Facebook announced on Monday that it has delayed the release of its second-quarter results by a day to July 30 so that CEO Mark Zuckerberg can provide testimony before a US congressional hearing.

FB Delays second quarter results as Zuckerberg set to appear before Congress

The US&nbsp;Congress appears to be the target of a foreign disinformation campaign aimed at influencing lawmakers' activities and the upcoming presidential contest,&nbsp;top&nbsp;Democrats&nbsp;said in a letter released on Monday.

In the letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray dated July 13, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and the&nbsp;top&nbsp;Democrats&nbsp;on the House and Senate intelligence committees said they were "gravely concerned" that Congress seemed to be in the crosshairs of "a concerted foreign interference campaign, which seeks to launder and amplify disinformation in order to influence congressional activity, public debate, and the presidential election in November."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-congressional-democrats-white-house-to-meet-on-coronavirus-aid-314813" hreflang="en">US congressional Democrats, White House to meet on coronavirus aid</a>

The nature of the disinformation campaign was not made clear, although the letter referred to the threat as serious&nbsp;and specific.&nbsp;

The letter requested a "classified defensive briefing" from FBI officials before the August recess. It was not clear whether any such briefing is planned. The FBI confirmed having received the letter but declined further comment.&nbsp;

One congressional official said the&nbsp;Democrats' letter was prompted by an accumulation of intelligence. The official declined to discuss in detail any of the specific intelligence reporting or analyses that raised such concerns. A second congressional official said a classified addendum was sent alongside the letter that drew mainly from the US&nbsp;government's own reporting.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-portland-trump-will-send-unknown-forces-to-liberal-democrat-cities-to-muzzle-protests-314802" hreflang="en">After Portland, Trump will send 'unknown' forces to 'liberal Democrat' cities to muzzle protests</a>

No Republican lawmakers signed the letter. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined comment.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Monday said he would "treat foreign interference in our election as an adversarial act" if elected to the White House.

In a statement, he said retaliatory actions could include sanctions, asset freezes, and "the exposure of corruption."

The US Congress appears to be the target of a foreign disinformation campaign aimed at influencing lawmakers' activities and the upcoming presidential contest, top Democrats said in a letter released on Monday.

The US Congress appears to be the target of a foreign disinformation campaign aimed at influencing lawmakers' activities and the upcoming presidential contest, top Democrats said in a letter released on Monday. In the letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray dated July 13, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and the top Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees said they were "gravely concerned" that Congress seemed to be in the crosshairs of "a concerted foreign interference campaign, which seeks to launder and amplify disinformation in order to influence congressional activity, public debate, and the presidential election in November." Also read: US congressional Democrats, White House to meet on coronavirus aid The nature of the disinformation campaign was not made clear, although the letter referred to the threat as serious and specific. The letter requested a "classified defensive briefing" from FBI officials before the August recess. It was not clear whether any such briefing is planned. The FBI confirmed having received the letter but declined further comment. One congressional official said the Democrats' letter was prompted by an accumulation of intelligence. The official declined to discuss in detail any of the specific intelligence reporting or analyses that raised such concerns. A second congressional official said a classified addendum was sent alongside the letter that drew mainly from the US government's own reporting. Also read: After Portland, Trump will send 'unknown' forces to 'liberal Democrat' cities to muzzle protests No Republican lawmakers signed the letter. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined comment. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Monday said he would "treat foreign interference in our election as an adversarial act" if elected to the White House. In a statement, he said retaliatory actions could include sanctions, asset freezes, and "the exposure of corruption."

Top Democrats say US Congress appears to be election interference target

Top leaders of the Pentagon briefed the United States of America and the US Congress on the recent reports of Russia offering bounty's to take out US troops in Afghanistan. Watch report.

WION Dispatch: Bounty reports unconfirmed | Pentagon | World News

After reports of Russian military intelligence agencies offering bounties to militants for killing United States’ troops in Afghanistan, the Democrats and Republicans have united in pressurising the president to divulge more information.

"Congress and the country need answers now. I therefore request an interagency brief for all House Members immediately," Democratic US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and CIA Director Gina Haspel on Monday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/russia-denies-paying-militants-to-kill-us-troops-in-afghanistan-309334" hreflang="en">Russia denies paying militants to kill US troops in Afghanistan</a>

"The questions that arise are: was the President briefed, and if not, why not, and why was Congress not briefed?" Pelosi asked.

She was joined by Republican’s top representative Mac Thornberry, alongside Democratic Representative Adam Smith, while asking the Department of Defense for a detailed briefing.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/its-all-about-him-john-bolton-criticises-trumps-statement-on-russian-bounties-309243" hreflang="en">It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties</a>

"The American people – and our service members – deserve to know the truth about what the White House knew about these Russian operations that may have directly resulted in the deaths of American service members," Smith said.

Thornberry, while referring to the debacle, said that any delay "will not be acceptable”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/trump-says-he-wasnt-briefed-on-russia-taliban-bounty-intelligence-309193" hreflang="en">Trump says he wasn't briefed on Russia-Taliban bounty intelligence</a>

A closer worker with the US Congress revealed that the Republican-only meeting would take place in the White House on Monday. US Speaker’s Pelosi’s close aides, Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats said that they don’t expect any Democrats to be invited.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has dismissed the reports as “fake news”, and further suggested that this was an attempt to make the Republicans look bad.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://wionews.com/videos/amid-anti-racist-protests-us-prez-trump-retweets-video-where-man-shouts-white-power-309281/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican acting intelligence committee chairman, said that they would "continue to conduct vigorous oversight" of threats faced by the United States.

After reports of Russian military intelligence agencies offering bounties to militants for killing United States’ troops in Afghanistan, the Democrats and Republicans have united in pressurising the president to divulge more information.

After reports of Russian military intelligence agencies offering bounties to militants for killing United States’ troops in Afghanistan, the Democrats and Republicans have united in pressurising the president to divulge more information. "Congress and the country need answers now. I therefore request an interagency brief for all House Members immediately," Democratic US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and CIA Director Gina Haspel on Monday. Also read: Russia denies paying militants to kill US troops in Afghanistan "The questions that arise are: was the President briefed, and if not, why not, and why was Congress not briefed?" Pelosi asked. She was joined by Republican’s top representative Mac Thornberry, alongside Democratic Representative Adam Smith, while asking the Department of Defense for a detailed briefing. Also read: It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties "The American people – and our service members – deserve to know the truth about what the White House knew about these Russian operations that may have directly resulted in the deaths of American service members," Smith said. Thornberry, while referring to the debacle, said that any delay "will not be acceptable”. Also read: Trump says he wasn't briefed on Russia-Taliban bounty intelligence A closer worker with the US Congress revealed that the Republican-only meeting would take place in the White House on Monday. US Speaker’s Pelosi’s close aides, Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats said that they don’t expect any Democrats to be invited. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has dismissed the reports as “fake news”, and further suggested that this was an attempt to make the Republicans look bad. Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican acting intelligence committee chairman, said that they would "continue to conduct vigorous oversight" of threats faced by the United States.

Democrats and Republicans want answers from Trump on Russia bounty reports

US Congress has now passed a bill calling for sanctions on Chinese officials over the oppression of Muslims. The bill is now pending for the approval of President Donald Trump.

US Congress passes Uighur bill: Bill over the persecution of Uighurs

A bipartisan group of lawmakers have for the first time introduced a legislation in both the chambers of the US Congress proposing major reforms in the H-1B work visas by giving priority to the best and brightest US-educated foreign youth, a move that could benefit Indian students already in the country.

The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. Companies depend on it to hire tens of thousands of employees each year from countries like India and China.

Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-working-to-temporarily-ban-work-based-visas-like-h-1b-report-297634">Trump administration working to temporarily ban work-based visas, like H-1B: Report</a>

On April 1, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said that the US received nearly 275,000 unique registration requests for the Congressional mandated 85,000 H-1B visas for foreign technology professionals, of which more than 67 per cent are from India.

As far as the students are concerned, India accounts for the second largest number of foreign students in the US after China. There are more than 200,000 Indian students in the US.

The H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, as introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate, will require US Citizenship and Immigration Services to prioritize for the first time the annual allocation of H-1B visas.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/2-lakh-indians-stuck-in-united-states-after-trump-announces-h1-b-visa-curbs-295665">2 lakh Indians stuck in United States after Trump announces H1-B visa curbs</a>

The new system would ensure that the best and brightest students being educated in the US receive preference for an H-1B visa, including advanced degree holders, those being paid a high wage, and those with valuable skills, proponents of this major legislative reforms said on Friday.

In the Senate, it was introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin. In the House of Representatives, it was introduced by Congressmen Bill Pascrell, Paul Gosar, Ro Khanna, Frank Pallone and Lance Gooden.

The legislation reinstates Congress' original intent in the H-1B and L-1 visa programmes by increasing enforcement, modifying wage requirements and securing protection for both American workers and visa holders, the lawmakers said.

The legislation, among other things, explicitly prohibits the replacement of American workers by H-1B or L-1 visa holders, clarifying that working conditions of similarly employed American workers may not be adversely affected by the hiring of an H-1B worker, including H-1B workers who have been placed by another employer at the American worker's worksite.

These provisions address the types of abuses that have been well-documented.

Importantly, the legislation proposes increased crackdown on outsourcing companies that import large numbers of H-1B and L-1 workers for temporary training purposes only to send the workers back to their home countries to do the same job.

Specifically, the bill would prohibit companies with more than 50 employees, of which at least half are H-1B or L-1 holders, from hiring additional H-1B employees.

The bill gives the US Department of Labor enhanced authority to review, investigate, and audit employer compliance with programme requirements, as well as to penalise fraudulent or abusive conduct. It requires the production of extensive statistical data about the H-1B and L-1 programs, including wage data, worker education levels, place of employment, and gender.

In addition, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act encompasses several reforms of the L-1 visa programme, including establishment of a wage floor for L-1 workers; authority for the US Department of Homeland Security to investigate, audit, and enforce compliance with L-1 program requirements; assurance that intra-company transfers occur between legitimate branches of a company and don't involve, shell,&nbsp;facilities; and a change to the definition of&nbsp;specialized knowledge,&nbsp;to ensure that L-1 visas are reserved only for truly key personnel.

Asserting that Congress created these programmes to complement America's high-skilled workforce, not replace it, Grassley said that unfortunately, some companies are trying to exploit the programmes by cutting American workers for cheaper labour.

We need programmes dedicated to putting American workers first. When skilled foreign workers are needed to meet the demands of our labour market, we must also ensure that visa applicants who honed their skills at American colleges and universities are a priority over the importation of more foreign workers. Our bill takes steps to ensure that the programmes work for Americans and skilled foreign workers alike,&nbsp;he said.

Reforming the H-1B and L-1 visa programmes is a critical component of fixing the broken immigration system. For years, outsourcing companies have used loopholes in the laws to displace qualified American workers and facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs, Durbin said.

This legislation would end these abuses and protect American and foreign workers from exploitation, Durbin said. 
Indian American Congressman Ro Khanna said that American immigrants come to this country with some of the most innovative, transformative ideas this world has ever seen.

"If we're going to continue to foster a culture of creativity, we must reform the H-1 and L-1 visa programmes to protect all workers from abuses. Immigrants coming here on H-1B visas have made important contributions to Silicon Valley's leadership in the digital revolution. We want to make sure that talent is coming to the US, but we also want to make sure that it's being done with proper compensation,&nbsp;Khanna said. 
Congressman Pallone said that the US must ensure that qualified American workers have access to job opportunities in this country.&nbsp;

A bipartisan group of lawmakers have for the first time introduced a legislation in both the chambers of the US Congress proposing major reforms in the H-1B work visas by giving priority to the best and brightest US-educated foreign youth, a move that could benefit Indian students already in the country.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers have for the first time introduced a legislation in both the chambers of the US Congress proposing major reforms in the H-1B work visas by giving priority to the best and brightest US-educated foreign youth, a move that could benefit Indian students already in the country. The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. Companies depend on it to hire tens of thousands of employees each year from countries like India and China. Also read:Trump administration working to temporarily ban work-based visas, like H-1B: Report On April 1, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said that the US received nearly 275,000 unique registration requests for the Congressional mandated 85,000 H-1B visas for foreign technology professionals, of which more than 67 per cent are from India. As far as the students are concerned, India accounts for the second largest number of foreign students in the US after China. There are more than 200,000 Indian students in the US. The H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, as introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate, will require US Citizenship and Immigration Services to prioritize for the first time the annual allocation of H-1B visas. Also read: 2 lakh Indians stuck in United States after Trump announces H1-B visa curbs The new system would ensure that the best and brightest students being educated in the US receive preference for an H-1B visa, including advanced degree holders, those being paid a high wage, and those with valuable skills, proponents of this major legislative reforms said on Friday. In the Senate, it was introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin. In the House of Representatives, it was introduced by Congressmen Bill Pascrell, Paul Gosar, Ro Khanna, Frank Pallone and Lance Gooden. The legislation reinstates Congress' original intent in the H-1B and L-1 visa programmes by increasing enforcement, modifying wage requirements and securing protection for both American workers and visa holders, the lawmakers said. The legislation, among other things, explicitly prohibits the replacement of American workers by H-1B or L-1 visa holders, clarifying that working conditions of similarly employed American workers may not be adversely affected by the hiring of an H-1B worker, including H-1B workers who have been placed by another employer at the American worker's worksite. These provisions address the types of abuses that have been well-documented. Importantly, the legislation proposes increased crackdown on outsourcing companies that import large numbers of H-1B and L-1 workers for temporary training purposes only to send the workers back to their home countries to do the same job. Specifically, the bill would prohibit companies with more than 50 employees, of which at least half are H-1B or L-1 holders, from hiring additional H-1B employees. The bill gives the US Department of Labor enhanced authority to review, investigate, and audit employer compliance with programme requirements, as well as to penalise fraudulent or abusive conduct. It requires the production of extensive statistical data about the H-1B and L-1 programs, including wage data, worker education levels, place of employment, and gender. In addition, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act encompasses several reforms of the L-1 visa programme, including establishment of a wage floor for L-1 workers; authority for the US Department of Homeland Security to investigate, audit, and enforce compliance with L-1 program requirements; assurance that intra-company transfers occur between legitimate branches of a company and don't involve, shell, facilities; and a change to the definition of specialized knowledge, to ensure that L-1 visas are reserved only for truly key personnel. Asserting that Congress created these programmes to complement America's high-skilled workforce, not replace it, Grassley said that unfortunately, some companies are trying to exploit the programmes by cutting American workers for cheaper labour. We need programmes dedicated to putting American workers first. When skilled foreign workers are needed to meet the demands of our labour market, we must also ensure that visa applicants who honed their skills at American colleges and universities are a priority over the importation of more foreign workers. Our bill takes steps to ensure that the programmes work for Americans and skilled foreign workers alike, he said. Reforming the H-1B and L-1 visa programmes is a critical component of fixing the broken immigration system. For years, outsourcing companies have used loopholes in the laws to displace qualified American workers and facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs, Durbin said. This legislation would end these abuses and protect American and foreign workers from exploitation, Durbin said. Indian American Congressman Ro Khanna said that American immigrants come to this country with some of the most innovative, transformative ideas this world has ever seen. "If we're going to continue to foster a culture of creativity, we must reform the H-1 and L-1 visa programmes to protect all workers from abuses. Immigrants coming here on H-1B visas have made important contributions to Silicon Valley's leadership in the digital revolution. We want to make sure that talent is coming to the US, but we also want to make sure that it's being done with proper compensation, Khanna said. Congressman Pallone said that the US must ensure that qualified American workers have access to job opportunities in this country.

Lawmakers introduce H-1B legislation in Congress to give priority to US-educated foreign youth

The new guidelines are aimed at easing restrictions in areas with low transmission of the coronavirus, while holding the line in harder-hit locations

Trump plans to reopen economy in 3 phases

there are 676,339 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. According to the same chart, 34,609 people have died from the virus in the U.S. and 57,271 have recovered so far.

US Coronavirus death toll rises to 34,609

U.S. President Donald Trump threatened on Wednesday to shut down Congress so he could fill vacancies in his administration without Senate confirmation.

Trump threatens to adjourn U.S. Congress

President Donald Trump has roped in six Indian-American corporate leaders, including Sunder Pichai from Google and Satya Nadella from Microsoft.

6 Indian-Americans to advise Trump on Economy

Tulsi Gabbard, United States Representative from Hawaii on Thursday said that she has been accused of fascism and have experienced 'Hinduphobia' directly in each of my campaigns for Congress and this presidential race.

"Unfortunately, Hinduphobia is very real. I've experienced it directly in each of my campaigns for Congress &amp; in this presidential race. Here's just one example of what Hindus face every day in our country. Sadly, our political leaders &amp; media not only tolerate it, but foment it," Gabbard tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Unfortunately, Hinduphobia is very real. I've experienced it directly in each of my campaigns for Congress &amp; in this presidential race. Here's just one example of what Hindus face every day in our country. Sadly, our political leaders &amp; media not only tolerate it, but foment it. <a href="https://t.co/60MDtszQHf">https://t.co/60MDtszQHf</a>
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1235633239936638983?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</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>

Tulsi also retweeted a Facebook post of a person about a confrontation with an Uber driver accusing Hindus of murdering Muslims in recent Delhi communal riots.

Hinduphobia or anti-Hindu sentiment is a negative perception, sentiment or actions against the people of Hindu religion.

The riots which rattled New Delhi&nbsp;for over three days killing over 50 people started on February 24 as a clash between groups supporting and opposing the new Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Tulsi Gabbard, United States Representative from Hawaii on Thursday said that she has been accused of fascism and have experienced 'Hinduphobia' directly in each of my campaigns for Congress and this presidential race.

Tulsi Gabbard, United States Representative from Hawaii on Thursday said that she has been accused of fascism and have experienced 'Hinduphobia' directly in each of my campaigns for Congress and this presidential race. "Unfortunately, Hinduphobia is very real. I've experienced it directly in each of my campaigns for Congress & in this presidential race. Here's just one example of what Hindus face every day in our country. Sadly, our political leaders & media not only tolerate it, but foment it," Gabbard tweeted. Unfortunately, Hinduphobia is very real. I've experienced it directly in each of my campaigns for Congress & in this presidential race. Here's just one example of what Hindus face every day in our country. Sadly, our political leaders & media not only tolerate it, but foment it. https://t.co/60MDtszQHf — Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 5, 2020 × Tulsi also retweeted a Facebook post of a person about a confrontation with an Uber driver accusing Hindus of murdering Muslims in recent Delhi communal riots. Hinduphobia or anti-Hindu sentiment is a negative perception, sentiment or actions against the people of Hindu religion. The riots which rattled New Delhi for over three days killing over 50 people started on February 24 as a clash between groups supporting and opposing the new Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Hinduphobia is very real, I've experienced in each of my campaigns: Tulsi Gabbard

&nbsp;A&nbsp;US&nbsp;congressional&nbsp;report released on Wednesday called for&nbsp;sanctions&nbsp;against&nbsp;China&nbsp;over&nbsp;human rights abuses, and for&nbsp;US&nbsp;officials to keep rights concerns in mind during dealings with Beijing, including trade negotiations.

The annual human rights report from the&nbsp;Congressional-Executive Commission on&nbsp;China&nbsp;said human rights and rule of law conditions worsened in&nbsp;China&nbsp;from August 2018 to August 2019, the period studied.

The report detailed&nbsp;China's crackdown on religious minorities, labor activists and the press, and focused extensively on the treatment of the minority <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amid-repression-of-uighur-muslims-china-to-edit-quran-and-bible-to-reflect-socialist-values-270572">Muslim Uighur </a>population in Xinjiang, "where the Commission believes Chinese authorities may be committing crimes&nbsp;against&nbsp;humanity."

"In addition, the Administration should develop talking points for&nbsp;US&nbsp;Government officials including those engaged in trade negotiations that consistently link freedoms of press, speech, and association to the US&nbsp;and Chinese interests," the report said.

It was only the latest salvo from Washington&nbsp;over&nbsp;China's human rights record, particularly the treatment of Uighur Muslims in the northwestern Xinjiang region, where at least a million people have been detained in what is seen by many in the West as a grave abuse of human rights and religious freedom.&nbsp;China&nbsp;rejects the charges.

The Commission is led by Democratic Representative Jim McGovern and Republican Senator <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-stops-abruptly-to-drink-water-while-giving-a-speech-and-internet-cant-stop-having-a-laugh-24351">Marco Rubio</a>.

Negotiators were working on a new version of a bill that would require President Donald Trump's administration to toughen its response to&nbsp;China's crackdown on its Muslim minorities, the two lawmakers said at a press conference unveiling the report.

China&nbsp;had reacted angrily when the Democratic-led <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-panel-launches-probe-into-possible-obstruction-by-trump-200941">House of Representatives</a> passed the bill late last year. It stalled in the Senate, which passed its own, less stringent bill earlier in the year, amid trade talks between Washington and&nbsp;China.

Rubio said he expected a version of the bill that could pass the Senate unanimously avoiding procedural snafus that could block legislation in that chamber - and pass the House and be signed into law by Trump.

McGovern said he expected a compromise bill would move forward in 2020, "hopefully soon," in both the Senate and House, and he expected Trump would sign it.

"We will get to 'yes.' That is my belief," McGovern said.

Some lawmakers at the news briefing called&nbsp;China's treatment of the Uighurs&nbsp;a "crime&nbsp;against&nbsp;humanity."

In Xinjiang, the Chinese government has used facial-recognition cameras and mobile telephone-monitoring systems to create an "open-air prison," the report said.

"US&nbsp;foreign policy must prioritize the promotion of universal human rights and the rule of law in&nbsp;China, not only to respect and protect the basic dignity of the people of&nbsp;China but to better promote security and prosperity for all of humanity," it said.

To address the abuses, the&nbsp;study&nbsp;recommended tightening access to&nbsp;US&nbsp;capital markets for Chinese companies that provide support or technical capabilities for repression.

It recommended rights&nbsp;sanctions&nbsp;against&nbsp;businesses and officials involved in the mass internment and surveillance of Uighurs.

And it backed controlling the sale of facial-recognition systems, machine learning, and biometric technology by placing agencies on the Department of Commerce's "Entity List," preventing purchases from&nbsp;US&nbsp;suppliers.

The&nbsp;study&nbsp;also described a "further erosion" of Hong Kong’s autonomy and fundamental freedoms and said months of pro-democracy protests reveal "deep discontent" at a grassroots level.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Office in Hong Kong said the&nbsp;study&nbsp;"distorts the truth," in a statement posted on its website Thursday. Hong Kong residents' rights and freedoms are fully protected, it said, and the "black hand" of the United States is responsible for inciting protests.

A US congressional report released on Wednesday called for sanctions against China over human rights abuses, and for US officials to keep rights concerns in mind during dealings with Beijing, including trade negotiations.

A US congressional report released on Wednesday called for sanctions against China over human rights abuses, and for US officials to keep rights concerns in mind during dealings with Beijing, including trade negotiations. The annual human rights report from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China said human rights and rule of law conditions worsened in China from August 2018 to August 2019, the period studied. The report detailed China's crackdown on religious minorities, labor activists and the press, and focused extensively on the treatment of the minority Muslim Uighur population in Xinjiang, "where the Commission believes Chinese authorities may be committing crimes against humanity." "In addition, the Administration should develop talking points for US Government officials including those engaged in trade negotiations that consistently link freedoms of press, speech, and association to the US and Chinese interests," the report said. It was only the latest salvo from Washington over China's human rights record, particularly the treatment of Uighur Muslims in the northwestern Xinjiang region, where at least a million people have been detained in what is seen by many in the West as a grave abuse of human rights and religious freedom. China rejects the charges. The Commission is led by Democratic Representative Jim McGovern and Republican Senator Marco Rubio. Negotiators were working on a new version of a bill that would require President Donald Trump's administration to toughen its response to China's crackdown on its Muslim minorities, the two lawmakers said at a press conference unveiling the report. China had reacted angrily when the Democratic-led House of Representatives passed the bill late last year. It stalled in the Senate, which passed its own, less stringent bill earlier in the year, amid trade talks between Washington and China. Rubio said he expected a version of the bill that could pass the Senate unanimously avoiding procedural snafus that could block legislation in that chamber - and pass the House and be signed into law by Trump. McGovern said he expected a compromise bill would move forward in 2020, "hopefully soon," in both the Senate and House, and he expected Trump would sign it. "We will get to 'yes.' That is my belief," McGovern said. Some lawmakers at the news briefing called China's treatment of the Uighurs a "crime against humanity." In Xinjiang, the Chinese government has used facial-recognition cameras and mobile telephone-monitoring systems to create an "open-air prison," the report said. "US foreign policy must prioritize the promotion of universal human rights and the rule of law in China, not only to respect and protect the basic dignity of the people of China but to better promote security and prosperity for all of humanity," it said. To address the abuses, the study recommended tightening access to US capital markets for Chinese companies that provide support or technical capabilities for repression. It recommended rights sanctions against businesses and officials involved in the mass internment and surveillance of Uighurs. And it backed controlling the sale of facial-recognition systems, machine learning, and biometric technology by placing agencies on the Department of Commerce's "Entity List," preventing purchases from US suppliers. The study also described a "further erosion" of Hong Kong’s autonomy and fundamental freedoms and said months of pro-democracy protests reveal "deep discontent" at a grassroots level. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Office in Hong Kong said the study "distorts the truth," in a statement posted on its website Thursday. Hong Kong residents' rights and freedoms are fully protected, it said, and the "black hand" of the United States is responsible for inciting protests.

US congressional study urges sanctions on China over 'crimes against humanity'

The Philippines has banned two <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/us-lawmakers-urge-trump-administration-to-restore-indias-trade-privileges-250358">US&nbsp;lawmakers</a> from visiting and will introduce tighter entry restrictions for US&nbsp;citizens should Washington enforce sanctions over the detention of a top government critic, the president's spokesman said on Friday.

President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rodrigo-dutertes-report-card-wion-gravitas-1497">Rodrigo Duterte</a> will impose a requirement on US&nbsp;nationals to get visas should any Philippine officials involved in the incarceration of Senator Leila de Lima be denied entry to the United States, as sought by US&nbsp;senators <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/why-do-we-want-people-from-these-shithole-countries-trump-over-immigrants-from-africa-haiti-29278">Richard Durbin</a> and Patrick Leahy.

Duterte's move comes after the US Congress approved a 2020 budget that contains a provision introduced by the senators against anyone involved in holding de Lima, who was charged with drug offences in early 2017 after she led an investigation into mass killings during Duterte's notorious anti-drugs crackdown.

"We will not sit idly if they continue to interfere with our processes as a sovereign state," Philippine presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo told a regular news conference.

The Philippines grants visa-free entry for up to 30 days to Americans, 792,000 of whom visited in the first nine months of 2019, nearly 13 per cent&nbsp;of foreign arrivals, government data showed.

The US&nbsp;embassy in Manila did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Panelo said travel restrictions over de Lima's detention were nonsense because she was not wrongfully imprisoned but detained pending trial for crimes.

"The case of Senator de Lima is not one of persecution but of prosecution," he said.

Duterte makes no secret of his disdain for the United States and what he considers its hypocrisy and interference, though he admits that most Filipinos and his military have high regard for their country's former colonial ruler.

The United States is the Philippine's biggest defence ally and its main source of Western influence. Millions of Filipinos have relatives who are US&nbsp;citizens.

De Lima, a justice minister in a former administration, on Wednesday, expressed what she described as overwhelming gratitude to the US&nbsp;Congress for its help.

She has won numerous awards from human rights groups, who consider her a prisoner of conscience.

She has constantly spoken out against Duterte and been calling for an international investigation into his war on drugs, in which thousands of people have been killed.

Police say those killed were drug dealers who resisted arrest, but activists believe many of the killings were murders.

The Philippines has banned two US lawmakers from visiting and will introduce tighter entry restrictions for US citizens should Washington enforce sanctions over the detention of a top government critic, the president's spokesman said on Friday.

The Philippines has banned two US lawmakers from visiting and will introduce tighter entry restrictions for US citizens should Washington enforce sanctions over the detention of a top government critic, the president's spokesman said on Friday. President Rodrigo Duterte will impose a requirement on US nationals to get visas should any Philippine officials involved in the incarceration of Senator Leila de Lima be denied entry to the United States, as sought by US senators Richard Durbin and Patrick Leahy. Duterte's move comes after the US Congress approved a 2020 budget that contains a provision introduced by the senators against anyone involved in holding de Lima, who was charged with drug offences in early 2017 after she led an investigation into mass killings during Duterte's notorious anti-drugs crackdown. "We will not sit idly if they continue to interfere with our processes as a sovereign state," Philippine presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo told a regular news conference. The Philippines grants visa-free entry for up to 30 days to Americans, 792,000 of whom visited in the first nine months of 2019, nearly 13 per cent of foreign arrivals, government data showed. The US embassy in Manila did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Panelo said travel restrictions over de Lima's detention were nonsense because she was not wrongfully imprisoned but detained pending trial for crimes. "The case of Senator de Lima is not one of persecution but of prosecution," he said. Duterte makes no secret of his disdain for the United States and what he considers its hypocrisy and interference, though he admits that most Filipinos and his military have high regard for their country's former colonial ruler. The United States is the Philippine's biggest defence ally and its main source of Western influence. Millions of Filipinos have relatives who are US citizens. De Lima, a justice minister in a former administration, on Wednesday, expressed what she described as overwhelming gratitude to the US Congress for its help. She has won numerous awards from human rights groups, who consider her a prisoner of conscience. She has constantly spoken out against Duterte and been calling for an international investigation into his war on drugs, in which thousands of people have been killed. Police say those killed were drug dealers who resisted arrest, but activists believe many of the killings were murders.

Philippines bans two US senators, mulls new visa rules for Americans

President Donald Trump's administration said Tuesday it does not consider the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 to be genocide, seeking to placate Turkey which was angered that the US Congress recognized it as such.

"The position of the administration has not changed" after the votes by Congress, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a terse statement.

"Our views are reflected in the president's definitive statement on this issue from last April," she said.

In the statement on the mass killings' anniversary, Trump said the United States honored victims of "one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th century" but did not use the word genocide.

He instead encouraged Armenians and Turks to "acknowledge and reckon with their painful history."

Armenia says that 1.5 million were killed in an effort to wipe out the Christian ethnic group in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire, the forerunner of modern-day Turkey.

Turkey puts the number far lower and adamantly rejects the term genocide, saying that Turks also died in what it considers fighting as part of First World War.

Turkey last week summoned the US ambassador to Ankara, David Satterfield, after the Senate followed the House of Representatives in recognizing the killings as genocide.

The Senate and House resolutions, both passed overwhelmingly, said it was the policy of the United States "to commemorate the Armenian genocide through official recognition and remembrance."

But the so-called simple resolutions, unlike laws passed by Congress, do not have the force of law or require the president's signature, meaning that the administration still has significant leeway in how to proceed.

Allies of Trump had initially tried to block the resolutions in Congress in hopes of preserving relations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

During a meeting in Washington last month, Trump said he was a "big fan" of Erdogan despite wide criticism in Congress over his human rights record and his incursion into Syria to fight Kurdish fighters formerly allied with Washington.

Trump has also held off on sanctions urged by Congress over the NATO ally's purchase of Russia's S-400 missile defence system.

Previous presidents have also struggled with how to address the events of 1915, with the Armenian-American community pushing hard for genocide recognition.

Barack Obama as a candidate promised to recognize the genocide but after his election did not use the word, instead of saying that he stood by his pre-White House views.

sct/jm

President Donald Trump's administration said Tuesday it does not consider the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 to be genocide, seeking to placate Turkey which was angered that the US Congress recognized it as such.

President Donald Trump's administration said Tuesday it does not consider the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 to be genocide, seeking to placate Turkey which was angered that the US Congress recognized it as such. "The position of the administration has not changed" after the votes by Congress, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a terse statement. "Our views are reflected in the president's definitive statement on this issue from last April," she said. In the statement on the mass killings' anniversary, Trump said the United States honored victims of "one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th century" but did not use the word genocide. He instead encouraged Armenians and Turks to "acknowledge and reckon with their painful history." Armenia says that 1.5 million were killed in an effort to wipe out the Christian ethnic group in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire, the forerunner of modern-day Turkey. Turkey puts the number far lower and adamantly rejects the term genocide, saying that Turks also died in what it considers fighting as part of First World War. Turkey last week summoned the US ambassador to Ankara, David Satterfield, after the Senate followed the House of Representatives in recognizing the killings as genocide. The Senate and House resolutions, both passed overwhelmingly, said it was the policy of the United States "to commemorate the Armenian genocide through official recognition and remembrance." But the so-called simple resolutions, unlike laws passed by Congress, do not have the force of law or require the president's signature, meaning that the administration still has significant leeway in how to proceed. Allies of Trump had initially tried to block the resolutions in Congress in hopes of preserving relations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. During a meeting in Washington last month, Trump said he was a "big fan" of Erdogan despite wide criticism in Congress over his human rights record and his incursion into Syria to fight Kurdish fighters formerly allied with Washington. Trump has also held off on sanctions urged by Congress over the NATO ally's purchase of Russia's S-400 missile defence system. Previous presidents have also struggled with how to address the events of 1915, with the Armenian-American community pushing hard for genocide recognition. Barack Obama as a candidate promised to recognize the genocide but after his election did not use the word, instead of saying that he stood by his pre-White House views. sct/jm

Placating Turkey, Trump admin says doesn't recognise Armenian genocide

Three constitutional&nbsp;scholars&nbsp;on Wednesday bolstered Democrats' case for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-willing-to-compromise-us-security-impeachment-hearing-chair-266274">impeaching Donald&nbsp;Trump</a>&nbsp;by saying the president's actions seeking foreign interference in US elections were clear grounds for removal, as the inquiry kicked into high gear in&nbsp;Congress.

But reflecting the Washington political divide, a fourth expert strongly dissented, saying there was "woefully inadequate" evidence that&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;committed&nbsp;high&nbsp;crimes&nbsp;and misdemeanours necessary for removal.

Democrats have made a forceful case that&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;should be impeached for trying to leverage a White House meeting and military aid to pressure Ukraine for dirt on an election rival.

In a&nbsp;theatrical hearing of the House Judiciary Committee,&nbsp;now tasked with weighing impeachment charges against the president -- lawmakers listened to damning testimony from constitutional law professors.

"On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House, President&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;has&nbsp;committed&nbsp;impeachable&nbsp;high&nbsp;crimes&nbsp;and misdemeanours by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency," Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman told the hearing.

"We three are unanimous" in that view, jurisprudence professor Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina stated, referring to himself and fellow witnesses Feldman and Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan.

The trio was invited by Democrats to testify.

Americans tuning in to the eight-hour live broadcast witnessed clashes between Democrats and Republican&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;loyalists on the panel, who repeatedly forced procedural votes to stall the process.

The new phase of impeachment began a day after a congressional report on the high-stakes inquiry detailed "overwhelming" evidence of abuse of power and obstruction by the president.

The report mapped out a months-long scheme by&nbsp;Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, senior diplomats and White House staffers to pressure Ukraine's president into investigating Joe Biden, the current favourite to win the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election.

Trump&nbsp;"was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal, political gain," said Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler.

Watch: Democrats release impeachment report on Donald Trump

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-democrats-release-impeachment-report-on-donald-trump-266213/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

'Proof, not presumptions'&nbsp;

Trump's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-us-public-opinion-has-evolved-on-impeachment-of-trump-266209">alleged political&nbsp;crimes</a>, including bribery and obstruction of justice and&nbsp;Congress, "are worse than the misconduct of any prior president," Gerhardt said.

"If what we're talking about is not&nbsp;impeachable, then nothing is&nbsp;impeachable."

Feldman added that if&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;is not held to account for his offences "we live under a dictatorship."

White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham hit back in a statement, saying that "the only thing the three liberal professors established at chairman Nadler's hearing was their political bias against the president."

"It did nothing to change the fact that, despite weeks of hearings in this sham process, the president did nothing wrong," Grisham said.

The fourth academic who testified, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley -- the only expert invited by Republicans -- argued there was "no evidence" that&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;acted with corrupt intent.

He warned that partisan "rage" was compromising the inquiry.

"Impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions," he said, adding that Democrats were rushing the process so quickly that they were not hearing from key players in the Ukraine scandal.

Turley and Republicans did not, however, mention the White House's stonewalling. Despite Democratic requests, 12 current or former administration officials have refused to testify.

'Impeachable&nbsp;offence'

The president himself, in London for a NATO summit, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-panel-impeachment-report-to-be-released-tuesday-adam-schiff-266202">lambasted his opponents</a> for proceeding with impeachment hearings.

"What they are doing is a very bad thing for our country,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said. "It's a joke."

Karlan asserted that&nbsp;Trump's alleged effort to withhold military aid until Ukraine&nbsp;committed&nbsp;to investigating Biden was grounds for removal -- even though Kiev never conducted the probe.

"Soliciting itself is the&nbsp;impeachable&nbsp;offence," she said.

But Karlan found herself in hot water when she invoked&nbsp;Trump's 13-year-old son Barron when differentiating between monarchical and presidential power.

"While the president can name his son 'Barron,' he can't make him a baron," Karlan said.&nbsp;

The remark drew stiff blowback from First Lady Melania&nbsp;Trump, and Karlan apologized.

The House Intelligence Committee report is expected to form the basis&nbsp;for the&nbsp;Judiciary Committee to draw up formal charges -- articles of impeachment -- that could include bribery, abuse of power, obstruction and contempt of&nbsp;Congress.

Democrats reportedly aim to have the articles presented for a vote to the entire House of Representatives by late December.

If the House impeaches&nbsp;Trump, he would then stand trial for removal in the Republican-controlled Senate, where he is likely to be exonerated.

The Senate meanwhile released its 2020 schedule, and the entire month of January is blocked off, signalling preparations for a trial.

Three constitutional scholars on Wednesday bolstered Democrats' case for impeaching Donald Trump by saying the president's actions seeking foreign interference in US elections were clear grounds for removal, as the inquiry kicked into high gear in Congress.

Three constitutional scholars on Wednesday bolstered Democrats' case for impeaching Donald Trump by saying the president's actions seeking foreign interference in US elections were clear grounds for removal, as the inquiry kicked into high gear in Congress. But reflecting the Washington political divide, a fourth expert strongly dissented, saying there was "woefully inadequate" evidence that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanours necessary for removal. Democrats have made a forceful case that Trump should be impeached for trying to leverage a White House meeting and military aid to pressure Ukraine for dirt on an election rival. In a theatrical hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, now tasked with weighing impeachment charges against the president -- lawmakers listened to damning testimony from constitutional law professors. "On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanours by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency," Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman told the hearing. "We three are unanimous" in that view, jurisprudence professor Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina stated, referring to himself and fellow witnesses Feldman and Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan. The trio was invited by Democrats to testify. Americans tuning in to the eight-hour live broadcast witnessed clashes between Democrats and Republican Trump loyalists on the panel, who repeatedly forced procedural votes to stall the process. The new phase of impeachment began a day after a congressional report on the high-stakes inquiry detailed "overwhelming" evidence of abuse of power and obstruction by the president. The report mapped out a months-long scheme by Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, senior diplomats and White House staffers to pressure Ukraine's president into investigating Joe Biden, the current favourite to win the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election. Trump "was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal, political gain," said Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler. Watch: Democrats release impeachment report on Donald Trump 'Proof, not presumptions' Trump's alleged political crimes, including bribery and obstruction of justice and Congress, "are worse than the misconduct of any prior president," Gerhardt said. "If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable." Feldman added that if Trump is not held to account for his offences "we live under a dictatorship." White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham hit back in a statement, saying that "the only thing the three liberal professors established at chairman Nadler's hearing was their political bias against the president." "It did nothing to change the fact that, despite weeks of hearings in this sham process, the president did nothing wrong," Grisham said. The fourth academic who testified, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley -- the only expert invited by Republicans -- argued there was "no evidence" that Trump acted with corrupt intent. He warned that partisan "rage" was compromising the inquiry. "Impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions," he said, adding that Democrats were rushing the process so quickly that they were not hearing from key players in the Ukraine scandal. Turley and Republicans did not, however, mention the White House's stonewalling. Despite Democratic requests, 12 current or former administration officials have refused to testify. 'Impeachable offence' The president himself, in London for a NATO summit, lambasted his opponents for proceeding with impeachment hearings. "What they are doing is a very bad thing for our country," Trump said. "It's a joke." Karlan asserted that Trump's alleged effort to withhold military aid until Ukraine committed to investigating Biden was grounds for removal -- even though Kiev never conducted the probe. "Soliciting itself is the impeachable offence," she said. But Karlan found herself in hot water when she invoked Trump's 13-year-old son Barron when differentiating between monarchical and presidential power. "While the president can name his son 'Barron,' he can't make him a baron," Karlan said. The remark drew stiff blowback from First Lady Melania Trump, and Karlan apologized. The House Intelligence Committee report is expected to form the basis for the Judiciary Committee to draw up formal charges -- articles of impeachment -- that could include bribery, abuse of power, obstruction and contempt of Congress. Democrats reportedly aim to have the articles presented for a vote to the entire House of Representatives by late December. If the House impeaches Trump, he would then stand trial for removal in the Republican-controlled Senate, where he is likely to be exonerated. The Senate meanwhile released its 2020 schedule, and the entire month of January is blocked off, signalling preparations for a trial.

Trump committed impeachable crimes: Constitutional scholars to US Congress

China warned the United States on Thursday that it would take "firm countermeasures" in response to US legislation backing anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, and said attempts to interfere in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-police-enter-ruined-polytechnic-university-265013"> Chinese-ruled city were doomed to fail</a>.

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed into law congressional legislation which supported the protesters, despite angry objections from Beijing, with which he is seeking a deal to end a damaging trade war.

Protesters in Hong Kong responded by staging a "Thanksgiving" rally, with thousands, some draped in US flags, gathering in the heart of the city.

"The rationale for us having this rally is to show our gratitude and thank the US Congress and also President Trump for passing the bill," said 23-year-old Sunny Cheung, a member of the student group that lobbied for the legislation.

"We are really grateful about that and we really appreciate the effort made by Americans who support Hong Kong, who stand with Hong Kong, who do not choose to side with Beijing," he said, urging other countries to pass similar legislation.

The law requires the State Department to certify, at least annually, that Hong Kong is autonomous enough to justify favourable US trading terms that have helped it become a world financial centre.

It also threatens sanctions for human rights violations.

The Chinese foreign ministry said the United States would shoulder the consequences of China's countermeasures if it continued to "act arbitrarily" in regards to Hong Kong.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-summons-us-envoy-after-trump-signs-hong-kong-democracy-act-265018">summoned US Ambassador Terry Branstad</a> and demanded that Washington immediately stop interfering in China's domestic affairs.

Hong Kong's Beijing-backed government said the legislation sent the wrong signal to demonstrators and "clearly interfered" with the city's internal affairs.

China is considering barring the drafters of the legislation, whose US Senate sponsor is Florida Republican Marco Rubio, from entering mainland China as well as Hong Kong and Macau, Xu Xijin, the editor of China's Global Times tabloid, said on Twitter.

'Sinister intentions'

More than 5,800 people have been arrested since the unrest broke out in June over a proposal to allow extraditions to mainland China, the numbers grew in October and November as violence escalated.

Demonstrators are angry at police violence and what they see as Chinese meddling in freedoms promised to Hong Kong when it returned to Chinese rule in 1997, such as an independent judiciary.

China says it is committed to the "one country, two systems" formula put in place at the handover, and blames foreign forces for fomenting the unrest, an allegation it repeated in response to the US law.

"This so-called legislation will only strengthen the resolve of the Chinese people, including the Hong Kong people, and raise awareness of the sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the US," the foreign ministry said. "The US plot is doomed."

Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang declined to comment on any countermeasures planned by Beijing.

"You better stay tuned, and follow up on this," he said. "What will come will come."

Gao Feng, a spokesman for China's commerce ministry, did not comment directly on whether the law would affect trade talks, saying there were no new details of their progress to disclose. Some analysts say any move to end Hong Kong's special treatment could harm the United States, which has benefited from business-friendly conditions in the territory.

Lull in violence

Anti-government protests have roiled the former British colony for six months, at times forcing businesses, government, schools and even the international airport to close.

Hong Kong has enjoyed a rare lull in violence over the past week, with local elections on Sunday delivering a landslide victory to pro-democracy candidates.

Prominent activists Joshua Wong and Denise Ho addressed the rally on Thursday night, thanking frontline protesters for the passage of the bill. Crowds sang the protest anthem "Glory to Hong Kong", waving their phone torches.

Several hundred people also gathered outside the Polytechnic University, which police entered after a nearly two-week siege.

"The situation in Poly U is still a disaster," said 30-year-old Ng, dressed in black and wearing a surgical mask. "We are out to show we will never forget the Poly U incident."

The university became a battleground in mid-November when protesters barricaded themselves in and clashed with riot police in a hail of petrol bombs, water cannon and tear gas. About 1,100 people were arrested last week.

It was unclear whether any protesters remained on campus as about 100 plainclothes police moved in on Thursday morning to collect evidence and remove dangerous items such as petrol bombs.

Police said they found more than 3,000 molotov cocktails and hundreds of bottles of corrosive liquids.

"The operation is going to finish today," said Assistant Commissioner of Police (Operations) Chow Yat-ming.

He urged any remaining protesters to seek medical treatment, saying arrests were not a priority, though police were seen brushing molotov cocktails for fingerprints earlier in the day.

China warned the United States on Thursday that it would take "firm countermeasures" in response to US legislation backing anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, and said attempts to interfere in the Chinese-ruled city were doomed to fail.

China warned the United States on Thursday that it would take "firm countermeasures" in response to US legislation backing anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, and said attempts to interfere in the Chinese-ruled city were doomed to fail. US President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed into law congressional legislation which supported the protesters, despite angry objections from Beijing, with which he is seeking a deal to end a damaging trade war. Protesters in Hong Kong responded by staging a "Thanksgiving" rally, with thousands, some draped in US flags, gathering in the heart of the city. "The rationale for us having this rally is to show our gratitude and thank the US Congress and also President Trump for passing the bill," said 23-year-old Sunny Cheung, a member of the student group that lobbied for the legislation. "We are really grateful about that and we really appreciate the effort made by Americans who support Hong Kong, who stand with Hong Kong, who do not choose to side with Beijing," he said, urging other countries to pass similar legislation. The law requires the State Department to certify, at least annually, that Hong Kong is autonomous enough to justify favourable US trading terms that have helped it become a world financial centre. It also threatens sanctions for human rights violations. The Chinese foreign ministry said the United States would shoulder the consequences of China's countermeasures if it continued to "act arbitrarily" in regards to Hong Kong. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng summoned US Ambassador Terry Branstad and demanded that Washington immediately stop interfering in China's domestic affairs. Hong Kong's Beijing-backed government said the legislation sent the wrong signal to demonstrators and "clearly interfered" with the city's internal affairs. China is considering barring the drafters of the legislation, whose US Senate sponsor is Florida Republican Marco Rubio, from entering mainland China as well as Hong Kong and Macau, Xu Xijin, the editor of China's Global Times tabloid, said on Twitter. 'Sinister intentions' More than 5,800 people have been arrested since the unrest broke out in June over a proposal to allow extraditions to mainland China, the numbers grew in October and November as violence escalated. Demonstrators are angry at police violence and what they see as Chinese meddling in freedoms promised to Hong Kong when it returned to Chinese rule in 1997, such as an independent judiciary. China says it is committed to the "one country, two systems" formula put in place at the handover, and blames foreign forces for fomenting the unrest, an allegation it repeated in response to the US law. "This so-called legislation will only strengthen the resolve of the Chinese people, including the Hong Kong people, and raise awareness of the sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the US," the foreign ministry said. "The US plot is doomed." Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang declined to comment on any countermeasures planned by Beijing. "You better stay tuned, and follow up on this," he said. "What will come will come." Gao Feng, a spokesman for China's commerce ministry, did not comment directly on whether the law would affect trade talks, saying there were no new details of their progress to disclose. Some analysts say any move to end Hong Kong's special treatment could harm the United States, which has benefited from business-friendly conditions in the territory. Lull in violence Anti-government protests have roiled the former British colony for six months, at times forcing businesses, government, schools and even the international airport to close. Hong Kong has enjoyed a rare lull in violence over the past week, with local elections on Sunday delivering a landslide victory to pro-democracy candidates. Prominent activists Joshua Wong and Denise Ho addressed the rally on Thursday night, thanking frontline protesters for the passage of the bill. Crowds sang the protest anthem "Glory to Hong Kong", waving their phone torches. Several hundred people also gathered outside the Polytechnic University, which police entered after a nearly two-week siege. "The situation in Poly U is still a disaster," said 30-year-old Ng, dressed in black and wearing a surgical mask. "We are out to show we will never forget the Poly U incident." The university became a battleground in mid-November when protesters barricaded themselves in and clashed with riot police in a hail of petrol bombs, water cannon and tear gas. About 1,100 people were arrested last week. It was unclear whether any protesters remained on campus as about 100 plainclothes police moved in on Thursday morning to collect evidence and remove dangerous items such as petrol bombs. Police said they found more than 3,000 molotov cocktails and hundreds of bottles of corrosive liquids. "The operation is going to finish today," said Assistant Commissioner of Police (Operations) Chow Yat-ming. He urged any remaining protesters to seek medical treatment, saying arrests were not a priority, though police were seen brushing molotov cocktails for fingerprints earlier in the day.

Draped in US flag, protestors stage 'Thanksgiving' rally after Trump signs Hong Kong Democracy act

By Sarah Burns

The political and humanitarian outcry condemning President Donald Trump’s decision to pull US troops out of Syria came soon after he made the announcement.

Trump’s actions paved the way for Turkish troops to attack US-allied Kurdish forces that had been fighting the Islamic State group. In reaction, on October 15, the US House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution opposing his move, with strong bipartisan support.

This resolution, like many attempts to articulate a collective view on foreign policy, lets members of Congress seem like they’re holding the president accountable without actually doing so.

Constitutional scholars know there are several ways Congress can express disagreement with a president. In addition to public critiques, they can vote on nonbinding resolutions, hold hearings, restrict military spending for particular purposes or – if presidents commit the worst offences – impeach him.

Already, several proposals are taking shape in the House and Senate that would impose financial sanctions on Turkish officials, restrict weapons sales to Turkey and otherwise punish Turkey for its actions.

But some legislators worry these sanctions would go too far. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut notes that it’s complicated to consider condemning Turkey "for doing something that the president is actively helping them do."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that some of the actions being considered are reserved for "the worst rogue states"&nbsp;– not fellow NATO members like Turkey.

These various parallel discussions demonstrate how hard it can be for Congress to pass a piece of legislation that effectively constrains presidents in the realm of foreign policy.

Checks and balances

The Constitution declares that the president is chief executive and commander-in-chief of the military. It says Congress controls what taxpayer money is spent on – including being able to block spending on specific military operations.

Congress also has the power to declare war, and a more obscure power, to issue "letters of marque and reprisal,"&nbsp;which many scholars interpret as giving Congress control over small conflicts as well as large ones.

In 1973, after the unprecedented abuses of power in the Johnson and Nixon administrations, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, with the intention of eliminating presidential unilateralism.

However, Congress created a loophole by allowing presidents the ability to initiate military hostilities on their own authority for 60 to 90 days. When Congress has provided authorisations, they use broad and vague language. For instance, Barack Obama argued that he could use a 2001 congressional authorisation – designed to sanction catching those associated with the 9/11 attack – as the legal basis for his bombing campaign against the Islamic State group in 2014.

Presidents are solo decision-makers

Since the US joined the UN and NATO in the 1940s, Congress has ceded power to the president. For the last 70 years, presidents have been the predominant decision-maker in foreign affairs, collecting and digesting the information provided by advisers. In contrast, members of the House and Senate endorse or condemn those actions from the sidelines.

Harry Truman, for instance, used a UN Security Council resolution as justification for sending the US military to Korea in the summer of 1950. Congress never declared war, nor authorised military force; they did, however, allocate funding to continue the conflict.

Since the War Powers Resolution was passed, presidents of both parties have deployed troops or ordered bombings without authorisation and suffered very few consequences. While members of Congress complain, they have yet to force presidents to seek authorisation – even when the president ignores the rules. George HW Bush sent troops to Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to the first Gulf War prior to congressional authorisation. Bill Clinton acted without authorisation in Bosnia and Kosovo. Obama continued operations past the 90-day time limit in Libya.

Generally, the hands-off approach by Congress has not completely derailed foreign policy, because presidents have tended to engage in discussion, including with Cabinet members, foreign partners and sometimes congressional leaders, before making decisions or taking decisive action.

Decisions about whether and how to act typically involve members of the executive branch, perhaps with some input from Congress, weighing a variety of factors against one another, thinking in both the short and long terms.

The situation in northern Syria is one of the most complex issues currently facing the president. There are two US allies who are opposed to each other. Any move by the US raises the possibility of increasing instability or worsening a humanitarian crisis.

Typically, after weighing many options, presidents use their first-mover advantage to take clear and decisive action, often informing Congress after the fact. In this instance, however, while Trump has discussed withdrawing troops from Syria for almost a year, he seemed to impulsively make a decision in mid-October.

Furthermore, Trump has, in this and other instances surprised his advisers and political allies with sudden shifts in policy. Due to the incredible unilateral power housed in the executive branch, Trump can conduct foreign policy in this manner.

Congress is designed to debate and talk

Congress, by contrast, is made up of 535 voting members – 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate – who answer to roughly 330 million constituents. They are the deliberative bodies that can act only through discussion. That’s by design: it slows down decision-making by incorporating public opinion into government policy.

Senators and members of Congress have a wide range of opinions about foreign policy, based on how they evaluate and weigh the various factors – national security, human rights, military action and foreign aid.

The partisan divide between the political parties makes reconciliation between differing viewpoints even more onerous. In these circumstances, even passing a nonbinding resolution in one house of Congress is impressive.

Unable or unwilling to do more, lawmakers are leaving an opening for members of the executive branch to act without a lot of oversight or strong counterbalancing measures from their branch.

The role of popularity

Historically, presidents who have faced strong opposition in Congress have tended to launch smaller military operations with shorter durations.

For example, Obama launched a very limited strike against Libya in 2011, emphasising there would be "no boots on the ground."&nbsp;His decision to ask Congress for an authorisation of military force against Syria in 2013 may have been a political means of avoiding action because he knew a Republican Congress would never give him one.

Similarly, Clinton’s efforts to address the continuing crisis in Kosovo occurred while he faced impeachment proceedings in the Senate, which likely affected how much force he committed to the operation.

Though Trump may think his base will remain loyal no matter what, presidents are all too aware that unsuccessful military operations will decrease their popularity among the American people.

Congress can help tip the balance of public opinion through hearings. Shedding light on the actions of the president can alter public perception about military or diplomatic action.

The Trump presidency has changed this balance, however. Previous presidents grudgingly complied with congressional investigations, but Trump’s White House has resisted scrutiny at almost every turn. In addition, Trump is less interested in the opinions of the entire American populace, and much more focused on pleasing his base.

As a result of this new dynamic, congressional condemnations of his actions regarding the Kurds and Turkey may not have the effect they would have on other presidents. But Congress can take stronger steps, if it wishes to – and if members can overcome the institutional limitations that often stop them.

(Sarah Burns is an Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-congress-reverse-trumps-decision-to-pull-troops-out-of-syria-125476">Read the original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By Sarah Burns The political and humanitarian outcry condemning President Donald Trump’s decision to pull US troops out of Syria came soon after he made the announcement.

By Sarah Burns The political and humanitarian outcry condemning President Donald Trump’s decision to pull US troops out of Syria came soon after he made the announcement. Trump’s actions paved the way for Turkish troops to attack US-allied Kurdish forces that had been fighting the Islamic State group. In reaction, on October 15, the US House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution opposing his move, with strong bipartisan support. This resolution, like many attempts to articulate a collective view on foreign policy, lets members of Congress seem like they’re holding the president accountable without actually doing so. Constitutional scholars know there are several ways Congress can express disagreement with a president. In addition to public critiques, they can vote on nonbinding resolutions, hold hearings, restrict military spending for particular purposes or – if presidents commit the worst offences – impeach him. Already, several proposals are taking shape in the House and Senate that would impose financial sanctions on Turkish officials, restrict weapons sales to Turkey and otherwise punish Turkey for its actions. But some legislators worry these sanctions would go too far. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut notes that it’s complicated to consider condemning Turkey "for doing something that the president is actively helping them do." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that some of the actions being considered are reserved for "the worst rogue states" – not fellow NATO members like Turkey. These various parallel discussions demonstrate how hard it can be for Congress to pass a piece of legislation that effectively constrains presidents in the realm of foreign policy. Checks and balances The Constitution declares that the president is chief executive and commander-in-chief of the military. It says Congress controls what taxpayer money is spent on – including being able to block spending on specific military operations. Congress also has the power to declare war, and a more obscure power, to issue "letters of marque and reprisal," which many scholars interpret as giving Congress control over small conflicts as well as large ones. In 1973, after the unprecedented abuses of power in the Johnson and Nixon administrations, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, with the intention of eliminating presidential unilateralism. However, Congress created a loophole by allowing presidents the ability to initiate military hostilities on their own authority for 60 to 90 days. When Congress has provided authorisations, they use broad and vague language. For instance, Barack Obama argued that he could use a 2001 congressional authorisation – designed to sanction catching those associated with the 9/11 attack – as the legal basis for his bombing campaign against the Islamic State group in 2014. Presidents are solo decision-makers Since the US joined the UN and NATO in the 1940s, Congress has ceded power to the president. For the last 70 years, presidents have been the predominant decision-maker in foreign affairs, collecting and digesting the information provided by advisers. In contrast, members of the House and Senate endorse or condemn those actions from the sidelines. Harry Truman, for instance, used a UN Security Council resolution as justification for sending the US military to Korea in the summer of 1950. Congress never declared war, nor authorised military force; they did, however, allocate funding to continue the conflict. Since the War Powers Resolution was passed, presidents of both parties have deployed troops or ordered bombings without authorisation and suffered very few consequences. While members of Congress complain, they have yet to force presidents to seek authorisation – even when the president ignores the rules. George HW Bush sent troops to Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to the first Gulf War prior to congressional authorisation. Bill Clinton acted without authorisation in Bosnia and Kosovo. Obama continued operations past the 90-day time limit in Libya. Generally, the hands-off approach by Congress has not completely derailed foreign policy, because presidents have tended to engage in discussion, including with Cabinet members, foreign partners and sometimes congressional leaders, before making decisions or taking decisive action. Decisions about whether and how to act typically involve members of the executive branch, perhaps with some input from Congress, weighing a variety of factors against one another, thinking in both the short and long terms. The situation in northern Syria is one of the most complex issues currently facing the president. There are two US allies who are opposed to each other. Any move by the US raises the possibility of increasing instability or worsening a humanitarian crisis. Typically, after weighing many options, presidents use their first-mover advantage to take clear and decisive action, often informing Congress after the fact. In this instance, however, while Trump has discussed withdrawing troops from Syria for almost a year, he seemed to impulsively make a decision in mid-October. Furthermore, Trump has, in this and other instances surprised his advisers and political allies with sudden shifts in policy. Due to the incredible unilateral power housed in the executive branch, Trump can conduct foreign policy in this manner. Congress is designed to debate and talk Congress, by contrast, is made up of 535 voting members – 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate – who answer to roughly 330 million constituents. They are the deliberative bodies that can act only through discussion. That’s by design: it slows down decision-making by incorporating public opinion into government policy. Senators and members of Congress have a wide range of opinions about foreign policy, based on how they evaluate and weigh the various factors – national security, human rights, military action and foreign aid. The partisan divide between the political parties makes reconciliation between differing viewpoints even more onerous. In these circumstances, even passing a nonbinding resolution in one house of Congress is impressive. Unable or unwilling to do more, lawmakers are leaving an opening for members of the executive branch to act without a lot of oversight or strong counterbalancing measures from their branch. The role of popularity Historically, presidents who have faced strong opposition in Congress have tended to launch smaller military operations with shorter durations. For example, Obama launched a very limited strike against Libya in 2011, emphasising there would be "no boots on the ground." His decision to ask Congress for an authorisation of military force against Syria in 2013 may have been a political means of avoiding action because he knew a Republican Congress would never give him one. Similarly, Clinton’s efforts to address the continuing crisis in Kosovo occurred while he faced impeachment proceedings in the Senate, which likely affected how much force he committed to the operation. Though Trump may think his base will remain loyal no matter what, presidents are all too aware that unsuccessful military operations will decrease their popularity among the American people. Congress can help tip the balance of public opinion through hearings. Shedding light on the actions of the president can alter public perception about military or diplomatic action. The Trump presidency has changed this balance, however. Previous presidents grudgingly complied with congressional investigations, but Trump’s White House has resisted scrutiny at almost every turn. In addition, Trump is less interested in the opinions of the entire American populace, and much more focused on pleasing his base. As a result of this new dynamic, congressional condemnations of his actions regarding the Kurds and Turkey may not have the effect they would have on other presidents. But Congress can take stronger steps, if it wishes to – and if members can overcome the institutional limitations that often stop them. (Sarah Burns is an Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Could Congress reverse Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria?

A deeply divided US House of Representatives took a major step on Thursday in the effort to impeach President Donald Trump when lawmakers approved rules for the next, more public, stage in the Democratic-led inquiry into Trump's attempt to have Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival.

A deeply divided US House of Representatives took a major step on Thursday in the effort to impeach President Donald Trump when lawmakers approved rules for the next, more public, stage in the Democratic-led inquiry into Trump's attempt to have Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival. In the first formal test of support for the impeachment investigation, the Democratic-controlled House voted almost entirely along party lines - 232 to 196 - to move the probe forward in Congress. The vote allows for public impeachment hearings in Congress, which are expected in the coming weeks and portends a bitter battle ahead as the United States heads into a presidential election year. Democrats who accuse Trump of abusing his office and jeopardizing national security for personal political gain were almost unanimous in approving Thursday's measure, but they did not pick up a single Republican vote. "It's a sad day. No one comes to Congress to impeach a president," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said before the vote. Televised public hearings featuring US officials testifying in Congress about alleged wrongdoing by Trump could crowd out other issues like the economy and immigration as voters turn their minds to the November 2020 election. That might damage Trump, but some of his supporters say the impeachment drive could actually boost his re-election chances by showing him at loggerheads with Washington-based political foes. Republicans accused Democrats of using impeachment to overturn the results of his 2016 election victory. Trump told a UK radio station the Democrats knew they were losing next year's vote and so were trying to take him down. "The Democrats are desperate, they're desperate. They have nothing," Trump told LBC Radio in an interview. White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham denounced the process as "unfair, unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American." A number of opinion polls ahead of next year's election show several leading Democratic presidential candidates leading Trump. The probe focuses on a July 25 telephone call in which the U.S. president asked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymr Zelenskiy, to investigate Trump's Democratic political rival Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice president, and his son Hunter, who had served as a director for Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Biden is a leading candidate in the Democratic presidential nomination race to face Trump in 2020. He and his son deny any wrongdoing. Trump has also denied wrongdoing. Republicans have largely stuck by him, blasting the impeachment push as a partisan exercise that has given them little input. Thursday's vote showed that Democrats have enough backing in the House to later bring formal charges, known as articles of impeachment, if they feel they have enough evidence. Republic pushback "It should not be Nancy Pelosi and a small group of people that she selects that get to determine who is going to be our president," said Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican. Just two Democrats - Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey - broke with their party and voted against the measure. Both represent districts where Trump won in 2016. Other Democrats from Trump-leaning districts, such as Jared Golden of Maine, voted yes. Representative Justin Amash, who left the Republican Party this year and is now an independent, voted for the measure. If the House eventually votes to impeach Trump, that would set up a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate. Trump would not be removed from office unless the Senate votes to convict him by a two-thirds margin, something that looks unlikely as congressional Republicans have been reluctant to move against the president. The US Constitution gives the House broad authority to set ground rules for an impeachment inquiry and Democrats say they are following House rules on investigations. The investigation is probing whether Trump misused the power of his office and, if so, whether that amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanours" that merit impeachment and removal from office under the Constitution. Democratic leaders in Congress declined to say when public hearings would start, but they are expected to begin in the next few weeks. The inquiry has so far taken place behind closed doors in front of House committee members. Current and former Trump administration officials have testified that the White House went outside normal diplomatic channels to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. The top US diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, said Trump held back nearly $400 million in security aid in an attempt to get Zelenskiy to publicly declare that he would carry out the investigations that the U.S. president sought - a "quid pro quo" confirmed by Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. Lawmakers leading the inquiry on Thursday heard closed-door testimony from Tim Morrison, the top Russia specialist on Trump's National Security Council. Morrison resigned from his position on Wednesday. Morrison backed up the testimony of other witnesses who said the White House attempted to pressure Ukraine, according to a congressional source. He said he learned of the effort from one of those involved, a Trump donor named Gordon Sondland who serves as the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Morrison did not criticize Trump directly, however, and said that he did not think anything illegal was discussed on the July 25 call, the congressional source said. Republican US Representative Mark Meadows said Morrison's testimony had been "very damaging" to the case for impeachment. "If any witness would suggest that the impeachment resolution that was passed earlier today should come to a screeching halt, it was this witness," Meadows told reporters, without elaborating on Morrison's deposition. Committee members have asked a prominent player, former national security adviser John Bolton, to appear next week. Others have testified that Bolton was alarmed by a White House effort to pressure Zelenskiy. Bolton's lawyer has said he is not willing to testify unless a subpoena is issued.

Trump impeachment effort passes first test in divided US Congress

Facebook Inc CEO Mark Zuckerberg conceded on Wednesday that the company's planned digital currency Libra was a "risky project," but sought to reassure sceptical US&nbsp;lawmakers that it could lower the cost of electronic payments and open up the global financial system to more people.

Sporting a suit and tie, Zuckerberg also fended off aggressive questions on election interference, free speech, hate groups and fake news from members of the US&nbsp;House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.

Representative Maxine Waters, the panel's fiery Democratic chair, quizzed Zuckerberg on Facebook's steps to combat misinformation and voter suppression ahead of the November 2020 US&nbsp;presidential election. She also suggested policymakers should consider breaking up Facebook.

Waters had previously called for halting the Libra project before its planned 2020 launch and has drafted legislation that would bar tech companies from entering financial services.

"It would be beneficial for all if Facebook concentrates on addressing its many existing deficiencies and failures before proceeding any further on the Libra project," Waters told Zuckerberg two days after Facebook disclosed it had removed a network of Russian accounts targeting US&nbsp;voters on its Instagram platform.

Bipartisan criticism

Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike blasted Facebook for failing to crack down on online child exploitation and political misinformation, and for data privacy lapses. Several said they did not trust Facebook to help provide financial services to its 2.4 billion users given the past scandals.

"Facebook’s internal model was for a long time was 'Move fast and break things.' Mr&nbsp;Zuckerberg, we do not want to break the international monetary system," said Representative Nydia Velazquez, a Democrat.

Zuckerberg said Facebook would insist on US&nbsp;regulatory approval before launching Libra, which is being established by a Switzerland-based consortium including venture capital firms and nonprofits. He said Facebook would even leave the Libra Association if other companies sought to launch the currency without that sign-off.

Libra has faltered in recent weeks amid sustained criticism from lawmakers and regulators globally over fears it may aid money laundering and upend the global financial system. Several financial partners including Mastercard, Visa, PayPal and eBay have abandoned the project.&nbsp;

Representative Ann Wagner, a Republican, pressed Zuckerberg on why so many companies abandoned the Libra effort. “You’ve lost these stable partners and I find it highly concerning," she said. "Why do a number of these founding members have concerns of whether you’re up to the task of meeting our money laundering and regulatory standards?"

The 35-year old Facebook CEO conceded that those companies dropped out because Libra is a "risky project" and that he was not sure it would even work. During his testimony, the price of bitcoin versus the US&nbsp;dollar tumbled to a five-month low.&nbsp;

Facebook has 'work to do'

Calm and composed, Zuckerberg navigated the hostile room without major slip-ups and was even afforded a gentle rib by Democratic Representative Katie Porter, who complimented him on his short haircut.

The CEO last appeared before Congress in April 2018 when he fielded 10 hours of questions over two days from House and Senate panels on political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica's misuse of Facebook customer data to interfere in the 2016 US&nbsp;presidential election.

On Wednesday, he acknowledged Facebook's mistakes, saying he understood the social media giant was not the "ideal messenger" for the Libra project and that the company has "work to do to build trust." But he said past missteps should not stand in the way of Libra, based in Switzerland.

"The vision here is to make it so that people can send money to each other as easily and cheaply as it is sending a text message."

Zuckerberg was unable though to make material commitments on behalf of Libra because Facebook no longer controls the project, sometimes to the frustration of lawmakers.

On October&nbsp;14, the Libra Association comprising 21 members agreed articles of association laying out how the organization will be governed, as required by Swiss law. Most decisions will require a majority vote of the group's governing council, meaning Facebook will not call the shots.

Lawmakers also touched on other hot button issues, including diversity, inclusion, and charges brought by the housing regulator in March, still pending, alleging Facebook violated fair lending laws.

Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democrat, hammered Zuckerberg, saying she viewed Facebook's efforts to address civil rights abuses as insufficient, calling them "appalling and disgusting."

Some Republicans did offer support for Zuckerberg and the Libra project, arguing the government should not stop the private sector from innovating.

"I have my own qualms about Facebook and Libra and the shortcomings of Big Tech," said Representative Patrick McHenry, the top Republican on the panel. "But if history has taught us anything, it’s better to be on the side of American innovation"

Facebook Inc CEO Mark Zuckerberg conceded on Wednesday that the company's planned digital currency Libra was a "risky project," but sought to reassure sceptical US lawmakers that it could lower the cost of electronic payments and open up the global financial system to more people.

Facebook Inc CEO Mark Zuckerberg conceded on Wednesday that the company's planned digital currency Libra was a "risky project," but sought to reassure sceptical US lawmakers that it could lower the cost of electronic payments and open up the global financial system to more people. Sporting a suit and tie, Zuckerberg also fended off aggressive questions on election interference, free speech, hate groups and fake news from members of the US House of Representatives Financial Services Committee. Representative Maxine Waters, the panel's fiery Democratic chair, quizzed Zuckerberg on Facebook's steps to combat misinformation and voter suppression ahead of the November 2020 US presidential election. She also suggested policymakers should consider breaking up Facebook. Waters had previously called for halting the Libra project before its planned 2020 launch and has drafted legislation that would bar tech companies from entering financial services. "It would be beneficial for all if Facebook concentrates on addressing its many existing deficiencies and failures before proceeding any further on the Libra project," Waters told Zuckerberg two days after Facebook disclosed it had removed a network of Russian accounts targeting US voters on its Instagram platform. Bipartisan criticism Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike blasted Facebook for failing to crack down on online child exploitation and political misinformation, and for data privacy lapses. Several said they did not trust Facebook to help provide financial services to its 2.4 billion users given the past scandals. "Facebook’s internal model was for a long time was 'Move fast and break things.' Mr Zuckerberg, we do not want to break the international monetary system," said Representative Nydia Velazquez, a Democrat. Zuckerberg said Facebook would insist on US regulatory approval before launching Libra, which is being established by a Switzerland-based consortium including venture capital firms and nonprofits. He said Facebook would even leave the Libra Association if other companies sought to launch the currency without that sign-off. Libra has faltered in recent weeks amid sustained criticism from lawmakers and regulators globally over fears it may aid money laundering and upend the global financial system. Several financial partners including Mastercard, Visa, PayPal and eBay have abandoned the project. Representative Ann Wagner, a Republican, pressed Zuckerberg on why so many companies abandoned the Libra effort. “You’ve lost these stable partners and I find it highly concerning," she said. "Why do a number of these founding members have concerns of whether you’re up to the task of meeting our money laundering and regulatory standards?" The 35-year old Facebook CEO conceded that those companies dropped out because Libra is a "risky project" and that he was not sure it would even work. During his testimony, the price of bitcoin versus the US dollar tumbled to a five-month low. Facebook has 'work to do' Calm and composed, Zuckerberg navigated the hostile room without major slip-ups and was even afforded a gentle rib by Democratic Representative Katie Porter, who complimented him on his short haircut. The CEO last appeared before Congress in April 2018 when he fielded 10 hours of questions over two days from House and Senate panels on political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica's misuse of Facebook customer data to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election. On Wednesday, he acknowledged Facebook's mistakes, saying he understood the social media giant was not the "ideal messenger" for the Libra project and that the company has "work to do to build trust." But he said past missteps should not stand in the way of Libra, based in Switzerland. "The vision here is to make it so that people can send money to each other as easily and cheaply as it is sending a text message." Zuckerberg was unable though to make material commitments on behalf of Libra because Facebook no longer controls the project, sometimes to the frustration of lawmakers. On October 14, the Libra Association comprising 21 members agreed articles of association laying out how the organization will be governed, as required by Swiss law. Most decisions will require a majority vote of the group's governing council, meaning Facebook will not call the shots. Lawmakers also touched on other hot button issues, including diversity, inclusion, and charges brought by the housing regulator in March, still pending, alleging Facebook violated fair lending laws. Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democrat, hammered Zuckerberg, saying she viewed Facebook's efforts to address civil rights abuses as insufficient, calling them "appalling and disgusting." Some Republicans did offer support for Zuckerberg and the Libra project, arguing the government should not stop the private sector from innovating. "I have my own qualms about Facebook and Libra and the shortcomings of Big Tech," said Representative Patrick McHenry, the top Republican on the panel. "But if history has taught us anything, it’s better to be on the side of American innovation"

Facebook's Zuckerberg grilled in US Congress on digital currency, privacy, elections

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy activists rallied in Hong Kong on October 14 in the first legal protest since the introduction of colonial-era emergency laws. Protesters pleaded for help from the United States. Watch this video to know more.

US Congress set to discuss key Hong Kong law

United States Secretary of State <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/protesters-burn-us-and-nato-flags-during-pompeo-visit-in-athens-253964">Mike Pompeo</a> on Saturday accused members of Congress of harassing his department to obtain documents linked to an impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump.

"There's been a congressional increase that harassed and abused State Department employees by contacting them directly and seeking to have them provide documents... that belong to the State Department, that are official US government records," he said during a visit in Greece.&nbsp;

"That's harassment. And I'm never going to let that happen to my team", he added.

The US congressional committees leading the impeachment probe cranked up the heat on the White House this week amid mounting evidence that Trump may have illicitly used his office to enlist Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky's help to damage the bid of 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden in exchange for military aid.

After dodging questions for days, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/greece-can-be-pillar-for-regional-stability-pompeo-253933">Pompeo</a> finally confirmed Wednesday that he had been on the telephone call when Trump pressed Ukraine for damaging information on Biden.

Pompeo's Democratic critics say he is now a "witness" caught in a conflict of interest that should rule him out of decisions on how the State Department deals with the investigation.

He has been accused of "stonewalling" the investigation and trying to limit what his staff could discuss if they testify.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/i-was-on-the-call-says-pompeo-on-trump-call-to-ukraine-leader-253318">Pompeo</a>, who has been subpoenaed in the probe, said Saturday his department would provide "all the documents required by the law", at a press conference in Athens.

The US top official was in Greece to reinforce cooperation with its NATO ally, signing an amendment to a mutual defence agreement.

United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday accused members of Congress of harassing his department to obtain documents linked to an impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump.

United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday accused members of Congress of harassing his department to obtain documents linked to an impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump. "There's been a congressional increase that harassed and abused State Department employees by contacting them directly and seeking to have them provide documents... that belong to the State Department, that are official US government records," he said during a visit in Greece. "That's harassment. And I'm never going to let that happen to my team", he added. The US congressional committees leading the impeachment probe cranked up the heat on the White House this week amid mounting evidence that Trump may have illicitly used his office to enlist Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky's help to damage the bid of 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden in exchange for military aid. After dodging questions for days, Pompeo finally confirmed Wednesday that he had been on the telephone call when Trump pressed Ukraine for damaging information on Biden. Pompeo's Democratic critics say he is now a "witness" caught in a conflict of interest that should rule him out of decisions on how the State Department deals with the investigation. He has been accused of "stonewalling" the investigation and trying to limit what his staff could discuss if they testify. Pompeo, who has been subpoenaed in the probe, said Saturday his department would provide "all the documents required by the law", at a press conference in Athens. The US top official was in Greece to reinforce cooperation with its NATO ally, signing an amendment to a mutual defence agreement.

Pompeo blasts 'harassment' by Congress over impeachment probe

Top democratic leader and speaker of US house of representatives Nancy Pelosi has lauded India-US ties and said support for New Delhi in the US Congress "is always bipartisan."

Speaking at the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi and 90th birth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr,&nbsp;Pelosi said, "legacies of these 2 extraordinary men forever shaped our nations and changed the course of history in both of our countries and the world".

Lauding India US ties, speaker of US house of representatives said, "Relationship between India and US is a shining example of cooperation, prosperity, peace and respect. As the world's oldest and largest democracies, we have been partners in the fight to expand justice and ensure the blessing of liberty for all."

Nancy Pelosi expressed her appreciation for India for hosting Dalai Lama saying she, "mentioned it to Indian PM, previous PM" and "they have always said no need to thank us, that is who we are."

She lauded role played by Indian-Americans in enriching American society with "beautiful culture, rich tradition and entrepreneurship".&nbsp;

Last month 50,000 people mostly, Indian Americans gathered in Houston for the biggest diaspora event — the howdy Modi event in which PM Modi and US President Donald Trump shared staged and endorsed each other.&nbsp;

India has dismissed reports suggesting New Delhi loses bipartisan support by the endorsement itself with Trump with EAM Jaishankar saying in Washington, " I don’t think we should, honestly, misinterpret what was said."

The event the historic building of Library of Congress in Washington saw participation on External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, Indian Envoy to US Harsh V Shringla and envoys of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Myanmar to the US.

Both US Senate and US house of representatives have introduced resolutions recalling Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to mankind and emphasizing the shared influence of Gandhi Ji's teaching through human rights on the occasion of 150th birth anniversary Mahatma Gandhi.

Top democratic leader and speaker of US house of representatives Nancy Pelosi has lauded India-US ties and said support for New Delhi in the US Congress "is always bipartisan.

Top democratic leader and speaker of US house of representatives Nancy Pelosi has lauded India-US ties and said support for New Delhi in the US Congress "is always bipartisan." Speaking at the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi and 90th birth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr, Pelosi said, "legacies of these 2 extraordinary men forever shaped our nations and changed the course of history in both of our countries and the world". Lauding India US ties, speaker of US house of representatives said, "Relationship between India and US is a shining example of cooperation, prosperity, peace and respect. As the world's oldest and largest democracies, we have been partners in the fight to expand justice and ensure the blessing of liberty for all." Nancy Pelosi expressed her appreciation for India for hosting Dalai Lama saying she, "mentioned it to Indian PM, previous PM" and "they have always said no need to thank us, that is who we are." She lauded role played by Indian-Americans in enriching American society with "beautiful culture, rich tradition and entrepreneurship". Last month 50,000 people mostly, Indian Americans gathered in Houston for the biggest diaspora event — the howdy Modi event in which PM Modi and US President Donald Trump shared staged and endorsed each other. India has dismissed reports suggesting New Delhi loses bipartisan support by the endorsement itself with Trump with EAM Jaishankar saying in Washington, " I don’t think we should, honestly, misinterpret what was said." The event the historic building of Library of Congress in Washington saw participation on External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, Indian Envoy to US Harsh V Shringla and envoys of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Myanmar to the US. Both US Senate and US house of representatives have introduced resolutions recalling Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to mankind and emphasizing the shared influence of Gandhi Ji's teaching through human rights on the occasion of 150th birth anniversary Mahatma Gandhi.

Bipartisan support for India in US Congress: Nancy Pelosi

Top democratic leader and speaker of US house of representatives Nancy Pelosi has lauded India-US ties and said support for New Delhi in the US Congress "is always bipartisan." Watch this video to know more.

Support for India in US Congress bipartisan: Nancy Pelosi

The chairman of the US&nbsp;House Intelligence Committee said on Sunday Congress is determined to get access to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-rejects-trump-policy-of-expanded-deportation-252639">President Donald Trump</a>'s calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders, citing concerns he may have jeopardized national security.

"I think the paramount need here is to protect the national security of the United States and see whether in the conversations with other world leaders and in particular with Putin that the president was also undermining our security in a way that he thought would personally benefit his campaign," Democrat Adam Schiff said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Following a whistleblower complaint that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/our-country-is-at-stake-like-never-before-trump-to-supporters-252638">Trump</a>, a Republican, solicited a political favor from Ukraine's president that could help him get re-elected, the lawmakers are investigating concerns that Trump's actions have jeopardized national security and the integrity of US&nbsp;elections.

The intelligence committee has reached an agreement with the whistleblower to appear before the panel, Schiff told ABC's "This Week"

Lawmakers were working out logistics to protect the person's identity and also get security clearance for lawyers who will be representing the whistleblower. He hopes the whistleblower can appear very soon, Schiff said.

The whistleblower's complaint cited a telephone call in which Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to launch an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

Joe Biden is a leading candidate in the race to challenge Trump in the November 2020 presidential election.

The complaint said White House lawyers directed that an electronic summary of the call, which was released to the public on Wednesday, be moved from the place where such things are usually kept to a secret server reserved for covert matters.

"If those conversations with Putin or with other world leaders are sequestered in that same electronic file that is meant for covert action, not meant for this, if there's an effort to hide those and cover those up, yes we're determined to find out," Schiff said on NBC.

The chairman of the US House Intelligence Committee said on Sunday Congress is determined to get access to President Donald Trump's calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders, citing concerns he may have jeopardized national security.

The chairman of the US House Intelligence Committee said on Sunday Congress is determined to get access to President Donald Trump's calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders, citing concerns he may have jeopardized national security. "I think the paramount need here is to protect the national security of the United States and see whether in the conversations with other world leaders and in particular with Putin that the president was also undermining our security in a way that he thought would personally benefit his campaign," Democrat Adam Schiff said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Following a whistleblower complaint that Trump, a Republican, solicited a political favor from Ukraine's president that could help him get re-elected, the lawmakers are investigating concerns that Trump's actions have jeopardized national security and the integrity of US elections. The intelligence committee has reached an agreement with the whistleblower to appear before the panel, Schiff told ABC's "This Week" Lawmakers were working out logistics to protect the person's identity and also get security clearance for lawyers who will be representing the whistleblower. He hopes the whistleblower can appear very soon, Schiff said. The whistleblower's complaint cited a telephone call in which Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to launch an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. Joe Biden is a leading candidate in the race to challenge Trump in the November 2020 presidential election. The complaint said White House lawyers directed that an electronic summary of the call, which was released to the public on Wednesday, be moved from the place where such things are usually kept to a secret server reserved for covert matters. "If those conversations with Putin or with other world leaders are sequestered in that same electronic file that is meant for covert action, not meant for this, if there's an effort to hide those and cover those up, yes we're determined to find out," Schiff said on NBC.

Democrats want access to Trump's phone calls with Russian President Putin, others

Swedish teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg on Tuesday called for action, not praise, from US lawmakers as she joined other youth leaders in kicking off two days of meetings and speeches on Washington's Capitol Hill.

Swedish teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg on Tuesday called for action, not praise, from US lawmakers as she joined other youth leaders in kicking off two days of meetings and speeches on Washington's Capitol Hill. This week's events are intended to raise awareness ahead of a global "climate strike" on Friday when students and workers around the world are being encouraged to walk out of schools and jobs to demand action on global warming and pressure leaders due to attend the annual United Nations summit later this month. "Please save your praise. We don’t want it," Thunberg told the Senate Climate Change Task Force. "Don’t invite us here to tell us how inspiring we are without doing anything about it because it doesn’t lead to anything." The 16-year-old has inspired millions of students and others to join her weekly strikes to demand action to fight climate change - dubbed "Fridays for Future." Just 16, @GretaThunberg is already one of our planet’s greatest advocates. Recognizing that her generation will bear the brunt of climate change, she’s unafraid to push for real action. She embodies our vision at the @ObamaFoundation: A future shaped by young leaders like her. pic.twitter.com/VgCPAaDp3C — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 17, 2019 × She has been nominated for a Nobel Prize. Democratic Senator Ed Markey, chairman of the task force, called the growing number of young protesters the new "X-Factor" in politics and said their passion could play a significant role in next year's US presidential elections. "2020 is going to be a referendum on climate change," Markey told a news conference on Tuesday. "It will be a referendum between Donald Trump and a whole new Green New Deal direction." The Green New Deal is a non-binding congressional resolution Markey co-sponsored with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a fellow Democrat, that aims to transform the US economy away from fossil fuels within a decade. Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials have pilloried the plan as fantasy. President Trump, one of the few world leaders who openly question the science of climate change, has made a priority of rolling back Obama-era climate protections he says are not necessary and hurt the US economy. Anaiah Thomas, a 17-year-old climate activist and member of US-based youth movement Zero Hour, told the senators they need to take an urgent approach to climate change and support proposals like the Green New Deal. "What's most important is to decide to take action today. Not in five years. Not gradually. Not tomorrow," she said.

Swedish climate activist Thunberg asks US Congress for action, not praise

As Congress returns from its August recess on Monday, Democratic leaders in Congress are stepping up calls for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, to take action to pass legislation to prevent gun violence.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and other senior Democrats said on Sunday they will gather Monday afternoon to urge McConnell to "end his harmful legislative graveyard" and bring a House-passed bill expanding background checks on gun purchases to the Senate floor as soon as possible.

The House Judiciary Committee is also expected to debate additional gun measures this week.

McConnell said he would not bring a gun bill to the floor of the Republican-majority Senate unless it had the support of President Donald Trump, a Republican who has not provided details of measures he might support to address gun violence.

After a cluster of mass shootings took 36 lives in August, Trump said he favoured action, possibly on tackling mental health issues related to the violence or expanded background checks. The White House has yet to outline any specific proposals.

White House officials said the measures might include expediting the death penalty for mass shooters.

Republican Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Republican leadership, on Sunday urged Trump to say what he wants. "The president needs to step up here and set some guidelines for what he would do," Blunt said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates have been floating their own remedies for mass shootings. One of the candidates, Senator Amy Klobuchar, told CNN on Sunday that she would back an immediate ban on assault weapons.

Previous attempts to pass gun controls after mass shootings, including in the aftermath of the December 2012 murder of 20 children and six staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have mostly failed in the face of fierce lobbying by the National Rifle Association and other gun groups.

Here are some proposals that could be debated in Congress in the coming weeks and months:

Gun sale background checks

The Democratic-led House of Representatives in February passed legislation to expand background checks on gun buyers. A loophole in federal law allows many sales — perhaps as many as one-fifth — over the internet and at gun shows to go unchecked.

While the bill was touted as being bipartisan, only eight House Republicans backed it, with 188 voting no. This is one measure Democrats are urging McConnell to bring to the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate.

Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin have been trying to resurrect a somewhat weaker version of the bill, which the Senate defeated in 2013. It exempts from background checks all gun transfers, including sales, between close family members. The House-passed bill only exempts loans and gifts of firearms between such relatives.

Also passed by the House in February and stalled in the Senate is a Democratic bill to extend to 10 days, from the current three business days, the amount of time for a background check if information on an individual is incomplete.

On Aug. 7, Trump said there was strong support for doing something on background checks but he did not embrace a specific proposal.

'RED FLAG’ LEGISLATION

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat on the panel, want to create a federal grant program helping states adopt “red flag” laws. These would allow courts and local law enforcement to remove guns from people deemed a risk to communities.

Under the procedure, for example, family members or neighbours of a person thought to have weapons and be a potential danger could tip off authorities, starting the legal process.

The House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider two "red flag" proposals this week. Also on its agenda is legislation that would bar individuals convicted of misdemeanour hate crimes from owning firearms.

Trump has said he wants to ensure that “mentally unstable, seriously ill people aren’t carrying guns.”

COMBATING ‘LIE AND TRY’

Bipartisan Senate legislation would require that state and local law enforcement be quickly notified by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) when someone prohibited from purchasing a gun attempts to do so.

Currently, 37 states and the District of Columbia rely on NICS to conduct their background checks on gun sales, while the rest do it themselves.

Backers of the bill say “lie and try” incidents can be a warning sign of fresh criminal behaviour by individuals. As with most gun-related bills, there is no certainty that it will make it through Congress.

ATTACKING VIOLENT EXTREMISM

The Department of Homeland Security’s “Countering Violent Extremism Grants” program has withered under the Trump administration.

The $10 million federal program was aimed at helping state and local government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, work to stop “extremist” groups from engaging in violence, including mass shootings by followers. Shortly after coming to power in 2017, the Trump administration proposed eliminating the program and since then the grants have withered.

An El Paso, Texas, shooting in August has sparked some calls in and out of Congress for funding of the DHS office.

IMPROVING MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS

Republicans and the gun industry have argued that gun violence is rooted in psychological illness and that federal resources should be oriented toward treatment as a way of preventing mass shootings.

“Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun,” Trump said in a speech to the nation, blaming the violence on “mentally ill monsters.”

In the past, congressional Republicans have called for beefing up federal funding of research and treatment of mental illness as a response to gun violence.

Their opponents cite studies showing that few mass shootings are tied to mental illness and that focusing on it is a diversion from tighter gun control laws.

BANNING SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS

For years, gun control advocates have urged the prohibition of semi-automatic assault rifles that fire rapidly and can carry large magazines of ammunition. They were modelled on guns designed for military use.

Republicans, some Democrats and the gun lobby have fought off such attempts as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment providing the right to bear arms.

On Aug. 7, Trump told reporters there is “no political appetite” for an assault weapons ban.

A group of House and Senate Democrats is urging passage of legislation they introduced months ago to ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, saying these make assault weapons especially lethal. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider such legislation this week.

As Congress returns from its August recess on Monday, Democratic leaders in Congress are stepping up calls for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, to take action to pass legislation to prevent gun violence.

As Congress returns from its August recess on Monday, Democratic leaders in Congress are stepping up calls for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, to take action to pass legislation to prevent gun violence. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and other senior Democrats said on Sunday they will gather Monday afternoon to urge McConnell to "end his harmful legislative graveyard" and bring a House-passed bill expanding background checks on gun purchases to the Senate floor as soon as possible. The House Judiciary Committee is also expected to debate additional gun measures this week. McConnell said he would not bring a gun bill to the floor of the Republican-majority Senate unless it had the support of President Donald Trump, a Republican who has not provided details of measures he might support to address gun violence. After a cluster of mass shootings took 36 lives in August, Trump said he favoured action, possibly on tackling mental health issues related to the violence or expanded background checks. The White House has yet to outline any specific proposals. White House officials said the measures might include expediting the death penalty for mass shooters. Republican Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Republican leadership, on Sunday urged Trump to say what he wants. "The president needs to step up here and set some guidelines for what he would do," Blunt said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates have been floating their own remedies for mass shootings. One of the candidates, Senator Amy Klobuchar, told CNN on Sunday that she would back an immediate ban on assault weapons. Previous attempts to pass gun controls after mass shootings, including in the aftermath of the December 2012 murder of 20 children and six staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have mostly failed in the face of fierce lobbying by the National Rifle Association and other gun groups. Here are some proposals that could be debated in Congress in the coming weeks and months: Gun sale background checks The Democratic-led House of Representatives in February passed legislation to expand background checks on gun buyers. A loophole in federal law allows many sales — perhaps as many as one-fifth — over the internet and at gun shows to go unchecked. While the bill was touted as being bipartisan, only eight House Republicans backed it, with 188 voting no. This is one measure Democrats are urging McConnell to bring to the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate. Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin have been trying to resurrect a somewhat weaker version of the bill, which the Senate defeated in 2013. It exempts from background checks all gun transfers, including sales, between close family members. The House-passed bill only exempts loans and gifts of firearms between such relatives. Also passed by the House in February and stalled in the Senate is a Democratic bill to extend to 10 days, from the current three business days, the amount of time for a background check if information on an individual is incomplete. On Aug. 7, Trump said there was strong support for doing something on background checks but he did not embrace a specific proposal. 'RED FLAG’ LEGISLATION Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat on the panel, want to create a federal grant program helping states adopt “red flag” laws. These would allow courts and local law enforcement to remove guns from people deemed a risk to communities. Under the procedure, for example, family members or neighbours of a person thought to have weapons and be a potential danger could tip off authorities, starting the legal process. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider two "red flag" proposals this week. Also on its agenda is legislation that would bar individuals convicted of misdemeanour hate crimes from owning firearms. Trump has said he wants to ensure that “mentally unstable, seriously ill people aren’t carrying guns.” COMBATING ‘LIE AND TRY’ Bipartisan Senate legislation would require that state and local law enforcement be quickly notified by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) when someone prohibited from purchasing a gun attempts to do so. Currently, 37 states and the District of Columbia rely on NICS to conduct their background checks on gun sales, while the rest do it themselves. Backers of the bill say “lie and try” incidents can be a warning sign of fresh criminal behaviour by individuals. As with most gun-related bills, there is no certainty that it will make it through Congress. ATTACKING VIOLENT EXTREMISM The Department of Homeland Security’s “Countering Violent Extremism Grants” program has withered under the Trump administration. The $10 million federal program was aimed at helping state and local government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, work to stop “extremist” groups from engaging in violence, including mass shootings by followers. Shortly after coming to power in 2017, the Trump administration proposed eliminating the program and since then the grants have withered. An El Paso, Texas, shooting in August has sparked some calls in and out of Congress for funding of the DHS office. IMPROVING MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS Republicans and the gun industry have argued that gun violence is rooted in psychological illness and that federal resources should be oriented toward treatment as a way of preventing mass shootings. “Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun,” Trump said in a speech to the nation, blaming the violence on “mentally ill monsters.” In the past, congressional Republicans have called for beefing up federal funding of research and treatment of mental illness as a response to gun violence. Their opponents cite studies showing that few mass shootings are tied to mental illness and that focusing on it is a diversion from tighter gun control laws. BANNING SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS For years, gun control advocates have urged the prohibition of semi-automatic assault rifles that fire rapidly and can carry large magazines of ammunition. They were modelled on guns designed for military use. Republicans, some Democrats and the gun lobby have fought off such attempts as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment providing the right to bear arms. On Aug. 7, Trump told reporters there is “no political appetite” for an assault weapons ban. A group of House and Senate Democrats is urging passage of legislation they introduced months ago to ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, saying these make assault weapons especially lethal. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider such legislation this week.

Democrats step up calls for gun legislation as US Congress returns

Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu lawmaker in the US Congress to run for the presidential post, has ruled out contesting as an independent candidate if she fails to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I will not. No, I have ruled that out," she told CNN on Thursday when asked if she plans to contest elections as an independent.

"I'm going to continue to focus on moving our campaign forward, continuing this grassroots campaign, continuing to deliver our message to the American people and ask for their support," she added.

Gabbard, who is the first Hindu woman to be elected to the US Congress even though she is of Samoan descent, had failed to qualify for the next Democratic debate after making the first two debates.

The 38-year-old lawmaker has been serving as the US Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013.

Gabbard claimed that there is "no explanation or transparency around why certain polls are qualifying while other very credible recognised polls are somehow not qualifying".

"Frankly, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has not provided any transparency to voters about how they're making these decisions," she told the network.

Earlier this year, she had announced her decision torun for the presidency in the 2020 elections.

Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.

She was also the DNC's vice chair from 2013 to 2016, but resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu lawmaker in the US Congress to run for the presidential post, has ruled out contesting as an independent candidate if she fails to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu lawmaker in the US Congress to run for the presidential post, has ruled out contesting as an independent candidate if she fails to win the Democratic presidential nomination. "I will not. No, I have ruled that out," she told CNN on Thursday when asked if she plans to contest elections as an independent. "I'm going to continue to focus on moving our campaign forward, continuing this grassroots campaign, continuing to deliver our message to the American people and ask for their support," she added. Gabbard, who is the first Hindu woman to be elected to the US Congress even though she is of Samoan descent, had failed to qualify for the next Democratic debate after making the first two debates. The 38-year-old lawmaker has been serving as the US Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013. Gabbard claimed that there is "no explanation or transparency around why certain polls are qualifying while other very credible recognised polls are somehow not qualifying". "Frankly, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has not provided any transparency to voters about how they're making these decisions," she told the network. Earlier this year, she had announced her decision torun for the presidency in the 2020 elections. Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009. She was also the DNC's vice chair from 2013 to 2016, but resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Tulsi Gabbard, first Hindu lawmaker in US Congress, rules out running as an independent presidential candidate

Puerto Rico's governor on Sunday said he would not seek re-election next year but refused to resign as the island braced for more protests by demonstrators demanding he steps down over offensive chat messages.

A day before a planned general strike and massive street demonstrations in the bankrupt US territory,<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-aid-boat-reaches-curacao-after-reported-standoff-199458"> Ricardo Rossello</a>, 40, said he respected the wishes of Puerto Ricans and would not seek a second term in November 2020 elections.

He also said he would resign as head of his New Progressive Party (PNP) but would remain as governor until the end of his term in January 2021.

"I know that apologizing is not enough," Rossello said in a video posted on Facebook. "A significant sector of the population has been protesting for days. I'm aware of the dissatisfaction and discomfort they feel. Only my work will help restore the trust of these sectors."

His comments drew outrage from many Puerto Ricans, with social media videos showing San Juan residents leaning out of apartment windows banging pots and pans in the third day of so-called "cacerolazo" protests.

The July 13 publication of sexist and homophobic chat messages between Rossello and top aides unleashed simmering resentment over his handling of devastating 2017 hurricanes, alleged corruption in his administration and the island's bankruptcy process.

''#Resign Ricky isn't just a call for him to resign from the party, but from his seat as the top official," tweeted Linda Michelle, an industrial engineer and Puerto Rico radio personality. "Whoever wasn't sure about going to the march tomorrow has now made up their mind to go."

''Power of the people''

Puerto Rico's non-voting representative to the US Congress, as well as Democratic presidential candidates and lawmakers, &nbsp;have called for the governor to step aside after nine days of sometimes violent protests.

"Once again: Rosselló must resign," tweeted US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in response to his video.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Once again: Rosselló must resign. <a href="https://t.co/bu2iz93yQX">https://t.co/bu2iz93yQX</a>
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1153083663204175872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 21, 2019</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>

But Puerto Rico's Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, who may take over leadership of the pro-statehood PNP, said Rossello's actions "put an end to part of the controversies and trauma hitting our people."

Puerto Rico House Speaker Carlos Mendez, also of the PNP, appointed an independent panel on Friday to investigate whether the chats warranted impeachment.

"I welcome the process started by the legislative assembly, which I will confront with complete truth," Rossello said in the video.

The political turmoil comes at a critical stage in the US territory's bankruptcy process as it tries to restructure around $120 billion in debt and pension obligations.

It has also raised concerns among US lawmakers who are weighing the island's requests for billions of federal dollars for healthcare and work to recover from Hurricane Maria, which led to nearly 3,000 deaths.

Opposing Rossello is a raft of Puerto Rican celebrities ranging from singer Ricky Martin and rapper Bad Bunny to "Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Martin, a target of the governor's chats, said he would march with protestors on Monday when some businesses have said they will close after trade unions called a national strike.

"I want to feel the power of the people," Martin, 47, said in a Facebook video, urging legislative leaders to start the impeachment process.

Puerto Rico's governor on Sunday said he would not seek re-election next year but refused to resign as the island braced for more protests by demonstrators demanding he steps down over offensive chat messages.

Puerto Rico's governor on Sunday said he would not seek re-election next year but refused to resign as the island braced for more protests by demonstrators demanding he steps down over offensive chat messages. A day before a planned general strike and massive street demonstrations in the bankrupt US territory, Ricardo Rossello, 40, said he respected the wishes of Puerto Ricans and would not seek a second term in November 2020 elections. He also said he would resign as head of his New Progressive Party (PNP) but would remain as governor until the end of his term in January 2021. "I know that apologizing is not enough," Rossello said in a video posted on Facebook. "A significant sector of the population has been protesting for days. I'm aware of the dissatisfaction and discomfort they feel. Only my work will help restore the trust of these sectors." His comments drew outrage from many Puerto Ricans, with social media videos showing San Juan residents leaning out of apartment windows banging pots and pans in the third day of so-called "cacerolazo" protests. The July 13 publication of sexist and homophobic chat messages between Rossello and top aides unleashed simmering resentment over his handling of devastating 2017 hurricanes, alleged corruption in his administration and the island's bankruptcy process. ''#Resign Ricky isn't just a call for him to resign from the party, but from his seat as the top official," tweeted Linda Michelle, an industrial engineer and Puerto Rico radio personality. "Whoever wasn't sure about going to the march tomorrow has now made up their mind to go." ''Power of the people'' Puerto Rico's non-voting representative to the US Congress, as well as Democratic presidential candidates and lawmakers, have called for the governor to step aside after nine days of sometimes violent protests. "Once again: Rosselló must resign," tweeted US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in response to his video. Once again: Rosselló must resign. https://t.co/bu2iz93yQX — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 21, 2019 × But Puerto Rico's Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, who may take over leadership of the pro-statehood PNP, said Rossello's actions "put an end to part of the controversies and trauma hitting our people." Puerto Rico House Speaker Carlos Mendez, also of the PNP, appointed an independent panel on Friday to investigate whether the chats warranted impeachment. "I welcome the process started by the legislative assembly, which I will confront with complete truth," Rossello said in the video. The political turmoil comes at a critical stage in the US territory's bankruptcy process as it tries to restructure around $120 billion in debt and pension obligations. It has also raised concerns among US lawmakers who are weighing the island's requests for billions of federal dollars for healthcare and work to recover from Hurricane Maria, which led to nearly 3,000 deaths. Opposing Rossello is a raft of Puerto Rican celebrities ranging from singer Ricky Martin and rapper Bad Bunny to "Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda. Martin, a target of the governor's chats, said he would march with protestors on Monday when some businesses have said they will close after trade unions called a national strike. "I want to feel the power of the people," Martin, 47, said in a Facebook video, urging legislative leaders to start the impeachment process.

Puerto Rico governor Ricardo Rossello refuses to resign as island braces for big protest

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-democratic-congresswoman-should-apologize-to-america-237518&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi2z5WmuMjjAhXN63MBHTx7BTE4ChAWMAN6BAgOEAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw0hPftQsY_ekxSVDPZWQJZy">Donald Trump</a> for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed.

In American politics, few procedures are as arduous or as divisive as the Constitution's carefully balanced law for ousting a chief executive found to be unfit to serve.

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of it. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be&nbsp;removed. Two, presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate.

Since he took office in January 2017, Trump has been under investigation. A turning point came in mid-April with the release of a redacted version of a long-awaited report from former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before two House committees about his report, with Democrats planning to focus the proceedings on Trump's conduct. The strategy, described by Democratic congressional aides, is intended to build support among Americans for Democrats' investigative agenda, possibly leading to impeachment proceedings.

The 448-page Mueller report explored an effort by Moscow to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump win. It described contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign and the Kremlin engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

The Mueller report also described numerous attempts by Trump and his advisers to impede Mueller's investigation but offered no conclusion on whether obstruction of justice was committed.

Trump has attacked Mueller, called his probe a "witch hunt" and scorned talk of impeachment as "dirty, filthy, disgusting."

Some lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled House favour starting the impeachment process, but their leaders have resisted these demands. Last week, an impeachment resolution came to a vote on the House floor and was killed.

The Senate is controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, meaning that any impeachment proceedings that might begin in the House would likely die in the Republican-controlled Senate, unless public sentiment was to shift dramatically in favour of removing the president.

About 45 per cent of Americans said Trump should be impeached in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May, up from 40 per cent in April.

WATCH:&nbsp;Somalis on Trump telling congresswomen 'go back'

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/somalis-on-trump-telling-congresswomen-go-back-237454/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Here is how the impeachment process works.

Why impeachment? 
The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared that its powers could be abused. So they included impeachment as a central part of the Constitution.

They gave the House "the sole power of impeachment;" the Senate, "the sole power to try all impeachments" and the chief justice of the Supreme Court the duty of presiding over impeachment trials in the Senate.

The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings.

How does it work? 
Impeachment begins in the House, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the House's 435 members.

If the House approves such a resolution, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president. This has never happened.

Can the Supreme Court overturn? 
No. Trump has said on Twitter that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But the founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary.

Party breakdown in Congress? 
The House has 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, one independent and two vacant seats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.

Who becomes President if Trump is removed? 
In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021.

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President Donald Trump for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed.

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President Donald Trump for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed. In American politics, few procedures are as arduous or as divisive as the Constitution's carefully balanced law for ousting a chief executive found to be unfit to serve. No president has ever been removed as a direct result of it. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. Since he took office in January 2017, Trump has been under investigation. A turning point came in mid-April with the release of a redacted version of a long-awaited report from former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller. On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before two House committees about his report, with Democrats planning to focus the proceedings on Trump's conduct. The strategy, described by Democratic congressional aides, is intended to build support among Americans for Democrats' investigative agenda, possibly leading to impeachment proceedings. The 448-page Mueller report explored an effort by Moscow to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump win. It described contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign and the Kremlin engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The Mueller report also described numerous attempts by Trump and his advisers to impede Mueller's investigation but offered no conclusion on whether obstruction of justice was committed. Trump has attacked Mueller, called his probe a "witch hunt" and scorned talk of impeachment as "dirty, filthy, disgusting." Some lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled House favour starting the impeachment process, but their leaders have resisted these demands. Last week, an impeachment resolution came to a vote on the House floor and was killed. The Senate is controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, meaning that any impeachment proceedings that might begin in the House would likely die in the Republican-controlled Senate, unless public sentiment was to shift dramatically in favour of removing the president. About 45 per cent of Americans said Trump should be impeached in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May, up from 40 per cent in April. WATCH: Somalis on Trump telling congresswomen 'go back' × Here is how the impeachment process works. Why impeachment? The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared that its powers could be abused. So they included impeachment as a central part of the Constitution. They gave the House "the sole power of impeachment;" the Senate, "the sole power to try all impeachments" and the chief justice of the Supreme Court the duty of presiding over impeachment trials in the Senate. The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings. How does it work? Impeachment begins in the House, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the House's 435 members. If the House approves such a resolution, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president. This has never happened. Can the Supreme Court overturn? No. Trump has said on Twitter that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But the founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary. Party breakdown in Congress? The House has 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, one independent and two vacant seats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support. In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat. The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. Who becomes President if Trump is removed? In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021.

What it would take for US Congress to impeach Trump?

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke with Turkey's Foreign Minister on Saturday and expressed disappointment over the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/erdogan-hails-s-400-deal-as-turkey-marks-2016-coup-bid-anniversary-236260">country's acquisition of the Russian S-400 missile system</a>, the US State Department said in a statement.

Turkey's defence ministry on Friday had said&nbsp;that it has received the first batch of the S-400 Russian missile defence systems which has been a source of tension between Turkey and NATO ally United States.

Washington had opposed Turkey's purchase of the Russian missile defence system and threatened to impose sanctions. Since then, President Donald Trump has been unclear over whether his administration was planning such action.

The US fears that if Ankara integrates the S-400 into its defences, data about the US-built F-35 fighter jet could leak back to the Russians, and Washington has threatened to deny Turkey access to the stealth aircraft.

Members of the US Congress have repeatedly voiced opposition to the move and threatened sanctions.

Several Republican and Democratic US lawmakers on Thursday as well pressed Trump to impose sanctions on Turkey over the purchase.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke with Turkey's Foreign Minister on Saturday and expressed disappointment over the country's acquisition of the Russian S-400 missile system, the US State Department said in a statement.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke with Turkey's Foreign Minister on Saturday and expressed disappointment over the country's acquisition of the Russian S-400 missile system, the US State Department said in a statement. Turkey's defence ministry on Friday had said that it has received the first batch of the S-400 Russian missile defence systems which has been a source of tension between Turkey and NATO ally United States. Washington had opposed Turkey's purchase of the Russian missile defence system and threatened to impose sanctions. Since then, President Donald Trump has been unclear over whether his administration was planning such action. The US fears that if Ankara integrates the S-400 into its defences, data about the US-built F-35 fighter jet could leak back to the Russians, and Washington has threatened to deny Turkey access to the stealth aircraft. Members of the US Congress have repeatedly voiced opposition to the move and threatened sanctions. Several Republican and Democratic US lawmakers on Thursday as well pressed Trump to impose sanctions on Turkey over the purchase. (With inputs from agencies)

Mike Pompeo expresses disappointment over Turkey's acquisition of Russian S-400 missiles

Members of the US&nbsp;Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills on Tuesday to keep tight restrictions on <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/us-should-stop-incorrect-action-on-huawei-to-avoid-additional-harm-to-china-us-economic-and-trade-relations-china-219157&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia7ZKK2rvjAhUvH7cAHX_sBzEQFjAFegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw04FHCJpiLwhfiKBr2OP77D">Huawei Technologies Co Ltd</a>, amid concern about President Donald Trump's easing of curbs on the Chinese firm.

The legislation would among other things bar the removal of the massive telecommunications equipment firm from a Commerce Department trade blacklist without House and Senate approval, and let Congress disallow waivers granted to US&nbsp;companies doing business with the company.

The United States has accused Huawei of stealing American intellectual property and violating Iran sanctions. The Republicans and Democrats backing the measures said they viewed the company as a security threat.

"American companies shouldn't be in the business of selling our enemies the tools they'll use to spy on Americans," Republican Senator Tom Cotton, one of the sponsors, said in a statement.

The United States placed Huawei on the Commerce Department's so-called Entity List in May over national security concerns. The US&nbsp;parts and components generally cannot be sold to those on the list without special licenses.

However, Trump, who is seeking to revive trade talks with China, announced late last month that US&nbsp;companies would be allowed to sell products to Huawei.

The "Defending America's 5G Future Act" was introduced in the Senate by Republicans Cotton, Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney and Democrats Chris Van Hollen, Mark Warner, and Richard Blumenthal.

A companion bill was introduced in the House by Democratic Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Ruben Gallego and Republicans Mark Gallagher and Liz Cheney.

Washington also has launched a lobbying effort to persuade US&nbsp;allies to keep Huawei out of next-generation 5G telecommunications infrastructure, citing concerns the company could spy on customers. Huawei has denied the allegations.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a news briefing in Beijing on Wednesday that the United States should immediately cease its "suppression" of Huawei.

Geng said that relevant U.S. legislators were "clinging to a Cold War mentality" in trying to contain China's development and that such actions "seriously damaged the United States' national image".

Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills on Tuesday to keep tight restrictions on Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, amid concern about President Donald Trump's easing of curbs on the Chinese firm.

Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills on Tuesday to keep tight restrictions on Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, amid concern about President Donald Trump's easing of curbs on the Chinese firm. The legislation would among other things bar the removal of the massive telecommunications equipment firm from a Commerce Department trade blacklist without House and Senate approval, and let Congress disallow waivers granted to US companies doing business with the company. The United States has accused Huawei of stealing American intellectual property and violating Iran sanctions. The Republicans and Democrats backing the measures said they viewed the company as a security threat. "American companies shouldn't be in the business of selling our enemies the tools they'll use to spy on Americans," Republican Senator Tom Cotton, one of the sponsors, said in a statement. The United States placed Huawei on the Commerce Department's so-called Entity List in May over national security concerns. The US parts and components generally cannot be sold to those on the list without special licenses. However, Trump, who is seeking to revive trade talks with China, announced late last month that US companies would be allowed to sell products to Huawei. The "Defending America's 5G Future Act" was introduced in the Senate by Republicans Cotton, Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney and Democrats Chris Van Hollen, Mark Warner, and Richard Blumenthal. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Democratic Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Ruben Gallego and Republicans Mark Gallagher and Liz Cheney. Washington also has launched a lobbying effort to persuade US allies to keep Huawei out of next-generation 5G telecommunications infrastructure, citing concerns the company could spy on customers. Huawei has denied the allegations. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a news briefing in Beijing on Wednesday that the United States should immediately cease its "suppression" of Huawei. Geng said that relevant U.S. legislators were "clinging to a Cold War mentality" in trying to contain China's development and that such actions "seriously damaged the United States' national image".

Bills targeting China's Huawei introduced in US Congress

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