-cent-of-americans-now-own-more-wealth-than-the-entire-middle-class-419838" hreflang="en">Richest 1 per cent of Americans now own more wealth than the entire middle class</a>

The party's frustration with Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema is "off the charts" as the two hamper their colleagues' plans, a source said. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Manchin and Sinema are the only two Democratic senators, who are not on board with the proposed $3.5 trillion spending bill as both have said that it is an irresponsibly large sum. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

In a phone call, US President Joe Biden joked that putting Senators Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin in a room together to discuss the $2 trillion difference in their visions of the social safety net expansions may end in a "homicide".

In a phone call, US President Joe Biden joked that putting Senators Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin in a room together to discuss the $2 trillion difference in their visions of the social safety net expansions may end in a "homicide". Earlier this week, a Democrat from California, Rep Ro Khanna, suggested on the call that the only way to reach a deal on the bill is to put the West Virginia Democrat in a room with Sanders, whose agenda comprises much of the bill, reported CNN. Also Read: FBI arrests Navy engineer, wife for selling restricted nuke info in peanut butter sandwich in US But the only issue is that their differences are too big that Biden didn't think they would be able to reach consensus. Other Democrats also agreed with the idea. Montana Senator Joe Tester said, "Yes," when was asked about whether he is concerned about the duo's disagreements. "I just think it's a matter of getting them in the same room," Tester said. Also Read: Richest 1 per cent of Americans now own more wealth than the entire middle class The party's frustration with Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema is "off the charts" as the two hamper their colleagues' plans, a source said. Manchin and Sinema are the only two Democratic senators, who are not on board with the proposed $3.5 trillion spending bill as both have said that it is an irresponsibly large sum. (With inputs from agencies)

Putting Manchin, Sanders in a room together may end in 'homicide', jokes Biden

Iran's foreign minister has expressed optimism on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal after US President Joe Biden expressed willingness to resume talks. The Nuclear deal was left on life support when the Americans decided to unilaterally walk out of the deal under the leadership of Donald Trump.

Biden shows willingness to return to nuclear deal

White House press secretary Jen Psaki has attributed a series of tough poll results for President Biden on the nation's inability to overcome the deadly coronavirus pandemic.&nbsp;

As per a report by The Hill, Psaki said that this is a really tough time in the US. "We’re still battling COVID, and a lot of people thought we’d be through it, including us," said Psaki.&nbsp;

She further added, "And because of the rise of the delta variant, because of the fact that even though it was a vaccine approved under a Republican administration, even though we now have full FDA approval, and even though it’s widely available across the country, we still have 20 per cent of the country who have decided not to get vaccinated."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-iowa-rally-trump-slams-bidens-socialist-spending-package-419661">Also read |&nbsp;At Iowa rally, Trump slams Biden's 'socialist' spending package</a>

"No question that’s having an impact. And of course as the president has said, the buck stops with him," Psaki said. "That’s far and away the biggest issue in the minds of the American people, and it's impacting a lot of issues."

A RealClearPolitics average showed Biden's approval rating at 43 per cent, which was down from 51 per cent in early August. 
While speaking about the pandemic, Psaki said that the White House is focused on the big picture of getting life back to something similar to pre-pandemic normal.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki has attributed a series of tough poll results for President Biden on the nation's inability to overcome the deadly coronavirus pandemic.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki has attributed a series of tough poll results for President Biden on the nation's inability to overcome the deadly coronavirus pandemic. As per a report by The Hill, Psaki said that this is a really tough time in the US. "We’re still battling COVID, and a lot of people thought we’d be through it, including us," said Psaki. She further added, "And because of the rise of the delta variant, because of the fact that even though it was a vaccine approved under a Republican administration, even though we now have full FDA approval, and even though it’s widely available across the country, we still have 20 per cent of the country who have decided not to get vaccinated." Also read | At Iowa rally, Trump slams Biden's 'socialist' spending package "No question that’s having an impact. And of course as the president has said, the buck stops with him," Psaki said. "That’s far and away the biggest issue in the minds of the American people, and it's impacting a lot of issues." A RealClearPolitics average showed Biden's approval rating at 43 per cent, which was down from 51 per cent in early August. While speaking about the pandemic, Psaki said that the White House is focused on the big picture of getting life back to something similar to pre-pandemic normal.

White House links Biden's bad polling on the nation's inability to overcome COVID-19

Continuing with long-standing criticism of the 2020 polls and attacks on political foes, former US President Donald Trump slammed President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion "socialist" spending "monstrosity" on all fronts, from economy to immigration. &nbsp;

Viewed as a likely 2024 presidential contender, Trump has criticised his successor's efforts to cobble together a coalition for the massive spending haul, saying the bill was "so bad". &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/california-becomes-first-state-to-ban-secret-removal-of-condom-during-sex-419611" hreflang="en">California becomes first state to ban secret removal of condom during sex</a>

During a 'Save America' rally in Des Moines, Iowa, Trump said on Saturday night, "It's a socialist transformation bill, it's an open borders bill, (and) it's an American energy destruction bill." &nbsp;&nbsp;

"Joe Biden and the radical Left Democrats in Congress are trying to ram through a $3.5 trillion, wild, spending binge that costs more than the entire sum the United States has spent on any war in the history of our country," the leader said. &nbsp;

"Not only is this the largest spending bill of all time, it's the largest tax hike of all time. This monstrosity is so dangerous for our country and so bad for children and grandchildren to come. This monstrosity is a bill to end America as we know it. It's so bad," the former president said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/travellers-vaccinated-with-who-approved-covid-vaccines-can-enter-us-cdc-419527" hreflang="en">Travellers vaccinated with WHO approved Covid vaccines can enter US: CDC</a>

Suggesting Trump may take on several political opponents in 2024, the former president dropped hints about a campaign slogan, "Make America great again, again," as "America is not great right now." &nbsp;

If the former president enters the race, he would be a formidable candidate, suggests recent polling. A poll in Des Moines Register shows that Trump's approval rating has climbed to 53% in Iowa since leaving office. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Continuing with long-standing criticism of the 2020 polls and attacks on political foes, former US President Donald Trump slammed President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion "socialist" spending "monstrosity" on all fronts, from economy to immigration.

Continuing with long-standing criticism of the 2020 polls and attacks on political foes, former US President Donald Trump slammed President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion "socialist" spending "monstrosity" on all fronts, from economy to immigration. Viewed as a likely 2024 presidential contender, Trump has criticised his successor's efforts to cobble together a coalition for the massive spending haul, saying the bill was "so bad". Also Read: California becomes first state to ban secret removal of condom during sex During a 'Save America' rally in Des Moines, Iowa, Trump said on Saturday night, "It's a socialist transformation bill, it's an open borders bill, (and) it's an American energy destruction bill." "Joe Biden and the radical Left Democrats in Congress are trying to ram through a $3.5 trillion, wild, spending binge that costs more than the entire sum the United States has spent on any war in the history of our country," the leader said. "Not only is this the largest spending bill of all time, it's the largest tax hike of all time. This monstrosity is so dangerous for our country and so bad for children and grandchildren to come. This monstrosity is a bill to end America as we know it. It's so bad," the former president said. Also Read | Travellers vaccinated with WHO approved Covid vaccines can enter US: CDC Suggesting Trump may take on several political opponents in 2024, the former president dropped hints about a campaign slogan, "Make America great again, again," as "America is not great right now." If the former president enters the race, he would be a formidable candidate, suggests recent polling. A poll in Des Moines Register shows that Trump's approval rating has climbed to 53% in Iowa since leaving office. (With inputs from agencies)

At Iowa rally, Trump slams Biden's 'socialist' spending package

US President Joe Biden on Friday issued a proclamation commemorating Indigenous Peoples' Day, becoming the first US president to do so.

Biden in his proclamation highlighted that American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians have built vibrant and diverse cultures. "On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, our Nation celebrates the invaluable contributions and resilience of Indigenous peoples, recognizes their inherent sovereignty, and commits to honoring the Federal Government’s trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations," he wrote.&nbsp;

The President acknowledged the painful history of wrongs and atrocities that many European explorers inflicted on Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities.

"It is a measure of our greatness as a Nation that we do not seek to bury these shameful episodes of our past — that we face them honestly, we bring them to the light, and we do all we can to address them," wrote Biden.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/international-day-of-the-worlds-indigenous-peoples-2021-here-is-all-you-need-to-know-404281">Also read |&nbsp;International day of the world’s indigenous peoples 2021: Here is all you need to know</a>

More than 100 cities, including Seattle, Los Angeles, Denver, Phoenix, San Francisco, and several states, including Minnesota, Alaska, Vermont and Oregon, have replaced Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples' Day.

This comes as they choose to recognise the native populations that were displaced and decimated after Columbus and other European explorers reached the continent.&nbsp;

Berkeley, California, was the first city to adopt Indigenous Peoples' Day, in 1992.

The proclamation read, "NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 11, 2021, as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of our diverse history and the Indigenous peoples who contribute to shaping this Nation."

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that Friday's announcement did not entail ending Columbus Day as a federal holiday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ready-to-abide-by-taiwan-agreement-says-biden-after-speaking-to-chinese-president-xi-418504">Also read |&nbsp;Ready to abide by Taiwan agreement, says Biden after speaking to Chinese President Xi</a>

Psaki was quoted by CNN as saying, "Well, today is both Columbus Day, as of now ... as well as Indigenous Peoples' Day."&nbsp; 
"I'm not aware of any discussion of ending that either, ending the prior federal holiday at this point, but I know that recognizing today as Indigenous Peoples' Day is something that the President felt strongly about personally, he's happy to be the first president to celebrate and to make it, the history of moving forward."

US President Joe Biden on Friday issued a proclamation commemorating Indigenous Peoples' Day, becoming the first US president to do so. Biden in his proclamation highlighted that American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians have built vibrant and diverse cultures.

US President Joe Biden on Friday issued a proclamation commemorating Indigenous Peoples' Day, becoming the first US president to do so. Biden in his proclamation highlighted that American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians have built vibrant and diverse cultures. "On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, our Nation celebrates the invaluable contributions and resilience of Indigenous peoples, recognizes their inherent sovereignty, and commits to honoring the Federal Government’s trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations," he wrote. The President acknowledged the painful history of wrongs and atrocities that many European explorers inflicted on Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities. "It is a measure of our greatness as a Nation that we do not seek to bury these shameful episodes of our past — that we face them honestly, we bring them to the light, and we do all we can to address them," wrote Biden. Also read | International day of the world’s indigenous peoples 2021: Here is all you need to know More than 100 cities, including Seattle, Los Angeles, Denver, Phoenix, San Francisco, and several states, including Minnesota, Alaska, Vermont and Oregon, have replaced Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples' Day. This comes as they choose to recognise the native populations that were displaced and decimated after Columbus and other European explorers reached the continent. Berkeley, California, was the first city to adopt Indigenous Peoples' Day, in 1992. The proclamation read, "NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 11, 2021, as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of our diverse history and the Indigenous peoples who contribute to shaping this Nation." White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that Friday's announcement did not entail ending Columbus Day as a federal holiday. Also read | Ready to abide by Taiwan agreement, says Biden after speaking to Chinese President Xi Psaki was quoted by CNN as saying, "Well, today is both Columbus Day, as of now ... as well as Indigenous Peoples' Day." "I'm not aware of any discussion of ending that either, ending the prior federal holiday at this point, but I know that recognizing today as Indigenous Peoples' Day is something that the President felt strongly about personally, he's happy to be the first president to celebrate and to make it, the history of moving forward."

Indigenous peoples’ day: Joe Biden becomes first president to issue proclamation

President Joe Biden on Friday signed a law providing financial support for victims of mysterious headaches and nausea, suffered by US diplomats, in what has been termed as the "Havana Syndrome."

As per the Havana act, there will be financial compensation for members of the State Department and CIA who suffer brain injury. Dozens of cases have occurred at US embassies around the world, starting with a cluster in Havana, Cuba.&nbsp;

The cause of the illnesses has not been fully diagnosed.

In a statement, Biden said, "I want to thank Congress for passing it with unanimous bipartisan support, sending the clear message that we take care of our own."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/havana-syndrome-strikes-again-what-is-it-exactly-408221">Also read |&nbsp;Havana Syndrome strikes again? What is it exactly?</a>

"Civil servants, intelligence officers, diplomats, and military personnel all around the world have been affected by anomalous health incidents. Some are struggling with debilitating brain injuries that have curtailed their careers of service to our nation," he added.&nbsp;

Republican Senator Susan Collins, who is the lead author of the law, said in a statement that "Havana Syndrome" illnesses have struck more than 40 US staff in Cuba.

A member of CIA Director William Burns' team had similar symptoms in India this month, reports US media. Two US officials in Germany were also among the recent victims and the New Yorker reported that there have been dozens of cases afflicting US officials in Vienna.

The first case was observed in 2016 when a US intelligence agent in the US embassy in Havana complained of vertigo, ear pain, tinnitus. As per a report in Politico, the doctor said that the agent had inner-ear damage likely caused due to the projected energy device.

Since then similar complaints have been reported from US officials in China, Russia and inside the United States.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/financial-aid-to-havana-syndrome-victims-by-biden-government-419391">Watch:&nbsp;Financial aid to Havana Syndrome victims by Biden government</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/financial-aid-to-havana-syndrome-victims-by-biden-government-419391/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

President Joe Biden on Friday signed a law providing financial support for victims of mysterious headaches and nausea, suffered by US diplomats, in what has been termed as the "Havana Syndrome.

President Joe Biden on Friday signed a law providing financial support for victims of mysterious headaches and nausea, suffered by US diplomats, in what has been termed as the "Havana Syndrome." As per the Havana act, there will be financial compensation for members of the State Department and CIA who suffer brain injury. Dozens of cases have occurred at US embassies around the world, starting with a cluster in Havana, Cuba. The cause of the illnesses has not been fully diagnosed. In a statement, Biden said, "I want to thank Congress for passing it with unanimous bipartisan support, sending the clear message that we take care of our own." Also read | Havana Syndrome strikes again? What is it exactly? "Civil servants, intelligence officers, diplomats, and military personnel all around the world have been affected by anomalous health incidents. Some are struggling with debilitating brain injuries that have curtailed their careers of service to our nation," he added. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who is the lead author of the law, said in a statement that "Havana Syndrome" illnesses have struck more than 40 US staff in Cuba. A member of CIA Director William Burns' team had similar symptoms in India this month, reports US media. Two US officials in Germany were also among the recent victims and the New Yorker reported that there have been dozens of cases afflicting US officials in Vienna. The first case was observed in 2016 when a US intelligence agent in the US embassy in Havana complained of vertigo, ear pain, tinnitus. As per a report in Politico, the doctor said that the agent had inner-ear damage likely caused due to the projected energy device. Since then similar complaints have been reported from US officials in China, Russia and inside the United States. Watch: Financial aid to Havana Syndrome victims by Biden government

Biden signs law to support victims of 'Havana Syndrome'

President Joe Biden is expected to announce Friday that he will use his executive authority to restore sweeping environmental protections to three major national monuments that had been stripped away by former President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Biden will reinstate and slightly expand the original 1.3 million-acre boundaries of Bears Ears National Monument and restore the original 1.8 million-acre boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante, two rugged and pristine expanses in Utah defined by red-rock canyons, rich wildlife and archaeological treasures.

He will also restore protections covering the Atlantic Ocean’s first marine monument: the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts, an expanse of sea canyons and underwater mountains off the New England coast.

Trump had sharply reduced the size of all three national monuments at the urging of ranchers, the fishing industry and many Republican leaders, opening them to mining, drilling and development.

“The president’s protection of these three national monuments is among a series of steps the administration has taken to restore protections to some of America’s most cherished lands and waters, many of which are sacred to tribal nations,” the Biden administration is expected to say Friday, according to an advance statement viewed by The New York Times.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ready-to-abide-by-taiwan-agreement-says-biden-after-speaking-to-chinese-president-xi-418504">Also read |&nbsp;Ready to abide by Taiwan agreement, says Biden after speaking to Chinese President Xi</a>

Trump’s 2017 decision to slash Bears Ears by nearly 85% alarmed paleontologists, environmentalists and Native American groups. Bears Ears is rich in fossils dating back hundreds of millions of years and is an important cultural landmark for tribal nations.

Bears Ears and the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts had both been established by President Barack Obama in 2016. Grand Staircase-Escalante was created by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

A spokesman for the White House declined to confirm the announcement.

On his first day in office, Biden ordered a review of the elimination of protections for the monuments to “determine whether restoration of the monument boundaries and conditions would be appropriate.”

In June, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland advised Biden to restore the original boundaries of the monuments.

Bears Ears, named for a pair of towering buttes that dominate much of the landscape of southeast Utah, is the site of ancient Native cliff dwellings and sacred burial grounds. It is the ancestral homeland of five tribal nations: Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni.

Conservation groups welcomed the news. “Thank you, President Biden, you have listened to Indigenous tribes and the American people and ensured these landscapes will be protected for generations to come,” said Jennifer Rokala, director of the Center for Western Priorities, an advocacy organization. “The cultural and paleontological resources within the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase landscapes are too important to leave at risk.”

Haaland, the country’s first Native American Cabinet secretary, is a member of the Laguna Pueblo. She now leads the federal agency that for much of the nation’s history played a central role in the dislocation and abuse of Indigenous communities from coast to coast, and she has made Native American issues a top priority.

In a 2019 interview with The Guardian, Haaland described a recent camping trip she had taken to Bears Ears. “There are some pretty amazing ruins there, and you know, I don’t even like to call them ruins, because in our culture, in Pueblo culture, if you acknowledge our ancestors, they are there,” she said. “The spirit of the people never leaves.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-bidens-agenda-in-the-balance-lobbying-kicks-into-high-gear-418404">Also read |&nbsp;With Biden’s agenda in the balance, lobbying kicks into high gear</a>

But in a joint statement, Utah’s congressional delegation called Biden's decision a “devastating blow” to its efforts to find a lasting solution that could not be changed with each administration.

“Rather than take the opportunity to build unity in a divided region and bring resources and lasting protections to sacred antiquities by seeking a mutually beneficial and permanent legislative solution, President Biden fanned the flames of controversy and ignored input from the communities closest to these monuments,” said the statement, which was signed by Utah’s two senators and three representatives, all Republicans.

The new boundary of Bears Ears will actually incorporate one element of the Trump-era boundaries. When the Trump administration reduced the overall size of the monument by nearly 1 million acres, it also added 11,200 acres that had not been previously protected. The new boundaries will restore the original Obama-era boundary and will include the additional 11,200 Trump-era acres.

President Joe Biden is expected to announce Friday that he will use his executive authority to restore sweeping environmental protections to three major national monuments that had been stripped away by former President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the matter.

President Joe Biden is expected to announce Friday that he will use his executive authority to restore sweeping environmental protections to three major national monuments that had been stripped away by former President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the matter. Biden will reinstate and slightly expand the original 1.3 million-acre boundaries of Bears Ears National Monument and restore the original 1.8 million-acre boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante, two rugged and pristine expanses in Utah defined by red-rock canyons, rich wildlife and archaeological treasures. He will also restore protections covering the Atlantic Ocean’s first marine monument: the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts, an expanse of sea canyons and underwater mountains off the New England coast. Trump had sharply reduced the size of all three national monuments at the urging of ranchers, the fishing industry and many Republican leaders, opening them to mining, drilling and development. “The president’s protection of these three national monuments is among a series of steps the administration has taken to restore protections to some of America’s most cherished lands and waters, many of which are sacred to tribal nations,” the Biden administration is expected to say Friday, according to an advance statement viewed by The New York Times. Also read | Ready to abide by Taiwan agreement, says Biden after speaking to Chinese President Xi Trump’s 2017 decision to slash Bears Ears by nearly 85% alarmed paleontologists, environmentalists and Native American groups. Bears Ears is rich in fossils dating back hundreds of millions of years and is an important cultural landmark for tribal nations. Bears Ears and the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts had both been established by President Barack Obama in 2016. Grand Staircase-Escalante was created by President Bill Clinton in 1996. A spokesman for the White House declined to confirm the announcement. On his first day in office, Biden ordered a review of the elimination of protections for the monuments to “determine whether restoration of the monument boundaries and conditions would be appropriate.” In June, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland advised Biden to restore the original boundaries of the monuments. Bears Ears, named for a pair of towering buttes that dominate much of the landscape of southeast Utah, is the site of ancient Native cliff dwellings and sacred burial grounds. It is the ancestral homeland of five tribal nations: Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni. Conservation groups welcomed the news. “Thank you, President Biden, you have listened to Indigenous tribes and the American people and ensured these landscapes will be protected for generations to come,” said Jennifer Rokala, director of the Center for Western Priorities, an advocacy organization. “The cultural and paleontological resources within the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase landscapes are too important to leave at risk.” Haaland, the country’s first Native American Cabinet secretary, is a member of the Laguna Pueblo. She now leads the federal agency that for much of the nation’s history played a central role in the dislocation and abuse of Indigenous communities from coast to coast, and she has made Native American issues a top priority. In a 2019 interview with The Guardian, Haaland described a recent camping trip she had taken to Bears Ears. “There are some pretty amazing ruins there, and you know, I don’t even like to call them ruins, because in our culture, in Pueblo culture, if you acknowledge our ancestors, they are there,” she said. “The spirit of the people never leaves.” Also read | With Biden’s agenda in the balance, lobbying kicks into high gear But in a joint statement, Utah’s congressional delegation called Biden's decision a “devastating blow” to its efforts to find a lasting solution that could not be changed with each administration. “Rather than take the opportunity to build unity in a divided region and bring resources and lasting protections to sacred antiquities by seeking a mutually beneficial and permanent legislative solution, President Biden fanned the flames of controversy and ignored input from the communities closest to these monuments,” said the statement, which was signed by Utah’s two senators and three representatives, all Republicans. The new boundary of Bears Ears will actually incorporate one element of the Trump-era boundaries. When the Trump administration reduced the overall size of the monument by nearly 1 million acres, it also added 11,200 acres that had not been previously protected. The new boundaries will restore the original Obama-era boundary and will include the additional 11,200 Trump-era acres.

Biden to restore three national monuments in Utah and New England

US President Joe Biden's global reputation may have got a hit after Afghanistan and those overjoyed at the time of him trouncing Trump may be in two minds now, but there was one thing he was always famous for.

Making silly mistakes while speaking publicly.

The gaffe-prone Biden has added one more to his list as he misgendered Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a woman, by addressing her 'Mr mayor'

Biden was in the state to call on private employers to make Covid vaccines mandatory for their employees. Throughout his televised appearance, he was seen stumbling his lines. But the most prominent of his mistakes came when his addressed Lori Lightfoot 'Mr Mayor'.

"Mr Mayor, thanks for the passport into town," he was quoted as saying by UK news outlest Express.

He blunders did not stop there. During the same speech he struggled while recalling President of Illinois' State Senate Don Harmon's name.

The list of gaffes for one day was yet to finish and Biden confused the words 'television' and 'telephone' and said that he was on television instead of saying he was on phone.

This is not the first time Joe Biden has made mistakes when speaking publicly.

He forgot Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's name recently and regarded him as "that fellow down under".

The occassion was announcement of the AUKUS alliance which forges deep security ties between the US, Australia and the UK.&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden's global reputation may have got a hit after Afghanistan and those overjoyed at the time of him trouncing Trump may be in two minds now, but there was one thing he was always famous for.

US President Joe Biden's global reputation may have got a hit after Afghanistan and those overjoyed at the time of him trouncing Trump may be in two minds now, but there was one thing he was always famous for. Making silly mistakes while speaking publicly. The gaffe-prone Biden has added one more to his list as he misgendered Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a woman, by addressing her 'Mr mayor' Biden was in the state to call on private employers to make Covid vaccines mandatory for their employees. Throughout his televised appearance, he was seen stumbling his lines. But the most prominent of his mistakes came when his addressed Lori Lightfoot 'Mr Mayor'. "Mr Mayor, thanks for the passport into town," he was quoted as saying by UK news outlest Express. He blunders did not stop there. During the same speech he struggled while recalling President of Illinois' State Senate Don Harmon's name. The list of gaffes for one day was yet to finish and Biden confused the words 'television' and 'telephone' and said that he was on television instead of saying he was on phone. This is not the first time Joe Biden has made mistakes when speaking publicly. He forgot Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's name recently and regarded him as "that fellow down under". The occassion was announcement of the AUKUS alliance which forges deep security ties between the US, Australia and the UK.

Biden at it again, addresses woman mayor of Chicago as 'Mr Mayor'

US President Joe Biden has pushed for the importance of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public safety as well as economic sustainability.

Speaking at an event on the importance of COVID-19 vaccination requirements on friday, President Biden mentioned various paths to battle the pandemic.

"One, vaccinate the unvaccinated, two, continue to keep the vaccinated protected, keep children safe, increasing test and protect the economic recovery and improve the care of the people with COVID-19," he said in his speech.

Also Read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/san-francisco-bay-area-to-drop-some-indoor-mask-mandates-419042">&nbsp;San Francisco bay area to drop some indoor mask mandates</a>

He added that "more than 185 million Americans are fully vaccinated and more than 75 per cent of eligible Americans have got one shot so far.

"Biden also lobbied for vaccine requirements as an effective tool to end the pandemic, arguing mandates had become necessary to turn the corner on the pandemic."

These requirements work. And as the Business Roundtable and others told me when I announced the first requirement, that encouraged businesses to feel they could come in and demand the same thing of their employees.

More people are getting vaccinated. More lives are being saved," he said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-national-guard-medical-teams-deployed-in-some-areas-in-california-amid-virus-surge-418338">US National Guard medical teams deployed in some areas in California amid virus surge</a>

His speech comes as part of a broader effort from the White House in recent weeks to more vocally encourage vaccine mandates at private companies as a measure to turn the tide on the coronavirus pandemic, as per The Hill.

A White House analysis released in advance of Biden's trip found vaccination rates increased by more than 20 per cent in companies, educational institutions, health systems and public sector agencies that have required their employees to get the shot.

The White House further credited vaccination requirements with cutting the rate of unvaccinated Americans by one-third from the time Biden initially announced a vaccine attestation policy for federal workers, it added.

US President Joe Biden has pushed for the importance of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public safety as well as economic sustainability. Speaking at an event on the importance of COVID-19 vaccination requirements on friday, President Biden mentioned various paths to battle the pandemic.

US President Joe Biden has pushed for the importance of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public safety as well as economic sustainability. Speaking at an event on the importance of COVID-19 vaccination requirements on friday, President Biden mentioned various paths to battle the pandemic. "One, vaccinate the unvaccinated, two, continue to keep the vaccinated protected, keep children safe, increasing test and protect the economic recovery and improve the care of the people with COVID-19," he said in his speech. Also Read | San Francisco bay area to drop some indoor mask mandates He added that "more than 185 million Americans are fully vaccinated and more than 75 per cent of eligible Americans have got one shot so far. "Biden also lobbied for vaccine requirements as an effective tool to end the pandemic, arguing mandates had become necessary to turn the corner on the pandemic." These requirements work. And as the Business Roundtable and others told me when I announced the first requirement, that encouraged businesses to feel they could come in and demand the same thing of their employees. More people are getting vaccinated. More lives are being saved," he said. Also Read | US National Guard medical teams deployed in some areas in California amid virus surge His speech comes as part of a broader effort from the White House in recent weeks to more vocally encourage vaccine mandates at private companies as a measure to turn the tide on the coronavirus pandemic, as per The Hill. A White House analysis released in advance of Biden's trip found vaccination rates increased by more than 20 per cent in companies, educational institutions, health systems and public sector agencies that have required their employees to get the shot. The White House further credited vaccination requirements with cutting the rate of unvaccinated Americans by one-third from the time Biden initially announced a vaccine attestation policy for federal workers, it added.

Biden pushes benefits of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public safety, economic sustainability

Senior Biden officials are in India. Wendy Sherman is on a two-day visit to India. The issues of pandemic and indo-pacific were discussed.

Senior Biden officials visit India

Top US, China officials will meet in Zurich. Biden, Xi will meet virtually by year-end.

Top US, China officials to meet in Zurich by year end

According to the White House, US President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are set to hold a &nbsp;virtual meeting before the end of the year.

The virtual meeting has reportedly been agreed upon in principle. Reports say the meeting was made possible after US National Security Advisor(NSA) Jake Sullivan met top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi as the two set the stage for the upcoming meeting.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-sends-56-warplanes-into-taiwans-defence-zone-in-largest-ever-air-incursion-418264">Also Read:&nbsp;China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone</a>

China's Xinhua news agency declared, "when China and the United States cooperate, the two countries and the world will benefit".

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said: "We are still working through what that would look like, when and of course the final details we don't quite have them yet."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ready-to-abide-by-taiwan-agreement-says-biden-after-speaking-to-chinese-president-xi-418504">Also Read:&nbsp;Ready to abide by Taiwan agreement, says Biden&nbsp;</a>&nbsp;

The proposed virtual meeting comes amid increased tensions between China and the United States over Taiwan and the continuing trade row.&nbsp;

On Monday, US trade Representative Katherine Tai had informed she would be meeting Chinese officials in an attempt to break the trade deadlock which has led to increased tension between the two countries.

On Wednesday President Biden&nbsp;had declared the US was ready to abide by the Taiwan agreement referring to the "One-China" policy shortly after China sent the largest number of warplanes to Taiwan escalating tensions between the two countries.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-has-ability-to-mount-full-scale-invasion-by-2025-says-taiwans-defence-minister-418524">Also Read:&nbsp;China has ability to mount 'full scale' invasion by 2025: Taiwan</a>

President Biden was reportedly set to meet the Chinese president this month at the G20 summit, however, it is unclear whether the meeting was official.

President Biden had spoken to Xi earlier, the first was when he took office and the other phone call took place last month which lasted for one and half hours.

(With inputs from Agencies)

&nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

According to the White House, US President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are set to hold a virtual meeting before the end of the year. The virtual meeting has reportedly been agreed upon in principle.

According to the White House, US President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are set to hold a virtual meeting before the end of the year. The virtual meeting has reportedly been agreed upon in principle. Reports say the meeting was made possible after US National Security Advisor(NSA) Jake Sullivan met top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi as the two set the stage for the upcoming meeting. Also Read: China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone China's Xinhua news agency declared, "when China and the United States cooperate, the two countries and the world will benefit". White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said: "We are still working through what that would look like, when and of course the final details we don't quite have them yet." Also Read: Ready to abide by Taiwan agreement, says Biden The proposed virtual meeting comes amid increased tensions between China and the United States over Taiwan and the continuing trade row. On Monday, US trade Representative Katherine Tai had informed she would be meeting Chinese officials in an attempt to break the trade deadlock which has led to increased tension between the two countries. On Wednesday President Biden had declared the US was ready to abide by the Taiwan agreement referring to the "One-China" policy shortly after China sent the largest number of warplanes to Taiwan escalating tensions between the two countries. Also Read: China has ability to mount 'full scale' invasion by 2025: Taiwan President Biden was reportedly set to meet the Chinese president this month at the G20 summit, however, it is unclear whether the meeting was official. President Biden had spoken to Xi earlier, the first was when he took office and the other phone call took place last month which lasted for one and half hours. (With inputs from Agencies)

President Biden, Chinese President Xi plan to hold virtual summit: White House

Secretary of State Antony J&nbsp;Blinken recently announced sanctions against seven public officials in El Salvador and Guatemala, including five Salvadoran Supreme Court justices, putting them on the State Department’s official list of “Undemocratic and Corrupt Actors.” This round added to the more than 300 individuals the United States had already placed sanctions on in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala and to U.S. diplomatic and financial sanctions on the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

While the US&nbsp;government has applied sanctions on nations and leaders around the world accused of human rights abuses and graft, in Latin America, sanctions have become one of the central pillars of US&nbsp;policy to defend democracy and combat corruption. All of these governments and individuals are probably worthy targets of sanctions, but to what end?

Sanctions can be an important diplomatic tool when applied in a calibrated fashion. But they are rarely accompanied by clear measures of their failure or success and criteria for their possible lifting.

The Treasury Department announced months ago that it was reviewing US&nbsp;sanctions’ effects on the well-being of people in the targeted countries. But the review, requested by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has taken longer than expected and appears to focus on economywide sanctions and not the increasingly common tool of individual sanctions.

One opportunity to reassess and adjust sanctions is occurring in Mexico, as the Venezuelan government negotiates with its democratic opposition. While the Nicolás Maduro regime has said it would not agree to internationally supervised elections until sanctions on the state-owned oil company are lifted, the White House, along with Canada and the European Union, has signaled willingness to loosen some sanctions in exchange for reforms. What those reforms need to be, and which sanctions would be lifted, are not clear.

US&nbsp;sanctions have a long history in Latin America. Cuba is the most obvious example of how sanctions can be piled on, even if they clearly have failed to achieve anything. Originally established in 1962, the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba was codified into law by Congress in 1992 and again in 1996, all with the stated intent of improving human rights and overturning the Communist government. Almost 60 years later, not only does Cuba remain one of the most repressive societies in the world, but in 2018 President Raúl Castro passed the torch to a next generation, with the appointment of the Communist Party apparatchik Miguel Díaz-Canel.

On the campaign trail in 2020, Joe Biden promised to revisit U.S. policy toward Cuba. But rather than seeking a way to scale back President Donald Trump’s restrictions on travel and remittances to the island, after the Cuban government’s crackdown on mostly peaceful demonstrators in July, the Biden White House imposed its own sanctions on four members of the Cuban government and on the national police. It was another ineffective move, since the existing sanctions had failed to prevent the original crackdown.

Central America has also shown how impotent US&nbsp;economic punishments can be. In response to a crackdown against democratic activists by President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, the Trump and Biden administrations have imposed sanctions on more than 100 public officials, including Mr. Ortega and his wife and the vice president, Rosario Murillo. Despite these punishments and the suspension of US&nbsp;development support, seven of Nicaragua’s potential opposition candidates for the Nov. 7 presidential elections are in jail or under house arrest and over 100 political prisoners remain behind bars.

Before Mr. Blinken’s most recent additions, this year the White House had already placed sanctions against more than 55 Central Americans determined to have engaged in corruption. Beyond the risk of just adding more and more people to the list of reprobates ad infinitum under individual sanctions, the economic repercussions of financials sanctions, according to Tufts professor Daniel Drezner, “are likely to trigger repression, corruption and backsliding on human development indicators.”

Over the past decade Venezuela has become the target of the some of the most stringent US&nbsp;coercive measures, starting with a raft of sanctions against individuals under President Barack Obama’s administration. The Trump administration expanded the sanctions prohibiting transactions with Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas companies after the widely questioned 2018 re-election of Mr. Maduro. By 2017 the US&nbsp;government had put sanctions on over 160 Venezuelans for reasons ranging from narcotics trafficking, corruption, ties to terrorists and human rights abuses. The apparent goal in this cascade of sanctions was to topple Mr. Maduro and put his main opponent, Juan Guaidó, in office.

With Mr. Maduro’s government engaged in its fifth attempt at negotiations with the opposition, the Biden administration has the opportunity to demonstrate a new commitment to use sanctions as a carrot rather than a stick — not just for Venezuela, but for the region.

Before the two sides conclude the current negotiations in Mexico, the White House needs to be clear what specific reforms will lead to the lifting of which specific sanctions. The compromise must include Venezuela’s release of 340 or so political prisoners, the delivery of international humanitarian assistance of food and medicines through independent organizations without government interference, and free and fair voting in the Nov. 21 regional and municipal elections. In return, the US&nbsp;government should agree to lift export restrictions on goods and equipment Venezuela needs to process oil, generate electricity and provide diesel for public transport. To minimize the risk that the oil revenue would boost Mr. Maduro’s corrupt state and his cronies, the United States would need to insist that the bulk of the revenue pay for food imports and critical public services to alleviate the suffering of poor Venezuelans.

But beyond any immediate refinement of Venezuelan sanctions, the White House, Congress and experts in the field need to conduct a public bipartisan review of America’s ever-growing sanctions regime to assess the humanitarian impact and evaluate how well the nation’s goals are furthered by such punitive policies, even as Treasury pursues its assessment.

Such an evaluation should establish other diplomatic tools to lay out concrete, realistic steps toward calibrated relief of sanctions (regime change does not count), diplomatic channels to negotiate through third parties, financial incentives through development aid or assurances to private investors to induce change, and coordinating with other sanction-applying entities in these diplomatic efforts.

Slapping sanctions on corrupt, human rights-abusing regimes and individuals may make diplomats and elected officials feel good. But as this becomes an increasingly central part of US&nbsp;policy in Latin America, we need to understand when they aren’t doing their job and be willing to adjust.

Secretary of State Antony J Blinken recently announced sanctions against seven public officials in El Salvador and Guatemala, including five Salvadoran Supreme Court justices, putting them on the State Department’s official list of “Undemocratic and Corrupt Actors.

Secretary of State Antony J Blinken recently announced sanctions against seven public officials in El Salvador and Guatemala, including five Salvadoran Supreme Court justices, putting them on the State Department’s official list of “Undemocratic and Corrupt Actors.” This round added to the more than 300 individuals the United States had already placed sanctions on in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala and to U.S. diplomatic and financial sanctions on the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. While the US government has applied sanctions on nations and leaders around the world accused of human rights abuses and graft, in Latin America, sanctions have become one of the central pillars of US policy to defend democracy and combat corruption. All of these governments and individuals are probably worthy targets of sanctions, but to what end? Sanctions can be an important diplomatic tool when applied in a calibrated fashion. But they are rarely accompanied by clear measures of their failure or success and criteria for their possible lifting. The Treasury Department announced months ago that it was reviewing US sanctions’ effects on the well-being of people in the targeted countries. But the review, requested by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has taken longer than expected and appears to focus on economywide sanctions and not the increasingly common tool of individual sanctions. One opportunity to reassess and adjust sanctions is occurring in Mexico, as the Venezuelan government negotiates with its democratic opposition. While the Nicolás Maduro regime has said it would not agree to internationally supervised elections until sanctions on the state-owned oil company are lifted, the White House, along with Canada and the European Union, has signaled willingness to loosen some sanctions in exchange for reforms. What those reforms need to be, and which sanctions would be lifted, are not clear. US sanctions have a long history in Latin America. Cuba is the most obvious example of how sanctions can be piled on, even if they clearly have failed to achieve anything. Originally established in 1962, the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba was codified into law by Congress in 1992 and again in 1996, all with the stated intent of improving human rights and overturning the Communist government. Almost 60 years later, not only does Cuba remain one of the most repressive societies in the world, but in 2018 President Raúl Castro passed the torch to a next generation, with the appointment of the Communist Party apparatchik Miguel Díaz-Canel. On the campaign trail in 2020, Joe Biden promised to revisit U.S. policy toward Cuba. But rather than seeking a way to scale back President Donald Trump’s restrictions on travel and remittances to the island, after the Cuban government’s crackdown on mostly peaceful demonstrators in July, the Biden White House imposed its own sanctions on four members of the Cuban government and on the national police. It was another ineffective move, since the existing sanctions had failed to prevent the original crackdown. Central America has also shown how impotent US economic punishments can be. In response to a crackdown against democratic activists by President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, the Trump and Biden administrations have imposed sanctions on more than 100 public officials, including Mr. Ortega and his wife and the vice president, Rosario Murillo. Despite these punishments and the suspension of US development support, seven of Nicaragua’s potential opposition candidates for the Nov. 7 presidential elections are in jail or under house arrest and over 100 political prisoners remain behind bars. Before Mr. Blinken’s most recent additions, this year the White House had already placed sanctions against more than 55 Central Americans determined to have engaged in corruption. Beyond the risk of just adding more and more people to the list of reprobates ad infinitum under individual sanctions, the economic repercussions of financials sanctions, according to Tufts professor Daniel Drezner, “are likely to trigger repression, corruption and backsliding on human development indicators.” Over the past decade Venezuela has become the target of the some of the most stringent US coercive measures, starting with a raft of sanctions against individuals under President Barack Obama’s administration. The Trump administration expanded the sanctions prohibiting transactions with Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas companies after the widely questioned 2018 re-election of Mr. Maduro. By 2017 the US government had put sanctions on over 160 Venezuelans for reasons ranging from narcotics trafficking, corruption, ties to terrorists and human rights abuses. The apparent goal in this cascade of sanctions was to topple Mr. Maduro and put his main opponent, Juan Guaidó, in office. With Mr. Maduro’s government engaged in its fifth attempt at negotiations with the opposition, the Biden administration has the opportunity to demonstrate a new commitment to use sanctions as a carrot rather than a stick — not just for Venezuela, but for the region. Before the two sides conclude the current negotiations in Mexico, the White House needs to be clear what specific reforms will lead to the lifting of which specific sanctions. The compromise must include Venezuela’s release of 340 or so political prisoners, the delivery of international humanitarian assistance of food and medicines through independent organizations without government interference, and free and fair voting in the Nov. 21 regional and municipal elections. In return, the US government should agree to lift export restrictions on goods and equipment Venezuela needs to process oil, generate electricity and provide diesel for public transport. To minimize the risk that the oil revenue would boost Mr. Maduro’s corrupt state and his cronies, the United States would need to insist that the bulk of the revenue pay for food imports and critical public services to alleviate the suffering of poor Venezuelans. But beyond any immediate refinement of Venezuelan sanctions, the White House, Congress and experts in the field need to conduct a public bipartisan review of America’s ever-growing sanctions regime to assess the humanitarian impact and evaluate how well the nation’s goals are furthered by such punitive policies, even as Treasury pursues its assessment. Such an evaluation should establish other diplomatic tools to lay out concrete, realistic steps toward calibrated relief of sanctions (regime change does not count), diplomatic channels to negotiate through third parties, financial incentives through development aid or assurances to private investors to induce change, and coordinating with other sanction-applying entities in these diplomatic efforts. Slapping sanctions on corrupt, human rights-abusing regimes and individuals may make diplomats and elected officials feel good. But as this becomes an increasingly central part of US policy in Latin America, we need to understand when they aren’t doing their job and be willing to adjust.

The US needs a sanctions policy that works

President Joe Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress in recent days have slashed their ambitions for a major expansion of America’s social safety net to a package worth $2.3 trillion or less, which will force hard choices about how to scale back a proposal that the president hopes will be transformational.

The figure is substantially less than Biden’s earlier plan, which called for $3.5 trillion in new spending and tax cuts to spur a generational expansion of government in Americans’ lives, including efforts to fight climate change and child poverty, increase access to education and help U.S. companies compete with China.

Democratic leaders will probably need to narrow their plans for free community college, child tax credits and universal prekindergarten so they are offered only to lower- and middle-income Americans, according to party members involved in the negotiations.

The White House is also debating whether to try to keep as many programs as possible, by cutting their duration or reach, or to jettison some initiatives entirely to keep others largely intact, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The cuts represent a blow to Biden’s agenda, but the remaining plans would still deliver significant benefits to a wide range of Americans. Biden and his aides have known for months that they would most likely need to reduce the size and scope of his plans to satisfy moderates in his party.

But the president has stressed, in public and in private conversations with Democrats, that even a smaller bill could shift the landscape of the US&nbsp;economy and help the party hold power in midterm elections next year.

“These bills are about competitiveness versus complacency,” Biden said Tuesday in Michigan, where he spoke at a union hall to promote not only the policies in his spending bill, but a smaller, bipartisan infrastructure bill that has passed the Senate but not the House. “They’re about opportunity versus decay.”

The president acknowledged in private meetings Monday and Tuesday with House Democrats that he was now negotiating a plan to spend no more than $2.3 trillion, and possibly less, in a concession to two Democratic centrist holdouts, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

Their votes are must-haves: Biden will need support from every Democrat in the Senate, and virtually every one in the House, to secure passage of the bill. Manchin has said he would support a $1.5 trillion package under certain conditions.

Progressives are still pushing for more. In a private meeting between Biden and progressive lawmakers Monday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, pushed back at the range Biden offered and instead suggested a price tag of at least $2.5 trillion, and up to $2.9 trillion, according to a person familiar with the comments. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a closed-door meeting.

White House aides say privately that Biden is pushing Manchin and Sinema to spend as much as possible in the final bill. Administration officials also say the reduced cost of spending and tax cuts in the bill means Democrats will have an easier time settling on the revenue increases — including tax hikes on high earners and corporations — to cover the price tag.

Republicans say the legislation inserts too much government into people’s lives and contend that its tax increases would cripple the economy. But the bill’s proponents see a rare and perhaps fleeting opportunity to deliver on decades of promises that Democrats have made to voters.

Privately, many Democrats fear they could lose their congressional majorities next year in midterm elections — making this potentially their last chance for some time to create programs they believe will prove to be effective and popular.

“If the final package fails to meet this moment, it will be a squandered opportunity of historic consequence,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the progressive Groundwork Collaborative in Washington. “These aren’t just numbers on a page or props for political posturing — every dollar represents real investments in climate, housing, caregiving and other critical programs our communities need to survive and thrive.”

On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have set their sights on Oct. 31 as the next self-imposed deadline to try to pass both the $1 trillion infrastructure bill and the sprawling domestic policy package.

Lawmakers and progressive interest groups have begun lobbying Democratic leaders and the White House to keep their preferred spending programs in the bill, all or in part.

Supporters of what Biden initially proposed as a $400 billion investment in home health care for disabled and older Americans, including the powerful Service Employees International Union, are pushing to preserve that spending at a level that both expands access to in-home care and also raises the wages of care workers.

Those workers disproportionately include women of color, making the spending a key plank of Biden’s promise to invest in racial equity.

On Tuesday, the centrist Progressive Policy Institute issued a report outlining a potential $2 trillion plan built around efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a means-tested prekindergarten program, an expansion of the Affordable Care Act and a more modest extension of the tax credit for parents than Biden has championed.

Biden has not said what he would cut. But lobbyists and interest groups have parsed recent comments by the president and his team for clues.

For example: A White House fact sheet issued before the Michigan speech included a list of statistics on the number of state residents who would be helped by Biden’s plans to subsidize child care, provide universal prekindergarten, build affordable housing, invest in child nutrition and more. But it notably did not mention a paid leave program for workers that was a cornerstone of Biden’s initial economic plans, and Biden did not mention paid leave in his speech.

“Nobody is going to get everything they want,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate majority leader, said Monday. “But no matter what, our final proposal will deliver the core promise we made to the American people.”

In a letter to her Democratic colleagues in the House this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California outlined three categories a final package should address to support children and jobs: health care, including both expanding Medicaid and improving Medicare benefits, family care and the climate. She wrote that it remained important to “highlight and communicate to the country the transformative nature of the initiatives in the legislation.”

Some liberals have called for including as many programs as possible, and then continuing to build on them in future legislation. But Pelosi, speaking privately to members of the House Democratic leadership Tuesday, suggested that many in the caucus felt it would be better to focus on fewer programs that they could carry out well, according to two people familiar with the comments.

On Tuesday, Biden met virtually for about an hour with a handful of swing-district Democrats, who face some of the toughest midterm reelection fights, to hear their priorities and reiterate his commitment to seeing both pieces of legislation become law.

Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, said those present “wanted to arm him with the knowledge that the members of the House who were in the toughest races are with him and support doing this.”

The group of lawmakers — including Reps. Cindy Axne of Iowa, Lizzie Fletcher of Texas and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia — largely focused on including the expanded tax cut that provides monthly payments to families, addressing climate change and lowering the cost of prescription drugs, as well as personal priorities, according to people familiar with the discussion.

Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., said Biden took scrupulous notes during the virtual call as the lawmakers detailed their priorities.

“Not a single one of us gave him a top line — we really focused much more on the programs,” Wild said. “Even if it means fewer programs, we want to see them done well, so I don’t think any of us felt like it was useful to just talk about an abstract number.”

President Joe Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress in recent days have slashed their ambitions for a major expansion of America’s social safety net to a package worth $2.

President Joe Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress in recent days have slashed their ambitions for a major expansion of America’s social safety net to a package worth $2.3 trillion or less, which will force hard choices about how to scale back a proposal that the president hopes will be transformational. The figure is substantially less than Biden’s earlier plan, which called for $3.5 trillion in new spending and tax cuts to spur a generational expansion of government in Americans’ lives, including efforts to fight climate change and child poverty, increase access to education and help U.S. companies compete with China. Democratic leaders will probably need to narrow their plans for free community college, child tax credits and universal prekindergarten so they are offered only to lower- and middle-income Americans, according to party members involved in the negotiations. The White House is also debating whether to try to keep as many programs as possible, by cutting their duration or reach, or to jettison some initiatives entirely to keep others largely intact, according to people familiar with the discussions. The cuts represent a blow to Biden’s agenda, but the remaining plans would still deliver significant benefits to a wide range of Americans. Biden and his aides have known for months that they would most likely need to reduce the size and scope of his plans to satisfy moderates in his party. But the president has stressed, in public and in private conversations with Democrats, that even a smaller bill could shift the landscape of the US economy and help the party hold power in midterm elections next year. “These bills are about competitiveness versus complacency,” Biden said Tuesday in Michigan, where he spoke at a union hall to promote not only the policies in his spending bill, but a smaller, bipartisan infrastructure bill that has passed the Senate but not the House. “They’re about opportunity versus decay.” The president acknowledged in private meetings Monday and Tuesday with House Democrats that he was now negotiating a plan to spend no more than $2.3 trillion, and possibly less, in a concession to two Democratic centrist holdouts, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Their votes are must-haves: Biden will need support from every Democrat in the Senate, and virtually every one in the House, to secure passage of the bill. Manchin has said he would support a $1.5 trillion package under certain conditions. Progressives are still pushing for more. In a private meeting between Biden and progressive lawmakers Monday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, pushed back at the range Biden offered and instead suggested a price tag of at least $2.5 trillion, and up to $2.9 trillion, according to a person familiar with the comments. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a closed-door meeting. White House aides say privately that Biden is pushing Manchin and Sinema to spend as much as possible in the final bill. Administration officials also say the reduced cost of spending and tax cuts in the bill means Democrats will have an easier time settling on the revenue increases — including tax hikes on high earners and corporations — to cover the price tag. Republicans say the legislation inserts too much government into people’s lives and contend that its tax increases would cripple the economy. But the bill’s proponents see a rare and perhaps fleeting opportunity to deliver on decades of promises that Democrats have made to voters. Privately, many Democrats fear they could lose their congressional majorities next year in midterm elections — making this potentially their last chance for some time to create programs they believe will prove to be effective and popular. “If the final package fails to meet this moment, it will be a squandered opportunity of historic consequence,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the progressive Groundwork Collaborative in Washington. “These aren’t just numbers on a page or props for political posturing — every dollar represents real investments in climate, housing, caregiving and other critical programs our communities need to survive and thrive.” On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have set their sights on Oct. 31 as the next self-imposed deadline to try to pass both the $1 trillion infrastructure bill and the sprawling domestic policy package. Lawmakers and progressive interest groups have begun lobbying Democratic leaders and the White House to keep their preferred spending programs in the bill, all or in part. Supporters of what Biden initially proposed as a $400 billion investment in home health care for disabled and older Americans, including the powerful Service Employees International Union, are pushing to preserve that spending at a level that both expands access to in-home care and also raises the wages of care workers. Those workers disproportionately include women of color, making the spending a key plank of Biden’s promise to invest in racial equity. On Tuesday, the centrist Progressive Policy Institute issued a report outlining a potential $2 trillion plan built around efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a means-tested prekindergarten program, an expansion of the Affordable Care Act and a more modest extension of the tax credit for parents than Biden has championed. Biden has not said what he would cut. But lobbyists and interest groups have parsed recent comments by the president and his team for clues. For example: A White House fact sheet issued before the Michigan speech included a list of statistics on the number of state residents who would be helped by Biden’s plans to subsidize child care, provide universal prekindergarten, build affordable housing, invest in child nutrition and more. But it notably did not mention a paid leave program for workers that was a cornerstone of Biden’s initial economic plans, and Biden did not mention paid leave in his speech. “Nobody is going to get everything they want,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate majority leader, said Monday. “But no matter what, our final proposal will deliver the core promise we made to the American people.” In a letter to her Democratic colleagues in the House this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California outlined three categories a final package should address to support children and jobs: health care, including both expanding Medicaid and improving Medicare benefits, family care and the climate. She wrote that it remained important to “highlight and communicate to the country the transformative nature of the initiatives in the legislation.” Some liberals have called for including as many programs as possible, and then continuing to build on them in future legislation. But Pelosi, speaking privately to members of the House Democratic leadership Tuesday, suggested that many in the caucus felt it would be better to focus on fewer programs that they could carry out well, according to two people familiar with the comments. On Tuesday, Biden met virtually for about an hour with a handful of swing-district Democrats, who face some of the toughest midterm reelection fights, to hear their priorities and reiterate his commitment to seeing both pieces of legislation become law. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, said those present “wanted to arm him with the knowledge that the members of the House who were in the toughest races are with him and support doing this.” The group of lawmakers — including Reps. Cindy Axne of Iowa, Lizzie Fletcher of Texas and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia — largely focused on including the expanded tax cut that provides monthly payments to families, addressing climate change and lowering the cost of prescription drugs, as well as personal priorities, according to people familiar with the discussion. Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., said Biden took scrupulous notes during the virtual call as the lawmakers detailed their priorities. “Not a single one of us gave him a top line — we really focused much more on the programs,” Wild said. “Even if it means fewer programs, we want to see them done well, so I don’t think any of us felt like it was useful to just talk about an abstract number.”

Biden scales back his agenda in hopes of bringing moderates onboard

As centrist Democrats in Congress have worked to block or strip out major provisions of President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate plan, a string of online ads has popped up in their states and districts, lavishing praise on them.

One calls Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who has emerged as a leading holdout on the measure, an “independent voice” and a “bipartisan leader.” Another says Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon is pushing for the “Biden-Schrader” agenda, though he clearly opposes key portions of the president’s package. A third praises Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York for “fighting for our health care and our economy,” even as she undercuts elements of Biden’s plan.

There is one thing the ads do not say as prominently: They are paid for by groups funded by the pharmaceutical industry and business interests that are lobbying hard to kill or reshape crucial pieces of the president’s plan.

As Democrats labor to keep Biden’s proposal on track in Congress amid deep internal divisions, a robust influence campaign is meeting it at every turn. Business groups are working in overdrive to fight large swaths of it, such as raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations; expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision services; and proposed taxes and fees to cut down on carbon emissions.

The effort is unfolding less conspicuously than previous lobbying pushes; pandemic restrictions have limited large gatherings of lobbyists at the Capitol, so the corridor outside the Senate Finance Committee’s office, which has long been known as “Gucci Gulch,” is no longer overrun with shiny Italian shoes. But the campaign is proceeding as intensely as ever, via individual meetings, Zoom calls, fundraisers and the airwaves.

More than 4,000 lobbyists are working on budget and spending issues, according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit watchdog group that tracks money in politics. Ten major industries have spent nearly $700 million this year on lobbying, the group said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is lobbying to kill the bill because of its tax increases, has already spent about $30 million this year on lobbyists. The pharmaceutical industry, which is trying to defeat a proposal in the measure to bring down drug costs, has spent more than $15 million.

“Every group is reaching out and they want a meeting,” says Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the chief champions of using the far-reaching budget bill to raise taxes on the wealthy. “If they don’t get a commitment in the first meeting, they want a second meeting — and then a third, and then a fourth. They are paying very close attention.”

The influence campaigns cut both ways. Several political action committees and other groups are spending freely to broaden the bill even further and push for its enactment.

Building Back Together, a group formed to support the proposals, is part of a coalition that has committed to spending $150 million on advertising to build support for Biden’s plan. The League of Conservation Voters has spent nearly $6.7 million this month on advertising, according to the analytics firm AdImpact. It is urging Congress to cut carbon pollution in half by 2030 — an element of the package — and has threatened to withhold campaign donations from Democrats who do not support it.

Perhaps no aspect of the package has generated more lobbying activity than a proposal to lower the cost of prescription drugs by empowering Medicare to negotiate their cost. The pharmaceutical lobby is spending more than $1 million on television ads to oppose it. And there are now nearly 1,500 registered pharmaceutical or health care lobbyists working lawmakers in Congress, nearly three for every member, according to Open Secrets.

Ken Frazier, the executive chairman of Merck, which is helping fund the ads, conceded in a recent call with reporters that the companies are fighting the proposal so hard because they believe it will slash their revenue. But he also portrayed the lobbying push as altruistic, arguing that a decline in profit would lead to less money for research and development into new treatments and cures for diseases.

“We have looked at what this would be,” Frazier said. “We have modeled it, and our ability to fund R&amp;D inside Merck will be reduced by almost half.”

PhRMA, the trade group representing pharmaceutical companies, began its first ad against the package last month. In it, a woman named Sue looks into the camera, a tinge of melancholy in her voice, and says the Democrats’ plan would “make it harder for people on Medicare to get the medicines we need.” The ad airs frequently during political news shows watched by policymakers.

The association followed up with another ad accusing politicians of wanting to decide “which medicines you can and can’t get, regardless of what your doctor prescribes.” That was followed with a print advertising campaign, and then an open letter from 30 pharmaceutical companies.

At the same time, a group called Center Forward is running targeted digital ads supporting centrist Democrats who are working to whittle down the bill. The group receives nearly $1.5 million per year from PhRMA, according to tax records.

“Thank Kyrsten Sinema and tell her to keep fighting as an independent voice for Arizona,” one of the ads stated, as Sinema was engaged in discussions with the White House about cutting items out of the president’s package.

Another, aimed at voters in Rep. Scott Peters’ California district, said: “We can always count on Scott Peters to deliver.”

Pharmaceutical companies have showered donations on members of Congress, but none more than Peters, who has received more than $88,000 this year alone. He was one of three Democrats to oppose Biden’s plan to reduce the cost of prescription drugs in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

PhRMA insists its influence campaign is not trying to kill Biden’s multitrillion-dollar bill — they propose an alternative plan that would be less costly for the industry — but the package’s demise is the goal of some other groups.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has condemned the legislation, with its chief executive, Suzanne Clark, arguing it would “dramatically expand the size and scope of government through record levels of inflationary spending and impose massive tax increases that will halt America’s fragile economic recovery.”

“The chamber will do everything we can to prevent this tax-raising, job-killing reconciliation bill from becoming law,” Clark pledged.

No Labels, an organization funded by businesses that has close ties to centrist lawmakers including Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., is working to pass Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, but agitating to kill the broader social policy plan.

When Manchin called for a “pause” to Biden’s $3.5 trillion social policy plan, No Labels quickly put out an ad endorsing his position as “common sense.”

Andrew Bates, a deputy White House press secretary, said Biden’s plan would improve the lives of middle-class Americans and strengthen U.S. competitiveness in the global economy.

The lobbying has angered liberals who blame corporate influence campaigns for standing in the way of their party’s highest priorities.

“We see it on TV every day,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “It’s really sad, because this is the president’s agenda.”

No Labels did not respond to a request for comment.

The American Dental Association is mobilizing its members to oppose the expansion of Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision benefits, arguing it would be too costly for dentists. The Independent Petroleum Association of America is fighting new fees or taxes on energy companies, which they say will raise costs for customers. Likewise, the American Petroleum Institute has lobbied against a fee on methane emissions.

Manchin, a key swing vote on the social safety net package, has close ties to the fossil fuel industry, earning half a million dollars last year from coal production. Asked about those ties last week, Manchin told reporters a “blind trust” manages those financial affairs. But in a memo laying out his demands for the bill, he said he wanted control over any climate change provisions and sought to limit any tax increases on fossil fuel producers.

The American Banker’s Association has taken particular issue with a proposal that would establish tax information reporting requirements designed to cut down on high-income tax cheats.

“While the stated goal of this vast data collection is to uncover tax dodging by the wealthy, this proposal is not remotely targeted to that purpose or that population,” the organization wrote to key lawmakers recently. The association said it had “significant privacy concerns” about the provision, which it said would “create tremendous liability for all affected parties.”

Supporters of Biden’s agenda have gone on the offensive as well.

The Working Families Party recently began targeting critical ads at Sinema, who has received campaign contributions from business interests opposed to the package.

“She’d rather protect wealthy donors,” one of the group’s ads says of Sinema, encouraging supporters to let their opposition to her be known.

As centrist Democrats in Congress have worked to block or strip out major provisions of President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate plan, a string of online ads has popped up in their states and districts, lavishing praise on them.

As centrist Democrats in Congress have worked to block or strip out major provisions of President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate plan, a string of online ads has popped up in their states and districts, lavishing praise on them. One calls Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who has emerged as a leading holdout on the measure, an “independent voice” and a “bipartisan leader.” Another says Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon is pushing for the “Biden-Schrader” agenda, though he clearly opposes key portions of the president’s package. A third praises Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York for “fighting for our health care and our economy,” even as she undercuts elements of Biden’s plan. There is one thing the ads do not say as prominently: They are paid for by groups funded by the pharmaceutical industry and business interests that are lobbying hard to kill or reshape crucial pieces of the president’s plan. As Democrats labor to keep Biden’s proposal on track in Congress amid deep internal divisions, a robust influence campaign is meeting it at every turn. Business groups are working in overdrive to fight large swaths of it, such as raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations; expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision services; and proposed taxes and fees to cut down on carbon emissions. The effort is unfolding less conspicuously than previous lobbying pushes; pandemic restrictions have limited large gatherings of lobbyists at the Capitol, so the corridor outside the Senate Finance Committee’s office, which has long been known as “Gucci Gulch,” is no longer overrun with shiny Italian shoes. But the campaign is proceeding as intensely as ever, via individual meetings, Zoom calls, fundraisers and the airwaves. More than 4,000 lobbyists are working on budget and spending issues, according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit watchdog group that tracks money in politics. Ten major industries have spent nearly $700 million this year on lobbying, the group said. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is lobbying to kill the bill because of its tax increases, has already spent about $30 million this year on lobbyists. The pharmaceutical industry, which is trying to defeat a proposal in the measure to bring down drug costs, has spent more than $15 million. “Every group is reaching out and they want a meeting,” says Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the chief champions of using the far-reaching budget bill to raise taxes on the wealthy. “If they don’t get a commitment in the first meeting, they want a second meeting — and then a third, and then a fourth. They are paying very close attention.” The influence campaigns cut both ways. Several political action committees and other groups are spending freely to broaden the bill even further and push for its enactment. Building Back Together, a group formed to support the proposals, is part of a coalition that has committed to spending $150 million on advertising to build support for Biden’s plan. The League of Conservation Voters has spent nearly $6.7 million this month on advertising, according to the analytics firm AdImpact. It is urging Congress to cut carbon pollution in half by 2030 — an element of the package — and has threatened to withhold campaign donations from Democrats who do not support it. Perhaps no aspect of the package has generated more lobbying activity than a proposal to lower the cost of prescription drugs by empowering Medicare to negotiate their cost. The pharmaceutical lobby is spending more than $1 million on television ads to oppose it. And there are now nearly 1,500 registered pharmaceutical or health care lobbyists working lawmakers in Congress, nearly three for every member, according to Open Secrets. Ken Frazier, the executive chairman of Merck, which is helping fund the ads, conceded in a recent call with reporters that the companies are fighting the proposal so hard because they believe it will slash their revenue. But he also portrayed the lobbying push as altruistic, arguing that a decline in profit would lead to less money for research and development into new treatments and cures for diseases. “We have looked at what this would be,” Frazier said. “We have modeled it, and our ability to fund R&D inside Merck will be reduced by almost half.” PhRMA, the trade group representing pharmaceutical companies, began its first ad against the package last month. In it, a woman named Sue looks into the camera, a tinge of melancholy in her voice, and says the Democrats’ plan would “make it harder for people on Medicare to get the medicines we need.” The ad airs frequently during political news shows watched by policymakers. The association followed up with another ad accusing politicians of wanting to decide “which medicines you can and can’t get, regardless of what your doctor prescribes.” That was followed with a print advertising campaign, and then an open letter from 30 pharmaceutical companies. At the same time, a group called Center Forward is running targeted digital ads supporting centrist Democrats who are working to whittle down the bill. The group receives nearly $1.5 million per year from PhRMA, according to tax records. “Thank Kyrsten Sinema and tell her to keep fighting as an independent voice for Arizona,” one of the ads stated, as Sinema was engaged in discussions with the White House about cutting items out of the president’s package. Another, aimed at voters in Rep. Scott Peters’ California district, said: “We can always count on Scott Peters to deliver.” Pharmaceutical companies have showered donations on members of Congress, but none more than Peters, who has received more than $88,000 this year alone. He was one of three Democrats to oppose Biden’s plan to reduce the cost of prescription drugs in the Energy and Commerce Committee. PhRMA insists its influence campaign is not trying to kill Biden’s multitrillion-dollar bill — they propose an alternative plan that would be less costly for the industry — but the package’s demise is the goal of some other groups. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has condemned the legislation, with its chief executive, Suzanne Clark, arguing it would “dramatically expand the size and scope of government through record levels of inflationary spending and impose massive tax increases that will halt America’s fragile economic recovery.” “The chamber will do everything we can to prevent this tax-raising, job-killing reconciliation bill from becoming law,” Clark pledged. No Labels, an organization funded by businesses that has close ties to centrist lawmakers including Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., is working to pass Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, but agitating to kill the broader social policy plan. When Manchin called for a “pause” to Biden’s $3.5 trillion social policy plan, No Labels quickly put out an ad endorsing his position as “common sense.” Andrew Bates, a deputy White House press secretary, said Biden’s plan would improve the lives of middle-class Americans and strengthen U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. The lobbying has angered liberals who blame corporate influence campaigns for standing in the way of their party’s highest priorities. “We see it on TV every day,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “It’s really sad, because this is the president’s agenda.” No Labels did not respond to a request for comment. The American Dental Association is mobilizing its members to oppose the expansion of Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision benefits, arguing it would be too costly for dentists. The Independent Petroleum Association of America is fighting new fees or taxes on energy companies, which they say will raise costs for customers. Likewise, the American Petroleum Institute has lobbied against a fee on methane emissions. Manchin, a key swing vote on the social safety net package, has close ties to the fossil fuel industry, earning half a million dollars last year from coal production. Asked about those ties last week, Manchin told reporters a “blind trust” manages those financial affairs. But in a memo laying out his demands for the bill, he said he wanted control over any climate change provisions and sought to limit any tax increases on fossil fuel producers. The American Banker’s Association has taken particular issue with a proposal that would establish tax information reporting requirements designed to cut down on high-income tax cheats. “While the stated goal of this vast data collection is to uncover tax dodging by the wealthy, this proposal is not remotely targeted to that purpose or that population,” the organization wrote to key lawmakers recently. The association said it had “significant privacy concerns” about the provision, which it said would “create tremendous liability for all affected parties.” Supporters of Biden’s agenda have gone on the offensive as well. The Working Families Party recently began targeting critical ads at Sinema, who has received campaign contributions from business interests opposed to the package. “She’d rather protect wealthy donors,” one of the group’s ads says of Sinema, encouraging supporters to let their opposition to her be known.

With Biden’s agenda in the balance, lobbying kicks into high gear

biden

Biden, News on Biden, stories on Biden, articles on Biden, Biden stories at Wion, Biden news, Biden latest news