Billionaires cut giant checks to super PACs. Small donors gave online in mass quantities. Multimillionaires poured money into their own campaigns. And both political parties announced record-setting hauls in 2021.

The 2022 midterm elections were awash in political money even before the year began, according to new Federal Election Commission campaign disclosures made Monday.

With control of both chambers up for grabs — the Senate is knotted at 50-50 and Democrats are clinging to a narrow majority in the House — the two parties were almost equally matched when it came to fundraising last year. The Democratic and Republican national committees, as well as the main House and Senate committees, pulled in nearly identical sums — about $400 million each.

On the Republican side, several primary contests in the coming months will pit the Trump wing of the party against more traditional Republicans.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the only Republican up for reelection in 2022 to have voted for former President Donald Trump’s impeachment, faces a right-wing challenge from Kelly Tshibaka, a Trump-endorsed rival.

Among Murkowski’s donors in December was George W. Bush, who listed his occupation as “former president.” Overall, Murkowski raised nearly $1.4 million and reported entering 2022 with $4.2 million cash on hand. Tshibaka raised $602,000 and had $634,000 cash on hand.

Bush made one other symbolic donation: the legal maximum of $5,800 to Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of the most outspoken anti-Trump Republicans in Congress.

Like Murkowski, Cheney outraised her Trump-backed challenger, Harriet Hageman, collecting $2 million to Hageman’s $443,000 last quarter, although money is often not the determining factor in outcomes, especially in high-profile cases that garner significant media attention.

The battleground contests expected to determine which party is in the Senate majority are shaping up to be especially expensive. In Georgia, Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, was the top 2022 Senate fundraiser, collecting $9.8 million in the fourth quarter. Warnock had nearly $23 million at the end of the year.

His likely Republican opponent, former football player Herschel Walker, was urged to run by Trump. Walker has emerged as one of the strongest new Republican fundraisers, raising $5.4 million, with $5.4 million in the bank.

In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican, raised $5.2 million and has $10.5 million in the bank; his expected Democratic challenger, Rep. Val Demings, outraised him by collecting $7.2 million, although she has less cash on hand, at $8.2 million.

While candidates face contribution limits of $2,900 each for the primary and general election, there is no limit on what the ultrarich can pour into campaigns through super PACs. Billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros seeded his own political committee with $125 million, new disclosures show, a sign that he will yet again continue to be a major financier on the left.

Big money flowed, in particular, to super PACs focused on control of Congress.

In the House, the leading Republican super PAC and linked nonprofit announced raising twice as much money as the equivalent House Democratic groups, $110 million compared with $55 million last year.

The disclosed donors to the House Democratic super PAC in the second half of the year included media executive Fred Eychaner ($4 million); LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman ($1.45 million); and philanthropist Connie Ballmer and real estate developer George Marcus ($1 million each). Eychaner also gave $4 million to the Senate Democratic super PAC.

The top donors to the House Republican super PAC were Patrick G. Ryan, an insurance magnate who gave $10 million, and Ken Griffin, a hedge fund manager who also gave $10 million.

Griffin also gave $5 million to the main Republican Senate super PAC, making him its largest donor in the second half of the year.

In addition, Griffin gave $5 million to a Pennsylvania-focused super PAC that has opposed Dr. Mehmet Oz, a surgeon and former television show host running in the Republican primary there. Among his opponents is David McCormick, who is the former CEO of a prominent hedge fund and who entered the race after the filing deadline.

Oz contributed more than $5 million to his own race — one of multiple wealthy Republican candidates powering their Senate campaigns with their own money. Jeff Bartos, another Republican candidate in Pennsylvania, gave his campaign $1.3 million.

In Arizona, Jim Lamon, a former energy executive, has put more than $8 million of his own money into his primary Senate run.

In Ohio, the Senate race is crowded with wealthy Republican self-funders who have lent or donated money to their own campaigns: Mike Gibbons, an investment banker ($11.4 million); Jane Timken, a former party chair ($3.5 million); Bernie Moreno, a former car dealer ($3.75 million); and Matt Dolan, whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians ($10.5 million).

Some of Dolan’s family members put an additional $3 million into a super PAC.

In Alabama, Mike Durant, who was in one of the Black Hawk helicopters that was shot down in Somalia in 1993, put more than $4 million into his run. Durant faces a former top aide to Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Katie Britt, who raised $1.2 million last quarter and has $4.1 million cash on hand.

Trump has endorsed a third Alabama candidate, Rep. Mo Brooks, whose fundraising has flagged. Brooks raised only $386,000 in the fourth quarter, down sharply from his previous two quarters.

Big money also poured into the campaigns of some politicians who are not even on the ballot this year, reflecting the high stakes of the legislative battles that have raged on Capitol Hill over President Joe Biden’s agenda.

Two moderate Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have not committed to supporting Biden’s signature domestic bill, raised bigger sums than some facing competitive contests, even though neither is up for election again until 2024.

Sinema raised nearly $1.6 million in the fourth quarter — more than four times what she raised in the first quarter of 2021. Nearly 98% of her money came from larger contributions. Some of her contributions were from traditional Republican donors, including Nelson Peltz, an investor; Harlan Crow, a real estate developer; and Mike Fernandez, a health care industry investor.

Manchin also raised almost $1.6 million, of which more than $300,000 came from PACs.

Billionaires cut giant checks to super PACs. Small donors gave online in mass quantities. Multimillionaires poured money into their own campaigns. And both political parties announced record-setting hauls in 2021.

Billionaires cut giant checks to super PACs. Small donors gave online in mass quantities. Multimillionaires poured money into their own campaigns. And both political parties announced record-setting hauls in 2021. The 2022 midterm elections were awash in political money even before the year began, according to new Federal Election Commission campaign disclosures made Monday. With control of both chambers up for grabs — the Senate is knotted at 50-50 and Democrats are clinging to a narrow majority in the House — the two parties were almost equally matched when it came to fundraising last year. The Democratic and Republican national committees, as well as the main House and Senate committees, pulled in nearly identical sums — about $400 million each. On the Republican side, several primary contests in the coming months will pit the Trump wing of the party against more traditional Republicans. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the only Republican up for reelection in 2022 to have voted for former President Donald Trump’s impeachment, faces a right-wing challenge from Kelly Tshibaka, a Trump-endorsed rival. Among Murkowski’s donors in December was George W. Bush, who listed his occupation as “former president.” Overall, Murkowski raised nearly $1.4 million and reported entering 2022 with $4.2 million cash on hand. Tshibaka raised $602,000 and had $634,000 cash on hand. Bush made one other symbolic donation: the legal maximum of $5,800 to Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of the most outspoken anti-Trump Republicans in Congress. Like Murkowski, Cheney outraised her Trump-backed challenger, Harriet Hageman, collecting $2 million to Hageman’s $443,000 last quarter, although money is often not the determining factor in outcomes, especially in high-profile cases that garner significant media attention. The battleground contests expected to determine which party is in the Senate majority are shaping up to be especially expensive. In Georgia, Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, was the top 2022 Senate fundraiser, collecting $9.8 million in the fourth quarter. Warnock had nearly $23 million at the end of the year. His likely Republican opponent, former football player Herschel Walker, was urged to run by Trump. Walker has emerged as one of the strongest new Republican fundraisers, raising $5.4 million, with $5.4 million in the bank. In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican, raised $5.2 million and has $10.5 million in the bank; his expected Democratic challenger, Rep. Val Demings, outraised him by collecting $7.2 million, although she has less cash on hand, at $8.2 million. While candidates face contribution limits of $2,900 each for the primary and general election, there is no limit on what the ultrarich can pour into campaigns through super PACs. Billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros seeded his own political committee with $125 million, new disclosures show, a sign that he will yet again continue to be a major financier on the left. Big money flowed, in particular, to super PACs focused on control of Congress. In the House, the leading Republican super PAC and linked nonprofit announced raising twice as much money as the equivalent House Democratic groups, $110 million compared with $55 million last year. The disclosed donors to the House Democratic super PAC in the second half of the year included media executive Fred Eychaner ($4 million); LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman ($1.45 million); and philanthropist Connie Ballmer and real estate developer George Marcus ($1 million each). Eychaner also gave $4 million to the Senate Democratic super PAC. The top donors to the House Republican super PAC were Patrick G. Ryan, an insurance magnate who gave $10 million, and Ken Griffin, a hedge fund manager who also gave $10 million. Griffin also gave $5 million to the main Republican Senate super PAC, making him its largest donor in the second half of the year. In addition, Griffin gave $5 million to a Pennsylvania-focused super PAC that has opposed Dr. Mehmet Oz, a surgeon and former television show host running in the Republican primary there. Among his opponents is David McCormick, who is the former CEO of a prominent hedge fund and who entered the race after the filing deadline. Oz contributed more than $5 million to his own race — one of multiple wealthy Republican candidates powering their Senate campaigns with their own money. Jeff Bartos, another Republican candidate in Pennsylvania, gave his campaign $1.3 million. In Arizona, Jim Lamon, a former energy executive, has put more than $8 million of his own money into his primary Senate run. In Ohio, the Senate race is crowded with wealthy Republican self-funders who have lent or donated money to their own campaigns: Mike Gibbons, an investment banker ($11.4 million); Jane Timken, a former party chair ($3.5 million); Bernie Moreno, a former car dealer ($3.75 million); and Matt Dolan, whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians ($10.5 million). Some of Dolan’s family members put an additional $3 million into a super PAC. In Alabama, Mike Durant, who was in one of the Black Hawk helicopters that was shot down in Somalia in 1993, put more than $4 million into his run. Durant faces a former top aide to Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Katie Britt, who raised $1.2 million last quarter and has $4.1 million cash on hand. Trump has endorsed a third Alabama candidate, Rep. Mo Brooks, whose fundraising has flagged. Brooks raised only $386,000 in the fourth quarter, down sharply from his previous two quarters. Big money also poured into the campaigns of some politicians who are not even on the ballot this year, reflecting the high stakes of the legislative battles that have raged on Capitol Hill over President Joe Biden’s agenda. Two moderate Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have not committed to supporting Biden’s signature domestic bill, raised bigger sums than some facing competitive contests, even though neither is up for election again until 2024. Sinema raised nearly $1.6 million in the fourth quarter — more than four times what she raised in the first quarter of 2021. Nearly 98% of her money came from larger contributions. Some of her contributions were from traditional Republican donors, including Nelson Peltz, an investor; Harlan Crow, a real estate developer; and Mike Fernandez, a health care industry investor. Manchin also raised almost $1.6 million, of which more than $300,000 came from PACs.

Billionaires and big cheques shape battle for Congress

In an interview on Sunday, US Vice President Kamala Harris warned that if Congress fails to pass voting rights legislation, America will lose its "role model" reputation.

With Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., effectively killing President Biden's Build Back Better bill, the administration appears to be shifting its focus to other policy areas. During the summer, Harris was entrusted with promoting voting rights.

"People around the world watch what we do as America, because we have held ourselves out to be a model of the efficacy of the ability of a democracy to coexist with economic strength and power," Harris said.

"We have been a role model, saying, you can see this, aspire to this, and reject autocracies and autocratic leadership," she added.

She warned that right now, we're about to take ourselves off the map as a role model if we let people destroy one of the most important pillars of democracy, which is free and fair elections. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-vice-president-kamala-harris-admits-biden-admin-failed-to-see-omicron-variant-coming-437918">Also read | US Vice President Kamala Harris admits Biden admin ‘failed to see Omicron variant coming’</a>

She pushed for the passage of the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

In her most recent remarks on her voting rights mission, she cautioned Americans that unless Congress works together on the bill, the country will be thrown off its pedestal. 
 
Watch | United States: Kamala Harris to become 1st women with presidential powers

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/united-states-kamala-harris-to-become-1st-women-with-presidential-powers-430673/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

While most Americans may not consider voting rights to be an "urgent" issue, Harris believes that the more the administration emphasises the issue, the more people will recognise that some are "suppressing the right of the American people to vote."

(With inputs from agencies)

In an interview on Sunday, US Vice President Kamala Harris warned that if Congress fails to pass voting rights legislation, America will lose its "role model" reputation.

In an interview on Sunday, US Vice President Kamala Harris warned that if Congress fails to pass voting rights legislation, America will lose its "role model" reputation. With Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., effectively killing President Biden's Build Back Better bill, the administration appears to be shifting its focus to other policy areas. During the summer, Harris was entrusted with promoting voting rights. "People around the world watch what we do as America, because we have held ourselves out to be a model of the efficacy of the ability of a democracy to coexist with economic strength and power," Harris said. "We have been a role model, saying, you can see this, aspire to this, and reject autocracies and autocratic leadership," she added. She warned that right now, we're about to take ourselves off the map as a role model if we let people destroy one of the most important pillars of democracy, which is free and fair elections. Also read | US Vice President Kamala Harris admits Biden admin ‘failed to see Omicron variant coming’ She pushed for the passage of the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. In her most recent remarks on her voting rights mission, she cautioned Americans that unless Congress works together on the bill, the country will be thrown off its pedestal. Watch | United States: Kamala Harris to become 1st women with presidential powers While most Americans may not consider voting rights to be an "urgent" issue, Harris believes that the more the administration emphasises the issue, the more people will recognise that some are "suppressing the right of the American people to vote." (With inputs from agencies)

US will be 'off the map as a role model' if voting rights law not passed: Kamala Harris

Over a breakfast of bagels and doughnuts in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Capitol office last month, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., and a group of fellow centrist Democrats laid down an ultimatum: There was no way they would vote for President Joe Biden’s sprawling social safety net and climate bill until they saw an official tally of its true cost.

Their declaration torpedoed Pelosi’s plans to finally bring to a close months of feuding among the factions in her party and hold a vote that day to push through the twin pillars of Biden’s domestic agenda, leaving the fate of the ambitious social policy measure and a bipartisan infrastructure package in doubt.

But within days, it was Murphy who helped seal a deal to salvage both, by drawing up a carefully negotiated statement of support for the safety net legislation that persuaded progressives to vote for the infrastructure bill.

It helped lead to a fragile detente between moderates and liberals who had been at odds for months over Biden’s plans and ultimately helped steer both the $1 trillion public-works measure and the $2 trillion social policy bill through a House where Democrats have just a three-vote margin of control.

The larger bill now awaits action in the Senate, where it will probably be changed in ways that necessitate yet another House vote before it can go to Biden for his signature. Final passage of that legislation, coupled with looming votes on a sprawling defense policy bill and raising the limit on the nation’s ability to borrow, could potentially place Murphy in the spotlight once again.

Murphy, 43, who toggles between allying herself with party leaders and vexing them with her objections, has established herself as part of a group of rank-and-file moderate and liberal lawmakers who, empowered by Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the House, can have a major influence.

Their maneuvering on Biden’s social policy bill was not just a break with tradition in the chamber, where Pelosi has presided over a mostly top-down operation, but an early sign of a generational shift underway for a caucus led by octogenarians.

Even if her Orlando-area district is redrawn to more heavily benefit Republicans, Murphy, who ruled out challenging Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican, in 2022 after it became clear that she would have to first prevail in a challenging primary, could again set her sights on a Senate seat in 2024. A member of the committee investigating what led to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, she has also continued to build on a national security portfolio that began with work as a national security specialist at the Pentagon.

She leads the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of fiscally conservative Democrats that first came together after the 1994 midterm elections, convinced that their party had lost dozens of seats because it had strayed too far to the left. Before her, every leader of the Blue Dog Coalition was white, and all but one were men; Murphy is the first Vietnamese American woman to serve in the House.

Now in her second consecutive term at the helm of the group, Murphy has worked to slow down the legislation carrying Biden’s sprawling social policy agenda, pushing back on her party leaders’ rush to enact it before the end of the year. Long before a series of off-year election losses rattled the party last month, she pressed to delay a vote on the package until the most politically vulnerable Democrats were comfortable with its components and its price tag — and after the $1 trillion infrastructure measure, which has bipartisan support, had been approved.

Last month's breakfast with Pelosi was the culmination of those efforts. In the hours that followed, Murphy’s office became a de facto command center for centrist holdouts, who darted between closets and offices to field increasingly frustrated calls from activists, Democratic leaders and White House officials.

It was there that lawmakers finalized the painstakingly worded statement that ultimately unlocked the votes needed to send the infrastructure bill to Biden for his signature and set up a vote to pass the social spending bill just before Thanksgiving break.

“It was an incredible moment, because we were able to work directly with one another, even though we had different views, and bridge that divide,” Murphy said in an interview. “This demonstrated that top-down isn’t the only way that you can get things done.”

The shift is notable given that Pelosi, 81, who has led House Democrats for nearly two decades, is known for keeping a tight rein on her fractious caucus, rarely ceding much public control over the process of corralling rank-and-file lawmakers on tricky issues. Several Democrats, triumphant over the outcome, said the shift could be permanent.

“Leadership didn’t initiate it,” Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., a prominent member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in an interview about the negotiations that led to the deal. “Leadership didn’t even know what the wording was going to be because we were working on it. We kind of saved it, I think, as individual members who cared about the president’s agenda."

For months, Democratic leaders had played a frantic game of Whac-a-Mole to pacify lawmakers with dueling priorities. Liberals wanted a more generous bill, and moderates, whose main priority was passing the infrastructure measure, wanted to ensure that the social safety net measure would be fully paid for. They doled out promises, tweaked minute details and cobbled together outside data to tally the cost of the social policy package.

By the first week of November, after weeks of fitful negotiations, top Democrats adjourned the House late on Nov. 4 confident that they could win over the half-dozen moderates who were still holding out and pass both bills the next morning.

But when Murphy arrived at Pelosi’s office that day with her centrist allies, they made clear they would not support the social safety net bill without official estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeepers on Capitol Hill, demanding information that would require at least a week.

That sent Democratic leaders scrambling to salvage the pair of bills, keeping a procedural vote open for hours as they summoned key players to Pelosi’s suite.

As she fielded calls and pleas to let the bill go through, Murphy received a text message from Rep. Ted Lieu, a liberal Democrat from California: Would she be open to making a commitment of support for the social policy package? She responded that she most likely would, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the No. 4 Democrat, along with Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Donald Norcross of New Jersey, began working on a statement that soon circulated among Democrats.

A few floors away in the Longworth House Office Building, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of the Progressive Caucus, gathered her members to figure out whether the group, nearly 100 strong, would be willing to vote for final passage of the infrastructure bill even if the social safety net measure had to wait. Answering a call from Biden, she put her phone on speaker in the middle of the room so he could directly address the dozens of lawmakers assembled there.

Biden asked the caucus point blank to vote for the infrastructure bill. He warned that failure to pass it would tank his entire agenda. And, pressed by liberals in the room, he said he would push for a stronger commitment from the moderates to a vote on the other measure in the coming days.

Once Biden hung up, Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., a member of leadership, reached out to Murphy and the moderate lawmakers to discuss the details of the statement. He was soon heading to Murphy’s office with a few colleagues, including Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., who was previously tapped by Pelosi for negotiations; Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., a freshman; and Pocan, a former head of the Progressive Caucus who once accused some of the moderates of child abuse during a debate over border aid.

After weeks of polarized meetings where moderates and progressives were hosted separately at the White House, it was one of the few times when the factions had met together.

Lawmakers hunched over a laptop in Murphy’s office to edit what would ultimately be a 123-word statement, debating the semantics, down to the minute differences between terms such as “voting for” and “support.”

They haggled over whether to set a specific date for a vote to reassure progressives that the social policy bill would not be held up for long, settling on the week of Nov. 15.

“We act like we’re enemies and we’re not — we should have been sitting down talking to each other well before this,” said Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., a close friend of Murphy's. “It came to both of us saying that.”

Pelosi, who had staked her personal reputation on passage of both pieces of legislation, kept tabs on the talks from afar, filling lawmakers’ voice mailboxes with stern messages exhorting them to get in line behind the infrastructure bill and plucking updates from loyalists as they ducked in and out of private meetings.

The shuttle diplomacy gained urgency as the day wore on. At one point, Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., a freshman, took off her shoes to run through the marble hallways, ferrying messages between leaders and representatives huddling in the Longworth building across the street.

Ultimately, the joint statement — issued from personal Twitter accounts — was enough to secure the votes needed to pass the infrastructure bill the next morning and the social policy measure before Thanksgiving.

For the lawmakers who helped broker the deal — several of whom are widely seen as likely candidates to lead the party in years to come — it was a validation of their ability to bridge internal divides, and a reminder that sometimes the best solutions come from the bottom up.

“Going forward,” Rice said, “it’s going to be hard for rank-and-file members not to be heard.”

Over a breakfast of bagels and doughnuts in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Capitol office last month, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., and a group of fellow centrist Democrats laid down an ultimatum: There was no way they would vote for President Joe Biden’s sprawling social safety net and climate bill until they saw an official tally of its true cost.

Over a breakfast of bagels and doughnuts in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Capitol office last month, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., and a group of fellow centrist Democrats laid down an ultimatum: There was no way they would vote for President Joe Biden’s sprawling social safety net and climate bill until they saw an official tally of its true cost. Their declaration torpedoed Pelosi’s plans to finally bring to a close months of feuding among the factions in her party and hold a vote that day to push through the twin pillars of Biden’s domestic agenda, leaving the fate of the ambitious social policy measure and a bipartisan infrastructure package in doubt. But within days, it was Murphy who helped seal a deal to salvage both, by drawing up a carefully negotiated statement of support for the safety net legislation that persuaded progressives to vote for the infrastructure bill. It helped lead to a fragile detente between moderates and liberals who had been at odds for months over Biden’s plans and ultimately helped steer both the $1 trillion public-works measure and the $2 trillion social policy bill through a House where Democrats have just a three-vote margin of control. The larger bill now awaits action in the Senate, where it will probably be changed in ways that necessitate yet another House vote before it can go to Biden for his signature. Final passage of that legislation, coupled with looming votes on a sprawling defense policy bill and raising the limit on the nation’s ability to borrow, could potentially place Murphy in the spotlight once again. Murphy, 43, who toggles between allying herself with party leaders and vexing them with her objections, has established herself as part of a group of rank-and-file moderate and liberal lawmakers who, empowered by Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the House, can have a major influence. Their maneuvering on Biden’s social policy bill was not just a break with tradition in the chamber, where Pelosi has presided over a mostly top-down operation, but an early sign of a generational shift underway for a caucus led by octogenarians. Even if her Orlando-area district is redrawn to more heavily benefit Republicans, Murphy, who ruled out challenging Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican, in 2022 after it became clear that she would have to first prevail in a challenging primary, could again set her sights on a Senate seat in 2024. A member of the committee investigating what led to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, she has also continued to build on a national security portfolio that began with work as a national security specialist at the Pentagon. She leads the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of fiscally conservative Democrats that first came together after the 1994 midterm elections, convinced that their party had lost dozens of seats because it had strayed too far to the left. Before her, every leader of the Blue Dog Coalition was white, and all but one were men; Murphy is the first Vietnamese American woman to serve in the House. Now in her second consecutive term at the helm of the group, Murphy has worked to slow down the legislation carrying Biden’s sprawling social policy agenda, pushing back on her party leaders’ rush to enact it before the end of the year. Long before a series of off-year election losses rattled the party last month, she pressed to delay a vote on the package until the most politically vulnerable Democrats were comfortable with its components and its price tag — and after the $1 trillion infrastructure measure, which has bipartisan support, had been approved. Last month's breakfast with Pelosi was the culmination of those efforts. In the hours that followed, Murphy’s office became a de facto command center for centrist holdouts, who darted between closets and offices to field increasingly frustrated calls from activists, Democratic leaders and White House officials. It was there that lawmakers finalized the painstakingly worded statement that ultimately unlocked the votes needed to send the infrastructure bill to Biden for his signature and set up a vote to pass the social spending bill just before Thanksgiving break. “It was an incredible moment, because we were able to work directly with one another, even though we had different views, and bridge that divide,” Murphy said in an interview. “This demonstrated that top-down isn’t the only way that you can get things done.” The shift is notable given that Pelosi, 81, who has led House Democrats for nearly two decades, is known for keeping a tight rein on her fractious caucus, rarely ceding much public control over the process of corralling rank-and-file lawmakers on tricky issues. Several Democrats, triumphant over the outcome, said the shift could be permanent. “Leadership didn’t initiate it,” Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., a prominent member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in an interview about the negotiations that led to the deal. “Leadership didn’t even know what the wording was going to be because we were working on it. We kind of saved it, I think, as individual members who cared about the president’s agenda." For months, Democratic leaders had played a frantic game of Whac-a-Mole to pacify lawmakers with dueling priorities. Liberals wanted a more generous bill, and moderates, whose main priority was passing the infrastructure measure, wanted to ensure that the social safety net measure would be fully paid for. They doled out promises, tweaked minute details and cobbled together outside data to tally the cost of the social policy package. By the first week of November, after weeks of fitful negotiations, top Democrats adjourned the House late on Nov. 4 confident that they could win over the half-dozen moderates who were still holding out and pass both bills the next morning. But when Murphy arrived at Pelosi’s office that day with her centrist allies, they made clear they would not support the social safety net bill without official estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeepers on Capitol Hill, demanding information that would require at least a week. That sent Democratic leaders scrambling to salvage the pair of bills, keeping a procedural vote open for hours as they summoned key players to Pelosi’s suite. As she fielded calls and pleas to let the bill go through, Murphy received a text message from Rep. Ted Lieu, a liberal Democrat from California: Would she be open to making a commitment of support for the social policy package? She responded that she most likely would, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the No. 4 Democrat, along with Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Donald Norcross of New Jersey, began working on a statement that soon circulated among Democrats. A few floors away in the Longworth House Office Building, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of the Progressive Caucus, gathered her members to figure out whether the group, nearly 100 strong, would be willing to vote for final passage of the infrastructure bill even if the social safety net measure had to wait. Answering a call from Biden, she put her phone on speaker in the middle of the room so he could directly address the dozens of lawmakers assembled there. Biden asked the caucus point blank to vote for the infrastructure bill. He warned that failure to pass it would tank his entire agenda. And, pressed by liberals in the room, he said he would push for a stronger commitment from the moderates to a vote on the other measure in the coming days. Once Biden hung up, Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., a member of leadership, reached out to Murphy and the moderate lawmakers to discuss the details of the statement. He was soon heading to Murphy’s office with a few colleagues, including Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., who was previously tapped by Pelosi for negotiations; Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., a freshman; and Pocan, a former head of the Progressive Caucus who once accused some of the moderates of child abuse during a debate over border aid. After weeks of polarized meetings where moderates and progressives were hosted separately at the White House, it was one of the few times when the factions had met together. Lawmakers hunched over a laptop in Murphy’s office to edit what would ultimately be a 123-word statement, debating the semantics, down to the minute differences between terms such as “voting for” and “support.” They haggled over whether to set a specific date for a vote to reassure progressives that the social policy bill would not be held up for long, settling on the week of Nov. 15. “We act like we’re enemies and we’re not — we should have been sitting down talking to each other well before this,” said Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., a close friend of Murphy's. “It came to both of us saying that.” Pelosi, who had staked her personal reputation on passage of both pieces of legislation, kept tabs on the talks from afar, filling lawmakers’ voice mailboxes with stern messages exhorting them to get in line behind the infrastructure bill and plucking updates from loyalists as they ducked in and out of private meetings. The shuttle diplomacy gained urgency as the day wore on. At one point, Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., a freshman, took off her shoes to run through the marble hallways, ferrying messages between leaders and representatives huddling in the Longworth building across the street. Ultimately, the joint statement — issued from personal Twitter accounts — was enough to secure the votes needed to pass the infrastructure bill the next morning and the social policy measure before Thanksgiving. For the lawmakers who helped broker the deal — several of whom are widely seen as likely candidates to lead the party in years to come — it was a validation of their ability to bridge internal divides, and a reminder that sometimes the best solutions come from the bottom up. “Going forward,” Rice said, “it’s going to be hard for rank-and-file members not to be heard.”

How Stephanie Murphy, a holdout on Biden's agenda, helped salvage it

A new report has revealed that hundreds of weapons have been stolen from the US armed forces in the last 10 years.

The investigation, being conducted by the Associated Press, claims US troops faked records to cover up thefts.

Several explosives stolen from military shipments or bases were found at a US-Mexico border checkpoint.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-president-biden-lays-out-plans-to-fight-spread-of-omicron-covid-19-variant-433910/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Some of the stolen weapons were used in civilian crimes because they were sold to a street gang.

Artillery shells that disappeared from Camp Shelby were found at a Mississippi recycling yard in August.

An ammunition technician stationed at Quantico, Virginia stole four fragmentation grenades by falsely recording that they were exploded during training.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-should-be-prepared-of-terrible-consequences-if-it-precipitates-crisis-in-taiwan-says-blinken-433986">Blinken warns China over increasing incursions in Taiwan</a>

The report states that in 2018, armour-piercing grenades, hundreds of pounds of plastic explosives, as well as land mines and rockets were stolen from Camp Lejeune, the massive base on coastal North Carolina.

They ended up in the hands of some high school kids who found them inside a vacant house they broke in during a prank

In response, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Uriah Orland said, “We want to get the number to zero, so there is no loss, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t take seriously losses that happened.”

Also see|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/arms-deal-in-2021-how-major-powers-realigned-the-military-landscape-434045" hreflang="en">Arms deal in 2021: How major powers realigned the military landscape</a>

From 2010 to 2020, 1,900 entries explosives went missing. While half of these have been recovered, the other half still remains missing.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, &nbsp;Capt. Andrew Wood said in a written statement “Some of it was later recovered and often these reports are attributed to human error, such as miscounting&nbsp;or improper documentation.”&nbsp;

Now, Congress is all set to require that the military give lawmakers detailed loss and theft reports every year.

“We are committed to transparency and following proper procedures and take accountability of explosives seriously,” said Navy spokesman Lt. Lewis Aldridge.

(With inputs from agencies)

A new report has revealed that hundreds of weapons have been stolen from the US armed forces in the last 10 years. The investigation, being conducted by the Associated Press, claims US troops faked records to cover up thefts.

A new report has revealed that hundreds of weapons have been stolen from the US armed forces in the last 10 years. The investigation, being conducted by the Associated Press, claims US troops faked records to cover up thefts. Several explosives stolen from military shipments or bases were found at a US-Mexico border checkpoint. Some of the stolen weapons were used in civilian crimes because they were sold to a street gang. Artillery shells that disappeared from Camp Shelby were found at a Mississippi recycling yard in August. An ammunition technician stationed at Quantico, Virginia stole four fragmentation grenades by falsely recording that they were exploded during training. Also read | Blinken warns China over increasing incursions in Taiwan The report states that in 2018, armour-piercing grenades, hundreds of pounds of plastic explosives, as well as land mines and rockets were stolen from Camp Lejeune, the massive base on coastal North Carolina. They ended up in the hands of some high school kids who found them inside a vacant house they broke in during a prank In response, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Uriah Orland said, “We want to get the number to zero, so there is no loss, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t take seriously losses that happened.” Also see| Arms deal in 2021: How major powers realigned the military landscape From 2010 to 2020, 1,900 entries explosives went missing. While half of these have been recovered, the other half still remains missing. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, Capt. Andrew Wood said in a written statement “Some of it was later recovered and often these reports are attributed to human error, such as miscounting or improper documentation.” Now, Congress is all set to require that the military give lawmakers detailed loss and theft reports every year. “We are committed to transparency and following proper procedures and take accountability of explosives seriously,” said Navy spokesman Lt. Lewis Aldridge. (With inputs from agencies)

Hundreds of weapons stolen from US Air Force over past decade: Report

When Republicans lost big in the 2012 election, the party commissioned a post-mortem analysis that arrived at a blunt conclusion about the way it communicated: “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself,” said the report, informally known as “the autopsy.”

After the elections last week, in which Democrats across the country lost races they expected to win or narrowly escaped defeat, some are asking whether the Democratic Party is suffering from a similar problem of insularity in its messaging.

Critics and some prominent liberals like Ruy Teixeira, a left-of-center political scientist, have argued that Democrats are trying to explain major issues — such as inflation, crime and school curriculum — with answers that satisfy the party’s progressive base but are unpersuasive and off-putting to most other voters.

The clearest example is in Virginia, where the Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe, lost his election after spending weeks trying to minimize and discredit his opponent’s criticisms of public school education, particularly the way that racism is talked about. McAuliffe accused the Republican, Glenn Youngkin, of campaigning on a “made-up” issue and of blowing a “racist dog whistle.”

But about a quarter of Virginia voters said that the debate over teaching critical race theory, a graduate-level academic framework that has become a stand-in for a debate over what to teach about race and racism in schools, was the most important factor in their decision, and 72% of those voters cast ballots for Youngkin, according to a survey of more than 2,500 voters conducted for The Associated Press by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research organization.

The nuances of critical race theory, which focuses on the ways that institutions perpetuate racism, and the hyperbolic tone of the coverage of the issue in conservative news media point to why Democrats have struggled to come up with an effective response.

Teixeira calls the Democrats’ problem with critical race theory and other galvanizing issues the “Fox News Fallacy.”

These issues are ripe for distortions and exaggeration by Republican politicians and their allies in the news media. But Teixeira says Democrats should not dismiss voters’ concerns as simply right-wing misinformation.

“An issue is not necessarily completely invalid just because Fox News mentions it,” he said.

In an interview, Teixeira said his logic applied to questions far beyond critical race theory. “I can’t tell you how many times I analyze a particular issue, saying this is a real concern,” he said. “And the first thing I hear is, ‘Hey, this is a right-wing talking point. You’re playing into the hands of the enemy.’”

Fox News is not the only institution capable of producing this kind of reaction from some on the left — it was just the one Teixeira chose to make his point as vividly as possible.

The conservative news media is full of stories that can make it sound as if the country is living through a nightmare. Rising prices and supply chain difficulties are cast as economic threats on par with the “stagflation” crisis of the 1970s, a comparison that is oversimplified because neither inflation nor unemployment is as high now. Stories of violent crime in large cities are given prominent placement and frequent airing; the same is true of coverage about the record number of migrants being apprehended at the southern border.

The Biden administration has struggled to address concerns about all these issues. Critics pounced when the White House chief of staff, Ron Klain, posted a tweet that cast inflation and supply chain disruptions as “high class problems,” seeming to dismiss the anxiety that Americans say they have about their own finances.

And despite border crossings hitting the highest number on record since at least 1960, when the government began tracking them, the Biden administration has resisted referring to the issue as a “crisis.” President Joe Biden has faced persistent questions about why he has not visited the border.

Then there’s crime. After a year and a half of calls from the progressive left for drastic policing reform, voters across the country last week rejected candidates and policies aligned with the “defund the police” movement. In two of the most striking examples, Minneapolis voters said no to a referendum to dismantle their city’s troubled police department. And New Yorkers elected as mayor a former police captain, Eric Adams, who strongly opposes “defund” efforts.

One liberal who apparently recognized the broader problems that Democrats have had explaining their platforms to voters was Maya Wiley, who ran against Adams in the mayoral primary as a proponent of sweeping police reforms. In an opinion essay for The New Republic this week, Wiley, a civil rights lawyer, wrote that while Republicans distorted the debate over critical race theory in Virginia, they also offered a more compelling message on education.

“If you only heard evening news sound bites, you would think all he talked about on the campaign trail was critical race theory,” Wiley said of Youngkin. “Not so. In fact, he sounded like a moderate Democrat, with the notable exception of CRT.”

Despite the dog whistling, Wiley said, the message was effective because it was empathetic. “He was saying he understood their pain,” she said.

When Republicans lost big in the 2012 election, the party commissioned a post-mortem analysis that arrived at a blunt conclusion about the way it communicated: “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself,” said the report, informally known as “the autopsy.

When Republicans lost big in the 2012 election, the party commissioned a post-mortem analysis that arrived at a blunt conclusion about the way it communicated: “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself,” said the report, informally known as “the autopsy.” After the elections last week, in which Democrats across the country lost races they expected to win or narrowly escaped defeat, some are asking whether the Democratic Party is suffering from a similar problem of insularity in its messaging. Critics and some prominent liberals like Ruy Teixeira, a left-of-center political scientist, have argued that Democrats are trying to explain major issues — such as inflation, crime and school curriculum — with answers that satisfy the party’s progressive base but are unpersuasive and off-putting to most other voters. The clearest example is in Virginia, where the Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe, lost his election after spending weeks trying to minimize and discredit his opponent’s criticisms of public school education, particularly the way that racism is talked about. McAuliffe accused the Republican, Glenn Youngkin, of campaigning on a “made-up” issue and of blowing a “racist dog whistle.” But about a quarter of Virginia voters said that the debate over teaching critical race theory, a graduate-level academic framework that has become a stand-in for a debate over what to teach about race and racism in schools, was the most important factor in their decision, and 72% of those voters cast ballots for Youngkin, according to a survey of more than 2,500 voters conducted for The Associated Press by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research organization. The nuances of critical race theory, which focuses on the ways that institutions perpetuate racism, and the hyperbolic tone of the coverage of the issue in conservative news media point to why Democrats have struggled to come up with an effective response. Teixeira calls the Democrats’ problem with critical race theory and other galvanizing issues the “Fox News Fallacy.” These issues are ripe for distortions and exaggeration by Republican politicians and their allies in the news media. But Teixeira says Democrats should not dismiss voters’ concerns as simply right-wing misinformation. “An issue is not necessarily completely invalid just because Fox News mentions it,” he said. In an interview, Teixeira said his logic applied to questions far beyond critical race theory. “I can’t tell you how many times I analyze a particular issue, saying this is a real concern,” he said. “And the first thing I hear is, ‘Hey, this is a right-wing talking point. You’re playing into the hands of the enemy.’” Fox News is not the only institution capable of producing this kind of reaction from some on the left — it was just the one Teixeira chose to make his point as vividly as possible. The conservative news media is full of stories that can make it sound as if the country is living through a nightmare. Rising prices and supply chain difficulties are cast as economic threats on par with the “stagflation” crisis of the 1970s, a comparison that is oversimplified because neither inflation nor unemployment is as high now. Stories of violent crime in large cities are given prominent placement and frequent airing; the same is true of coverage about the record number of migrants being apprehended at the southern border. The Biden administration has struggled to address concerns about all these issues. Critics pounced when the White House chief of staff, Ron Klain, posted a tweet that cast inflation and supply chain disruptions as “high class problems,” seeming to dismiss the anxiety that Americans say they have about their own finances. And despite border crossings hitting the highest number on record since at least 1960, when the government began tracking them, the Biden administration has resisted referring to the issue as a “crisis.” President Joe Biden has faced persistent questions about why he has not visited the border. Then there’s crime. After a year and a half of calls from the progressive left for drastic policing reform, voters across the country last week rejected candidates and policies aligned with the “defund the police” movement. In two of the most striking examples, Minneapolis voters said no to a referendum to dismantle their city’s troubled police department. And New Yorkers elected as mayor a former police captain, Eric Adams, who strongly opposes “defund” efforts. One liberal who apparently recognized the broader problems that Democrats have had explaining their platforms to voters was Maya Wiley, who ran against Adams in the mayoral primary as a proponent of sweeping police reforms. In an opinion essay for The New Republic this week, Wiley, a civil rights lawyer, wrote that while Republicans distorted the debate over critical race theory in Virginia, they also offered a more compelling message on education. “If you only heard evening news sound bites, you would think all he talked about on the campaign trail was critical race theory,” Wiley said of Youngkin. “Not so. In fact, he sounded like a moderate Democrat, with the notable exception of CRT.” Despite the dog whistling, Wiley said, the message was effective because it was empathetic. “He was saying he understood their pain,” she said.

Do Democrats have a messaging problem?

At the White House, Biden called on lawmakers to pass the legislation.

“I’m asking every House member, member of the House of Representatives, to vote yes on both these bills right now,” the president said.

Spooked by Tuesday’s electoral drubbing, Democrats labored to overcome concerns among moderates about the cost and details of a rapidly evolving, $1.85 trillion social safety net and climate plan and push it through over unified Republican opposition. They also hoped to clear a Senate-passed $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill — the largest investment in the nation’s aging public works in a decade — for Biden’s signature.

Top Democratic officials said they were confident they could complete both measures by day’s end, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and her team continued to haggle with holdouts.

Several moderates were pushing for more information about the cost of the sprawling plan, including a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper responsible for calculating the fiscal impact of the 2,135-page legislation.

“I think everyone’s waiting for the CBO to do their job,” said Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, speaking to reporters Friday morning as he left Pelosi’s office, where White House officials were also meeting on next steps.

But Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said the cost estimate would not be ready by the end of the day, and a person familiar with the discussions said a score from the budget office was weeks away from completion.

“We’re working on it,” Hoyer said.

Pelosi spent much of the day Thursday buttonholing lawmakers on the House floor to try to corral support for the social policy bill, which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, a four-week paid family and medical leave program, health care subsidies and a broad array of climate change initiatives. Biden and members of his Cabinet worked the phones to win over Democratic skeptics.

With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could afford to lose as few as three votes from their side. As Democrats labored to unite their members behind the bill, Republicans sought to wreak procedural havoc on the House floor, forcing a vote to adjourn the chamber that leaders held open for hours to buy time for their negotiations.

While the Senate approved the $1 trillion infrastructure bill in August, the measure has stalled as progressives have repeatedly refused to supply their votes for it until there is agreement on the other bill.

But the election results from Tuesday confirmed the worst fears of Democrats — who are already worried about losing their slim majorities in the midterms next year — about what would happen if they failed to deliver for voters while controlling the White House and both houses of Congress.

“What I heard loud and clear — and I was walking around with candidates all weekend — was that people want us to act,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, where Republicans made surprising gains in races Tuesday. “They want us to get things done for them.”

At the White House, Biden called on lawmakers to pass the legislation. “I’m asking every House member, member of the House of Representatives, to vote yes on both these bills right now,” the president said.

At the White House, Biden called on lawmakers to pass the legislation. “I’m asking every House member, member of the House of Representatives, to vote yes on both these bills right now,” the president said. Spooked by Tuesday’s electoral drubbing, Democrats labored to overcome concerns among moderates about the cost and details of a rapidly evolving, $1.85 trillion social safety net and climate plan and push it through over unified Republican opposition. They also hoped to clear a Senate-passed $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill — the largest investment in the nation’s aging public works in a decade — for Biden’s signature. Top Democratic officials said they were confident they could complete both measures by day’s end, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and her team continued to haggle with holdouts. Several moderates were pushing for more information about the cost of the sprawling plan, including a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper responsible for calculating the fiscal impact of the 2,135-page legislation. “I think everyone’s waiting for the CBO to do their job,” said Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, speaking to reporters Friday morning as he left Pelosi’s office, where White House officials were also meeting on next steps. But Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said the cost estimate would not be ready by the end of the day, and a person familiar with the discussions said a score from the budget office was weeks away from completion. “We’re working on it,” Hoyer said. Pelosi spent much of the day Thursday buttonholing lawmakers on the House floor to try to corral support for the social policy bill, which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, a four-week paid family and medical leave program, health care subsidies and a broad array of climate change initiatives. Biden and members of his Cabinet worked the phones to win over Democratic skeptics. With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could afford to lose as few as three votes from their side. As Democrats labored to unite their members behind the bill, Republicans sought to wreak procedural havoc on the House floor, forcing a vote to adjourn the chamber that leaders held open for hours to buy time for their negotiations. While the Senate approved the $1 trillion infrastructure bill in August, the measure has stalled as progressives have repeatedly refused to supply their votes for it until there is agreement on the other bill. But the election results from Tuesday confirmed the worst fears of Democrats — who are already worried about losing their slim majorities in the midterms next year — about what would happen if they failed to deliver for voters while controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. “What I heard loud and clear — and I was walking around with candidates all weekend — was that people want us to act,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, where Republicans made surprising gains in races Tuesday. “They want us to get things done for them.”

House Democrats push toward votes on infrastructure and social spending

Democrats met privately on Capitol Hill on Tuesday as they searched for an elusive compromise on a domestic policy and climate package, pressing to resolve crucial disagreements over health benefits, paid leave, environmental provisions and how to pay for the entire plan.

As Democrats seek to pacify key centrist holdouts balking at central pieces of the bill, party leaders are lobbying rank-and-file lawmakers, particularly liberals, to accept a measure that will be far smaller than an initial $3.5 trillion blueprint that passed Congress earlier this year. House Democrats huddled Tuesday morning to discuss the negotiations at their weekly caucus meeting, while Senate Democrats were expected to continue privately meeting throughout the day on climate and tax provisions.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told Democrats they were on “the verge of something major,” according to two people familiar with her comments, who disclosed the private remarks on condition of anonymity. She called the legislation “transformative, historic and bigger than anything else.”

Leaving the caucus meeting, Pelosi said “there’s not that much more time — we have to have decisions largely today, a little bit into tomorrow, so we can proceed.” Asked about what was left on the negotiating table, she said, “I think it’s pretty self-evident.”

The caucus concluded shortly before 10:30 a.m. Pelosi and Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, were set to meet Tuesday afternoon as talks continue over the plan, according to an aide.

The White House and congressional leaders hope for a deal on the expansive plan this week, before President Joe Biden leaves Thursday for a trip that includes a United Nations climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, where he is expected to call for stronger international action to counter to the toll of climate change. His case could be bolstered by an agreement on a new social policy bill that includes strong new climate programs.

“It changes the lives of the American people,” Biden said of the proposed legislation during an appearance at a transit maintenance facility in Kearny, New Jersey, on Monday, where he promoted the plan’s payments to families with children and child care assistance. “So let’s get this done — let’s move.”

But with Republicans uniformly opposed to the bill, Democrats cannot afford to lose even a single vote in the evenly divided Senate, giving any senator outsized power to sink the plan over a single provision. That has further complicated the effort to muscle the bill through Congress using a special budget process known as reconciliation that shields it from a filibuster.

The emerging compromise could spend around $1.75 trillion over 10 years, though leading Democrats were trying to nudge Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a key centrist, closer to $2 trillion. Manchin and other moderates have resisted significant pieces of the plan, including environmental provisions, health care expansions and tax increases designed to pay for the spending.

Manchin, in particular, has balked at multiple climate provisions, in part as a defense of his coal-heavy state. He has effectively jettisoned a proposed $150 billion program that would replace coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind and solar power, and is now pushing to remove or modify a provision that would impose a fee on emissions of methane, commonly produced in coal mining.

He is also facing pressure from his colleagues over his resistance to two key expansions of health care benefits and a new paid leave program. He has so far opposed a push, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, chair of the Budget Committee, to expand Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing benefits, citing the program’s financial instability.

And he has also expressed concerns about a push to cover a Medicaid expansion for the dozen states whose leaders have refused to expand the program under the Affordable Care Act. West Virginia is among the states that expanded Medicaid and pay 10% of the cost, and Manchin has said the proposal would in essence reward states for holding out.

The Senate Finance Committee is readying the details of a billionaires’ tax, an entirely new approach to taxing wealth, and other tax provisions that will help pay for the bill without increasing the corporate or individual tax rates. While House Democrats were expressing concerns about the details of the plan, which is largely being crafted by their Senate counterparts, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, a key holdout on the bill, has remained opposed to those rate increases.

Democrats met privately on Capitol Hill on Tuesday as they searched for an elusive compromise on a domestic policy and climate package, pressing to resolve crucial disagreements over health benefits, paid leave, environmental provisions and how to pay for the entire plan.

Democrats met privately on Capitol Hill on Tuesday as they searched for an elusive compromise on a domestic policy and climate package, pressing to resolve crucial disagreements over health benefits, paid leave, environmental provisions and how to pay for the entire plan. As Democrats seek to pacify key centrist holdouts balking at central pieces of the bill, party leaders are lobbying rank-and-file lawmakers, particularly liberals, to accept a measure that will be far smaller than an initial $3.5 trillion blueprint that passed Congress earlier this year. House Democrats huddled Tuesday morning to discuss the negotiations at their weekly caucus meeting, while Senate Democrats were expected to continue privately meeting throughout the day on climate and tax provisions. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told Democrats they were on “the verge of something major,” according to two people familiar with her comments, who disclosed the private remarks on condition of anonymity. She called the legislation “transformative, historic and bigger than anything else.” Leaving the caucus meeting, Pelosi said “there’s not that much more time — we have to have decisions largely today, a little bit into tomorrow, so we can proceed.” Asked about what was left on the negotiating table, she said, “I think it’s pretty self-evident.” The caucus concluded shortly before 10:30 a.m. Pelosi and Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, were set to meet Tuesday afternoon as talks continue over the plan, according to an aide. The White House and congressional leaders hope for a deal on the expansive plan this week, before President Joe Biden leaves Thursday for a trip that includes a United Nations climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, where he is expected to call for stronger international action to counter to the toll of climate change. His case could be bolstered by an agreement on a new social policy bill that includes strong new climate programs. “It changes the lives of the American people,” Biden said of the proposed legislation during an appearance at a transit maintenance facility in Kearny, New Jersey, on Monday, where he promoted the plan’s payments to families with children and child care assistance. “So let’s get this done — let’s move.” But with Republicans uniformly opposed to the bill, Democrats cannot afford to lose even a single vote in the evenly divided Senate, giving any senator outsized power to sink the plan over a single provision. That has further complicated the effort to muscle the bill through Congress using a special budget process known as reconciliation that shields it from a filibuster. The emerging compromise could spend around $1.75 trillion over 10 years, though leading Democrats were trying to nudge Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a key centrist, closer to $2 trillion. Manchin and other moderates have resisted significant pieces of the plan, including environmental provisions, health care expansions and tax increases designed to pay for the spending. Manchin, in particular, has balked at multiple climate provisions, in part as a defense of his coal-heavy state. He has effectively jettisoned a proposed $150 billion program that would replace coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind and solar power, and is now pushing to remove or modify a provision that would impose a fee on emissions of methane, commonly produced in coal mining. He is also facing pressure from his colleagues over his resistance to two key expansions of health care benefits and a new paid leave program. He has so far opposed a push, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, chair of the Budget Committee, to expand Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing benefits, citing the program’s financial instability. And he has also expressed concerns about a push to cover a Medicaid expansion for the dozen states whose leaders have refused to expand the program under the Affordable Care Act. West Virginia is among the states that expanded Medicaid and pay 10% of the cost, and Manchin has said the proposal would in essence reward states for holding out. The Senate Finance Committee is readying the details of a billionaires’ tax, an entirely new approach to taxing wealth, and other tax provisions that will help pay for the bill without increasing the corporate or individual tax rates. While House Democrats were expressing concerns about the details of the plan, which is largely being crafted by their Senate counterparts, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, a key holdout on the bill, has remained opposed to those rate increases.

Democrats meet to discuss deal on social policy bill

The House Committee on Ethics on Thursday released four reports into separate violations of ethics rules by four congressmen, portraying what investigators suggested was a sweeping array of improper financial conduct.

The allegations against three Republicans and one Democrat center on stock trades and the improper use of campaign funds, according to the Office of Congressional Ethics, which investigated the cases.

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., is under scrutiny over stock purchases by his wife that investigators say were affected by his actions as a member of Congress. Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., is facing allegations that he failed to properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock trades. Rep. Alex X. Mooney, R-W.Va., is accused of improperly using campaign funds for personal expenses, and Rep. Jim Hagedorn, R-Minn., of improperly awarding contracts to companies owned by his aides’ relatives.

All four cases will continue to be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers charged with enforcing the chamber’s internal rules.

In a particularly scathing report about Kelly and his wife, Victoria Kelly, investigators concluded that there was “substantial reason to believe” that she had bought stock in a steel company with a plant in her husband’s district “based upon confidential information” that he had “learned from his official job duties.”

Kelly’s case involves a frantic effort to aid the steel plant that employs 1,400 people in his district after it was acquired last year by Cleveland-Cliffs. The CEO of Cleveland-Cliffs publicly testified that unless the federal government was able to provide his company with additional trade protections, it would shutter that plant, as well as one in Ohio.

Investigators found that Mike Kelly became personally involved in Cleveland-Cliffs’ efforts to lobby the White House, pressing officials at the Commerce Department, as well as Mark Meadows, then President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, to enact additional protections.

On April 28, 2020, investigators wrote, the Commerce Department informed the chief of Cleveland-Cliffs that it intended to open an investigation that could benefit the company. Relieved, Cleveland-Cliffs executives canceled planned layoffs. The news traveled to Mike Kelly’s office, investigators wrote, citing witness interviews and emails.

The next day, Victoria Kelly bought $15,000 to $50,000 of stock in Cleveland-Cliffs, according to the congressman’s financial disclosures. Investigators deemed that purchase “atypical” because she had not held or purchased individual stocks for nearly a year before then.

When she sold the stock in January, she earned a profit: While she had bought the shares at $4.70, she sold them for approximately $18, investigators said.

Neither Mike Kelly nor his wife cooperated with the investigation, though members of his staff and officials at Cleveland-Cliffs did. Mike Kelly has since maintained that neither he nor his wife committed any wrongdoing, and a lawyer for Mike Kelly called the investigation “fatally flawed.”

A spokesperson for Mike Kelly told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in September 2020 that Victoria Kelly had made “a small investment to show her support for the workers and management of this 100-year-old bedrock of their hometown.” He did not explain why Victoria Kelly did not publicly disclose the purchase at the time, if her intent was to show solidarity with the company.

In the report on Hagedorn, investigators found that there was substantial reason to believe that his office had steered nearly $500,000 in government funds to contract services from companies owned or controlled by his aides’ relatives, and that it used private office space at a cost far below market rate and tried to mislead the public about it.

Investigators concluded that Hagedorn’s office spent an unusually large sum of government money on official mail to his constituents and that much of it went to two separate printing companies owned by relatives of two of his aides, who charged Hagedorn “significantly more” than the fair market price for such services. While the average congressional office spent less than 1% of its budget on such mail, Hagedorn’s office spent nearly 20%.

Investigators were unable to verify whether one of the companies, owned by the brother of Hagedorn’s former chief of staff, had any clients other than the congressman’s office.

Because Hagedorn did not cooperate with the inquiry, investigators wrote, they were unable to definitively determine whether he was aware of the practices. But they said they had uncovered evidence showing he “knew or should have known” of the irregularities in his mail operation.

Hagedorn hired outside counsel last year to look into the matter and came to many of the same conclusions as the Office of Congressional Ethics investigators. However, that internal review concluded that he was unaware that the contracts were benefiting his aides’ relatives.

In their inquiry of Mooney, investigators faulted him for using campaign funds for what they said were most likely personal purposes. The report found that there was substantial reason to believe that Mooney used campaign contributions during frequent visits to fast-food restaurants such as Chick-fil-A, Panera Bread, Taco Bell and a variety of pizza vendors near his house, when there was no clear campaign purpose to the spending.

Mooney also twice used campaign dollars to pay for trips in West Virginia that he called “site visits” but investigators said were “primarily personal in nature.” He used $2,445 in campaign funds at the Canaan Valley Resort and spent $302 on a private guided fishing tour at the Smoke Hole resort, investigators said.

“While Rep. Mooney’s cooperation greatly facilitated this investigation, and he attempted to remedy violations as they became apparent to him and his counsel during this review, the nature and overall pattern of the violations raised concerns,” the report said.

The investigation into Malinowski’s stock trades found that he did not file required reports for transactions in 2019 and 2020, and he admitted to failing to do so in an interview with investigators. The report is likely to cast a cloud over Malinowski as he faces a difficult reelection race next year.

In the interview, Malinowski blamed “carelessness on my part” for the lack of disclosure and said he regretted and took full responsibility for it.

“This is not a justification or excuse,” he said.

“I have an overwhelmingly busy job, and this was one of the things I knew I needed to do,” he added. “But I did not put enough pressure on myself to do it every 45 days, and that was simply careless.”

The House Committee on Ethics on Thursday released four reports into separate violations of ethics rules by four congressmen, portraying what investigators suggested was a sweeping array of improper financial conduct.

The House Committee on Ethics on Thursday released four reports into separate violations of ethics rules by four congressmen, portraying what investigators suggested was a sweeping array of improper financial conduct. The allegations against three Republicans and one Democrat center on stock trades and the improper use of campaign funds, according to the Office of Congressional Ethics, which investigated the cases. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., is under scrutiny over stock purchases by his wife that investigators say were affected by his actions as a member of Congress. Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., is facing allegations that he failed to properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock trades. Rep. Alex X. Mooney, R-W.Va., is accused of improperly using campaign funds for personal expenses, and Rep. Jim Hagedorn, R-Minn., of improperly awarding contracts to companies owned by his aides’ relatives. All four cases will continue to be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers charged with enforcing the chamber’s internal rules. In a particularly scathing report about Kelly and his wife, Victoria Kelly, investigators concluded that there was “substantial reason to believe” that she had bought stock in a steel company with a plant in her husband’s district “based upon confidential information” that he had “learned from his official job duties.” Kelly’s case involves a frantic effort to aid the steel plant that employs 1,400 people in his district after it was acquired last year by Cleveland-Cliffs. The CEO of Cleveland-Cliffs publicly testified that unless the federal government was able to provide his company with additional trade protections, it would shutter that plant, as well as one in Ohio. Investigators found that Mike Kelly became personally involved in Cleveland-Cliffs’ efforts to lobby the White House, pressing officials at the Commerce Department, as well as Mark Meadows, then President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, to enact additional protections. On April 28, 2020, investigators wrote, the Commerce Department informed the chief of Cleveland-Cliffs that it intended to open an investigation that could benefit the company. Relieved, Cleveland-Cliffs executives canceled planned layoffs. The news traveled to Mike Kelly’s office, investigators wrote, citing witness interviews and emails. The next day, Victoria Kelly bought $15,000 to $50,000 of stock in Cleveland-Cliffs, according to the congressman’s financial disclosures. Investigators deemed that purchase “atypical” because she had not held or purchased individual stocks for nearly a year before then. When she sold the stock in January, she earned a profit: While she had bought the shares at $4.70, she sold them for approximately $18, investigators said. Neither Mike Kelly nor his wife cooperated with the investigation, though members of his staff and officials at Cleveland-Cliffs did. Mike Kelly has since maintained that neither he nor his wife committed any wrongdoing, and a lawyer for Mike Kelly called the investigation “fatally flawed.” A spokesperson for Mike Kelly told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in September 2020 that Victoria Kelly had made “a small investment to show her support for the workers and management of this 100-year-old bedrock of their hometown.” He did not explain why Victoria Kelly did not publicly disclose the purchase at the time, if her intent was to show solidarity with the company. In the report on Hagedorn, investigators found that there was substantial reason to believe that his office had steered nearly $500,000 in government funds to contract services from companies owned or controlled by his aides’ relatives, and that it used private office space at a cost far below market rate and tried to mislead the public about it. Investigators concluded that Hagedorn’s office spent an unusually large sum of government money on official mail to his constituents and that much of it went to two separate printing companies owned by relatives of two of his aides, who charged Hagedorn “significantly more” than the fair market price for such services. While the average congressional office spent less than 1% of its budget on such mail, Hagedorn’s office spent nearly 20%. Investigators were unable to verify whether one of the companies, owned by the brother of Hagedorn’s former chief of staff, had any clients other than the congressman’s office. Because Hagedorn did not cooperate with the inquiry, investigators wrote, they were unable to definitively determine whether he was aware of the practices. But they said they had uncovered evidence showing he “knew or should have known” of the irregularities in his mail operation. Hagedorn hired outside counsel last year to look into the matter and came to many of the same conclusions as the Office of Congressional Ethics investigators. However, that internal review concluded that he was unaware that the contracts were benefiting his aides’ relatives. In their inquiry of Mooney, investigators faulted him for using campaign funds for what they said were most likely personal purposes. The report found that there was substantial reason to believe that Mooney used campaign contributions during frequent visits to fast-food restaurants such as Chick-fil-A, Panera Bread, Taco Bell and a variety of pizza vendors near his house, when there was no clear campaign purpose to the spending. Mooney also twice used campaign dollars to pay for trips in West Virginia that he called “site visits” but investigators said were “primarily personal in nature.” He used $2,445 in campaign funds at the Canaan Valley Resort and spent $302 on a private guided fishing tour at the Smoke Hole resort, investigators said. “While Rep. Mooney’s cooperation greatly facilitated this investigation, and he attempted to remedy violations as they became apparent to him and his counsel during this review, the nature and overall pattern of the violations raised concerns,” the report said. The investigation into Malinowski’s stock trades found that he did not file required reports for transactions in 2019 and 2020, and he admitted to failing to do so in an interview with investigators. The report is likely to cast a cloud over Malinowski as he faces a difficult reelection race next year. In the interview, Malinowski blamed “carelessness on my part” for the lack of disclosure and said he regretted and took full responsibility for it. “This is not a justification or excuse,” he said. “I have an overwhelmingly busy job, and this was one of the things I knew I needed to do,” he added. “But I did not put enough pressure on myself to do it every 45 days, and that was simply careless.”

House ethics committee details accusations against 4 lawmakers

Former US President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the National Archives and a House special committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot in a bid to block Congress from obtaining certain documents related to the insurrection. 
 
"The Committee's request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration," the lawsuit, filed on Monday, read.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2024-former-us-president-donald-trump-favourite-candidate-biden-lagging-behind-420648" hreflang="en">US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind</a> 
 
"Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors." 
 
In August, the committee had requested that the National Archives, which is the custodian of the Trump White House's records, submit a long list of records from the former President`s time in office and the aftermath of the Capitol riot, reports Xinhua news agency. 
 
The request is part of the panel's ongoing and intensifying investigation into how a mob of Trump's supporters breached the Capitol on January 6 trying to stop a Congressional joint session from certifying the 2020 presidential election result. 
 
Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hows-biden-doing-do-you-miss-me-yet-trump-pokes-fun-at-us-president-420630" hreflang="en">'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President</a>

Trump has said he would assert executive privilege to shield the documents requested by the committee, but Biden, who legal experts said has the ultimate say over whether the information sought by the panel is covered by the executive privilege, determined that Trump's effort to conceal the documents was neither in the best interest of the US nor justified.

In an October 8 letter to Archivist of the US David Ferriero, White House Counsel Dana Remus demanded that he turn over a subset of the required documents that Trump identified as privileged to Congress. 
 
Remus added that those documents should be submitted 30 days after Ferriero notified the former president. 
 
Trump, however, claimed in the lawsuit filed in the DC District Court that Biden has an interest in preserving his executive privilege, saying it amounted to "a political ploy to accommodate his partisan allies".

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/56-in-us-feel-cheating-affected-2020-presidential-election-outcome-says-poll-420060" hreflang="en">56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll</a> 
 
"As it relates to any materials being sought in situations like this, where fundamental privileges and constitutional issues are at stake and where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, there is a longstanding bipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensure the ability to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requested material," the lawsuit read.

Watch |&nbsp;United States: Donald Trump sued Congress and National Archives

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/united-states-donald-trump-sued-congress-and-national-archives-422006/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In addition to seeking documents from the Trump White House, the special committee also sent subpoenas to and asked depositions from several former senior officials in the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who defied the subpoena and did not show up at the scheduled hearing last week. 
 
Bannon's no-show infuriated the Democrat-led panel, prompting it to set up a vote Tuesday to recommend criminal contempt charges against him. 
 
In what could potentially be another blow to the former President, Democrat Bennie Thompson, who chairs the special committee, did not rule out subpoenaing Trump.

Former US President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the National Archives and a House special committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot in a bid to block Congress from obtaining certain documents related to the insurrection.

Former US President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the National Archives and a House special committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot in a bid to block Congress from obtaining certain documents related to the insurrection. "The Committee's request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration," the lawsuit, filed on Monday, read. Also read | US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind "Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors." In August, the committee had requested that the National Archives, which is the custodian of the Trump White House's records, submit a long list of records from the former President`s time in office and the aftermath of the Capitol riot, reports Xinhua news agency. The request is part of the panel's ongoing and intensifying investigation into how a mob of Trump's supporters breached the Capitol on January 6 trying to stop a Congressional joint session from certifying the 2020 presidential election result. Also read | 'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President Trump has said he would assert executive privilege to shield the documents requested by the committee, but Biden, who legal experts said has the ultimate say over whether the information sought by the panel is covered by the executive privilege, determined that Trump's effort to conceal the documents was neither in the best interest of the US nor justified. In an October 8 letter to Archivist of the US David Ferriero, White House Counsel Dana Remus demanded that he turn over a subset of the required documents that Trump identified as privileged to Congress. Remus added that those documents should be submitted 30 days after Ferriero notified the former president. Trump, however, claimed in the lawsuit filed in the DC District Court that Biden has an interest in preserving his executive privilege, saying it amounted to "a political ploy to accommodate his partisan allies". Also read | 56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll "As it relates to any materials being sought in situations like this, where fundamental privileges and constitutional issues are at stake and where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, there is a longstanding bipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensure the ability to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requested material," the lawsuit read. Watch | United States: Donald Trump sued Congress and National Archives In addition to seeking documents from the Trump White House, the special committee also sent subpoenas to and asked depositions from several former senior officials in the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who defied the subpoena and did not show up at the scheduled hearing last week. Bannon's no-show infuriated the Democrat-led panel, prompting it to set up a vote Tuesday to recommend criminal contempt charges against him. In what could potentially be another blow to the former President, Democrat Bennie Thompson, who chairs the special committee, did not rule out subpoenaing Trump.

Trump sues to block Congress from obtaining documents related to Capitol riot

Five US lawmakers have accused Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and other executives of lying to the Congress about firm’s business practices, saying that they are now considering referring Amazon “for criminal investigation”.

The allegations follow an investigation by news agency Reuters that claimed Amazon copied products and rigged its search results in India to boost sales of its own brands.

In a letter to the Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, the members of the US House Judiciary committee wrote that “credible reporting” in the Reuters story and recent articles in several other news outlets “directly contradicts the sworn testimony and representations of Amazon’s top executives – including former CEO Jeffrey Bezos.”

“At best, this reporting confirms that Amazon’s representatives misled the Committee. At worst, it demonstrates that they may have lied to Congress in possible violation of federal criminal law,” Reuters cited the letter as saying.

Amazon, however, has strongly denied the allegations.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/jeff-bezos-is-pouring-money-to-crack-secret-of-living-forever-412737">Jeff Bezos is pouring money to crack secret of living 'forever'</a>

“Amazon and its executives did not mislead the committee, and we have denied and sought to correct the record on the inaccurate media articles in question.”

&nbsp;“As we have previously stated, we have an internal policy, which goes beyond that of any other retailer’s policy that we’re aware of, that prohibits the use of individual seller data to develop Amazon private label products. We investigate any allegations that this policy may have been violated and take appropriate action,” it added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-accused-of-toxic-work-culture-involving-sexual-harassment-417357">Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin accused of 'toxic' work culture involving sexual harassment</a>

Since 2019, the House Judiciary Committee has been investigating competition in digital markets, including how Amazon uses proprietary seller data from its platform, and whether the company unfairly favors its own products.

In sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee last year, Bezos said the company prohibits its employees from using data on individual sellers to benefit its own private-label product lines. In another hearing in 2019, Nate Sutton, Amazon’s associate general counsel, testified that the company does not use such data to create its own branded products or alter its search results to benefit them.

(With inputs from agencies)

Five US lawmakers have accused Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and other executives of lying to the Congress about firm’s business practices, saying that they are now considering referring Amazon “for criminal investigation”.

Five US lawmakers have accused Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and other executives of lying to the Congress about firm’s business practices, saying that they are now considering referring Amazon “for criminal investigation”. The allegations follow an investigation by news agency Reuters that claimed Amazon copied products and rigged its search results in India to boost sales of its own brands. In a letter to the Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, the members of the US House Judiciary committee wrote that “credible reporting” in the Reuters story and recent articles in several other news outlets “directly contradicts the sworn testimony and representations of Amazon’s top executives – including former CEO Jeffrey Bezos.” “At best, this reporting confirms that Amazon’s representatives misled the Committee. At worst, it demonstrates that they may have lied to Congress in possible violation of federal criminal law,” Reuters cited the letter as saying. Amazon, however, has strongly denied the allegations. Also read | Jeff Bezos is pouring money to crack secret of living 'forever' “Amazon and its executives did not mislead the committee, and we have denied and sought to correct the record on the inaccurate media articles in question.” “As we have previously stated, we have an internal policy, which goes beyond that of any other retailer’s policy that we’re aware of, that prohibits the use of individual seller data to develop Amazon private label products. We investigate any allegations that this policy may have been violated and take appropriate action,” it added. Also read | Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin accused of 'toxic' work culture involving sexual harassment Since 2019, the House Judiciary Committee has been investigating competition in digital markets, including how Amazon uses proprietary seller data from its platform, and whether the company unfairly favors its own products. In sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee last year, Bezos said the company prohibits its employees from using data on individual sellers to benefit its own private-label product lines. In another hearing in 2019, Nate Sutton, Amazon’s associate general counsel, testified that the company does not use such data to create its own branded products or alter its search results to benefit them. (With inputs from agencies)

5 US lawmakers accuse Jeff Bezos of lying to Congress on Amazon’s ‘business practices’

A dizzying amount of money is already pouring into the battles for the House and the Senate more than a year before the 2022 elections, as Republicans are bullish on their chances to take over both chambers in the first midterm election under President Joe Biden, given the narrow margins keeping Democrats in power.

The two parties’ main war chests for the House total a combined $128 million — more than double the sum at this point in the 2020 cycle and far surpassing every other previous one. Top House members are now raising $1 million or more per quarter. And more than two dozen senators and Senate candidates topped that threshold.

Candidate after candidate, and the parties themselves, are posting record-breaking sums, even as the shapes of most House districts nationwide remain in flux because of delays in the once-a-decade redrawing of boundaries.

In Georgia, Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, raised more than $100,000 per day in the past three months for a $9.5 million haul. But his leading Republican rival, Herschel Walker, the former football player who was urged to run by former President Donald Trump, raised $3.7 million in a little more than a month, setting up a potentially bruising and expensive contest in that key state.

Politicians in both parties are furiously racing to expand their online donor bases while simultaneously courting big checks from wealthy benefactors. At a Senate Republican retreat for big donors in Palm Beach, Florida, this past week, Trump’s presence was a reminder of his continued perch at the center of the Republican Party — both in helping lure donations and in derailing whatever messaging that party operatives have designed.

“The donor community is waking up to the fact that the Republican Party has a historic opportunity in 2022, in spite of Trump continuing to talk about 2020,” said Scott Reed, a longtime Republican strategist.

Money alone is rarely decisive in political races, especially when both parties are flush with cash. But the glut of political funding, detailed in Federal Election Commission reports filed Friday by House and Senate candidates and announced by the parties, shows the growing stakes of US&nbsp;elections, where a single flipped Senate seat can shift trillions of dollars in federal spending.

The country’s increasingly polarized electorate has been hyper-engaged in politics since the Trump era began, and the ease of channeling that energy into donations online is remaking how campaigns are funded. The online donation clearinghouses for the two parties, ActBlue and WinRed, processed a combined total of more than $450 million in the third quarter.

The avalanche of cash could expand the 2022 political battlefield and result in an unrelenting wave of advertising aimed at Americans who live in swing districts and states.

The ad wars have, in fact, already begun. Democratic- and Republican-linked groups are spending millions of dollars to shape public opinion on the spending package currently being debated in Congress.

Among them is one Biden-aligned nonprofit group, Building Back Together, which said it had spent nearly $15 million on television ads in more than two dozen House districts and key states since July. This past week, a Republican-aligned nonprofit group, One Nation, announced that it was beginning a $10 million ad campaign, urging three Democratic senators up for reelection in 2022 — in Nevada, Arizona and New Hampshire — to oppose the spending package.

All told, more than $70 million has been spent since Sept. 1 on television ads related to the Biden legislative agenda, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm.

Historically, the party out of power has done well in a new president’s first midterm election, and Republicans see rising inflation, missteps in Afghanistan and a softening in Biden’s approval rating as reasons for a sunny 2022 outlook.

“We’ll have to really screw up to lose the House,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, referring to the Democrats’ narrow majority in that chamber.

He said that recapturing the Senate, which is split evenly between 50 Republicans and 50 members of the Democratic caucus, would depend on recruiting more top-tier Republicans, such as Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire.

At the donor retreat in Florida, Graham said, “there was a sense of optimism that was as high as I’ve seen it.”

In the House, the path to the majority is widely expected to be determined by suburban voters, who swung sharply toward the Democratic Party during the Trump administration.

Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist who has worked on House campaigns, noted that the central role of suburban terrain — the battlegrounds were more rural 15 years ago — had driven up the cost of campaigning. Buying ads to reach suburban voters requires advertising in pricier urban television markets.

“The upside is the Democratic coalition is built around suburbs,” Ferguson said. “The downside is the resources to run in Philadelphia and Chicago and LA and Miami.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee began this year with roughly $8 million less on hand than its Democratic counterpart but entered October with roughly $2 million more, as small digital contributions have accelerated for Republicans. Each group has raised well over $100 million this year.

Rep. Tom Emmer, the chairman of the Republican congressional committee, noted in a call with reporters that in the 2020 cycle, his party committee had not reached the $100 million threshold until February — five months later.

Both the Senate and the House Republican campaign committees have leaned on hardball and sometimes deceptive tactics to boost their bottom lines, such as pre-checking boxes that automatically enroll donors in recurring monthly contributions and aggressively fostering guilt trips in supporters and questioning their allegiances.

“You’re a traitor …” began one such House GOP text this past week. “You abandoned Trump.”

The text gave a false deadline of 17 minutes to donate.

“This is your final chance to prove your loyalty or be branded a deserter,” it read.

The House GOP committee, which declined to comment on its tactics, said it had raised nearly 44% of its funds last quarter online.

“Democrats have owned online fundraising, and that is no longer true,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, who previously led the House Republican campaign arm. “Republicans now are the ones who are obsessed and aroused. People voted for Biden to get Trump out of their living rooms. But they didn’t vote for all his policies.”

Most Republican strategists hope to keep the focus on Democrats, knowing voters typically want to put a check on those in power. But Trump’s continued insistence on making his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen a central rallying cry for the GOP — “If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump warned in a statement this past week, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24” — is a complicating factor.

“If it’s a referendum on Biden’s policies, we will do very well,” Graham said of the 2022 midterms. “If it’s looking back, if it’s a grievance campaign, then we could be in trouble.”

Emmer tried to distance himself from Trump’s remarks, saying, “He’s a private citizen, and he, of course, is entitled to his own opinion.” Still, Emmer added that he was “honored” that the former president would headline the committee’s fall fundraising dinner.

“He remains the biggest draw in our party,” he said.

Congressional leaders are the other leading party fundraisers. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican minority leader, and his top deputy, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, have transferred a combined total of nearly $30 million to their party committees this year, party officials said.

Scalise’s top donations since July included $105,000 from the PAC of Koch Industries; $125,000 from H. Fisk Johnson, the chief executive of S.C. Johnson &amp; Son; and $66,300 from John W. Childs, the private equity magnate.

Whether this is the final term of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is 81, is widely discussed in Washington. But the San Francisco Democrat remains a prolific fundraiser.

Donors to her political accounts in recent months include Haim Saban, the media investor ($263,400); Hamilton James, a top Blackstone executive ($263,000); Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer, the Cargill heiress ($263,400); and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood producer ($163,400).

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, raised heavily both for his own 2022 reelection bid in New York and to maintain the Democratic majority.

Schumer has aggressively pressed top party fundraisers in recent months, telling one that he wanted to fill his war chest (now at $31.9 million) as a deterrent to any primary challenge from the left. He specifically named Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York as the kind of candidate he would like to keep from running, mostly to avoid weakening his hand while navigating the evenly divided Senate.

Schumer’s office declined to comment.

Notably, some of the top fundraisers in both parties are Black.

They include Warnock, the top Democratic fundraiser aside from congressional leaders, and Walker, a leading Republican in the Georgia Senate race. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the lone Black Republican in the Senate, was the top fundraiser in the party aside from the congressional leaders.

Scott raised $8.3 million in the third quarter. He now has $18.8 million in the bank, funds that can be used for his 2022 reelection or to seed a potential 2024 presidential run.

Rep. Val Demings, a Black Democrat in Florida and a former Orlando police chief, is challenging Sen. Marco Rubio, the Republican incumbent, and was another top fundraiser, pulling in $8.4 million. But she spent heavily to do so: $5.6 million.

Florida has proved elusive for Democratic candidates, especially in recent years, and some party strategists are already quietly grumbling about the tens of millions — if not more — that is likely to be poured in to a tough race, especially after hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on losing 2020 efforts to topple Republican incumbents in Maine, Iowa, North Carolina and South Carolina.

A dizzying amount of money is already pouring into the battles for the House and the Senate more than a year before the 2022 elections, as Republicans are bullish on their chances to take over both chambers in the first midterm election under President Joe Biden, given the narrow margins keeping Democrats in power.

A dizzying amount of money is already pouring into the battles for the House and the Senate more than a year before the 2022 elections, as Republicans are bullish on their chances to take over both chambers in the first midterm election under President Joe Biden, given the narrow margins keeping Democrats in power. The two parties’ main war chests for the House total a combined $128 million — more than double the sum at this point in the 2020 cycle and far surpassing every other previous one. Top House members are now raising $1 million or more per quarter. And more than two dozen senators and Senate candidates topped that threshold. Candidate after candidate, and the parties themselves, are posting record-breaking sums, even as the shapes of most House districts nationwide remain in flux because of delays in the once-a-decade redrawing of boundaries. In Georgia, Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, raised more than $100,000 per day in the past three months for a $9.5 million haul. But his leading Republican rival, Herschel Walker, the former football player who was urged to run by former President Donald Trump, raised $3.7 million in a little more than a month, setting up a potentially bruising and expensive contest in that key state. Politicians in both parties are furiously racing to expand their online donor bases while simultaneously courting big checks from wealthy benefactors. At a Senate Republican retreat for big donors in Palm Beach, Florida, this past week, Trump’s presence was a reminder of his continued perch at the center of the Republican Party — both in helping lure donations and in derailing whatever messaging that party operatives have designed. “The donor community is waking up to the fact that the Republican Party has a historic opportunity in 2022, in spite of Trump continuing to talk about 2020,” said Scott Reed, a longtime Republican strategist. Money alone is rarely decisive in political races, especially when both parties are flush with cash. But the glut of political funding, detailed in Federal Election Commission reports filed Friday by House and Senate candidates and announced by the parties, shows the growing stakes of US elections, where a single flipped Senate seat can shift trillions of dollars in federal spending. The country’s increasingly polarized electorate has been hyper-engaged in politics since the Trump era began, and the ease of channeling that energy into donations online is remaking how campaigns are funded. The online donation clearinghouses for the two parties, ActBlue and WinRed, processed a combined total of more than $450 million in the third quarter. The avalanche of cash could expand the 2022 political battlefield and result in an unrelenting wave of advertising aimed at Americans who live in swing districts and states. The ad wars have, in fact, already begun. Democratic- and Republican-linked groups are spending millions of dollars to shape public opinion on the spending package currently being debated in Congress. Among them is one Biden-aligned nonprofit group, Building Back Together, which said it had spent nearly $15 million on television ads in more than two dozen House districts and key states since July. This past week, a Republican-aligned nonprofit group, One Nation, announced that it was beginning a $10 million ad campaign, urging three Democratic senators up for reelection in 2022 — in Nevada, Arizona and New Hampshire — to oppose the spending package. All told, more than $70 million has been spent since Sept. 1 on television ads related to the Biden legislative agenda, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm. Historically, the party out of power has done well in a new president’s first midterm election, and Republicans see rising inflation, missteps in Afghanistan and a softening in Biden’s approval rating as reasons for a sunny 2022 outlook. “We’ll have to really screw up to lose the House,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, referring to the Democrats’ narrow majority in that chamber. He said that recapturing the Senate, which is split evenly between 50 Republicans and 50 members of the Democratic caucus, would depend on recruiting more top-tier Republicans, such as Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire. At the donor retreat in Florida, Graham said, “there was a sense of optimism that was as high as I’ve seen it.” In the House, the path to the majority is widely expected to be determined by suburban voters, who swung sharply toward the Democratic Party during the Trump administration. Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist who has worked on House campaigns, noted that the central role of suburban terrain — the battlegrounds were more rural 15 years ago — had driven up the cost of campaigning. Buying ads to reach suburban voters requires advertising in pricier urban television markets. “The upside is the Democratic coalition is built around suburbs,” Ferguson said. “The downside is the resources to run in Philadelphia and Chicago and LA and Miami.” The National Republican Congressional Committee began this year with roughly $8 million less on hand than its Democratic counterpart but entered October with roughly $2 million more, as small digital contributions have accelerated for Republicans. Each group has raised well over $100 million this year. Rep. Tom Emmer, the chairman of the Republican congressional committee, noted in a call with reporters that in the 2020 cycle, his party committee had not reached the $100 million threshold until February — five months later. Both the Senate and the House Republican campaign committees have leaned on hardball and sometimes deceptive tactics to boost their bottom lines, such as pre-checking boxes that automatically enroll donors in recurring monthly contributions and aggressively fostering guilt trips in supporters and questioning their allegiances. “You’re a traitor …” began one such House GOP text this past week. “You abandoned Trump.” The text gave a false deadline of 17 minutes to donate. “This is your final chance to prove your loyalty or be branded a deserter,” it read. The House GOP committee, which declined to comment on its tactics, said it had raised nearly 44% of its funds last quarter online. “Democrats have owned online fundraising, and that is no longer true,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, who previously led the House Republican campaign arm. “Republicans now are the ones who are obsessed and aroused. People voted for Biden to get Trump out of their living rooms. But they didn’t vote for all his policies.” Most Republican strategists hope to keep the focus on Democrats, knowing voters typically want to put a check on those in power. But Trump’s continued insistence on making his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen a central rallying cry for the GOP — “If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump warned in a statement this past week, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24” — is a complicating factor. “If it’s a referendum on Biden’s policies, we will do very well,” Graham said of the 2022 midterms. “If it’s looking back, if it’s a grievance campaign, then we could be in trouble.” Emmer tried to distance himself from Trump’s remarks, saying, “He’s a private citizen, and he, of course, is entitled to his own opinion.” Still, Emmer added that he was “honored” that the former president would headline the committee’s fall fundraising dinner. “He remains the biggest draw in our party,” he said. Congressional leaders are the other leading party fundraisers. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican minority leader, and his top deputy, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, have transferred a combined total of nearly $30 million to their party committees this year, party officials said. Scalise’s top donations since July included $105,000 from the PAC of Koch Industries; $125,000 from H. Fisk Johnson, the chief executive of S.C. Johnson & Son; and $66,300 from John W. Childs, the private equity magnate. Whether this is the final term of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is 81, is widely discussed in Washington. But the San Francisco Democrat remains a prolific fundraiser. Donors to her political accounts in recent months include Haim Saban, the media investor ($263,400); Hamilton James, a top Blackstone executive ($263,000); Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer, the Cargill heiress ($263,400); and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood producer ($163,400). Sen. Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, raised heavily both for his own 2022 reelection bid in New York and to maintain the Democratic majority. Schumer has aggressively pressed top party fundraisers in recent months, telling one that he wanted to fill his war chest (now at $31.9 million) as a deterrent to any primary challenge from the left. He specifically named Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York as the kind of candidate he would like to keep from running, mostly to avoid weakening his hand while navigating the evenly divided Senate. Schumer’s office declined to comment. Notably, some of the top fundraisers in both parties are Black. They include Warnock, the top Democratic fundraiser aside from congressional leaders, and Walker, a leading Republican in the Georgia Senate race. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the lone Black Republican in the Senate, was the top fundraiser in the party aside from the congressional leaders. Scott raised $8.3 million in the third quarter. He now has $18.8 million in the bank, funds that can be used for his 2022 reelection or to seed a potential 2024 presidential run. Rep. Val Demings, a Black Democrat in Florida and a former Orlando police chief, is challenging Sen. Marco Rubio, the Republican incumbent, and was another top fundraiser, pulling in $8.4 million. But she spent heavily to do so: $5.6 million. Florida has proved elusive for Democratic candidates, especially in recent years, and some party strategists are already quietly grumbling about the tens of millions — if not more — that is likely to be poured in to a tough race, especially after hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on losing 2020 efforts to topple Republican incumbents in Maine, Iowa, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Money floods the race for control of Congress, more than a year early

Congress disposed of a looming global economic catastrophe this week by doing what it does best: not much.

After weeks of a market-threatening partisan stare-down, Senate leaders struck a not-so-grand bargain that raised the debt ceiling into early December, just two short months away. If history is any guide, lawmakers will then engage in the exact same fight all over again — and may even end up with yet another Band-Aid solution.

That kick-the-can-ever-so-slightly-down-the-road debt deal followed the House’s nonconsideration last week of a bipartisan infrastructure bill after a promised vote. The delay meant blowing through a Sept. 30 deadline to keep federal highway programs funded, but not to worry: Congress bought itself a whole month with a temporary 30-day patch that will give Democrats more time to resolve deep differences among them over a huge social safety net measure that may or may not come together by Oct. 31.

It all unfolded just as Congress narrowly averted a governmentwide shutdown by just hours last week, passing a temporary bill to fund federal agencies through Dec. 2 to give itself more time to haggle over the 12 annual spending bills. That fight will inevitably collide with the battle over the debt limit, the big social policy bill and the infrastructure legislation.

Congress is headed toward more cliffs than Wile E. Coyote.

The House and Senate have a long history of putting off pressing matters until the very last minute, making difficult decisions and casting tough votes only when it is finally and completely unavoidable.

But this current Congress seems particularly paralyzed, given ideological differences among Democrats holding the barest of majorities and entrenched opposition from Republicans who are fixated on next year’s elections and see a little legislative chaos as their return ticket to the majority.

“Washington Democrats are proving they cannot deliver,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the minority leader, declared Thursday on the Senate floor, omitting the fact that he was doing everything in his power to make sure that they did not.

The result is that, rather than strike compromises on pressing issues, lawmakers have grown accustomed to agreeing to disagree, skirting politically difficult decisions and choosing a date in the future when they will be forced to try again, often with the same outcome. No household or business could operate that way, but for Congress, lurching from crisis to crisis is a way of life.

On the plus side for senators, the debt ceiling agreement preserved the Columbus Day recess, which includes a Republican retreat scheduled for next week in Florida and other travel planned by senators. But Christmas is in real trouble.

The debt deal surfaced because McConnell began to fear that he might have taken his debt-limit intransigence too far, straying a bit too close to the edge of a particularly daunting cliff.

He feared that the two Democratic holdouts in favor of the filibuster — Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — would finally cave to pressure from the rest of their party to approve an exception to the filibuster rules for raising the legal cap on federal borrowing if confronted with an imminent fiscal disaster.

And everyone on Capitol Hill knows that a carve-out for one kind of legislation will ultimately become an avenue for every kind of legislation. McConnell, who is also very enamored of the filibuster, knew he had to head off that possibility at all costs.

“His No. 1 priority is to protect his instrument of obstruction,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

Things are so bad that even the bare-bones debt agreement barely came together. Top lawmakers and their aides spent hours haggling over it, and Republicans struggled to gain commitments from their members to clear the way for a vote.

Most Republicans did not want to be anywhere near the debt-ceiling increase that has come under attack from former President Donald Trump, making it politically radioactive in their eyes. For a time, Republicans were not sure they could produce the minimum 10 votes from their side to move it along procedurally.

Take Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. Approached by reporters, Cramer launched into extended praise of the short-term debt limit increase proffered by McConnell. He called it elegant, lauding the Senate leader’s craftiness in preserving the filibuster and depriving Democrats of a potent political argument against his party. It also averted a potential calamitous default. But Cramer still would not vote to allow it to move forward.

“I don’t think I will,” he said.

In the end, 11 Republicans, including retiring members with nothing to lose and members of the leadership, bit the bullet and sent the bill forward. It ultimately passed with only Democratic votes and still must be approved by the House before it hits President Joe Biden’s desk. The action is expected next week, mere days before a projected default.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is retiring and was one of the 11, spoke for many when he muttered in the hallway, “Can’t explain anything in this place.”

The dysfunction was evidently contagious. Even the subway that ferries lawmakers, staff, media and visitors between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings broke down Thursday, trapping a couple of luckless riders for a brief period. It, too, had reached its limit.

The underlying debt fight is over whether Democrats will raise the debt ceiling through regular procedures or via a more convoluted budget process, a technical distinction so fine that it is surely indistinguishable to virtually every American not intimately familiar with the Budget Control Act.

“I don't think they understand it a bit,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, of members of the public. “It is confusing for people who work here.”

“The debt ceiling debate is absurd with a capital A,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who leads the Finance Committee.

But it does have political implications for both parties, hence the inability of Congress to collect itself and perform a function that used to be routine and bipartisan and that all members of Congress understand needs to happen.

But Republicans want Democrats to own the debt and then hammer them on it in next year’s midterms; Democrats want Republicans to take responsibility for spending during the Trump era, when Republicans controlled Congress, and to avoid the hammering they are certain to get.

“I have no words to describe how ridiculous it is that the debt ceiling has become a political tool,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. “I just hope we don’t get to the point where Republicans actually push us over the limit and people’s retirements disappear in order for them to sober up.”

Congress disposed of a looming global economic catastrophe this week by doing what it does best: not much. After weeks of a market-threatening partisan stare-down, Senate leaders struck a not-so-grand bargain that raised the debt ceiling into early December, just two short months away.

Congress disposed of a looming global economic catastrophe this week by doing what it does best: not much. After weeks of a market-threatening partisan stare-down, Senate leaders struck a not-so-grand bargain that raised the debt ceiling into early December, just two short months away. If history is any guide, lawmakers will then engage in the exact same fight all over again — and may even end up with yet another Band-Aid solution. That kick-the-can-ever-so-slightly-down-the-road debt deal followed the House’s nonconsideration last week of a bipartisan infrastructure bill after a promised vote. The delay meant blowing through a Sept. 30 deadline to keep federal highway programs funded, but not to worry: Congress bought itself a whole month with a temporary 30-day patch that will give Democrats more time to resolve deep differences among them over a huge social safety net measure that may or may not come together by Oct. 31. It all unfolded just as Congress narrowly averted a governmentwide shutdown by just hours last week, passing a temporary bill to fund federal agencies through Dec. 2 to give itself more time to haggle over the 12 annual spending bills. That fight will inevitably collide with the battle over the debt limit, the big social policy bill and the infrastructure legislation. Congress is headed toward more cliffs than Wile E. Coyote. The House and Senate have a long history of putting off pressing matters until the very last minute, making difficult decisions and casting tough votes only when it is finally and completely unavoidable. But this current Congress seems particularly paralyzed, given ideological differences among Democrats holding the barest of majorities and entrenched opposition from Republicans who are fixated on next year’s elections and see a little legislative chaos as their return ticket to the majority. “Washington Democrats are proving they cannot deliver,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the minority leader, declared Thursday on the Senate floor, omitting the fact that he was doing everything in his power to make sure that they did not. The result is that, rather than strike compromises on pressing issues, lawmakers have grown accustomed to agreeing to disagree, skirting politically difficult decisions and choosing a date in the future when they will be forced to try again, often with the same outcome. No household or business could operate that way, but for Congress, lurching from crisis to crisis is a way of life. On the plus side for senators, the debt ceiling agreement preserved the Columbus Day recess, which includes a Republican retreat scheduled for next week in Florida and other travel planned by senators. But Christmas is in real trouble. The debt deal surfaced because McConnell began to fear that he might have taken his debt-limit intransigence too far, straying a bit too close to the edge of a particularly daunting cliff. He feared that the two Democratic holdouts in favor of the filibuster — Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — would finally cave to pressure from the rest of their party to approve an exception to the filibuster rules for raising the legal cap on federal borrowing if confronted with an imminent fiscal disaster. And everyone on Capitol Hill knows that a carve-out for one kind of legislation will ultimately become an avenue for every kind of legislation. McConnell, who is also very enamored of the filibuster, knew he had to head off that possibility at all costs. “His No. 1 priority is to protect his instrument of obstruction,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. Things are so bad that even the bare-bones debt agreement barely came together. Top lawmakers and their aides spent hours haggling over it, and Republicans struggled to gain commitments from their members to clear the way for a vote. Most Republicans did not want to be anywhere near the debt-ceiling increase that has come under attack from former President Donald Trump, making it politically radioactive in their eyes. For a time, Republicans were not sure they could produce the minimum 10 votes from their side to move it along procedurally. Take Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. Approached by reporters, Cramer launched into extended praise of the short-term debt limit increase proffered by McConnell. He called it elegant, lauding the Senate leader’s craftiness in preserving the filibuster and depriving Democrats of a potent political argument against his party. It also averted a potential calamitous default. But Cramer still would not vote to allow it to move forward. “I don’t think I will,” he said. In the end, 11 Republicans, including retiring members with nothing to lose and members of the leadership, bit the bullet and sent the bill forward. It ultimately passed with only Democratic votes and still must be approved by the House before it hits President Joe Biden’s desk. The action is expected next week, mere days before a projected default. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is retiring and was one of the 11, spoke for many when he muttered in the hallway, “Can’t explain anything in this place.” The dysfunction was evidently contagious. Even the subway that ferries lawmakers, staff, media and visitors between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings broke down Thursday, trapping a couple of luckless riders for a brief period. It, too, had reached its limit. The underlying debt fight is over whether Democrats will raise the debt ceiling through regular procedures or via a more convoluted budget process, a technical distinction so fine that it is surely indistinguishable to virtually every American not intimately familiar with the Budget Control Act. “I don't think they understand it a bit,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, of members of the public. “It is confusing for people who work here.” “The debt ceiling debate is absurd with a capital A,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who leads the Finance Committee. But it does have political implications for both parties, hence the inability of Congress to collect itself and perform a function that used to be routine and bipartisan and that all members of Congress understand needs to happen. But Republicans want Democrats to own the debt and then hammer them on it in next year’s midterms; Democrats want Republicans to take responsibility for spending during the Trump era, when Republicans controlled Congress, and to avoid the hammering they are certain to get. “I have no words to describe how ridiculous it is that the debt ceiling has become a political tool,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. “I just hope we don’t get to the point where Republicans actually push us over the limit and people’s retirements disappear in order for them to sober up.”

Lurching from crisis to crisis, Congress is addicted to cliffs

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

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

US President Joe Biden, on Thursday night, signed Congress stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown and extend government funding through December 3 according to the White House.

United States: Government shutdown averted

Pakistan is home to at least 12 groups designated as 'foreign terrorist organisations' by the US, including five of them being India-centric like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), according to the latest Congressional report on terrorism.

US officials have identified Pakistan as a base of operations or target for numerous armed and non-state militant groups, some of which have existed since the 1980s, the independent Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in the report.

The report, 'Terrorist and Other Militant Groups in Pakistan', released by the bipartisan research wing of US Congress on the eve of the historic Quad summit hosted by US President Joe Biden at the White House last week, said that these groups operating in Pakistan can be broadly categorised into five types -- globally-oriented, Afghanistan-oriented, India- and Kashmir-oriented, domestically oriented, and Sectarian (anti-Shia).

The Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) was formed in the late 1980s in Pakistan and designated as a foreign terrorist organisation (FTO) in 2001.

“LET was responsible for major 2008 attacks in Mumbai, as well as numerous other high-profile attacks,” the CRS said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/narendra-modi-vs-imran-khan-looking-at-how-unga-speeches-of-indian-and-pak-prime-ministers-differ-415965">Narendra Modi vs Imran Khan: Looking at how UNGA speeches of Indian and Pak prime ministers differ</a>

Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) was founded in 2000 by Kashmiri militant leader Masood Azhar and was designated as an FTO in 2001. Along with LET, it was responsible for the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, among other attacks, it said.

JEM also has openly declared war on the United States, it noted.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-young-indian-women-diplomats-ripped-pakistan-at-unga-416078">How young Indian women diplomats ripped Pakistan at UNGA</a>

Harakat-ul Jihad Islami (HUJI) was formed in 1980 in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army and was designated as an FTO in 2010. After 1989, it redirected its efforts towards India, although it did supply fighters to the Afghan Taliban.

“With an unknown strength, HUJI today operates in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, and seeks annexation of Kashmir into Pakistan,” the report said, adding that HUM was designated as an FTO in 1997 and operates mainly from Pak-Occupied Kashmir and from some Pakistani cities.

Finally, Hizb-ul Mujahideen (HM) was formed in 1989—reportedly as the militant wing of Pakistan's largest Islamist political party—and designated as an FTO in 2017. It is one of the largest and oldest militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir.

Among other terrorist groups operating from Pakistan are Al Qaeda, CRS said, adding that it has operated primarily from the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas and in the megacity of Karachi, as well as in Afghanistan. It has since 2011 been led by Ayman al-Zawahiri and reportedly maintains supportive ties with many of the groups inside the country.

CRS said according to the US State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism 2019, Pakistan has “continued to serve as a safe haven for certain regionally focused terrorist groups,” and has “allowed groups targeting Afghanistan...as well as groups targeting India...to operate from its territory”.

Pakistan’s neighbours, including Afghanistan and India, and the US have long accused Islamabad of providing safe haven and support to militants.

Pakistan is home to at least 12 groups designated as 'foreign terrorist organisations' by the US, including five of them being India-centric like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), according to the latest Congressional report on terrorism.

Pakistan is home to at least 12 groups designated as 'foreign terrorist organisations' by the US, including five of them being India-centric like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), according to the latest Congressional report on terrorism. US officials have identified Pakistan as a base of operations or target for numerous armed and non-state militant groups, some of which have existed since the 1980s, the independent Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in the report. The report, 'Terrorist and Other Militant Groups in Pakistan', released by the bipartisan research wing of US Congress on the eve of the historic Quad summit hosted by US President Joe Biden at the White House last week, said that these groups operating in Pakistan can be broadly categorised into five types -- globally-oriented, Afghanistan-oriented, India- and Kashmir-oriented, domestically oriented, and Sectarian (anti-Shia). The Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) was formed in the late 1980s in Pakistan and designated as a foreign terrorist organisation (FTO) in 2001. “LET was responsible for major 2008 attacks in Mumbai, as well as numerous other high-profile attacks,” the CRS said. Also read | Narendra Modi vs Imran Khan: Looking at how UNGA speeches of Indian and Pak prime ministers differ Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) was founded in 2000 by Kashmiri militant leader Masood Azhar and was designated as an FTO in 2001. Along with LET, it was responsible for the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, among other attacks, it said. JEM also has openly declared war on the United States, it noted. Also read | How young Indian women diplomats ripped Pakistan at UNGA Harakat-ul Jihad Islami (HUJI) was formed in 1980 in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army and was designated as an FTO in 2010. After 1989, it redirected its efforts towards India, although it did supply fighters to the Afghan Taliban. “With an unknown strength, HUJI today operates in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, and seeks annexation of Kashmir into Pakistan,” the report said, adding that HUM was designated as an FTO in 1997 and operates mainly from Pak-Occupied Kashmir and from some Pakistani cities. Finally, Hizb-ul Mujahideen (HM) was formed in 1989—reportedly as the militant wing of Pakistan's largest Islamist political party—and designated as an FTO in 2017. It is one of the largest and oldest militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir. Among other terrorist groups operating from Pakistan are Al Qaeda, CRS said, adding that it has operated primarily from the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas and in the megacity of Karachi, as well as in Afghanistan. It has since 2011 been led by Ayman al-Zawahiri and reportedly maintains supportive ties with many of the groups inside the country. CRS said according to the US State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism 2019, Pakistan has “continued to serve as a safe haven for certain regionally focused terrorist groups,” and has “allowed groups targeting Afghanistan...as well as groups targeting India...to operate from its territory”. Pakistan’s neighbours, including Afghanistan and India, and the US have long accused Islamabad of providing safe haven and support to militants.

Pakistan home to 12 foreign terrorist outfits: US Congressional report

President Joe&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;cut a beleaguered figure Thursday as he raced to extinguish political fires on the left and right, at home and abroad, in an attempt to save his hopes of transforming the United States.

Whether it's war, diplomatic incidents, economic shocks or an obstructionist Congress, all presidents feel the heat sooner or later.

Biden's feeling all those flames at once.

To the south, there is the human and national security drama of thousands of Haitian migrants abruptly appearing across the border from Mexico and camping under a Texas bridge.

To the east across the Atlantic there is a disgruntled ally in France, furious at losing a conventional submarines contract when Australia accepted an offer for US nuclear submarines.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-says-uks-boris-johnson-offered-to-re-establish-cooperation-415593">France says UK's Boris Johnson offered to 're-establish cooperation'</a>

All over the United States there is the fight against Covid, which&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;declared on the way to being defeated in July, only to see it roar back with the Delta variant.

And right in Washington, the 78-year-old president faces the mind-boggling task of juggling a Republican opposition eager to wreck his presidency and a Democratic Party flirting with self-destruction.

"I've been here for cliffs and crises and wars, and this is going to be the biggest mashup we've ever had since I've been here," Democratic congressman Peter DeFazio, from Oregon, told NBC News.

Debt default?

DeFazio was talking about the perfect storm brewing in Congress, where Republicans are fighting Democrats over&nbsp;Biden's agenda and Democrats are fighting themselves.

Put simply, Republicans and Democrats did agree earlier this year -- back when&nbsp;Biden's presidency seemed to be going far better -- to pass a roughly $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

This was good news for America's crumbling bridges -- and for&nbsp;Biden's promise that he could heal national divisions.

However, the real prize was&nbsp;Biden's push for a separate, mammoth $3.5 trillion social spending bill that he argues will redress gross inequalities by reforming taxes, reinforcing education and resisting climate change.

On this, he never had Republican support, yet with Democrats holding a narrow majority in Congress he didn't have to worry.

That was the theory.

Fast forward to this week and both the smaller and bigger packages are on life support, with conservative Democrats insisting on whittling down the $3.5 trillion figure and leftist Democrats threatening to reject the $1 trillion version if the bigger version isn't passed first in its entirety.

Gleefully watching the infighting, Republicans have upped the tension now by refusing to join Democrats in authorizing more government debt.

In previous years this has been a largely uncontroversial, bipartisan decision that simply allows the government to keep borrowing so it can pay its bills.

However, hardball Republicans used the debt extension to shake Barack Obama's administration a decade ago and they're doing it again, trying to force the Democrats to take the decision by themselves -- making&nbsp;Biden's party easier to portray as a bunch of irresponsible spendthrifts.

Democrats so far refuse to cave, insisting that Republicans join them and accusing opponents of holding the US economy hostage.

As each side waits for the other to blink, this is the worst case scenario:

Paralysis in Congress. Current debt limits max out some time in October. The borrowing spigot goes dry. The government shuts down. And the United States defaults on debts, sending global stock markets into a panic.

"I have no idea how it all works out," DeFazio said.

Biden&nbsp;remains sunny

The mess -- especially the Covid rebound and the ugly Afghanistan withdrawal -- has made&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;deeply unpopular.

His latest Gallup approval rating of 43 percent is at Donald Trump levels and marks a plummet from 56 percent in June.

Yet for now, the veteran Democrat has not lost his trademark sunny optimism -- or belief in his vaunted experience as a lifelong Washington insider.

On Wednesday, he got on the phone with French President Emmanuel Macron to bury the hatchet in the submarine spat.

Then he spent hours in the White House with different Democratic factions to air out differences on the spending packages.

"He felt encouraged by how constructive the conversations were," Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday, brushing off doomsayers by describing the congressional impasse as "a messy sausage-making process."

"He's going to have his sleeves rolled up and he'll be very engaged."

But even Psaki, master of the half-glass-full narrative, acknowledges that her boss is up against it.

"Well, I think the country is going through a lot right now," she replied Wednesday when asked about&nbsp;Biden's plunge in the polls.

President Joe Biden cut a beleaguered figure Thursday as he raced to extinguish political fires on the left and right, at home and abroad, in an attempt to save his hopes of transforming the United States.

President Joe Biden cut a beleaguered figure Thursday as he raced to extinguish political fires on the left and right, at home and abroad, in an attempt to save his hopes of transforming the United States. Whether it's war, diplomatic incidents, economic shocks or an obstructionist Congress, all presidents feel the heat sooner or later. Biden's feeling all those flames at once. To the south, there is the human and national security drama of thousands of Haitian migrants abruptly appearing across the border from Mexico and camping under a Texas bridge. To the east across the Atlantic there is a disgruntled ally in France, furious at losing a conventional submarines contract when Australia accepted an offer for US nuclear submarines. ALSO READ | France says UK's Boris Johnson offered to 're-establish cooperation' All over the United States there is the fight against Covid, which Biden declared on the way to being defeated in July, only to see it roar back with the Delta variant. And right in Washington, the 78-year-old president faces the mind-boggling task of juggling a Republican opposition eager to wreck his presidency and a Democratic Party flirting with self-destruction. "I've been here for cliffs and crises and wars, and this is going to be the biggest mashup we've ever had since I've been here," Democratic congressman Peter DeFazio, from Oregon, told NBC News. Debt default? DeFazio was talking about the perfect storm brewing in Congress, where Republicans are fighting Democrats over Biden's agenda and Democrats are fighting themselves. Put simply, Republicans and Democrats did agree earlier this year -- back when Biden's presidency seemed to be going far better -- to pass a roughly $1 trillion infrastructure bill. This was good news for America's crumbling bridges -- and for Biden's promise that he could heal national divisions. However, the real prize was Biden's push for a separate, mammoth $3.5 trillion social spending bill that he argues will redress gross inequalities by reforming taxes, reinforcing education and resisting climate change. On this, he never had Republican support, yet with Democrats holding a narrow majority in Congress he didn't have to worry. That was the theory. Fast forward to this week and both the smaller and bigger packages are on life support, with conservative Democrats insisting on whittling down the $3.5 trillion figure and leftist Democrats threatening to reject the $1 trillion version if the bigger version isn't passed first in its entirety. Gleefully watching the infighting, Republicans have upped the tension now by refusing to join Democrats in authorizing more government debt. In previous years this has been a largely uncontroversial, bipartisan decision that simply allows the government to keep borrowing so it can pay its bills. However, hardball Republicans used the debt extension to shake Barack Obama's administration a decade ago and they're doing it again, trying to force the Democrats to take the decision by themselves -- making Biden's party easier to portray as a bunch of irresponsible spendthrifts. Democrats so far refuse to cave, insisting that Republicans join them and accusing opponents of holding the US economy hostage. As each side waits for the other to blink, this is the worst case scenario: Paralysis in Congress. Current debt limits max out some time in October. The borrowing spigot goes dry. The government shuts down. And the United States defaults on debts, sending global stock markets into a panic. "I have no idea how it all works out," DeFazio said. Biden remains sunny The mess -- especially the Covid rebound and the ugly Afghanistan withdrawal -- has made Biden deeply unpopular. His latest Gallup approval rating of 43 percent is at Donald Trump levels and marks a plummet from 56 percent in June. Yet for now, the veteran Democrat has not lost his trademark sunny optimism -- or belief in his vaunted experience as a lifelong Washington insider. On Wednesday, he got on the phone with French President Emmanuel Macron to bury the hatchet in the submarine spat. Then he spent hours in the White House with different Democratic factions to air out differences on the spending packages. "He felt encouraged by how constructive the conversations were," Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday, brushing off doomsayers by describing the congressional impasse as "a messy sausage-making process." "He's going to have his sleeves rolled up and he'll be very engaged." But even Psaki, master of the half-glass-full narrative, acknowledges that her boss is up against it. "Well, I think the country is going through a lot right now," she replied Wednesday when asked about Biden's plunge in the polls.

Joe Biden scrambles between multiple political fires

President Joe Biden huddled with congressional Democrats on Wednesday to try to break through a potentially devastating impasse over his multitrillion-dollar domestic agenda, toiling to bridge intraparty divisions over an ambitious social safety net bill and a major infrastructure measure as Congress raced to head off a fiscal calamity.

Democrats on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are nearing a make-or-break moment in their bid to push through huge new policies, as an escalating fight between the progressive and moderate wings — and a multitude of other divisions within the party — threatens to sink their chances of doing so while they retain control in Washington.

At the same time, even the basic functions of Congress — keeping the government from shutting down next week and from defaulting on its debt sometime next month — are in peril as Republicans refuse to support legislation that would both fund the government and increase the statutory cap on federal borrowing.

The challenges are unfolding against a backdrop of mistrust and strife within Democratic ranks. Moderates are pressing for quick action on the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill; progressives are demanding approval first of a far-reaching, $3.5 trillion domestic policy plan including vast new investments in climate, education, health and social programs.

Without consensus on both, Democrats, who have minuscule majorities in the House and Senate, will not have enough votes to send either to Biden’s desk. That prospect has sown alarm at the top echelons of the party.

On Wednesday, John Podesta, who held key White House roles under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, sent a memo to every Democrat on Capitol Hill imploring them to scale back the $3.5 trillion plan in the interest of compromise, warning that doing otherwise would risk sinking both bills and costing the party control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

“You are either getting both bills or neither — and the prospect of neither is unconscionable,” he wrote. “It would signal a complete and utter failure of our democratic duty, and a reckless abdication of our responsibility. It would define our generation’s history and show that, when our time came, we failed, both for Americans now and in the years to come.”

Biden’s long day of meetings with lawmakers reflected a recognition that “there needs to be a deeper engagement by the president” to bring Democrats together, said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary.

The president, she added, “sees his role as uniting and as working to bring together people over common agreement and on a path forward.”

That path is exceedingly murky as Democrats careen toward a tangle of fiscal and political deadlines with no discernible public strategy in place, but party leaders remained publicly sanguine on Wednesday.

“We are on schedule — that’s all I will say,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters after meeting with Biden for more than an hour. “We’re calm, and everybody’s good, and our work’s almost done.”

But Democrats conceded that the process was painful.

“When you’ve got 50 votes and none to lose, and you’ve got three to spare in the House, there’s a lot of give and take — that’s just the way it is,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. “It’s tough. But I think at the end of the day, we’re going to be fine.”

At the crux of the stalemate is a leadership commitment to a group of moderate Democrats that the House would take up the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill by Monday. Liberal House Democrats say they will vote down the measure until their priority legislation first clears both the House and Senate.

Those Democrats say the infrastructure bill, which omitted most of their top priorities including major provisions to combat climate change, cannot be separated from the $3.5 trillion package, which contains many of those elements, such as a shift to electric power. Beyond the climate portions, the social policy measure would, among many other things, extend child care and child tax credits, expand free prekindergarten and community college and fortify Medicare.

But key centrists in the Senate have balked at that package, which Democrats plan to push through using a fast-track budget process known as reconciliation that shields it from a filibuster. Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona both voted to begin work on a $3.5 trillion measure, but have since warned they will not support spending that much.

On Wednesday, Biden urged the holdouts to specify exactly what they would support, so Democrats could coalesce behind a plan that could pass.

“Find a number you’re comfortable with, based on what you believe the needs that we still have, and how we deliver to the American people,” Manchin said, describing the president’s request. “He was very straightforward in what he asked us to do.”

The internal disputes are escalating just as Congress is facing urgent deadlines. Without congressional action, at 12:01 a.m. next Friday, federal funding will lapse, shutting down the government. And at some point in October, the Treasury Department will reach its statutory borrowing limit, forcing it to halt some payments to international creditors, Social Security recipients and government contractors.

Amid those looming crises, Republican leaders are practically taunting Democrats, refusing to back legislation coupling a debt-limit increase and a stopgap spending measure.

“Don’t play Russian roulette with the economy; step up and raise the debt ceiling,” Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said on Wednesday, even as he vowed not to give Democrats a single Republican vote.

And House Republicans on Wednesday urged their rank-and-file members to oppose the bipartisan infrastructure bill that they said had been “inextricably linked” to the reconciliation package.

“Republicans should not aid in this destructive process,” the office of Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican, warned in a notice calling for “no” votes.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of former Treasury secretaries wrote to congressional leaders in both parties to express a “deep sense of urgency” to raise the debt limit. Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, offered a similar plea in a news conference.

“No one should assume that the Fed or anyone else can protect the markets and the economy, fully protect, in the event of a failure to make sure that we do pay those debts when they’re due,” he said.

Beyond that issue, Democrats must find a way to salvage Biden’s agenda. They had hoped to emerge from Wednesday’s meeting with public commitments from key moderates including Manchin and Sinema to support a reconciliation bill, but by evening they still had no such statement from the two senators.

Offering “COVID-safe” individually wrapped chocolate chip cookies bearing the presidential seal, Biden spent much of the day on Wednesday hosting groups of lawmakers in the Oval Office, beginning with Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate majority leader.

He met with nearly two dozen senators and House members from across the ideological range of his party, including liberal leaders and some of the moderates who played key roles in negotiating the infrastructure bill.

White House officials said Biden and his team would have follow-up meetings, beginning Thursday.

By Monday, leaders hope to reach agreement on a total price for the reconciliation measure, which will likely fall below the $3.5 trillion budget blueprint, and an ironclad agreement on some key provisions that must be in the final package.

So far, neither side is budging. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., accused more conservative Democrats of making “impulsive and arbitrary demands,” while setting unnecessary deadlines like the Monday infrastructure vote.

“The package, the investments and the programs that we have in there are rather nonnegotiable. That’s why we are kind of at this impasse,” she said, adding, “We are at a moment, and a test of political will.”

Rep. Stephanie Murphy, a moderate from Florida, said it would be “really disappointing and embarrassing” if the infrastructure bill failed because of opposition from progressives.

After her meeting with Biden, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that “there isn’t a lot of trust” among Democrats, reiterating that liberals would follow through on their promise to vote against the infrastructure measure on Monday.

But the list of moderate objections is long and varied. Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon wants a bill that spends less than $1 trillion over 10 years. Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii has said he will not accept phasing in or phasing out of programs and tax measures to mask their true costs if made permanent. Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York objects to the get-tough approach to curb prescription drug prices.

And the disputes go beyond ideological differences. Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York says he will not vote for any version that does not substantially reinstate the state and local tax deduction, a crucial issue for high-tax states. Rep. Alma Adams of North Carolina says she will oppose the bill if it does not include tens of billions of dollars more for historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions.

Democrats across the ideological spectrum said forging consensus would be a tall order.

“We’ve got a hectic few days ahead,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a moderate from New Jersey, said after emerging from his negotiating session with Biden and other lawmakers.

President Joe Biden huddled with congressional Democrats on Wednesday to try to break through a potentially devastating impasse over his multitrillion-dollar domestic agenda, toiling to bridge intraparty divisions over an ambitious social safety net bill and a major infrastructure measure as Congress raced to head off a fiscal calamity.

President Joe Biden huddled with congressional Democrats on Wednesday to try to break through a potentially devastating impasse over his multitrillion-dollar domestic agenda, toiling to bridge intraparty divisions over an ambitious social safety net bill and a major infrastructure measure as Congress raced to head off a fiscal calamity. Democrats on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are nearing a make-or-break moment in their bid to push through huge new policies, as an escalating fight between the progressive and moderate wings — and a multitude of other divisions within the party — threatens to sink their chances of doing so while they retain control in Washington. At the same time, even the basic functions of Congress — keeping the government from shutting down next week and from defaulting on its debt sometime next month — are in peril as Republicans refuse to support legislation that would both fund the government and increase the statutory cap on federal borrowing. The challenges are unfolding against a backdrop of mistrust and strife within Democratic ranks. Moderates are pressing for quick action on the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill; progressives are demanding approval first of a far-reaching, $3.5 trillion domestic policy plan including vast new investments in climate, education, health and social programs. Without consensus on both, Democrats, who have minuscule majorities in the House and Senate, will not have enough votes to send either to Biden’s desk. That prospect has sown alarm at the top echelons of the party. On Wednesday, John Podesta, who held key White House roles under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, sent a memo to every Democrat on Capitol Hill imploring them to scale back the $3.5 trillion plan in the interest of compromise, warning that doing otherwise would risk sinking both bills and costing the party control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections. “You are either getting both bills or neither — and the prospect of neither is unconscionable,” he wrote. “It would signal a complete and utter failure of our democratic duty, and a reckless abdication of our responsibility. It would define our generation’s history and show that, when our time came, we failed, both for Americans now and in the years to come.” Biden’s long day of meetings with lawmakers reflected a recognition that “there needs to be a deeper engagement by the president” to bring Democrats together, said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary. The president, she added, “sees his role as uniting and as working to bring together people over common agreement and on a path forward.” That path is exceedingly murky as Democrats careen toward a tangle of fiscal and political deadlines with no discernible public strategy in place, but party leaders remained publicly sanguine on Wednesday. “We are on schedule — that’s all I will say,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters after meeting with Biden for more than an hour. “We’re calm, and everybody’s good, and our work’s almost done.” But Democrats conceded that the process was painful. “When you’ve got 50 votes and none to lose, and you’ve got three to spare in the House, there’s a lot of give and take — that’s just the way it is,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. “It’s tough. But I think at the end of the day, we’re going to be fine.” At the crux of the stalemate is a leadership commitment to a group of moderate Democrats that the House would take up the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill by Monday. Liberal House Democrats say they will vote down the measure until their priority legislation first clears both the House and Senate. Those Democrats say the infrastructure bill, which omitted most of their top priorities including major provisions to combat climate change, cannot be separated from the $3.5 trillion package, which contains many of those elements, such as a shift to electric power. Beyond the climate portions, the social policy measure would, among many other things, extend child care and child tax credits, expand free prekindergarten and community college and fortify Medicare. But key centrists in the Senate have balked at that package, which Democrats plan to push through using a fast-track budget process known as reconciliation that shields it from a filibuster. Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona both voted to begin work on a $3.5 trillion measure, but have since warned they will not support spending that much. On Wednesday, Biden urged the holdouts to specify exactly what they would support, so Democrats could coalesce behind a plan that could pass. “Find a number you’re comfortable with, based on what you believe the needs that we still have, and how we deliver to the American people,” Manchin said, describing the president’s request. “He was very straightforward in what he asked us to do.” The internal disputes are escalating just as Congress is facing urgent deadlines. Without congressional action, at 12:01 a.m. next Friday, federal funding will lapse, shutting down the government. And at some point in October, the Treasury Department will reach its statutory borrowing limit, forcing it to halt some payments to international creditors, Social Security recipients and government contractors. Amid those looming crises, Republican leaders are practically taunting Democrats, refusing to back legislation coupling a debt-limit increase and a stopgap spending measure. “Don’t play Russian roulette with the economy; step up and raise the debt ceiling,” Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said on Wednesday, even as he vowed not to give Democrats a single Republican vote. And House Republicans on Wednesday urged their rank-and-file members to oppose the bipartisan infrastructure bill that they said had been “inextricably linked” to the reconciliation package. “Republicans should not aid in this destructive process,” the office of Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican, warned in a notice calling for “no” votes. On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of former Treasury secretaries wrote to congressional leaders in both parties to express a “deep sense of urgency” to raise the debt limit. Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, offered a similar plea in a news conference. “No one should assume that the Fed or anyone else can protect the markets and the economy, fully protect, in the event of a failure to make sure that we do pay those debts when they’re due,” he said. Beyond that issue, Democrats must find a way to salvage Biden’s agenda. They had hoped to emerge from Wednesday’s meeting with public commitments from key moderates including Manchin and Sinema to support a reconciliation bill, but by evening they still had no such statement from the two senators. Offering “COVID-safe” individually wrapped chocolate chip cookies bearing the presidential seal, Biden spent much of the day on Wednesday hosting groups of lawmakers in the Oval Office, beginning with Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate majority leader. He met with nearly two dozen senators and House members from across the ideological range of his party, including liberal leaders and some of the moderates who played key roles in negotiating the infrastructure bill. White House officials said Biden and his team would have follow-up meetings, beginning Thursday. By Monday, leaders hope to reach agreement on a total price for the reconciliation measure, which will likely fall below the $3.5 trillion budget blueprint, and an ironclad agreement on some key provisions that must be in the final package. So far, neither side is budging. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., accused more conservative Democrats of making “impulsive and arbitrary demands,” while setting unnecessary deadlines like the Monday infrastructure vote. “The package, the investments and the programs that we have in there are rather nonnegotiable. That’s why we are kind of at this impasse,” she said, adding, “We are at a moment, and a test of political will.” Rep. Stephanie Murphy, a moderate from Florida, said it would be “really disappointing and embarrassing” if the infrastructure bill failed because of opposition from progressives. After her meeting with Biden, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that “there isn’t a lot of trust” among Democrats, reiterating that liberals would follow through on their promise to vote against the infrastructure measure on Monday. But the list of moderate objections is long and varied. Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon wants a bill that spends less than $1 trillion over 10 years. Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii has said he will not accept phasing in or phasing out of programs and tax measures to mask their true costs if made permanent. Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York objects to the get-tough approach to curb prescription drug prices. And the disputes go beyond ideological differences. Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York says he will not vote for any version that does not substantially reinstate the state and local tax deduction, a crucial issue for high-tax states. Rep. Alma Adams of North Carolina says she will oppose the bill if it does not include tens of billions of dollars more for historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions. Democrats across the ideological spectrum said forging consensus would be a tall order. “We’ve got a hectic few days ahead,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a moderate from New Jersey, said after emerging from his negotiating session with Biden and other lawmakers.

Biden huddles with Democrats as divisions threaten his agenda

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday introduced a much-anticipated package of proposed new limits on executive power, launching a post-Trump push to strengthen checks on the presidency that they hope will compare to the overhauls that followed the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.

Democratic lawmakers have been negotiating with the Biden White House to refine their broad set of proposals, which amount to a point-by-point rebuke of the ways that President Donald Trump flouted norms.

The legislation, called the Protecting Our Democracy Act, would make it harder for presidents to take a series of actions, including offering or bestowing pardons in situations that raise suspicion of corruption; refusing to respond to oversight subpoenas; spending or secretly freezing funds contrary to congressional appropriations; firing inspectors general or retaliating against whistleblowers; and taking “emoluments” or payments while in office, including from commercial transactions.

At a news conference Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said executive power had been gradually growing for years but that threats to the system of separation of powers seriously “picked up steam” during the Trump administration. She portrayed the bill as an “inoculation” against future abuses of presidential authority.

Pelosi had directed Democrats to compile various bills containing ideas for curbs into the package, which is chiefly sponsored by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

The two appeared at an event with lawmakers who chair several committees that contributed pieces, including two New York representatives, Jerrold Nadler of the Judiciary Committee and Carolyn Maloney of the oversight committee, and Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, chair of the Budget Committee.

Pelosi has not announced a timeline for when the bill might come to the floor, although Schiff has said he hopes the House will pass the package “this fall.”

It is expected to face headwinds in the Senate, where it would need the support of at least 10 Republicans to bring it to a vote. There, supporters say, the package is likely to be broken into pieces that will be attached to other bills.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday introduced a much-anticipated package of proposed new limits on executive power, launching a post-Trump push to strengthen checks on the presidency that they hope will compare to the overhauls that followed the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday introduced a much-anticipated package of proposed new limits on executive power, launching a post-Trump push to strengthen checks on the presidency that they hope will compare to the overhauls that followed the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. Democratic lawmakers have been negotiating with the Biden White House to refine their broad set of proposals, which amount to a point-by-point rebuke of the ways that President Donald Trump flouted norms. The legislation, called the Protecting Our Democracy Act, would make it harder for presidents to take a series of actions, including offering or bestowing pardons in situations that raise suspicion of corruption; refusing to respond to oversight subpoenas; spending or secretly freezing funds contrary to congressional appropriations; firing inspectors general or retaliating against whistleblowers; and taking “emoluments” or payments while in office, including from commercial transactions. At a news conference Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said executive power had been gradually growing for years but that threats to the system of separation of powers seriously “picked up steam” during the Trump administration. She portrayed the bill as an “inoculation” against future abuses of presidential authority. Pelosi had directed Democrats to compile various bills containing ideas for curbs into the package, which is chiefly sponsored by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. The two appeared at an event with lawmakers who chair several committees that contributed pieces, including two New York representatives, Jerrold Nadler of the Judiciary Committee and Carolyn Maloney of the oversight committee, and Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, chair of the Budget Committee. Pelosi has not announced a timeline for when the bill might come to the floor, although Schiff has said he hopes the House will pass the package “this fall.” It is expected to face headwinds in the Senate, where it would need the support of at least 10 Republicans to bring it to a vote. There, supporters say, the package is likely to be broken into pieces that will be attached to other bills.

House Democrats introduce the ‘Protecting Our Democracy Act’

Senate Democrats on Tuesday will propose a pared-down voting rights bill that has the backing of both progressives and centrists in an effort to present a united front against deep Republican resistance to new legislation setting nationwide election standards.

<article>
The measure is the result of weeks of intraparty negotiations overseen by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, the majority leader, and was built on principles put forward by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the lone Democratic holdout against an earlier, much more sweeping piece of legislation called the For the People Act. Still, like that measure, it faces steep odds in the Senate, where it is unlikely to persuade Republicans to drop their opposition to legislation they have argued is an egregious overreach and an existential threat to their party.

The new bill, called the Freedom to Vote Act, drops some contentious elements of that initial bill such as restructuring the Federal Election Commission. It focuses heavily on guaranteeing access to the ballot following new voting restrictions being enacted around the country by Republican legislatures since the 2020 election. And it would set a national voter identification standard — something that many Democrats have vehemently opposed — but one that would be far less onerous than some states have attempted to impose, allowing voters to meet the requirement with a variety of identification cards and documents in paper and digital form.

The revised measure would also require that states allow at minimum 15 consecutive days of early voting, including two weekends; ensure that all voters can request to vote by mail; establish new automatic voter registration programs, and make Election Day a national holiday. The legislation would mandate that states follow specific criteria when drawing new congressional districting lines and would force disclosure of donors to so-called dark money groups.

“Following the 2020 elections in which more Americans voted than ever before, we have seen unprecedented attacks on our democracy in states across the country,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who leads the Rules Committee, which is responsible for election oversight. “These attacks demand an immediate federal response.”

Manchin had balked at the original legislation and offered elements of a voting bill he would back, prompting the negotiations between him, Klobuchar and fellow Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, Alex Padilla of California and Raphael Warnock of Georgia. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, also participated.

While Democrats cheered the agreement, they also recognized that they were unlikely to attract sufficient Republican support to break a filibuster against any voting bill, meaning that they would have to unite to force a change to Senate rules governing the filibuster if the legislation was to have any chance of passage. Republicans have already blocked debate on a voting rights measure twice before.

“We must be honest about the facts,” Schumer said Monday as he said he would try to break the impasse again next week. “The Republican-led war on democracy has only worsened in the last few weeks.”

Despite his support for the legislation, Manchin has reiterated multiple times his refusal to abolish the filibuster, although he has also indicated a willingness to entertain some changes. Schumer noted Monday that Manchin had been reaching out to Republicans to persuade them to back the new version of the voting rights bill.

Democrats hope continuing Republican opposition to a measure Manchin is now invested in as one of the chief authors will soften his opposition to weakening the filibuster, allowing his party to advance a measure they see as crucial to countering new voting restrictions in Republican-led states.

Manchin did not mention the filibuster in a statement strongly endorsing the new proposal.

“The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the Freedom to Vote Act is a step in the right direction towards protecting that right for every American,” Manchin said. “As elected officials, we also have an obligation to restore peoples’ faith in our democracy, and I believe that the common sense provisions in this bill — like flexible voter ID requirements — will do just that.”
</article>

Senate Democrats on Tuesday will propose a pared-down voting rights bill that has the backing of both progressives and centrists in an effort to present a united front against deep Republican resistance to new legislation setting nationwide election standards.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday will propose a pared-down voting rights bill that has the backing of both progressives and centrists in an effort to present a united front against deep Republican resistance to new legislation setting nationwide election standards. The measure is the result of weeks of intraparty negotiations overseen by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, the majority leader, and was built on principles put forward by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the lone Democratic holdout against an earlier, much more sweeping piece of legislation called the For the People Act. Still, like that measure, it faces steep odds in the Senate, where it is unlikely to persuade Republicans to drop their opposition to legislation they have argued is an egregious overreach and an existential threat to their party. The new bill, called the Freedom to Vote Act, drops some contentious elements of that initial bill such as restructuring the Federal Election Commission. It focuses heavily on guaranteeing access to the ballot following new voting restrictions being enacted around the country by Republican legislatures since the 2020 election. And it would set a national voter identification standard — something that many Democrats have vehemently opposed — but one that would be far less onerous than some states have attempted to impose, allowing voters to meet the requirement with a variety of identification cards and documents in paper and digital form. The revised measure would also require that states allow at minimum 15 consecutive days of early voting, including two weekends; ensure that all voters can request to vote by mail; establish new automatic voter registration programs, and make Election Day a national holiday. The legislation would mandate that states follow specific criteria when drawing new congressional districting lines and would force disclosure of donors to so-called dark money groups. “Following the 2020 elections in which more Americans voted than ever before, we have seen unprecedented attacks on our democracy in states across the country,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who leads the Rules Committee, which is responsible for election oversight. “These attacks demand an immediate federal response.” Manchin had balked at the original legislation and offered elements of a voting bill he would back, prompting the negotiations between him, Klobuchar and fellow Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, Alex Padilla of California and Raphael Warnock of Georgia. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, also participated. While Democrats cheered the agreement, they also recognized that they were unlikely to attract sufficient Republican support to break a filibuster against any voting bill, meaning that they would have to unite to force a change to Senate rules governing the filibuster if the legislation was to have any chance of passage. Republicans have already blocked debate on a voting rights measure twice before. “We must be honest about the facts,” Schumer said Monday as he said he would try to break the impasse again next week. “The Republican-led war on democracy has only worsened in the last few weeks.” Despite his support for the legislation, Manchin has reiterated multiple times his refusal to abolish the filibuster, although he has also indicated a willingness to entertain some changes. Schumer noted Monday that Manchin had been reaching out to Republicans to persuade them to back the new version of the voting rights bill. Democrats hope continuing Republican opposition to a measure Manchin is now invested in as one of the chief authors will soften his opposition to weakening the filibuster, allowing his party to advance a measure they see as crucial to countering new voting restrictions in Republican-led states. Manchin did not mention the filibuster in a statement strongly endorsing the new proposal. “The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the Freedom to Vote Act is a step in the right direction towards protecting that right for every American,” Manchin said. “As elected officials, we also have an obligation to restore peoples’ faith in our democracy, and I believe that the common sense provisions in this bill — like flexible voter ID requirements — will do just that.”

Democrats to propose compromise voting rights bill

US lawmakers launched discussions Thursday on a $3.5 trillion spending package crucial to President Joe Biden's legislative agenda, as several days of debate on its major sections got underway.

Five key House committees began "marking up" their respective portions of the bill, with the most fraught issue remaining how to pay for the giant raft of measures.

Democrats want to push the package through over the coming weeks using a fast-track process known as reconciliation that allows budget-related legislation to advance through the Senate by simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes.

It would include funding for climate measures, new investments in infrastructure, residency status for millions of migrant workers and two years of paid tuition at public universities.

As debate got underway on the House side, ways and means committee chairman Richard Neal called the package a "once in a generation opportunity to make transformative beneficial change."

Kevin Brady, the panel's top Republican, accused the Democrats of ramming through trillions of dollars in "wasteful spending and crippling tax hikes" that would spark inflation, kill jobs and "usher in a new era of government dependency."

With Republicans against the massive plan, a no vote from a single Democrat in the 50-50 Senate would effectively kill what they have touted as the most consequential social spending proposal since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s.

Centrist senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have both sounded the alarm on what they see as overspending, with Manchin reportedly wanting the total to drop to as low as $1 trillion.

'Full speed ahead'

That would mean discarding a raft of priorities from the shopping list, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters on Wednesday: "We're moving full speed ahead."&nbsp;

"We want to keep going forward. We think getting this done is so important for the American people, " he said.

The House ways and means committee is considering proposals for universal paid family and medical leave and expanding public health coverage, while the education and labour committee is looking at improving child care and fixing aging schools.&nbsp;

Party leaders have imposed a soft deadline of September 15 for unveiling draught text and Manchin's opposition will put pressure on Senate Democrats to find areas where the bottom line can be trimmed.&nbsp;

In a sign of growing frustration among party leadership over the objections, Senate budget committee chairman Bernie Sanders told reporters the $3.5 trillion figure was "already the result of a major, major compromise."

"Where would you cut? Child care? Family medical leave paid for? Universal pre-K? Home health care, so important?" In a separate press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi inquired.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn told CNN Wednesday evening, however, that there was still "a lot of room" for compromise.

"You may not need $3.5 trillion to do what the president wants done and what the country needs done," he said.

US lawmakers launched discussions Thursday on a $3.5 trillion spending package crucial to President Joe Biden's legislative agenda, as several days of debate on its major sections got underway.

US lawmakers launched discussions Thursday on a $3.5 trillion spending package crucial to President Joe Biden's legislative agenda, as several days of debate on its major sections got underway. Five key House committees began "marking up" their respective portions of the bill, with the most fraught issue remaining how to pay for the giant raft of measures. Democrats want to push the package through over the coming weeks using a fast-track process known as reconciliation that allows budget-related legislation to advance through the Senate by simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. It would include funding for climate measures, new investments in infrastructure, residency status for millions of migrant workers and two years of paid tuition at public universities. As debate got underway on the House side, ways and means committee chairman Richard Neal called the package a "once in a generation opportunity to make transformative beneficial change." Kevin Brady, the panel's top Republican, accused the Democrats of ramming through trillions of dollars in "wasteful spending and crippling tax hikes" that would spark inflation, kill jobs and "usher in a new era of government dependency." With Republicans against the massive plan, a no vote from a single Democrat in the 50-50 Senate would effectively kill what they have touted as the most consequential social spending proposal since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. Centrist senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have both sounded the alarm on what they see as overspending, with Manchin reportedly wanting the total to drop to as low as $1 trillion. 'Full speed ahead' That would mean discarding a raft of priorities from the shopping list, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters on Wednesday: "We're moving full speed ahead." "We want to keep going forward. We think getting this done is so important for the American people, " he said. The House ways and means committee is considering proposals for universal paid family and medical leave and expanding public health coverage, while the education and labour committee is looking at improving child care and fixing aging schools. Party leaders have imposed a soft deadline of September 15 for unveiling draught text and Manchin's opposition will put pressure on Senate Democrats to find areas where the bottom line can be trimmed. In a sign of growing frustration among party leadership over the objections, Senate budget committee chairman Bernie Sanders told reporters the $3.5 trillion figure was "already the result of a major, major compromise." "Where would you cut? Child care? Family medical leave paid for? Universal pre-K? Home health care, so important?" In a separate press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi inquired. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn told CNN Wednesday evening, however, that there was still "a lot of room" for compromise. "You may not need $3.5 trillion to do what the president wants done and what the country needs done," he said.

US Congress begins drafting historic $3.5 trillion spending package 

The US Congress has now approved a whopping 3.5 trillion dollar budget blueprint, setting the stage for the democrats to implement President Joe Biden's economic agenda.

United States House approves President Joe Biden's budget plan

Joe Biden addressed the U.S Congress on the eve of completing 100 days as President. Biden talked up his vaccine rollout and unveiled a $2 trillion spending spree. But what is the President's plan to tackle America's biggest threat - racism?

Gravitas: Biden addresses Congress ahead of 100 days in office

US President Joe Biden made his first joint address to Congress, outlining his vision for the country and speaking to what he sees as his administration's initial accomplishments as he nears 100 days in office.

'US provided 220 million covid shots in 100 days, that's a milestone': Joe Biden

In a show of solidarity, CEOs of some 40 top American companies have come together to create a global task force to mobilise resources to help India fight the battle against COVID-19.

A collective initiative of the US-India Business Council of the US Chambers of Commerce, and the US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum and Business Roundtable, the task force during its meeting here on Monday committed to get 20,000 oxygen concentrators to India in the next few weeks.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/google-microsofts-indian-american-ceos-pledge-support-in-indias-fight-against-covid-19-380513" hreflang="en">Google, Microsoft's Indian-American CEOs pledge support in India's fight against COVID-19</a>

The new US public-private partnership to provide India critical medical supplies, vaccines, oxygen, and other life-saving assistance amid an unprecedented surge in coronavirus cases is called the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response: Mobilising for India.

The first-of-its-kind country-specific global task force to address a public health crisis in another country was addressed by US Secretary of State Tony Blinken.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Productive conversation with <a href="https://twitter.com/USIBC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@USIBC</a> today on how the United States and India can leverage the expertise and capabilities of the U.S. private sector as we urgently work toward solutions for India's COVID-19 crisis.
— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecBlinken/status/1386814848139399169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 26, 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>

The conversation showed how the United States and India can leverage the expertise and capabilities of the US private sector towards solutions for India's COVID-19 crisis, Blinken said in a tweet.

US&nbsp;Representative Ro Khanna, Democratic vice chair of the Congressional Caucus on&nbsp;India said&nbsp;that&nbsp;Indian-American billionaire and Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla and other&nbsp;Indian-American tech executives at Google, IBM and Microsoft are working closely with the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on&nbsp;India.

The group is trying to match&nbsp;Indian hospitals and other facilities with supplies of oxygen and other urgently needed medical equipment, and pushing the White House to do more for&nbsp;India, the world's largest democracy, as a surge in infections overwhelms hospitals.

On Twitter, Khosla offered to fund the bulk import of oxygen and other supplies to&nbsp;India. Khanna said Khosla has offered to underwrite the initiative.

Google said&nbsp;on Monday it was donating another $18 million in&nbsp;India&nbsp;for victims and medical supplies, and confirmed chief executive Sundar Pichai was personally donating $700,000 to UNICEF's&nbsp;India&nbsp;response.&nbsp;

Indian immigrants and their offspring, some with deep pockets, are a powerful political force in the United States, and dozens of&nbsp;Indian Americans have roles in the Biden administration. Demographers estimate there are close to 4 million people of&nbsp;Indian descent in the United States.

The United States has faced criticism in&nbsp;India&nbsp;where local vaccine makers struggled to buy raw materials from U.S. suppliers. Administration officials insist there is no export ban in place, although the US&nbsp;Defence Production Act allows the government to give preference to U.S. manufacturers.

The&nbsp;Indian-American caucus is meeting with the&nbsp;Indian ambassador this week to see what else can be done to speed distribution of unused AstraZeneca vaccines and other supplies to&nbsp;India, Khanna said.

It has been pushing the White House to do more, Khanna said.

"The administration's initial response has been very encouraging, but the hope is that they will continue by releasing the AstraZeneca vaccines," Khanna said.

The White House on Monday said it would share up to 60 million doses of AstraZeneca Plc's coronavirus vaccine with other countries as soon as the next few weeks.

(With inputs from agencies)

In a show of solidarity, CEOs of some 40 top American companies have come together to create a global task force to mobilise resources to help India fight the battle against COVID-19.

In a show of solidarity, CEOs of some 40 top American companies have come together to create a global task force to mobilise resources to help India fight the battle against COVID-19. A collective initiative of the US-India Business Council of the US Chambers of Commerce, and the US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum and Business Roundtable, the task force during its meeting here on Monday committed to get 20,000 oxygen concentrators to India in the next few weeks. Also read| Google, Microsoft's Indian-American CEOs pledge support in India's fight against COVID-19 The new US public-private partnership to provide India critical medical supplies, vaccines, oxygen, and other life-saving assistance amid an unprecedented surge in coronavirus cases is called the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response: Mobilising for India. The first-of-its-kind country-specific global task force to address a public health crisis in another country was addressed by US Secretary of State Tony Blinken. Productive conversation with @USIBC today on how the United States and India can leverage the expertise and capabilities of the U.S. private sector as we urgently work toward solutions for India's COVID-19 crisis. — Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) April 26, 2021 × The conversation showed how the United States and India can leverage the expertise and capabilities of the US private sector towards solutions for India's COVID-19 crisis, Blinken said in a tweet. US Representative Ro Khanna, Democratic vice chair of the Congressional Caucus on India said that Indian-American billionaire and Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla and other Indian-American tech executives at Google, IBM and Microsoft are working closely with the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on India. The group is trying to match Indian hospitals and other facilities with supplies of oxygen and other urgently needed medical equipment, and pushing the White House to do more for India, the world's largest democracy, as a surge in infections overwhelms hospitals. On Twitter, Khosla offered to fund the bulk import of oxygen and other supplies to India. Khanna said Khosla has offered to underwrite the initiative. Google said on Monday it was donating another $18 million in India for victims and medical supplies, and confirmed chief executive Sundar Pichai was personally donating $700,000 to UNICEF's India response. Indian immigrants and their offspring, some with deep pockets, are a powerful political force in the United States, and dozens of Indian Americans have roles in the Biden administration. Demographers estimate there are close to 4 million people of Indian descent in the United States. The United States has faced criticism in India where local vaccine makers struggled to buy raw materials from U.S. suppliers. Administration officials insist there is no export ban in place, although the US Defence Production Act allows the government to give preference to U.S. manufacturers. The Indian-American caucus is meeting with the Indian ambassador this week to see what else can be done to speed distribution of unused AstraZeneca vaccines and other supplies to India, Khanna said. It has been pushing the White House to do more, Khanna said. "The administration's initial response has been very encouraging, but the hope is that they will continue by releasing the AstraZeneca vaccines," Khanna said. The White House on Monday said it would share up to 60 million doses of AstraZeneca Plc's coronavirus vaccine with other countries as soon as the next few weeks. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian Americans in US Congress, tech organise COVID-19 aid to India

US President Joe Biden&nbsp;promised flexibility in a rare meeting Monday with opposition Republican lawmakers, as well as Democratic allies, to push his more than $2 trillion infrastructure bill.

The massive project is a daring bid to rebuild the United States and also cement Biden's place in history as a president who restored the role of the central government in shaping the often fragmented country.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-joe-bidens-2000000000000-infra-plan-374856/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The White House meeting between Biden and eight members of Congress was meant to show that the new president has made good on his promise to end the divisiveness that turned Washington into a permanent dog fight under Donald Trump.

Four senators and four members of the House of Representatives were invited -- half of them from each party.

"It's a bipartisan meeting here," Biden told reporters in the Oval Office. "I'm prepared to negotiate."

Biden so far has zero support from Republican lawmakers for his giant spending plan, which would pour money into everything from reconstructing the ragged highway system to bringing broadband internet to farming communities and fixing household water supplies.

To pay for this, Biden is proposing a jump in the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent.

What a senior Biden administration official called "a bold once-in-a-generation investment in America" is a must win for a president who has surprised many with his appetite for going big.

Consciously modeling himself on Franklin Roosevelt, or FDR, and his 1930s New Deal program to lift the United States out of the Depression, Biden wants to transform post-Covid America.

Rather than a traditional infrastructure package focusing exclusively on the obvious targets like roads and bridges, Biden wants funds to flood into green technology, schools and every other aspect of the wider economy in a bid to "own the future."

"America's no longer the leader of the world because we're not investing," Biden said last week, referring to the ever-fiercer competition with China.

Polls show broad support from voters for the idea, even if members of Congress are opposed.

Republicans, stung at the way the Democrats forced a $1.9 trillion economic relief bill through Congress in March, say the corporate tax increase will hammer US competitiveness.

Mitch McConnell, the senior Republican senator, said Monday that "less than six percent of this proposal goes to roads and bridges" and would mean "one of the biggest tax hikes in a generation."

Biden insisted Monday that he is ready to negotiate over both the "extent" of the project, "as well as how we pay for it."

However, the White House has made clear there can be no fundamental reduction in the make-up of the package, rejecting Republican complaints that it contains too many leftist pet projects, as opposed to real infrastructure goals.

"We will not be open to doing nothing. Inaction is simply not an option," Biden said last week.

The White House warns that if Republicans don't come aboard, the Democrats will try to pass the mega-bill alone, using a special budget process that allows them to get around the fact that they have only the thinnest of majorities in Congress.

Even this, however, is uncertain. The Democrats would need every one of their senators to hold firm and already at least one -- Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- says he opposes the 28 percent tax rate.

Republicans have characterized Biden as paying only lip service to the idea of bipartisanship, while planning to ram the package through anyway.

But Psaki insisted that Biden had already proven his goodwill.

"You don't use the president of the United States' time, multiple times over... if you did not want to authentically hear from the members attending about their ideas about how to move forward this package," she told reporters.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden promised flexibility in a rare meeting Monday with opposition Republican lawmakers, as well as Democratic allies, to push his more than $2 trillion infrastructure bill.

US President Joe Biden promised flexibility in a rare meeting Monday with opposition Republican lawmakers, as well as Democratic allies, to push his more than $2 trillion infrastructure bill. The massive project is a daring bid to rebuild the United States and also cement Biden's place in history as a president who restored the role of the central government in shaping the often fragmented country. The White House meeting between Biden and eight members of Congress was meant to show that the new president has made good on his promise to end the divisiveness that turned Washington into a permanent dog fight under Donald Trump. Four senators and four members of the House of Representatives were invited -- half of them from each party. "It's a bipartisan meeting here," Biden told reporters in the Oval Office. "I'm prepared to negotiate." Biden so far has zero support from Republican lawmakers for his giant spending plan, which would pour money into everything from reconstructing the ragged highway system to bringing broadband internet to farming communities and fixing household water supplies. To pay for this, Biden is proposing a jump in the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent. What a senior Biden administration official called "a bold once-in-a-generation investment in America" is a must win for a president who has surprised many with his appetite for going big. Consciously modeling himself on Franklin Roosevelt, or FDR, and his 1930s New Deal program to lift the United States out of the Depression, Biden wants to transform post-Covid America. Rather than a traditional infrastructure package focusing exclusively on the obvious targets like roads and bridges, Biden wants funds to flood into green technology, schools and every other aspect of the wider economy in a bid to "own the future." "America's no longer the leader of the world because we're not investing," Biden said last week, referring to the ever-fiercer competition with China. Polls show broad support from voters for the idea, even if members of Congress are opposed. Republicans, stung at the way the Democrats forced a $1.9 trillion economic relief bill through Congress in March, say the corporate tax increase will hammer US competitiveness. Mitch McConnell, the senior Republican senator, said Monday that "less than six percent of this proposal goes to roads and bridges" and would mean "one of the biggest tax hikes in a generation." Biden insisted Monday that he is ready to negotiate over both the "extent" of the project, "as well as how we pay for it." However, the White House has made clear there can be no fundamental reduction in the make-up of the package, rejecting Republican complaints that it contains too many leftist pet projects, as opposed to real infrastructure goals. "We will not be open to doing nothing. Inaction is simply not an option," Biden said last week. The White House warns that if Republicans don't come aboard, the Democrats will try to pass the mega-bill alone, using a special budget process that allows them to get around the fact that they have only the thinnest of majorities in Congress. Even this, however, is uncertain. The Democrats would need every one of their senators to hold firm and already at least one -- Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- says he opposes the 28 percent tax rate. Republicans have characterized Biden as paying only lip service to the idea of bipartisanship, while planning to ram the package through anyway. But Psaki insisted that Biden had already proven his goodwill. "You don't use the president of the United States' time, multiple times over... if you did not want to authentically hear from the members attending about their ideas about how to move forward this package," she told reporters. (With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden vows flexibility in landmark $2 trillion infrastructure bill

The US House of Representatives has given a final approval to a sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill that gives President Joe Biden his first major victory in office.

The economic stimulus measure -- one of the largest in American history -- provides $400 billion for $1,400 direct payments to most Americans, $350 billion in aid to state and local governments, an expansion of the child tax credit and increased funding for vaccine distribution. Forecasters expect it to supercharge the US economic recovery.

"Help is here," Biden wrote in a tweet after the vote. He plans to sign the bill on Friday.

Approval by a 220-211 vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber came with zero Republican support after weeks of partisan debate and wrangling in Congress.&nbsp;

The massive spending push is seen as a major driver, coupled with a quickening pace of COVID-19 vaccinations and a slowing infection rate, in a brightening outlook for the economy.

Republicans said the measure was too costly and was packed with wasteful progressive priorities. They said the worst phase of the largest public health crisis in a century has largely passed and the economy is headed toward a rebound.

Democrats were eager to get the final bill to Biden's desk for his signature before current enhanced federal unemployment benefits expire on Sunday.

<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/biden-administration-to-hold-first-face-to-face-meet-with-chinese-officials-next-week-369538">Also read |&nbsp;Biden administration to hold first face-to-face meet with Chinese officials next week</a>

The bill is apparently very popular with the public. A Reuters/Ipsos national opinion poll, conducted March 8-9, showed that 70 per cent of Americans support the plan, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans. Among Republicans, five out of 10 say they support the plan, while nine out of 10 Democrats supported it.

The legislation could have high stakes for both parties. If it succeeds in giving the economy a major boost, the plan could improve Democrats' political fortunes as they attempt to hold their slim majorities in Congress in the 2022 midterm elections.

Only one House Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, voted against the package, saying its high borrowing costs endangered the recovery.

The version passed by the Senate in an marathon weekend session removed a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage increase by 2025; tightened the eligibility for $1,400 direct payments, capping them at those earning below $80,000, cut the unemployment insurance payment to $300 per week from the House's $400 and targeted some of the state and local government aid to smaller communities.

States that voted for Trump in the November election are due to get a larger amount of education and child-care aid per resident than those that backed Biden, according to estimates from two congressional committees.

Residents of Republican-leaning states, which tend to have lower household incomes, also are likely to get larger stimulus checks and tax breaks as well, according to an independent research group.

With the COVID-19 aid bill now completed, attention turns to Biden's next round of major legislation, including massive infrastructure investments, immigration reforms and climate change initiatives.

(with inputs)

The US House of Representatives has given a final approval to a sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill that gives President Joe Biden his first major victory in office.

The US House of Representatives has given a final approval to a sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill that gives President Joe Biden his first major victory in office. The economic stimulus measure -- one of the largest in American history -- provides $400 billion for $1,400 direct payments to most Americans, $350 billion in aid to state and local governments, an expansion of the child tax credit and increased funding for vaccine distribution. Forecasters expect it to supercharge the US economic recovery. "Help is here," Biden wrote in a tweet after the vote. He plans to sign the bill on Friday. Approval by a 220-211 vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber came with zero Republican support after weeks of partisan debate and wrangling in Congress. The massive spending push is seen as a major driver, coupled with a quickening pace of COVID-19 vaccinations and a slowing infection rate, in a brightening outlook for the economy. Republicans said the measure was too costly and was packed with wasteful progressive priorities. They said the worst phase of the largest public health crisis in a century has largely passed and the economy is headed toward a rebound. Democrats were eager to get the final bill to Biden's desk for his signature before current enhanced federal unemployment benefits expire on Sunday. Also read | Biden administration to hold first face-to-face meet with Chinese officials next week The bill is apparently very popular with the public. A Reuters/Ipsos national opinion poll, conducted March 8-9, showed that 70 per cent of Americans support the plan, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans. Among Republicans, five out of 10 say they support the plan, while nine out of 10 Democrats supported it. The legislation could have high stakes for both parties. If it succeeds in giving the economy a major boost, the plan could improve Democrats' political fortunes as they attempt to hold their slim majorities in Congress in the 2022 midterm elections. Only one House Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, voted against the package, saying its high borrowing costs endangered the recovery. The version passed by the Senate in an marathon weekend session removed a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage increase by 2025; tightened the eligibility for $1,400 direct payments, capping them at those earning below $80,000, cut the unemployment insurance payment to $300 per week from the House's $400 and targeted some of the state and local government aid to smaller communities. States that voted for Trump in the November election are due to get a larger amount of education and child-care aid per resident than those that backed Biden, according to estimates from two congressional committees. Residents of Republican-leaning states, which tend to have lower household incomes, also are likely to get larger stimulus checks and tax breaks as well, according to an independent research group. With the COVID-19 aid bill now completed, attention turns to Biden's next round of major legislation, including massive infrastructure investments, immigration reforms and climate change initiatives. (with inputs)

Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid bill wins final approval in House

Stock trading app Robinhood on Friday confirmed it is cooperating with inquiries from US regulators into its decision to temporarily throttle purchases of shares in companies such as GameStop during frenzied trading in January.

The free brokerage platform is facing inquiries from federal financial regulators, state attorneys general and the US Congress, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Robinhood, which says it is "cooperating" with the entities, is already facing dozens of class action lawsuits.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/teslas-elon-musk-grills-robinhood-ceo-vladimir-tenev-over-gamestop-trading-freeze-360790">Tesla's Elon Musk grills Robinhood CEO Vladimir Tenev over GameStop trading freeze</a>

The lawsuits "generally allege breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and other common law claims," Robinhood said in the filing.

"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Key players in the GameStop shares trading frenzy told skeptical US lawmakers last week that their actions were above board and in line with ordinary stock market business.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/gamestop-prompts-surge-in-hyper-rally-after-elon-musks-tweet-359791">GameStop prompts surge in hyper-rally after Elon Musk's tweet</a>

Founders of Robinhood and the online forum Reddit were among those to testify at a House of Representatives financial services committee hearing.

Unprecedented recent volatility -- with shares in the GameStop video game store surging more than 400 percent -- prompted calls for regulators to review the role of social media, hedge funds and trading platforms which some allege manipulated the market.

The GameStop Wall Street upheaval was sparked via a "subreddit" known as WallStreetBets.

"I am not trying to throw anyone under the bus," Robinhood co-founder and chief executive Vlad Tenev told the House committee meeting.

"All I can say is Robinhood played it by the books."

Stock trading app Robinhood on Friday confirmed it is cooperating with inquiries from US regulators into its decision to temporarily throttle purchases of shares in companies such as GameStop during frenzied trading in January.

Stock trading app Robinhood on Friday confirmed it is cooperating with inquiries from US regulators into its decision to temporarily throttle purchases of shares in companies such as GameStop during frenzied trading in January. The free brokerage platform is facing inquiries from federal financial regulators, state attorneys general and the US Congress, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Robinhood, which says it is "cooperating" with the entities, is already facing dozens of class action lawsuits. Also read| Tesla's Elon Musk grills Robinhood CEO Vladimir Tenev over GameStop trading freeze The lawsuits "generally allege breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and other common law claims," Robinhood said in the filing. "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." Key players in the GameStop shares trading frenzy told skeptical US lawmakers last week that their actions were above board and in line with ordinary stock market business. Also read| GameStop prompts surge in hyper-rally after Elon Musk's tweet Founders of Robinhood and the online forum Reddit were among those to testify at a House of Representatives financial services committee hearing. Unprecedented recent volatility -- with shares in the GameStop video game store surging more than 400 percent -- prompted calls for regulators to review the role of social media, hedge funds and trading platforms which some allege manipulated the market. The GameStop Wall Street upheaval was sparked via a "subreddit" known as WallStreetBets. "I am not trying to throw anyone under the bus," Robinhood co-founder and chief executive Vlad Tenev told the House committee meeting. "All I can say is Robinhood played it by the books."

Trading app Robinhood says facing US regulator inquiries

36 US Congress members have issued a statement to the Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, urging the country to undertake a full review of acquittal of the accused in the murder case of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

News Alert: US Congress writes to Pak Ambassador to review Daniel Pearl murder case

Ten moderate Republican U.S. senators urged President Joe Biden on Sunday to significantly downsize his sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package to win bipartisan support as Democrats in Congress prepared to push ahead with his plan this week.

Republicans press Biden to downsize $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan

US President Joe Biden is expected to reinstate COVID-19 travel restrictions to combat coronavirus infections, a White House official said ahead of the official announcement.

The restrictions, apply to non-US citizens who have been in Brazil, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-set-to-push-us-congress-for-19-trillion-in-covid-relief-359091">Also read: Biden set to push US Congress for $1.9 trillion in Covid relief</a> 
 
Biden will also extend the ban to travellers who have recently been to South Africa amid warnings that new, more transmissible coronavirus variants are already establishing themselves in the United States, the official said, confirming US media reports.

The Covid-19 cases around the world approached the 100 million mark, as infections in the US surpassed 25 million. The US is also stepping up surveillance of virus variants to monitor their impact on vaccines. 
 
"We are adding South Africa to the restricted list because of the concerning variant present that has already spread beyond South Africa," said Dr. Anne Schuchat, the CDC's principal deputy director, in an interview Sunday.

She added the agency was "putting in place this suite of measures to protect Americans and also to reduce the risk of these variants spreading and worsening the current pandemic."

Then-President Donald Trump directed on Jan. 18 those restrictions on Brazil and Europe be lifted effective Tuesday but Biden's proclamation will rescind that decision.

Biden, who took office on Wednesday, is taking an aggressive approach to combating the spread of the virus after Trump rejected mandates sought by U.S. health agencies.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden is expected to reinstate COVID-19 travel restrictions to combat coronavirus infections, a White House official said ahead of the official announcement.

US President Joe Biden is expected to reinstate COVID-19 travel restrictions to combat coronavirus infections, a White House official said ahead of the official announcement. The restrictions, apply to non-US citizens who have been in Brazil, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe. Also read: Biden set to push US Congress for $1.9 trillion in Covid relief Biden will also extend the ban to travellers who have recently been to South Africa amid warnings that new, more transmissible coronavirus variants are already establishing themselves in the United States, the official said, confirming US media reports. The Covid-19 cases around the world approached the 100 million mark, as infections in the US surpassed 25 million. The US is also stepping up surveillance of virus variants to monitor their impact on vaccines. "We are adding South Africa to the restricted list because of the concerning variant present that has already spread beyond South Africa," said Dr. Anne Schuchat, the CDC's principal deputy director, in an interview Sunday. She added the agency was "putting in place this suite of measures to protect Americans and also to reduce the risk of these variants spreading and worsening the current pandemic." Then-President Donald Trump directed on Jan. 18 those restrictions on Brazil and Europe be lifted effective Tuesday but Biden's proclamation will rescind that decision. Biden, who took office on Wednesday, is taking an aggressive approach to combating the spread of the virus after Trump rejected mandates sought by U.S. health agencies. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden to reinstate coronavirus travel ban for most non-US citizens: Report

us-congress

Us Congress, News on Us Congress, stories on Us Congress, articles on Us Congress, Us Congress stories at Wion, Us Congress news, Us Congress latest news

us congress