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

President Joe Biden urged congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling Monday, excoriating Republicans for what he said was “reckless” and “disgraceful” obstruction ahead of a default deadline later this month that he warned would amount to “a self-inflicted wound that takes our economy over a cliff.”

Biden, trying to convey the risks to everyday Americans, warned that they could see the effects as early as this week if Senate Democrats were not able to vote to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling controls the amount of money the government can borrow to fulfill its financial obligations, including Social Security checks, salaries for military personnel and other bills.

“It starts with a simple truth: The United States is a nation that pays its bills and always has,” Biden said. “If we’re going to make good on what has already been approved by previous Congresses, and previous presidents and parties, we have to pay for it.”

The remarks presaged increased public engagement by Biden on an issue that risks economic crisis.

Biden pointed out that Republicans had voted several times to increase the debt limit under President Donald Trump but are using a filibuster to block any attempt by Democrats to raise it this time around. He said that he would not be expecting Republicans to “do their part,” but he warned them “not to use procedural tricks to block us from doing the job.”

Technically, the United States hit its debt limit at the end of July, following a two-year extension that Congress agreed to in 2019. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been using “extraordinary measures” since then to delay a default. Those are essentially fiscal accounting tools that curb certain government investments so that the bills can continue to be paid.

Yellen warned Congress last week of “catastrophic” consequences should lawmakers fail to suspend or raise the statutory debt limit before Oct. 18, which the Treasury believes is the date the United States will run out of enough money to pay all its bills.

Congress raises the debt limit to cover spending it has already approved, and the Treasury has warned that failure to do so would tank financial markets and have wide-ranging effects on Americans: Defaulting could pause Social Security checks, delay the pay of military troops and interfere with child tax credit payments.

But Republicans — who had voted to raise the debt cap by trillions when their party controlled Washington — have moved to block a spending bill needed to avoid default. Instead, Republicans including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have sought to place political responsibility on Democrats, who are at the same time seeking to advance a sprawling social policy bill that could cost as much as $3.5 trillion.

“Bipartisanship is not a light switch that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer may flip on to borrow money and flip off to spend it,” McConnell wrote in a letter to Biden on Monday, referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. “For two and a half months, we have simply warned that since your party wishes to govern alone, it must handle the debt limit alone as well.”

The president said he planned on talking to McConnell about the letter: “He and I have been down this road once before,” Biden said.

Democrats have so far refused to try to raise the debt ceiling through a fast-track process known as reconciliation. On Monday, Schumer told Democrats that a spending bill needed to reach Biden’s desk within days, not weeks.

“Let me be clear about the task ahead of us: We must get a bill to the President’s desk dealing with the debt limit by the end of the week. Period. We do not have the luxury of waiting until Oct. 18,” he wrote in a “dear colleague” letter dated Monday.

Asked if he supported reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling, Biden said the process would be “fraught with all kinds of potential danger or miscalculation” and said the way to proceed would be a vote on a bill to raise the limit.

Administration officials say Biden will continue to pressure Republicans to step aside — by breaking their filibuster — and allow Democrats to vote on their own this week to raise the limit.

“Let us vote,” Biden said, “and end the mess.”

As he urges congressional leaders to find a way forward on raising the debt limit, Biden still must drum up support for a bipartisan infrastructure deal and an expansive social spending plan.

“I’ve been able to close the deal on 99% of my party,” Biden said, before adding that “two people” remain opposed to the second piece, a reference to Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

“It’s not a smart thing to negotiate with yourself in public,” Biden said, when asked if he would support a lower figure on the reconciliation package.

President Joe Biden urged congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling Monday, excoriating Republicans for what he said was “reckless” and “disgraceful” obstruction ahead of a default deadline later this month that he warned would amount to “a self-inflicted wound that takes our economy over a cliff.

President Joe Biden urged congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling Monday, excoriating Republicans for what he said was “reckless” and “disgraceful” obstruction ahead of a default deadline later this month that he warned would amount to “a self-inflicted wound that takes our economy over a cliff.” Biden, trying to convey the risks to everyday Americans, warned that they could see the effects as early as this week if Senate Democrats were not able to vote to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling controls the amount of money the government can borrow to fulfill its financial obligations, including Social Security checks, salaries for military personnel and other bills. “It starts with a simple truth: The United States is a nation that pays its bills and always has,” Biden said. “If we’re going to make good on what has already been approved by previous Congresses, and previous presidents and parties, we have to pay for it.” The remarks presaged increased public engagement by Biden on an issue that risks economic crisis. Biden pointed out that Republicans had voted several times to increase the debt limit under President Donald Trump but are using a filibuster to block any attempt by Democrats to raise it this time around. He said that he would not be expecting Republicans to “do their part,” but he warned them “not to use procedural tricks to block us from doing the job.” Technically, the United States hit its debt limit at the end of July, following a two-year extension that Congress agreed to in 2019. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been using “extraordinary measures” since then to delay a default. Those are essentially fiscal accounting tools that curb certain government investments so that the bills can continue to be paid. Yellen warned Congress last week of “catastrophic” consequences should lawmakers fail to suspend or raise the statutory debt limit before Oct. 18, which the Treasury believes is the date the United States will run out of enough money to pay all its bills. Congress raises the debt limit to cover spending it has already approved, and the Treasury has warned that failure to do so would tank financial markets and have wide-ranging effects on Americans: Defaulting could pause Social Security checks, delay the pay of military troops and interfere with child tax credit payments. But Republicans — who had voted to raise the debt cap by trillions when their party controlled Washington — have moved to block a spending bill needed to avoid default. Instead, Republicans including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have sought to place political responsibility on Democrats, who are at the same time seeking to advance a sprawling social policy bill that could cost as much as $3.5 trillion. “Bipartisanship is not a light switch that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer may flip on to borrow money and flip off to spend it,” McConnell wrote in a letter to Biden on Monday, referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. “For two and a half months, we have simply warned that since your party wishes to govern alone, it must handle the debt limit alone as well.” The president said he planned on talking to McConnell about the letter: “He and I have been down this road once before,” Biden said. Democrats have so far refused to try to raise the debt ceiling through a fast-track process known as reconciliation. On Monday, Schumer told Democrats that a spending bill needed to reach Biden’s desk within days, not weeks. “Let me be clear about the task ahead of us: We must get a bill to the President’s desk dealing with the debt limit by the end of the week. Period. We do not have the luxury of waiting until Oct. 18,” he wrote in a “dear colleague” letter dated Monday. Asked if he supported reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling, Biden said the process would be “fraught with all kinds of potential danger or miscalculation” and said the way to proceed would be a vote on a bill to raise the limit. Administration officials say Biden will continue to pressure Republicans to step aside — by breaking their filibuster — and allow Democrats to vote on their own this week to raise the limit. “Let us vote,” Biden said, “and end the mess.” As he urges congressional leaders to find a way forward on raising the debt limit, Biden still must drum up support for a bipartisan infrastructure deal and an expansive social spending plan. “I’ve been able to close the deal on 99% of my party,” Biden said, before adding that “two people” remain opposed to the second piece, a reference to Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. “It’s not a smart thing to negotiate with yourself in public,” Biden said, when asked if he would support a lower figure on the reconciliation package.

Biden says Republicans being ‘reckless’ over debt limit increase

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific. After the call, Kishida said that he received "strong" message from President Joe Biden about the United States' commitment to defending the disputed East China Sea islets known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan The phone call lasted for about 20 minutes.

Kishida was voted in by Japanese lawmakers on Monday as Japan's new prime minister.

Kishida's conversation with Biden came a day after he called parliamentary elections for October 31 and vowed to bolster the country's response to Covid&nbsp;pandemic. He was voted in by lawmakers on Monday as the nation's new prime minister.

"We confirmed that we would work together toward the strengthening of the Japan-US alliance and free and open Indo-Pacific," Kishida said. "We also confirmed we would work closely on issues related to China and North Korea."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-sends-56-warplanes-into-taiwans-defence-zone-in-largest-ever-air-incursion-418264">China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone in largest-ever air incursion</a>

"Especially, the president made a strong comment on the US&nbsp;commitment to defend Japan, including the Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan security treaty," Kishida added, referring to US&nbsp;defence obligations to Japan, which cover the uninhabited island.

Japan has become increasingly concerned about Chinese activity in the East China Sea, including incursions into waters around the disputed islands, known as the Diaoyus in China.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific.

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific. After the call, Kishida said that he received "strong" message from President Joe Biden about the United States' commitment to defending the disputed East China Sea islets known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan The phone call lasted for about 20 minutes. Kishida was voted in by Japanese lawmakers on Monday as Japan's new prime minister. Kishida's conversation with Biden came a day after he called parliamentary elections for October 31 and vowed to bolster the country's response to Covid pandemic. He was voted in by lawmakers on Monday as the nation's new prime minister. "We confirmed that we would work together toward the strengthening of the Japan-US alliance and free and open Indo-Pacific," Kishida said. "We also confirmed we would work closely on issues related to China and North Korea." Also Read | China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone in largest-ever air incursion "Especially, the president made a strong comment on the US commitment to defend Japan, including the Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan security treaty," Kishida added, referring to US defence obligations to Japan, which cover the uninhabited island. Japan has become increasingly concerned about Chinese activity in the East China Sea, including incursions into waters around the disputed islands, known as the Diaoyus in China. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden congratulates Japan's new PM Kishida on phone call, both confirm strong alliance

After a tumultuous week in Congress, during which deep divisions in the Democratic Party delayed progress on part of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, debate spilled over into the weekend as the party braced for intense negotiations in the weeks ahead.

Progressives on Sunday flatly rejected the latest demands from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote for Democrats, to shrink Biden’s domestic policy agenda by more than half and to insert a provision to ensure that the federal government does not fund abortions.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said progressives would not agree to reduce Biden’s 10-year, $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate bill to $1.5 trillion, as Manchin requested.

“That’s not going to happen,” Jayapal said on CNN's “State of the Union.” “That’s too small to get our priorities in. It’s going to be somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, and I think the White House is working on that right now. Remember: What we want to deliver is child care, paid leave, climate change.”

Manchin said in an interview with National Review last week that he was insisting that the legislation include the Hyde Amendment, which states that Medicaid will not pay for an abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

The Hyde Amendment has been reauthorized every year since 1976, but Biden did not include it in his latest budget proposal. During the presidential race, his campaign initially said he supported the amendment, but he later reversed course and condemned it.

Jayapal, who was one of three members of Congress who testified last week about their personal experiences of having an abortion, said she opposed Manchin’s demand.

“The Hyde Amendment is something the majority of the country does not support,” she said.

However, Jayapal and other progressives said they were willing to compromise on the package’s price tag. Several said they were discussing whether to cut certain programs from their agenda entirely or to reduce the duration of the bill’s funding — to five years from 10 years, for example.

“We can front-load the benefits and have less years,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Jayapal said that progressives were willing to explore shortening the length of some components of the funding bill to decrease its cost, but that new clean-energy standards needed to stay in the legislation for a decade.

“It takes time to cut carbon emissions,” she said.

Debate has raged on Capitol Hill over the past week over Biden’s domestic agenda. The nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus blocked a House vote on his $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which is favored by the Democrats’ centrist wing. The more liberal lawmakers sought leverage to secure passage of the president’s larger $3.5 trillion domestic policy bill, which some centrist Democrats have not endorsed.

With slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, nearly every Democratic vote is needed to pass both bills.

Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and majority leader, have assured the Congressional Progressive Caucus that both bills will advance as part of a “two-track” process.

“We’re trying to pass some of the most significant legislation to help working families — throughout New York and around the country — that’s been done since Franklin D. Roosevelt,” Schumer said at a news conference in New York City on Sunday. “It takes a little time. I believe we’re on track to pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill as well as the reconciliation Build Back Better bill, and our goal is to get both bills done in the next month.”

In a letter to lawmakers Saturday, Pelosi urged passage of the infrastructure bill by the end of the month and signaled that Democratic leaders were continuing to negotiate the broader social policy and climate bill with Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., two party holdouts who are needed to pass legislation in the Senate.

“Again, we will and must pass both bills soon,” Pelosi wrote. “We have the responsibility and the opportunity to do so.”

Sinema on Saturday released a statement condemning the delay of the infrastructure vote, calling it a “failure” and “deeply disappointing for communities across our country.”

“Denying Americans millions of good-paying jobs, safer roads, cleaner water, more reliable electricity and better broadband only hurts everyday families,” she said.

But Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Budget Committee, expressed confidence in the progressives’ negotiating position, pointing to signals from the White House that their faction was right to push for a more ambitious legislative agenda.

“We’ve got the president of the United States on our side,” Sanders said on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday. “Got 96% of the members of the Democratic caucus in the House on our side. We got all but two senators at this point in the Democratic caucus on our side. We’re going to win this thing.”

Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to Biden, predicted that both liberals and centrists would have to give some to reach a deal.

“People will be disappointed. People will not get everything we want,” he said on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “We’re going to fight until we get both bills.”

Speaking on “State of the Union,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Senate Democrat, agreed that some big choices lie ahead.

“We have to ask that very fundamental question,” he said. “Should we do everything to a limited degree, or should we really invest ourselves in the most important things?”

After a tumultuous week in Congress, during which deep divisions in the Democratic Party delayed progress on part of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, debate spilled over into the weekend as the party braced for intense negotiations in the weeks ahead.

After a tumultuous week in Congress, during which deep divisions in the Democratic Party delayed progress on part of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, debate spilled over into the weekend as the party braced for intense negotiations in the weeks ahead. Progressives on Sunday flatly rejected the latest demands from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote for Democrats, to shrink Biden’s domestic policy agenda by more than half and to insert a provision to ensure that the federal government does not fund abortions. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said progressives would not agree to reduce Biden’s 10-year, $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate bill to $1.5 trillion, as Manchin requested. “That’s not going to happen,” Jayapal said on CNN's “State of the Union.” “That’s too small to get our priorities in. It’s going to be somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, and I think the White House is working on that right now. Remember: What we want to deliver is child care, paid leave, climate change.” Manchin said in an interview with National Review last week that he was insisting that the legislation include the Hyde Amendment, which states that Medicaid will not pay for an abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The Hyde Amendment has been reauthorized every year since 1976, but Biden did not include it in his latest budget proposal. During the presidential race, his campaign initially said he supported the amendment, but he later reversed course and condemned it. Jayapal, who was one of three members of Congress who testified last week about their personal experiences of having an abortion, said she opposed Manchin’s demand. “The Hyde Amendment is something the majority of the country does not support,” she said. However, Jayapal and other progressives said they were willing to compromise on the package’s price tag. Several said they were discussing whether to cut certain programs from their agenda entirely or to reduce the duration of the bill’s funding — to five years from 10 years, for example. “We can front-load the benefits and have less years,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said on “Fox News Sunday.” Jayapal said that progressives were willing to explore shortening the length of some components of the funding bill to decrease its cost, but that new clean-energy standards needed to stay in the legislation for a decade. “It takes time to cut carbon emissions,” she said. Debate has raged on Capitol Hill over the past week over Biden’s domestic agenda. The nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus blocked a House vote on his $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which is favored by the Democrats’ centrist wing. The more liberal lawmakers sought leverage to secure passage of the president’s larger $3.5 trillion domestic policy bill, which some centrist Democrats have not endorsed. With slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, nearly every Democratic vote is needed to pass both bills. Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and majority leader, have assured the Congressional Progressive Caucus that both bills will advance as part of a “two-track” process. “We’re trying to pass some of the most significant legislation to help working families — throughout New York and around the country — that’s been done since Franklin D. Roosevelt,” Schumer said at a news conference in New York City on Sunday. “It takes a little time. I believe we’re on track to pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill as well as the reconciliation Build Back Better bill, and our goal is to get both bills done in the next month.” In a letter to lawmakers Saturday, Pelosi urged passage of the infrastructure bill by the end of the month and signaled that Democratic leaders were continuing to negotiate the broader social policy and climate bill with Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., two party holdouts who are needed to pass legislation in the Senate. “Again, we will and must pass both bills soon,” Pelosi wrote. “We have the responsibility and the opportunity to do so.” Sinema on Saturday released a statement condemning the delay of the infrastructure vote, calling it a “failure” and “deeply disappointing for communities across our country.” “Denying Americans millions of good-paying jobs, safer roads, cleaner water, more reliable electricity and better broadband only hurts everyday families,” she said. But Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Budget Committee, expressed confidence in the progressives’ negotiating position, pointing to signals from the White House that their faction was right to push for a more ambitious legislative agenda. “We’ve got the president of the United States on our side,” Sanders said on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday. “Got 96% of the members of the Democratic caucus in the House on our side. We got all but two senators at this point in the Democratic caucus on our side. We’re going to win this thing.” Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to Biden, predicted that both liberals and centrists would have to give some to reach a deal. “People will be disappointed. People will not get everything we want,” he said on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “We’re going to fight until we get both bills.” Speaking on “State of the Union,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Senate Democrat, agreed that some big choices lie ahead. “We have to ask that very fundamental question,” he said. “Should we do everything to a limited degree, or should we really invest ourselves in the most important things?”

Progressives stand firm on priorities as infrastructure debate continues

For well over a year now, President Joe Biden’s vaunted negotiating style largely boiled down to this: I’m with you.

After he vanquished Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the Democratic primary, he brought the liberal icon’s ardent supporters into the fold by embracing much of the senator’s platform even as he ran on unifying the country. When moderate Democrats came to call, he used the tones of centrism to assure them of his conciliatory bona fides.

But when Biden ventured to the Capitol on Friday to help House Democrats out of their thicket, he had to choose sides. He effectively chose the left.

“The way he is governing doesn’t reflect the skills I know he must have from his years as a legislator,” said Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., who had been one of the moderates demanding an immediate vote on a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, convinced that was what the president wanted — or at least needed. She called Biden’s refusal to push harder for legislation he had embraced “disappointing and frustrating.”

“I’m not clear why he came up to the Hill,” she grumbled.

Since the president claimed his party’s nomination last year, he has nurtured the fragile peace between his party’s fractious center and left by convincing both sides he is their ally. Unified first by their shared disdain for former President Donald Trump, and then by Biden’s adoption of an expansive platform, the two factions remained in harmony into this year. They responded to the pandemic by passing a sweeping stimulus package in the spring.

Now the two factions are at loggerheads — one flexing its power but as yet empty-handed, the other feeling betrayed, both claiming they have the president on their side — and the outcome of their battle over Biden’s proposals could determine Democrats’ fate in the midterms and the success of his presidency.

That agenda consists of two sweeping domestic proposals resembling a modern Great Society: the “American Jobs Plan,” spending $1 trillion over 10 years on traditional infrastructure like roads, bridges and tunnels; and a bigger and more controversial “American Family Plan,” which the Democrats labeled “soft infrastructure,” including universal prekindergarten and community college, paid family and medical leave, child care and elder care support, and an expansion of Medicare.

But liberals feared that moderate Democrats would vote for the infrastructure bill, claim victory and peel away from the social policy measure, so they refused to support the smaller infrastructure bill until the larger social policy package had been passed.

Heading into last week, both the moderates and the progressives felt as if they had ironclad promises: the moderates, that a vote on infrastructure would happen before October; the liberals, that the bill, a crucial part of the president’s domestic agenda, was inextricably twinned with their higher priority, the more expansive measure addressing climate change and the frayed social safety net.

The liberals, however, used their larger numbers to blockade the infrastructure bill — and they said they did it for Biden. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of the left-wing leaders of the blockade, stood before reporters last week and said the blockaders were the ones “trying to make sure that the president has a success.”

“If we pass the infrastructure bill alone, we are not even accomplishing 10% of his agenda,” said Omar, the vote-counter in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a bloc of Democrats nearly 100 strong, who showed their cohesion in last week’s showdown.

This enraged both the nine centrist lawmakers who had forced Speaker Nancy Pelosi to promise an infrastructure vote by the end of September, and a larger, quieter group of backbench House Democrats, many from swing districts, who were eager for the president to sign the public works bill and start trumpeting the funding for roads, bridges and broadband in their districts, at a time when Biden’s approval ratings were sagging.

“I don’t think it’s good for the Joe Biden administration, and I don’t think it’s good for Democrats,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, suggesting that Biden was effectively siding with the left by not lobbying for passage of the infrastructure package.

In part, that anger stemmed from Biden’s go-along-to-get-along style.

“You got the feeling that Uncle Joe is for everybody, he likes everybody,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.

Members of the moderate wing were explicit Friday, blaming the liberals but also insisting that they themselves were Biden’s true torch bearers. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., denounced a “small faction on the far left” that he said had employed “Freedom Caucus tactics” to “destroy the president’s agenda” — a reference to the hard-right faction of the House that bedeviled Republican leaders when they were in charge.

“We were elected to achieve reasonable, common-sense solutions for the American people — not to obstruct from the far wings,” Gottheimer fumed in a statement released late Friday night. “This far-left faction is willing to put the president’s entire agenda, including this historic bipartisan infrastructure package, at risk. They’ve put civility and bipartisan governing at risk.”

Given the range of the party’s suburbanites-to-socialists coalition, it may have been inevitable that Biden would eventually anger one wing of his party. What was striking, and perhaps equally surprising to both blocs, was that he alienated the moderates who had propelled him to the nomination while delighting the progressives who vociferously opposed him in the primary.

The president is not backing off the public works measure so treasured by the moderates.

But as he told House Democrats on Friday, he believes it’s “just reality” that the infrastructure legislation will not pass without assurances from two centrist senators, Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., that they will support the more wide-ranging bill.

Although, as Biden conceded in the Capitol, that will not happen until the more expansive bill is pared back to meet the two senators’ approval.

The decision to keep the fate of each bill tied to the other’s measure amounts to a gamble. Infrastructure was the bird in hand; it passed the Senate with bipartisan bonhomie in August with 69 votes.

Together, they are in trouble, which deepens with every new demand by Manchin and Sinema that pulls the social policy bill further from the liberals’ vision. If the two factions cannot agree on that measure, Biden might end up with nothing — a catastrophic blow for his party and its leader.

Delaying the infrastructure bill is not, as Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., put it, “the linear and expeditious path to which most of us would aspire.”

Phillips, a well-liked moderate who captured a Republican district in 2018, expressed hope earlier in the week that Biden could serve as a bridge between the party’s factions. But he acknowledged Friday that those chances had “been sadly diminished” in light of what he called the president’s “nothing-burger” of a visit to the Capitol.

Phillips said he thought both bills would still get done. But privately, other lawmakers from competitive seats were disconsolate that they would not be able to spend the remainder of this fall holding up evidence of bipartisan achievement in Washington.

Biden is eager to sign both bills. One of his aides Friday likened them to children he loves equally.

That has not, though, stopped both factions of the party from claiming that they are the ones seeking to assure passage of his agenda.

The result is quite a turnabout.

“We are fighting for the Build Back Better agenda,” said Omar, employing Biden’s preferred slogan — which would have been shocking at this time two years ago, when she rallied early to Sanders’ candidacy.

Throughout 2019 and in the first months of 2020, Biden was an object of scorn from the left. He was too old, too moderate and an obviously bad fit for an increasingly young, diverse and progressive party, they said, often mocking him in harsh terms.

Biden believed liberals were the ones out of step with the Democratic center of gravity. And he effectively proved it by assembling a multiracial coalition that was animated by defeating Trump more than by any bold policy agenda.

Yet because his primary had largely centered on ousting Trump and unifying the country, he had little in the way of firm policy plans. And in making peace with progressives after he secured the nomination, he adopted a number of their ideas.

That has allowed left-wing Democrats to say, with wide smiles, that they are only trying to fulfill Biden’s vision. The question now is whether his attempt to pass both bills will pay off — or if his decision to not push for quick passage of the infrastructure bill will leave him with a protracted standoff or nothing at all.

What is certain, however, is that after Biden’s all-things-to-all-people campaign, he has committed himself to many of the policies that his liberal critics were skeptical he would embrace.

“For all of the progressives who kept telling me there was no difference between Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., an early Biden supporter, “where Biden has come down in this internal debate shows how absurd that claim always was.”

For well over a year now, President Joe Biden’s vaunted negotiating style largely boiled down to this: I’m with you. After he vanquished Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

For well over a year now, President Joe Biden’s vaunted negotiating style largely boiled down to this: I’m with you. After he vanquished Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the Democratic primary, he brought the liberal icon’s ardent supporters into the fold by embracing much of the senator’s platform even as he ran on unifying the country. When moderate Democrats came to call, he used the tones of centrism to assure them of his conciliatory bona fides. But when Biden ventured to the Capitol on Friday to help House Democrats out of their thicket, he had to choose sides. He effectively chose the left. “The way he is governing doesn’t reflect the skills I know he must have from his years as a legislator,” said Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., who had been one of the moderates demanding an immediate vote on a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, convinced that was what the president wanted — or at least needed. She called Biden’s refusal to push harder for legislation he had embraced “disappointing and frustrating.” “I’m not clear why he came up to the Hill,” she grumbled. Since the president claimed his party’s nomination last year, he has nurtured the fragile peace between his party’s fractious center and left by convincing both sides he is their ally. Unified first by their shared disdain for former President Donald Trump, and then by Biden’s adoption of an expansive platform, the two factions remained in harmony into this year. They responded to the pandemic by passing a sweeping stimulus package in the spring. Now the two factions are at loggerheads — one flexing its power but as yet empty-handed, the other feeling betrayed, both claiming they have the president on their side — and the outcome of their battle over Biden’s proposals could determine Democrats’ fate in the midterms and the success of his presidency. That agenda consists of two sweeping domestic proposals resembling a modern Great Society: the “American Jobs Plan,” spending $1 trillion over 10 years on traditional infrastructure like roads, bridges and tunnels; and a bigger and more controversial “American Family Plan,” which the Democrats labeled “soft infrastructure,” including universal prekindergarten and community college, paid family and medical leave, child care and elder care support, and an expansion of Medicare. But liberals feared that moderate Democrats would vote for the infrastructure bill, claim victory and peel away from the social policy measure, so they refused to support the smaller infrastructure bill until the larger social policy package had been passed. Heading into last week, both the moderates and the progressives felt as if they had ironclad promises: the moderates, that a vote on infrastructure would happen before October; the liberals, that the bill, a crucial part of the president’s domestic agenda, was inextricably twinned with their higher priority, the more expansive measure addressing climate change and the frayed social safety net. The liberals, however, used their larger numbers to blockade the infrastructure bill — and they said they did it for Biden. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of the left-wing leaders of the blockade, stood before reporters last week and said the blockaders were the ones “trying to make sure that the president has a success.” “If we pass the infrastructure bill alone, we are not even accomplishing 10% of his agenda,” said Omar, the vote-counter in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a bloc of Democrats nearly 100 strong, who showed their cohesion in last week’s showdown. This enraged both the nine centrist lawmakers who had forced Speaker Nancy Pelosi to promise an infrastructure vote by the end of September, and a larger, quieter group of backbench House Democrats, many from swing districts, who were eager for the president to sign the public works bill and start trumpeting the funding for roads, bridges and broadband in their districts, at a time when Biden’s approval ratings were sagging. “I don’t think it’s good for the Joe Biden administration, and I don’t think it’s good for Democrats,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, suggesting that Biden was effectively siding with the left by not lobbying for passage of the infrastructure package. In part, that anger stemmed from Biden’s go-along-to-get-along style. “You got the feeling that Uncle Joe is for everybody, he likes everybody,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. Members of the moderate wing were explicit Friday, blaming the liberals but also insisting that they themselves were Biden’s true torch bearers. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., denounced a “small faction on the far left” that he said had employed “Freedom Caucus tactics” to “destroy the president’s agenda” — a reference to the hard-right faction of the House that bedeviled Republican leaders when they were in charge. “We were elected to achieve reasonable, common-sense solutions for the American people — not to obstruct from the far wings,” Gottheimer fumed in a statement released late Friday night. “This far-left faction is willing to put the president’s entire agenda, including this historic bipartisan infrastructure package, at risk. They’ve put civility and bipartisan governing at risk.” Given the range of the party’s suburbanites-to-socialists coalition, it may have been inevitable that Biden would eventually anger one wing of his party. What was striking, and perhaps equally surprising to both blocs, was that he alienated the moderates who had propelled him to the nomination while delighting the progressives who vociferously opposed him in the primary. The president is not backing off the public works measure so treasured by the moderates. But as he told House Democrats on Friday, he believes it’s “just reality” that the infrastructure legislation will not pass without assurances from two centrist senators, Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., that they will support the more wide-ranging bill. Although, as Biden conceded in the Capitol, that will not happen until the more expansive bill is pared back to meet the two senators’ approval. The decision to keep the fate of each bill tied to the other’s measure amounts to a gamble. Infrastructure was the bird in hand; it passed the Senate with bipartisan bonhomie in August with 69 votes. Together, they are in trouble, which deepens with every new demand by Manchin and Sinema that pulls the social policy bill further from the liberals’ vision. If the two factions cannot agree on that measure, Biden might end up with nothing — a catastrophic blow for his party and its leader. Delaying the infrastructure bill is not, as Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., put it, “the linear and expeditious path to which most of us would aspire.” Phillips, a well-liked moderate who captured a Republican district in 2018, expressed hope earlier in the week that Biden could serve as a bridge between the party’s factions. But he acknowledged Friday that those chances had “been sadly diminished” in light of what he called the president’s “nothing-burger” of a visit to the Capitol. Phillips said he thought both bills would still get done. But privately, other lawmakers from competitive seats were disconsolate that they would not be able to spend the remainder of this fall holding up evidence of bipartisan achievement in Washington. Biden is eager to sign both bills. One of his aides Friday likened them to children he loves equally. That has not, though, stopped both factions of the party from claiming that they are the ones seeking to assure passage of his agenda. The result is quite a turnabout. “We are fighting for the Build Back Better agenda,” said Omar, employing Biden’s preferred slogan — which would have been shocking at this time two years ago, when she rallied early to Sanders’ candidacy. Throughout 2019 and in the first months of 2020, Biden was an object of scorn from the left. He was too old, too moderate and an obviously bad fit for an increasingly young, diverse and progressive party, they said, often mocking him in harsh terms. Biden believed liberals were the ones out of step with the Democratic center of gravity. And he effectively proved it by assembling a multiracial coalition that was animated by defeating Trump more than by any bold policy agenda. Yet because his primary had largely centered on ousting Trump and unifying the country, he had little in the way of firm policy plans. And in making peace with progressives after he secured the nomination, he adopted a number of their ideas. That has allowed left-wing Democrats to say, with wide smiles, that they are only trying to fulfill Biden’s vision. The question now is whether his attempt to pass both bills will pay off — or if his decision to not push for quick passage of the infrastructure bill will leave him with a protracted standoff or nothing at all. What is certain, however, is that after Biden’s all-things-to-all-people campaign, he has committed himself to many of the policies that his liberal critics were skeptical he would embrace. “For all of the progressives who kept telling me there was no difference between Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., an early Biden supporter, “where Biden has come down in this internal debate shows how absurd that claim always was.”

Biden throws in with Left, leaving his agenda in doubt

US President Joe Biden signed the government funding bill on Thursday, just hours after congressional lawmakers rushed to pass the measure before the shutdown deadline.

US President Joe Biden signed the government funding bill on Thursday, just hours after congressional lawmakers rushed to pass the measure before the shutdown deadline. Hours ahead of the midnight deadline, the House of Representatives voted to keep the lights on for another two months with a resolution that had already advanced comfortably from the Senate, with opposition Republicans supporting the ruling Democrats in both chambers. Biden signed the bill shortly after. "This is a good outcome, one I'm happy we are getting done," Chuck Schumer, the top Democratic senator, told colleagues on the chamber floor ahead of both votes, which were never in serious doubt. "With so many things to take care of here in Washington, the last thing the American people need is for the government to grind to a halt," he said. Also read | UK fuel industry denies government claims crisis is easing The House voted 254-175 to advance the measure. Just hours earlier, the Senate voted 65-35, in a display of bipartisanship in both chambers. The Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill is due for a crucial vote in the House on Thursday that appears to have no chance of passing, with the Democrats' left-wing in open revolt. The progressives do not trust that centrists, who object to the size of the larger spending package, will honour an agreement to pass the legislation once the infrastructure is across the line. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin inflamed tensions with a statement arguing that trillions of dollars in extra spending was "fiscal insanity," solidifying opposition to the smaller infrastructure bill. He told reporters Thursday that he was unwilling to go above $1.5 trillion. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she planned to forge ahead, while White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters, "We're working towards winning a vote tonight. We have several hours left in the day."

US government shutdown averted hours before deadline as Biden signs bill

For more than a decade, Washington has struggled to prioritize what it calls great power competition with China — a contest for military and political dominance. President Biden has been working hard to make the pivot to Asia that his two predecessors never quite managed.

The landmark defense pact with Australia and Britain, AUKUS, that Mr. Biden announced this month is a major step to making that pivot a reality. Under the agreement, Australia will explore hosting U.S. bombers on its territory, gain access to advanced missiles and receive nuclear propulsion technology to power a new fleet of submarines.

On the surface, AUKUS provides a way to aid the deployment of advanced military hardware in Asia and draw a clearer line between countries standing with China and those standing against it.

But the agreement also reflects the problems of great power competition. It’s not clear whether it will help address the security challenges posed by China — or be worth the costs.

Although AUKUS made headlines about a united Anglophone front against China, it caused issues with other allies (namely France). It risks compromising long-term nonproliferation interests in favor of near-term militarism. It directs immense resources to ineffective strategies. It reacts to China’s military buildup but does not provide a credible deterrent or seriously alter the regional military balance against Beijing.

Take the case of Taiwan, considered by many to be the most pressing challenge to the United States from China. The prospect of a Chinese attack on the island is preoccupying generals and policymakers and driving Pentagon budgets and planning amid concerns of aggression.

War games inside and outside the Pentagon show that China’s massive military buildup has increased Beijing’s capability to rapidly gain control over Taiwan. It is far more difficult for the United States and its allies to project power thousands of miles to Taiwan than it is for China to project power 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait. U.S. aircraft simply cannot fly enough sorties to overwhelm both China’s aircraft and its missile defense systems. Allied ships are too few and too vulnerable to Chinese missiles to control the seas around the island.

The AUKUS agreement does not change these facts. And any marginal gains are likely to be too little, too late. It will be at least a decade before the first new Australian submarine is put to sea. Meanwhile, according to U.S. naval intelligence, China will add six nuclear-powered attack submarines by 2030 and is expanding production facilities, in addition to its rapid construction of diesel-electric submarines.

That doesn’t mean the United States and its allies should abandon Taiwan. But it does mean that we cannot expect to defend Taiwan by overwhelming China with superior firepower projected from distant bases and ports. Neither AUKUS submarines nor U.S. bombers flying from northern Australia are likely to tip the balance if they are dedicated to the same losing strategy. So the three nations in the AUKUS agreement are not more likely to intervene or more capable of doing so.

This is a hallmark of great power competition: Competitive initiatives like AUKUS provide visible ways to counter or balance or complicate China’s military activities but don’t necessarily help allies meet defined objectives. More often, competition becomes an end in itself — an open-ended imperative that assumes everything an opponent dislikes must be good policy.

Another common feature of competitive policies is that officials tend to overlook their costs.

For one thing, AUKUS carries significant diplomatic costs at a time when the United States is in desperate need of credibility with its allies. France views AUKUS as “a knife in the back” because Australia sealed it by backing out of a 2016 deal worth $66 billion to purchase French diesel-electric submarines. That perceived betrayal could cause unnecessary friction in NATO and make it more difficult to cooperate with France on China.

In Asia, the agreement exposes the Quad — an informal partnership of the United States, Japan, India and Australia — as thin multilateralism, willing to coordinate on issues from health to military exercises but apparently unwilling or unable to directly confront China. This much was evident when a White House statement after a meeting of the Quad last week did not offer much concrete help for Asian nations facing interference from China.

There is also the risk that the deal spooks Southeast Asian nations that, despite facing threats from China, worry about getting caught in the middle of this great power competition and could become less likely to cooperate with U.S. initiatives that might anger Beijing, their biggest and most powerful neighbor.

Moreover, the AUKUS agreement, with its sharing of nuclear propulsion technology, could do significant damage to nonproliferation interests. Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia rightly promised that the nation “is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability.” But that assurance won’t necessarily prevent or deter other countries from exploiting the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows diversion of nuclear materials for naval reactors.

As the AUKUS nations hammer out details of the agreement over the next 18 months, the countries should consider two adjustments to make sure it sets a strong precedent. First, Australia should commit not to enrich uranium or reprocess reactor fuel domestically while it operates the reactors. Second, those nations should consider including France in the agreement in order to use its reactor designs, which run on low-enriched uranium — considered less of a proliferation risk than the highly enriched uranium in U.S. or British designs.

U.S. officials will also have to work hard to ensure the agreement does not cause problems with South Korea, another ally exploring nuclear-powered submarines and one where many politicians and nearly 70 percent of the public support developing nuclear weapons.

The Biden administration should take a breath and make certain it does not reflect a self-defeating, militarized concept of great power that pushes other potential partners away in bullheaded pursuit of agreement on one issue. It should institute strong nonproliferation safeguards, repair damage to other vital alliances and ensure that the plan isn’t throwing good money after bad strategy.

The administration should be investing in more cost-effective ways to thwart China’s ability to project military power, like long-range air defenses and anti-ship missiles, not expensive systems that stand little chance of overwhelming China’s forces near its borders. The administration also should recognize when military might is not the answer — and do more to raise the economic and diplomatic costs of Chinese aggression.

Mr. Biden should guarantee that agreements like AUKUS do not undermine the United States’ deterrence credibility, its alliances and partnerships and its long-term interests like nuclear nonproliferation. Too often, a narrow focus on great power competition just leaves America less competitive in the long run.

For more than a decade, Washington has struggled to prioritize what it calls great power competition with China — a contest for military and political dominance.

For more than a decade, Washington has struggled to prioritize what it calls great power competition with China — a contest for military and political dominance. President Biden has been working hard to make the pivot to Asia that his two predecessors never quite managed. The landmark defense pact with Australia and Britain, AUKUS, that Mr. Biden announced this month is a major step to making that pivot a reality. Under the agreement, Australia will explore hosting U.S. bombers on its territory, gain access to advanced missiles and receive nuclear propulsion technology to power a new fleet of submarines. On the surface, AUKUS provides a way to aid the deployment of advanced military hardware in Asia and draw a clearer line between countries standing with China and those standing against it. But the agreement also reflects the problems of great power competition. It’s not clear whether it will help address the security challenges posed by China — or be worth the costs. Although AUKUS made headlines about a united Anglophone front against China, it caused issues with other allies (namely France). It risks compromising long-term nonproliferation interests in favor of near-term militarism. It directs immense resources to ineffective strategies. It reacts to China’s military buildup but does not provide a credible deterrent or seriously alter the regional military balance against Beijing. Take the case of Taiwan, considered by many to be the most pressing challenge to the United States from China. The prospect of a Chinese attack on the island is preoccupying generals and policymakers and driving Pentagon budgets and planning amid concerns of aggression. War games inside and outside the Pentagon show that China’s massive military buildup has increased Beijing’s capability to rapidly gain control over Taiwan. It is far more difficult for the United States and its allies to project power thousands of miles to Taiwan than it is for China to project power 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait. U.S. aircraft simply cannot fly enough sorties to overwhelm both China’s aircraft and its missile defense systems. Allied ships are too few and too vulnerable to Chinese missiles to control the seas around the island. The AUKUS agreement does not change these facts. And any marginal gains are likely to be too little, too late. It will be at least a decade before the first new Australian submarine is put to sea. Meanwhile, according to U.S. naval intelligence, China will add six nuclear-powered attack submarines by 2030 and is expanding production facilities, in addition to its rapid construction of diesel-electric submarines. That doesn’t mean the United States and its allies should abandon Taiwan. But it does mean that we cannot expect to defend Taiwan by overwhelming China with superior firepower projected from distant bases and ports. Neither AUKUS submarines nor U.S. bombers flying from northern Australia are likely to tip the balance if they are dedicated to the same losing strategy. So the three nations in the AUKUS agreement are not more likely to intervene or more capable of doing so. This is a hallmark of great power competition: Competitive initiatives like AUKUS provide visible ways to counter or balance or complicate China’s military activities but don’t necessarily help allies meet defined objectives. More often, competition becomes an end in itself — an open-ended imperative that assumes everything an opponent dislikes must be good policy. Another common feature of competitive policies is that officials tend to overlook their costs. For one thing, AUKUS carries significant diplomatic costs at a time when the United States is in desperate need of credibility with its allies. France views AUKUS as “a knife in the back” because Australia sealed it by backing out of a 2016 deal worth $66 billion to purchase French diesel-electric submarines. That perceived betrayal could cause unnecessary friction in NATO and make it more difficult to cooperate with France on China. In Asia, the agreement exposes the Quad — an informal partnership of the United States, Japan, India and Australia — as thin multilateralism, willing to coordinate on issues from health to military exercises but apparently unwilling or unable to directly confront China. This much was evident when a White House statement after a meeting of the Quad last week did not offer much concrete help for Asian nations facing interference from China. There is also the risk that the deal spooks Southeast Asian nations that, despite facing threats from China, worry about getting caught in the middle of this great power competition and could become less likely to cooperate with U.S. initiatives that might anger Beijing, their biggest and most powerful neighbor. Moreover, the AUKUS agreement, with its sharing of nuclear propulsion technology, could do significant damage to nonproliferation interests. Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia rightly promised that the nation “is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability.” But that assurance won’t necessarily prevent or deter other countries from exploiting the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows diversion of nuclear materials for naval reactors. As the AUKUS nations hammer out details of the agreement over the next 18 months, the countries should consider two adjustments to make sure it sets a strong precedent. First, Australia should commit not to enrich uranium or reprocess reactor fuel domestically while it operates the reactors. Second, those nations should consider including France in the agreement in order to use its reactor designs, which run on low-enriched uranium — considered less of a proliferation risk than the highly enriched uranium in U.S. or British designs. U.S. officials will also have to work hard to ensure the agreement does not cause problems with South Korea, another ally exploring nuclear-powered submarines and one where many politicians and nearly 70 percent of the public support developing nuclear weapons. The Biden administration should take a breath and make certain it does not reflect a self-defeating, militarized concept of great power that pushes other potential partners away in bullheaded pursuit of agreement on one issue. It should institute strong nonproliferation safeguards, repair damage to other vital alliances and ensure that the plan isn’t throwing good money after bad strategy. The administration should be investing in more cost-effective ways to thwart China’s ability to project military power, like long-range air defenses and anti-ship missiles, not expensive systems that stand little chance of overwhelming China’s forces near its borders. The administration also should recognize when military might is not the answer — and do more to raise the economic and diplomatic costs of Chinese aggression. Mr. Biden should guarantee that agreements like AUKUS do not undermine the United States’ deterrence credibility, its alliances and partnerships and its long-term interests like nuclear nonproliferation. Too often, a narrow focus on great power competition just leaves America less competitive in the long run.

Biden, you should be aware that your submarine deal has costs

Within 10 months into his presidency, Joe Biden already seems to be taking a massive hit in the approval ratings. Watch this report for more details.

Most Americans find Biden's COVID response satisfactory

Greta Thunberg has mocked the climate goals set by world leaders, saying there has been no action so far. Is radical activism hurting the world's climate strategy? Or do world leaders deserve this scolding? Molly Gambhir tells you.

Gravitas: "Blah, blah, blah": Greta mocks climate goals

Slips of the tongue seems to have become a common affair in US President Joe Biden’s administration. After Biden himself made the gaffe some time ago, now its House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s turn. &nbsp;&nbsp;

On Tuesday, Pelosi misspoke, while calling for the passage of Barack Obama’s agenda instead of Biden’s.&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pentagon-leaders-to-testify-on-us-pullout-from-afghanistan-416640/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The leader called on the Congress to “keep government open” and work to “address the full Obama agenda of building back better.” &nbsp;

Pelosi has argued that the Congress has a “moral imperative” to pass “the Biden Build Back Better Act,” in a Tuesday "Dear Colleague" letter by writing, “We must and will move forward to keep government open and to lift the debt ceiling.” &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-senators-seek-probe-into-pakistans-role-in-talibans-afghan-victory-416821" hreflang="en">US senators seek probe into Pakistan's role in Taliban’s Afghan victory</a>

Pelosi wrote, “As I write this to you, negotiations are being led by President Biden to advance his vision. The President takes a pride in his agenda, which is shared overwhelmingly by House and Senate Democrats, which creates jobs, gives tax cuts for the middle class, lowers costs for health care and is paid by making the wealthiest few and big corporations pay their fair share.” &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/liberals-dig-in-against-infrastructure-bill-as-party-divisions-persist-416842" hreflang="en">Liberals dig in against infrastructure bill as party divisions persist</a>

Meanwhile, Biden seems to have been gaffe-prone. The 78-year-old appeared to mistake Syria for Libya at a news conference after G7 summit in the UK some months ago. He appeared to make the mistake twice. &nbsp;

During a meeting with governors, US President Joe Biden unintentionally revealed a note from his staff informing him that he had something on his face after a yellow mark was noticed on his chin. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Slips of the tongue seems to have become a common affair in US President Joe Biden’s administration. After Biden himself made the gaffe some time ago, now its House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s turn.

Slips of the tongue seems to have become a common affair in US President Joe Biden’s administration. After Biden himself made the gaffe some time ago, now its House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s turn. On Tuesday, Pelosi misspoke, while calling for the passage of Barack Obama’s agenda instead of Biden’s. Watch: × The leader called on the Congress to “keep government open” and work to “address the full Obama agenda of building back better.” Pelosi has argued that the Congress has a “moral imperative” to pass “the Biden Build Back Better Act,” in a Tuesday "Dear Colleague" letter by writing, “We must and will move forward to keep government open and to lift the debt ceiling.” Also Read: US senators seek probe into Pakistan's role in Taliban’s Afghan victory Pelosi wrote, “As I write this to you, negotiations are being led by President Biden to advance his vision. The President takes a pride in his agenda, which is shared overwhelmingly by House and Senate Democrats, which creates jobs, gives tax cuts for the middle class, lowers costs for health care and is paid by making the wealthiest few and big corporations pay their fair share.” Also Read: Liberals dig in against infrastructure bill as party divisions persist Meanwhile, Biden seems to have been gaffe-prone. The 78-year-old appeared to mistake Syria for Libya at a news conference after G7 summit in the UK some months ago. He appeared to make the mistake twice. During a meeting with governors, US President Joe Biden unintentionally revealed a note from his staff informing him that he had something on his face after a yellow mark was noticed on his chin. (With inputs from agencies)

Gaffe-prone US leaders do it again: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mistakes Obama for Biden

Democrats prepared legislation Wednesday to avert a government shutdown this week, but they were desperately trying to salvage President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda as conservative-leaning holdouts dug in against an ambitious $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate bill that carries many of the party’s top priorities.

Congressional leaders moved to address the most immediate threat, working to complete a bill to prevent a government funding lapse at midnight Thursday. Yet after days of intensive negotiations to bridge bitter differences in their party over Biden’s two biggest legislative priorities, the president and top Democrats appeared as far as ever from an agreement on their marquee social policy package, which the White House calls the Build Back Better plan.

That, in turn, was imperiling a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that was scheduled for a House vote Thursday.

The fate of the two measures could define the success of Biden’s presidency, and the intense negotiations surrounding them have posed a test of his skills as a deal maker, which he highlighted as a calling card during his campaign for the White House. But after days of personal meetings with lawmakers in the Oval Office and phone calls to key players, Biden remained far short of a deal.

Dramatizing the challenge, Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a leading holdout on the social policy bill, issued a lengthy and strongly worded statement Wednesday evening reiterating his opposition to the proposal as currently constituted, saying it amounted to “fiscal insanity.”

“While I am hopeful that common ground can be found that would result in another historic investment in our nation, I cannot — and will not — support trillions in spending or an all-or-nothing approach that ignores the brutal fiscal reality our nation faces,” Manchin wrote, denouncing an approach that he said would “vengefully tax for the sake of wishful spending.”

The statement was the polar opposite of what Biden and top Democrats had hoped to extract from Manchin and other centrist critics of the bill by week’s end — a firm public commitment to eventually vote for the social policy measure, in order to placate liberals who want to ensure its enactment.

Instead, it further enraged progressives who were already promising to oppose the infrastructure bill until Congress acted on the larger social policy plan, which Democrats plan to push through using a fast-track process known as budget reconciliation to shield it from a filibuster. They have been pressing to push off the infrastructure vote until after votes on the reconciliation bill — or, at the very least, after the centrist holdouts provided a firm sense of what they would accept in that package.

“I assume he’s saying that the president is insane, because this is the president’s agenda,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said of Manchin. “Look, this is why we’re not voting for that bipartisan bill until we get agreement on the reconciliation bill. It’s clear we’ve got a ways to go.

“I tell you, after that statement, we probably have even more people willing to vote ‘no’ on the bipartisan bill,” she added.

The impasse left unclear the fate of the infrastructure measure. While a handful of centrist Republicans plan to support it, GOP leaders are urging their members to oppose it, leaving Democrats who hold a slim majority short of votes to pass the bill if progressives revolt.

“The plan is to bring the bill to the floor,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, returning to Capitol Hill after huddling at the White House with Biden and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. Asked whether she was concerned about the votes, she added, “One hour at a time.”

She spoke shortly after the House passed legislation lifting the statutory limit on federal borrowing until Dec. 16, 2022, an effort to avert a catastrophic federal debt default next month when the Treasury Department says it will breach the current cap.

Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to pair the increase with a spending bill to keep the government funded and are likely to oppose the House-passed bill, which was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 219-212 on Wednesday.

But even as the debt ceiling remained unresolved, Senate leaders scheduled a series of votes for Thursday morning on legislation that would keep the government open through early December and provide crucial aid for disaster relief efforts and Afghan refugees. The House is expected to take up the legislation soon afterward to avoid a shutdown Thursday night.

But much of the urgency Wednesday was focused on salvaging the president’s agenda, after Biden and his aides cleared his schedule Wednesday in an attempt to broker a deal among Democrats.

Some Democrats have complained this week that the president has not engaged in talks to their satisfaction. He welcomed groups of progressives and moderates to the White House last week, for example, but met with each separately, as opposed to holding a group negotiating session.

And efforts by Biden and his team to pressure Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, another Democratic holdout on the reconciliation bill, appear to have fallen flat. Officials have been working for days to persuade the pair to specify how much they would be willing to spend on the package, calculating that such a commitment would allay the worries of progressives now refusing to support the infrastructure bill.

“Joe Biden is the only president in American history to have passed a relief package of the significance of the American Rescue Plan with zero margin for error in the Senate and three votes to spare in the House,” said Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the White House, referring to the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package that became law in March. “He knows how to make his case, he knows how to count votes, and he knows how to deliver for the American middle class.”

Both Sinema and Manchin visited the White House on Tuesday, but after their meetings, neither they nor White House officials would enumerate the contours of a bill they could support. Top White House officials also trekked to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to huddle privately with Sinema for more than two hours.

“The president felt it was constructive, felt they moved the ball forward, felt there was an agreement, that we’re at a pivotal moment,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters Tuesday, characterizing the meetings. “It’s important to continue to finalize the path forward to get the job done for the American people.”

Biden held conversations with various lawmakers throughout the day Wednesday and planned to continue them Thursday, White House officials said.

Privately, administration officials said Biden was continuing to take an encouraging role with Manchin and Sinema, and not demanding they agree to anything immediately. Both senators have yet to publicly do so, even as liberal Democrats continue to publicly fume over the reticence.

In his statement Wednesday, Manchin said he wanted to set income thresholds for many of the social program expansions Democrats have proposed. He suggested that he would be open to undoing some components of the 2017 tax cut.

Moderate House Democrats, who helped secure a commitment for a vote this week on the infrastructure bill, warned that a failed vote would worsen the already deep mistrust between the two factions of the party.

“If the vote were to fail tomorrow or be delayed, there would be a significant breach of trust that would slow the momentum in moving forward on delivering the Biden agenda,” said Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida, one of the moderates who sought to decouple the two plans.

Even as they labored to work out philosophical differences in their party on the bill, Democrats suffered yet another setback Wednesday when the Senate’s top rules enforcer rejected a second proposal to include in the reconciliation bill a path to legal status for about 8 million immigrants living in the country illegally.

In a memo obtained by The New York Times, Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate parliamentarian, wrote that the policy change “vastly outweighs its budgetary impact,” effectively disqualifying it from inclusion in a measure whose contents must have a direct impact on the federal budget.

In their latest effort, Democrats had proposed moving up the date for a process known as immigration registry, which allows otherwise law-abiding immigrants who have been in the United States continuously since a certain date to adjust their status and gain a pathway to citizenship. The current date, established in 1986, is set at Jan. 1, 1972. Democrats had sought to change that date to Jan. 1, 2010.

Last week, MacDonough rejected Democrats’ initial proposal to grant legal status to several categories of people in the country illegally, including those brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers; immigrants who were granted Temporary Protected Status for humanitarian reasons; people working in the country under nonimmigrant visas; close to 1 million farmworkers; and millions more who are deemed “essential workers.”

She said those changes to immigration law could not be included, under the Senate rules, in the reconciliation package because they represented a “tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”

Democrats said they would continue to look for alternative strategies to aid immigrants through the reconciliation process.

Democrats prepared legislation Wednesday to avert a government shutdown this week, but they were desperately trying to salvage President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda as conservative-leaning holdouts dug in against an ambitious $3.

Democrats prepared legislation Wednesday to avert a government shutdown this week, but they were desperately trying to salvage President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda as conservative-leaning holdouts dug in against an ambitious $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate bill that carries many of the party’s top priorities. Congressional leaders moved to address the most immediate threat, working to complete a bill to prevent a government funding lapse at midnight Thursday. Yet after days of intensive negotiations to bridge bitter differences in their party over Biden’s two biggest legislative priorities, the president and top Democrats appeared as far as ever from an agreement on their marquee social policy package, which the White House calls the Build Back Better plan. That, in turn, was imperiling a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that was scheduled for a House vote Thursday. The fate of the two measures could define the success of Biden’s presidency, and the intense negotiations surrounding them have posed a test of his skills as a deal maker, which he highlighted as a calling card during his campaign for the White House. But after days of personal meetings with lawmakers in the Oval Office and phone calls to key players, Biden remained far short of a deal. Dramatizing the challenge, Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a leading holdout on the social policy bill, issued a lengthy and strongly worded statement Wednesday evening reiterating his opposition to the proposal as currently constituted, saying it amounted to “fiscal insanity.” “While I am hopeful that common ground can be found that would result in another historic investment in our nation, I cannot — and will not — support trillions in spending or an all-or-nothing approach that ignores the brutal fiscal reality our nation faces,” Manchin wrote, denouncing an approach that he said would “vengefully tax for the sake of wishful spending.” The statement was the polar opposite of what Biden and top Democrats had hoped to extract from Manchin and other centrist critics of the bill by week’s end — a firm public commitment to eventually vote for the social policy measure, in order to placate liberals who want to ensure its enactment. Instead, it further enraged progressives who were already promising to oppose the infrastructure bill until Congress acted on the larger social policy plan, which Democrats plan to push through using a fast-track process known as budget reconciliation to shield it from a filibuster. They have been pressing to push off the infrastructure vote until after votes on the reconciliation bill — or, at the very least, after the centrist holdouts provided a firm sense of what they would accept in that package. “I assume he’s saying that the president is insane, because this is the president’s agenda,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said of Manchin. “Look, this is why we’re not voting for that bipartisan bill until we get agreement on the reconciliation bill. It’s clear we’ve got a ways to go. “I tell you, after that statement, we probably have even more people willing to vote ‘no’ on the bipartisan bill,” she added. The impasse left unclear the fate of the infrastructure measure. While a handful of centrist Republicans plan to support it, GOP leaders are urging their members to oppose it, leaving Democrats who hold a slim majority short of votes to pass the bill if progressives revolt. “The plan is to bring the bill to the floor,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, returning to Capitol Hill after huddling at the White House with Biden and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. Asked whether she was concerned about the votes, she added, “One hour at a time.” She spoke shortly after the House passed legislation lifting the statutory limit on federal borrowing until Dec. 16, 2022, an effort to avert a catastrophic federal debt default next month when the Treasury Department says it will breach the current cap. Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to pair the increase with a spending bill to keep the government funded and are likely to oppose the House-passed bill, which was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 219-212 on Wednesday. But even as the debt ceiling remained unresolved, Senate leaders scheduled a series of votes for Thursday morning on legislation that would keep the government open through early December and provide crucial aid for disaster relief efforts and Afghan refugees. The House is expected to take up the legislation soon afterward to avoid a shutdown Thursday night. But much of the urgency Wednesday was focused on salvaging the president’s agenda, after Biden and his aides cleared his schedule Wednesday in an attempt to broker a deal among Democrats. Some Democrats have complained this week that the president has not engaged in talks to their satisfaction. He welcomed groups of progressives and moderates to the White House last week, for example, but met with each separately, as opposed to holding a group negotiating session. And efforts by Biden and his team to pressure Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, another Democratic holdout on the reconciliation bill, appear to have fallen flat. Officials have been working for days to persuade the pair to specify how much they would be willing to spend on the package, calculating that such a commitment would allay the worries of progressives now refusing to support the infrastructure bill. “Joe Biden is the only president in American history to have passed a relief package of the significance of the American Rescue Plan with zero margin for error in the Senate and three votes to spare in the House,” said Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the White House, referring to the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package that became law in March. “He knows how to make his case, he knows how to count votes, and he knows how to deliver for the American middle class.” Both Sinema and Manchin visited the White House on Tuesday, but after their meetings, neither they nor White House officials would enumerate the contours of a bill they could support. Top White House officials also trekked to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to huddle privately with Sinema for more than two hours. “The president felt it was constructive, felt they moved the ball forward, felt there was an agreement, that we’re at a pivotal moment,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters Tuesday, characterizing the meetings. “It’s important to continue to finalize the path forward to get the job done for the American people.” Biden held conversations with various lawmakers throughout the day Wednesday and planned to continue them Thursday, White House officials said. Privately, administration officials said Biden was continuing to take an encouraging role with Manchin and Sinema, and not demanding they agree to anything immediately. Both senators have yet to publicly do so, even as liberal Democrats continue to publicly fume over the reticence. In his statement Wednesday, Manchin said he wanted to set income thresholds for many of the social program expansions Democrats have proposed. He suggested that he would be open to undoing some components of the 2017 tax cut. Moderate House Democrats, who helped secure a commitment for a vote this week on the infrastructure bill, warned that a failed vote would worsen the already deep mistrust between the two factions of the party. “If the vote were to fail tomorrow or be delayed, there would be a significant breach of trust that would slow the momentum in moving forward on delivering the Biden agenda,” said Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida, one of the moderates who sought to decouple the two plans. Even as they labored to work out philosophical differences in their party on the bill, Democrats suffered yet another setback Wednesday when the Senate’s top rules enforcer rejected a second proposal to include in the reconciliation bill a path to legal status for about 8 million immigrants living in the country illegally. In a memo obtained by The New York Times, Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate parliamentarian, wrote that the policy change “vastly outweighs its budgetary impact,” effectively disqualifying it from inclusion in a measure whose contents must have a direct impact on the federal budget. In their latest effort, Democrats had proposed moving up the date for a process known as immigration registry, which allows otherwise law-abiding immigrants who have been in the United States continuously since a certain date to adjust their status and gain a pathway to citizenship. The current date, established in 1986, is set at Jan. 1, 1972. Democrats had sought to change that date to Jan. 1, 2010. Last week, MacDonough rejected Democrats’ initial proposal to grant legal status to several categories of people in the country illegally, including those brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers; immigrants who were granted Temporary Protected Status for humanitarian reasons; people working in the country under nonimmigrant visas; close to 1 million farmworkers; and millions more who are deemed “essential workers.” She said those changes to immigration law could not be included, under the Senate rules, in the reconciliation package because they represented a “tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.” Democrats said they would continue to look for alternative strategies to aid immigrants through the reconciliation process.

Democrats move to avert shutdown, but divisions imperil Biden's agenda

The Biden administration’s top officials faced another heated congressional panel to answer questions over the the chaotic end of the US army pullout in Afghanistan.

Second day of testimony on Afghan Pullout: Tough questions for Pentagon Leaders

Top generals of US military said on Tuesday that they had advised US President Joe Biden to keep some troop presence&nbsp;in Afghanistan. The statements, made to US Congress appear to go against Biden's&nbsp;claim that he did not recall receiving such an advice. General Mark Milley and General Frank McKenzie testified before US Congress. The generals, along with Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, were questioned by Senate armed services committee.

McKenzie and Milley both testified that they had believed it would have been best to keep a minimum of 2,500 troops in the country. In an August interview, Biden denied his commanders had recommended keeping 2,500 troops in Afghanistan.

Taliban took power in a lightning offensive in August after all US troops withdrew from the country. This caused fall of former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government. This led to a frenzied evacuation effort of foreign diplomats and Afghan civilians.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/35-terror-attacks-52-deaths-in-august-taliban-victory-in-afghanistan-fuels-terrorism-in-pakistan-416639">35 terror attacks, 52 deaths in August: Taliban victory in Afghanistan fuels terrorism in Pakistan</a>

Milley, Austin, and General Frank McKenzie of U.S. Central Command all acknowledged being caught off-guard by the speed of the Taliban takeover following the collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.

Republican lawmakers accused President Joe Biden of lying about recommendations from his military that some troops should be kept in the country. And even Biden's Democrats expressed frustration with the withdrawal that left U.S. troops dead and American citizens behind.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-brutally-kill-child-after-suspecting-father-belonged-to-afghan-resistance-forces-416664">Taliban brutally kill child after suspecting father belonged to Afghan resistance forces</a>

Milley refused to be drawn on whether Biden had lied when pressed by Republican Senator Dan Sullivan.

"I'm not going to categorise a statement of the President of the United States," Milley said.

Meanwhile, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Tuesday that the US would have been at war with the Taliban had it maintained 2500 troops in Afghanistan.

He comments came as she tried to clarify apparent difference between the stance taken by US President Joe Biden and his military advisers.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/ban-on-saloon-girls-education-return-of-public-executions-is-afghanistan-going-back-in-time-416682">Ban on saloon, girls’ education &amp; return of public executions: Is Afghanistan going back in time?</a>

US Secretary pf Defence Lloyd Austin praised US personnel who helped airlift 124,000 Afghans out of the country.

But Milley acknowledged that while the evacuation effort was a logistical accomplishment, the U.S. withdrawal was a "strategic defeat" that left the Taliban back in power.

(With inputs from agencies)

Top generals of US military said on Tuesday that they had advised US President Joe Biden to keep some troop presence in Afghanistan. The statements, made to US Congress appear to go against Biden's claim that he did not recall receiving such an advice.

Top generals of US military said on Tuesday that they had advised US President Joe Biden to keep some troop presence in Afghanistan. The statements, made to US Congress appear to go against Biden's claim that he did not recall receiving such an advice. General Mark Milley and General Frank McKenzie testified before US Congress. The generals, along with Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, were questioned by Senate armed services committee. McKenzie and Milley both testified that they had believed it would have been best to keep a minimum of 2,500 troops in the country. In an August interview, Biden denied his commanders had recommended keeping 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. Taliban took power in a lightning offensive in August after all US troops withdrew from the country. This caused fall of former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government. This led to a frenzied evacuation effort of foreign diplomats and Afghan civilians. Also Read | 35 terror attacks, 52 deaths in August: Taliban victory in Afghanistan fuels terrorism in Pakistan Milley, Austin, and General Frank McKenzie of U.S. Central Command all acknowledged being caught off-guard by the speed of the Taliban takeover following the collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. Republican lawmakers accused President Joe Biden of lying about recommendations from his military that some troops should be kept in the country. And even Biden's Democrats expressed frustration with the withdrawal that left U.S. troops dead and American citizens behind. Also Read | Taliban brutally kill child after suspecting father belonged to Afghan resistance forces Milley refused to be drawn on whether Biden had lied when pressed by Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. "I'm not going to categorise a statement of the President of the United States," Milley said. Meanwhile, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Tuesday that the US would have been at war with the Taliban had it maintained 2500 troops in Afghanistan. He comments came as she tried to clarify apparent difference between the stance taken by US President Joe Biden and his military advisers. Also Read | Ban on saloon, girls’ education & return of public executions: Is Afghanistan going back in time? US Secretary pf Defence Lloyd Austin praised US personnel who helped airlift 124,000 Afghans out of the country. But Milley acknowledged that while the evacuation effort was a logistical accomplishment, the U.S. withdrawal was a "strategic defeat" that left the Taliban back in power. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden was advised to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, say top US generals

U.S. President Joe Biden rolled up his shirt sleeve and received a COVID-19 vaccine booster inoculation on Monday, hoping to provide a powerful example for Americans on the need to get the extra shot even as millions go without their first. Watch this report for more details.

US President Joe Biden gets COVID-19 booster shot

Harsh Shringla, India's foreign secretary, addressed reporters in Washington, DC, this morning on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's discussions with the leaders of India, &nbsp;US, Japan and Australia during the Quad Summit.&nbsp; 
 
The foreign secretary mentioned that "there was praise for India's UN Security Council presidency, particularly on the Afghanistan issue. President Biden stated unequivocally that India should have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, and he emphasised the significance of the defence alliance." 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/quad-summit-modi-biden-morrison-suga-vow-free-open-indo-pacific-at-historic-first-quad-summit-415687">Also read | Quad summit: Modi, Biden, Morrison, Suga vow free, open Indo-Pacific at historic first in-person meet</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>US President Joe Biden believes that India should have a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council, and he emphasised the significance of the defence alliance.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=US President Joe Biden believes that India should have a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council, and he emphasised the significance of the defence alliance. " target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Talking about PM Modi’s meeting with the leaders, Shringla said that "PM Modi expressed thanks for the solidarity shown by the US government and the people of the US when we had our second wave of crisis. President Joe Biden appreciated India's role in extending assistance to countries across the world, including through pharmaceuticals and vaccines." 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-1994-visit-to-unga-2021-heres-a-look-at-modis-us-visits-415717">Pictures: From 1994 visit to UNGA 2021, here's a look at Modi's US visits</a> 
 
"President Joe Biden accepted PM Narendra Modi's invitation to visit India, and Biden expressed his gratitude. We are looking forward to President Joe Biden's visit," said Harsh Shringla during the press conference.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>PM Narendra Modi proposed a common international travelling protocol involving mutual recognition of the COVID19 vaccination certificate. It was well-received by all the Quad leaders.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=PM Narendra Modi proposed a common international travelling protocol involving mutual recognition of the COVID19 vaccination certificate. It was well-received by all the Quad leaders." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

According to the foreign secretary, India will make available 8 million doses of Johnson &amp; Johnson's Janssen vaccine, which is manufactured in India by Biological E, at Quad's request.

This would be completed by the end of October and would be consistent with our plan to resume vaccination exports. 
 
Harsh Vardhan Shringla, when asked about concerns affecting NRIs, said that the discussion between the Prime Minister and the US President was wide-ranging, and that issues affecting the Indian community, such as the H1b visa, were discussed.&nbsp;&nbsp;

"Prime Minister Narendra Modi will depart later this evening for New York. He is scheduled to address the 76th session of the UNGA tomorrow morning, " he added.

Harsh Shringla, India's foreign secretary, addressed reporters in Washington, DC, this morning on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's discussions with the leaders of India, US, Japan and Australia during the Quad Summit.

Harsh Shringla, India's foreign secretary, addressed reporters in Washington, DC, this morning on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's discussions with the leaders of India, US, Japan and Australia during the Quad Summit. The foreign secretary mentioned that "there was praise for India's UN Security Council presidency, particularly on the Afghanistan issue. President Biden stated unequivocally that India should have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, and he emphasised the significance of the defence alliance." Also read | Quad summit: Modi, Biden, Morrison, Suga vow free, open Indo-Pacific at historic first in-person meet US President Joe Biden believes that India should have a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council, and he emphasised the significance of the defence alliance. × Talking about PM Modi’s meeting with the leaders, Shringla said that "PM Modi expressed thanks for the solidarity shown by the US government and the people of the US when we had our second wave of crisis. President Joe Biden appreciated India's role in extending assistance to countries across the world, including through pharmaceuticals and vaccines." Pictures: From 1994 visit to UNGA 2021, here's a look at Modi's US visits "President Joe Biden accepted PM Narendra Modi's invitation to visit India, and Biden expressed his gratitude. We are looking forward to President Joe Biden's visit," said Harsh Shringla during the press conference. PM Narendra Modi proposed a common international travelling protocol involving mutual recognition of the COVID19 vaccination certificate. It was well-received by all the Quad leaders. × According to the foreign secretary, India will make available 8 million doses of Johnson & Johnson's Janssen vaccine, which is manufactured in India by Biological E, at Quad's request. This would be completed by the end of October and would be consistent with our plan to resume vaccination exports. Harsh Vardhan Shringla, when asked about concerns affecting NRIs, said that the discussion between the Prime Minister and the US President was wide-ranging, and that issues affecting the Indian community, such as the H1b visa, were discussed. "Prime Minister Narendra Modi will depart later this evening for New York. He is scheduled to address the 76th session of the UNGA tomorrow morning, " he added.

US President says India should have permanent seat at UNSC: MEA after Quad summit

With an eye on China, the leaders of India, the US, Japan and Australia held their first-ever in-person summit of the Quad grouping in Washington DC on Saturday, asserting the need for a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Opening the summit, US President Joe Biden announced a Quad Fellowship for students from the countries in STEM subjects. 
 
"Today, we are also launching a new Quad fellowship for students from each of our Quad countries to pursue advanced degrees in leading stem programmes here in the United States, representing an investment in the leaders, innovators &amp; pioneers of tomorrow," Joe Biden said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Gravitas?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Gravitas</a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Quad?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Quad</a> is an alliance of democracies upholding common values. 
All 4 members have economic clout, powerful militaries &amp; a common adversary in China. 
Then why has the Quad struggled to define its purpose?<a href="https://twitter.com/palkisu?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@palkisu</a> delves into the Quad's history to explain its present. <a href="https://t.co/5Llrrnm6Ns">pic.twitter.com/5Llrrnm6Ns</a>
— WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews/status/1441477450559463424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 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>

In his remarks, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the summit as "historic" and a "force for global good", adding the four democracies "are working in the interest of humanity."

"Our four nations met for the first time after the 2004 Tsunami to help the Indo-Pacific region. Today, when the world is fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic, we have come here once again as Quad for the welfare of humanity." 
 
"On the basis of our common democratic values, Quad has decided to move ahead with positive thought and approach. I would be happy to discuss supply chain or global security, climate action or Covid response or cooperation in technology with Quad members," he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Speaking at the Quad leaders meeting. <a href="https://t.co/bQzenzUlQa">https://t.co/bQzenzUlQa</a>
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1441465591827611649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 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>

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said: "We believe in a free and open Indo-pacific because we know that is what delivers a strong and prosperous region."

"In just 6 months from our last meeting we have already accomplished a lot and we look forward to what's ahead," Morrison added.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said: "Till today Quad has given support, be it Covid or climate. Together we will be able to battle climate change and other challenges."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I hope that we'll have a good &amp; relevant Summit. Besides this, the bans that were placed (that has now been lifted by US) on Japanese food products, I had requested you in April for it (to lift the ban). It's a huge step that you took, thank you for it: Japan's PM Yoshihide Suga <a href="https://t.co/P4SmDUio3W">pic.twitter.com/P4SmDUio3W</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1441474733468381187?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 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>

"Quad is a very important initiative by the 4 nations that believe in fundamental rights &amp; are of the view that Indo-Pacific should be free &amp; open. Till date, Quad has given its absolute cooperation in big sectors, be it regional challenges or COVID-19," said&nbsp;Japan PM.

With an eye on China, the leaders of India, the US, Japan and Australia held their first-ever in-person summit of the Quad grouping in Washington DC on Saturday, asserting the need for a free and open Indo-Pacific.

With an eye on China, the leaders of India, the US, Japan and Australia held their first-ever in-person summit of the Quad grouping in Washington DC on Saturday, asserting the need for a free and open Indo-Pacific. Opening the summit, US President Joe Biden announced a Quad Fellowship for students from the countries in STEM subjects. "Today, we are also launching a new Quad fellowship for students from each of our Quad countries to pursue advanced degrees in leading stem programmes here in the United States, representing an investment in the leaders, innovators & pioneers of tomorrow," Joe Biden said. #Gravitas | #Quad is an alliance of democracies upholding common values. All 4 members have economic clout, powerful militaries & a common adversary in China. Then why has the Quad struggled to define its purpose?@palkisu delves into the Quad's history to explain its present. pic.twitter.com/5Llrrnm6Ns — WION (@WIONews) September 24, 2021 × In his remarks, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the summit as "historic" and a "force for global good", adding the four democracies "are working in the interest of humanity." "Our four nations met for the first time after the 2004 Tsunami to help the Indo-Pacific region. Today, when the world is fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic, we have come here once again as Quad for the welfare of humanity." "On the basis of our common democratic values, Quad has decided to move ahead with positive thought and approach. I would be happy to discuss supply chain or global security, climate action or Covid response or cooperation in technology with Quad members," he said. Speaking at the Quad leaders meeting. https://t.co/bQzenzUlQa — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) September 24, 2021 × Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said: "We believe in a free and open Indo-pacific because we know that is what delivers a strong and prosperous region." "In just 6 months from our last meeting we have already accomplished a lot and we look forward to what's ahead," Morrison added. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said: "Till today Quad has given support, be it Covid or climate. Together we will be able to battle climate change and other challenges." I hope that we'll have a good & relevant Summit. Besides this, the bans that were placed (that has now been lifted by US) on Japanese food products, I had requested you in April for it (to lift the ban). It's a huge step that you took, thank you for it: Japan's PM Yoshihide Suga pic.twitter.com/P4SmDUio3W — ANI (@ANI) September 24, 2021 × "Quad is a very important initiative by the 4 nations that believe in fundamental rights & are of the view that Indo-Pacific should be free & open. Till date, Quad has given its absolute cooperation in big sectors, be it regional challenges or COVID-19," said Japan PM.

Quad summit: Modi, Biden, Morrison, Suga vow free, open Indo-Pacific at historic first in-person meet

PM Narendra Modi held his first in-person interaction with the US president Joe Biden. The two leaders discussed various issues from Indo-pacific, climate change to coronavirus pandemic among others. Palki Sharma brings all the latest from ground zero.

Gandhiji, non-violence, trusteeship of the planet- key focus of Modi-Biden meet | WION-USA Direct

WION's principal correspondent Siddhant Sibbal brings all latest developments on the Indian PM Narendra Modi's visit to the United States. The warm camaraderie was on the display between two global leaders, what does it say about the India-US ties?

Warm camaraderie between Modi & Biden, what does it say about the India-US ties? | WION-USA Direct

Indian foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla briefs media on the second day of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the United States. PM Modi's discussions during the first in-person meeting with Prez Biden were wide-ranging, majorly focusing on the coronavirus pandemic, vaccines, H-1B visa; there was also a strong emphasis on development of trade and economic relations.

Combating covid-19 tops meeting agenda: Indian foreign secretary Harsh Shringla briefs on QUAD meet

PM Narendra Modi met with President Joe Biden and discussed various issues from climate to covid and much more. How is India's relationship with the United States going? Palki Sharma shares her insights on it.

WION's Executive Editor Palki Sharma shares her insights on India-US relationship | WION-USA Direct

With an eye on China, the global leaders of India, the US, Japan and Australia held their first-ever in-person summit of the Quad grouping in Washington DC, asserting the need for a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Modi, Biden, Morrison, Suga vow free, robust Indo-Pacific at historic first in-person QUAD summit

US president Joe Biden is all set to convene the much-anticipated first in-person QUAD leadership summit. With three prime ministers of the QUAD alliance i.e. Scott Morrison, Yoshihide Suga and Narendra Modi, this comes months after first virtual summit between the world leaders.

First in-person QUAD Leaders' Summit, focus on deepening ties | WION-USA Direct

India said Friday that US President Joe Biden and other leaders agreed to keep a careful eye on Pakistan, adding that its historic rival has been an "instigator" of trouble in Afghanistan. Watch this report for more details.

Modi, Biden discuss Pakistan's role in Afghanistan

“There is much to be done in trade. Trade will be an important factor in India-USA ties in the coming decade", says Indian PM during a bilateral talk with US President Joe Biden.

PM Modi : India US ties to improve this year

biden

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