The United States House of Representatives passed legislation aimed at averting a crippling nationwide US freight rail strike, sending it to the Senate, which could take action as soon as this weekend.

US House passes bill to avert a rail strike

United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Thursday that she will not be contesting for the leadership role after the Republicans gained control. Pelosi was the top Democratic leader in the US House for the better part of the last two decades and holds an important place in the politics of the country. During her speech, Pelosi confirmed&nbsp;that she will complete her term as a member of Congress.&nbsp;

“I will not seek reelection to Democratic leadership in the next Congress,” Pelosi said.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/jeremy-hunt-to-unveil-uk-autumn-budget-today-after-liz-truss-failed-experiment-534990">Chancellor Hunt announces tax hikes, spending cuts in £55 bn autumn budget</a>

“For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect, and I’m grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.”&nbsp;

The current projections show that the Republicans will gain control of the House but the Democrats were able to hold on to their majority in the Senate. With the US going through major inflation and President Joe Biden facing criticism for his policies, the midterm election results have come as a relief for Democrats who were predicted to lose way more seats by several experts in the recent past.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/dutch-court-convicts-three-men-for-mh17-downing-one-acquitted-535090" hreflang="en">Dutch court convicts three men for MH17 downing, one acquitted</a>

Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, was attacked recently by an assailant carrying a hammer and that is reportedly one of the reasons why the veteran Democrat decided to leave her leadership role.&nbsp;

While the Democratic Party did not announce any plan for succession, CNN reported that current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy will be the favourite to take Pelosi’s position in the future.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Thursday that she will not be contesting for the leadership role after the Republicans gained control. Pelosi was the top Democratic leader in the US House for the better part of the last two decades and holds an important place in the politics of the country.

United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Thursday that she will not be contesting for the leadership role after the Republicans gained control. Pelosi was the top Democratic leader in the US House for the better part of the last two decades and holds an important place in the politics of the country. During her speech, Pelosi confirmed that she will complete her term as a member of Congress. “I will not seek reelection to Democratic leadership in the next Congress,” Pelosi said. Also read | Chancellor Hunt announces tax hikes, spending cuts in £55 bn autumn budget “For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect, and I’m grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.” The current projections show that the Republicans will gain control of the House but the Democrats were able to hold on to their majority in the Senate. With the US going through major inflation and President Joe Biden facing criticism for his policies, the midterm election results have come as a relief for Democrats who were predicted to lose way more seats by several experts in the recent past. Also read | Dutch court convicts three men for MH17 downing, one acquitted Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, was attacked recently by an assailant carrying a hammer and that is reportedly one of the reasons why the veteran Democrat decided to leave her leadership role. While the Democratic Party did not announce any plan for succession, CNN reported that current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy will be the favourite to take Pelosi’s position in the future.

Nancy Pelosi to step down as US House Democratic leader after two decades

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that seeks to ban assault-style weapons, which have most widely been used in mass shootings. However, the legislation would most likely not advance in the Senate.

On Friday, the bill saw a partisan vote of 217-213, with Democrats Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Kurt Schrader of Oregon voting against the ban, while Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Chris Jacobs of New York voting for the bill, reports CNN.

These assault-style rifles are lightweight, semi-automatic weapons which are widely used by hunters in the United States. They also are capable of severely damaging humans when the bullets tear through organs, bones and muscle in rapid fire.

The measure seeking to ban such weapons comes at a time when there is massive public anger over a series of mass shootings across the United States. In almost all of these incidents, assailants have reportedly used rapid-fire AR-15 rifles to kill and wound school children and adults.

"They're easier for a teenager to get than to buy a beer. We've turned our churches, our schools, our shopping centres, our entertainment venues, almost any place into a battleground with one massacre after another," Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett said during the debate.

For many decades, Democrats have been trying to renew a federal ban on the weapon. The law was first imposed in 1994 but got expired in 2004.

According to a 2021 study by Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, the ban significantly reduced mass shootings during those periods.

But Republicans are against the ban, as they believe that the move is violative of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, which grants the right to "keep and bear arms."

Democrats say that the prohibition is not a blanket measure, rather it seeks to control the sale of some guns and their enhancements.

President Joe Biden on Friday urged the Senate to back the decision.

"There can be no greater responsibility than to do all we can to ensure the safety of our families, our children, our homes, our communities, and our nation," he said.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that seeks to ban assault-style weapons, which have most widely been used in mass shootings. However, the legislation would most likely not advance in the Senate.

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that seeks to ban assault-style weapons, which have most widely been used in mass shootings. However, the legislation would most likely not advance in the Senate. On Friday, the bill saw a partisan vote of 217-213, with Democrats Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Kurt Schrader of Oregon voting against the ban, while Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Chris Jacobs of New York voting for the bill, reports CNN. These assault-style rifles are lightweight, semi-automatic weapons which are widely used by hunters in the United States. They also are capable of severely damaging humans when the bullets tear through organs, bones and muscle in rapid fire. The measure seeking to ban such weapons comes at a time when there is massive public anger over a series of mass shootings across the United States. In almost all of these incidents, assailants have reportedly used rapid-fire AR-15 rifles to kill and wound school children and adults. "They're easier for a teenager to get than to buy a beer. We've turned our churches, our schools, our shopping centres, our entertainment venues, almost any place into a battleground with one massacre after another," Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett said during the debate. For many decades, Democrats have been trying to renew a federal ban on the weapon. The law was first imposed in 1994 but got expired in 2004. According to a 2021 study by Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, the ban significantly reduced mass shootings during those periods. But Republicans are against the ban, as they believe that the move is violative of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, which grants the right to "keep and bear arms." Democrats say that the prohibition is not a blanket measure, rather it seeks to control the sale of some guns and their enhancements. President Joe Biden on Friday urged the Senate to back the decision. "There can be no greater responsibility than to do all we can to ensure the safety of our families, our children, our homes, our communities, and our nation," he said. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

US House passes bill to ban assault-style weapons

The United States Secret Service has received subpoenas from the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot.

It comes after Joseph Cuffari, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told Congress that his office has had difficulties obtaining records of text messages from the Secret Service on the of the assault.

In a letter of the subpoena, the chairman of the January 6 committee told the agency's director James Murray to hand over the missing texts.

The letter, which is posted on the committee's website, said "The Select Committee seeks the relevant text messages, as well as any after action reports that have been issued in any and all divisions of the USSS pertaining or relating in any way to the events of January 6, 2021."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-capitol-riot-donald-trump-lashes-out-at-house-committee-calls-barr-weak-487021">Also read |&nbsp;US Capitol riot: Donald Trump lashes out at House committee, calls Barr 'weak'</a>

The committee, which is investigating whether Donald Trump and his close advisors encouraged the deadly insurrection by the former president's supporters, could reach a conclusion with the help of these messages.

After pro-Trump rioters called for him to be hanged, former vice president Mike Pence went into hiding at the Capitol.

Trump had attempted to force the Secret Service to take him to the Capitol to join his supporters on that day, according to his former aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

The phones belonging to secret service agents were wiped as part of a planned replacement programme that began before the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) first asked for the data as per spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.

He said in a statement, "The Secret Service notified DHS OIG of the loss of certain phones' data, but confirmed to OIG that none of the texts it was seeking had been lost in the migration."&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION's live TV here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The United States Secret Service has received subpoenas from the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot. It comes after Joseph Cuffari, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told Congress that his office has had difficulties obtaining records of text messages from the Secret Service on the of the assault.

The United States Secret Service has received subpoenas from the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot. It comes after Joseph Cuffari, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told Congress that his office has had difficulties obtaining records of text messages from the Secret Service on the of the assault. In a letter of the subpoena, the chairman of the January 6 committee told the agency's director James Murray to hand over the missing texts. The letter, which is posted on the committee's website, said "The Select Committee seeks the relevant text messages, as well as any after action reports that have been issued in any and all divisions of the USSS pertaining or relating in any way to the events of January 6, 2021." Also read | US Capitol riot: Donald Trump lashes out at House committee, calls Barr 'weak' The committee, which is investigating whether Donald Trump and his close advisors encouraged the deadly insurrection by the former president's supporters, could reach a conclusion with the help of these messages. After pro-Trump rioters called for him to be hanged, former vice president Mike Pence went into hiding at the Capitol. Trump had attempted to force the Secret Service to take him to the Capitol to join his supporters on that day, according to his former aide Cassidy Hutchinson. The phones belonging to secret service agents were wiped as part of a planned replacement programme that began before the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) first asked for the data as per spokesman Anthony Guglielmi. He said in a statement, "The Secret Service notified DHS OIG of the loss of certain phones' data, but confirmed to OIG that none of the texts it was seeking had been lost in the migration." (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION's live TV here: ×

US Secret Service receives subpoenas from House committee investigating January 6 Capitol riot

In the aftermath of the recent mass shootings in both New York and Texas. The US house of representatives has passed a gun control bill with 223 votes. The bill would raise the minimum age for the purchase of certain firearms

U.S House passes new gun control bill

Hostilities between the Republican far right and its typically muted center burst into the open Tuesday, highlighting deep divisions that could bedevil the party’s leaders if they capture a narrow majority in the House in 2022.

Initially prompted by the anti-Muslim comments of Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, the Republican-on-Republican war of words Tuesday was remarkably bitter and an indication of a brewing power struggle between an ascendant faction that styles itself after former President Donald Trump and a quieter one that is pushing back.

First, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called her freshman colleague Nancy Mace of South Carolina “trash” for condemning Boebert’s remarks in a television interview.

Mace then used a series of emojis — a bat, a pile of excrement and a crazy clown — to describe Greene, then kept up a steady stream of social media attacks, calling her a liar, a grifter and a nut.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, came to Mace’s defense, calling Greene “unserious circus barker McSpacelaser” — a reference to a social media post that she once circulated suggesting that wildfires in the West had been started by lasers owned by the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family.

Kinzinger added that Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader and would-be speaker who has done nothing to discipline rank-and-file members of his conference for bigoted and violent statements, “continues his silent streak that would make a monk blush.”

Then Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, an ally of Greene’s, took to Twitter to amplify an attack by right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec denouncing Mace as a “scam artist” for promoting coronavirus vaccinations on CNN.

The carnivallike behavior would amount to little more than a sideshow if it did not have real implications for midterm campaigns and, possibly, a fractured Republican majority in 2023. Party leaders again chose to remain mum as their backbenchers brawled, and Democrats took full advantage of the spectacle.

“The atmosphere is what it has been and what has been created by the Republican Party over the last 50 years, where they have continued to move down the path of divisiveness, of acrimony, of threats and accusations, which have demeaned the politics of America,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader, told reporters.

He again called on Republican leaders to discipline their members, referring to the episode that touched off the hostilities: public comments by Boebert in which she suggested that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a Muslim who wears a hijab, could be a suicide bomber and called her a member of the “jihad squad.”

The House’s three Muslim lawmakers — Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and André Carson of Indiana, all Democrats — suggested that their party was looking at options to sanction Boebert.

“Muslims in this country are proud Americans, hardworking members of our community,” Carson said. “And we are not anyone’s scapegoat.”

These should be heady days for House Republicans. Off-year elections in November showed real disenchantment with Democratic control of the House, Senate and White House. Redistricting in Republican-controlled state legislatures has given the party a running start to win the four or five seats it needs to control the House, and polling suggests that a narrow plurality of Americans would rather have Republicans in control of Congress. Given the party’s structural advantages on redistricting, access to polls and enthusiasm, that suggests a much broader victory would be at hand if the voting were today.

Michael Steel, a former spokesperson for Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, a former Republican speaker, said the party’s leaders should be working behind the scenes to calm dissent and keep members focused on building a platform and an argument for control.

“The top priority right now should be for everyone in the canoe to have their rifles pointing outward, not at each other,” Steel said. “And the focus should be on addition, not subtraction. That means keeping all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, even if some of those frogs are pretty ugly.”

Instead, Republicans are stepping on their own message. On Tuesday, CNN unearthed another video of Boebert from September, when she said she turned to Omar and referred to the “jihad squad,” again insinuating that she could be a suicide bomber.

Omar has said that no such confrontation occurred. During a call initiated by Boebert Monday — ostensibly to offer contrition — the situation only devolved further, as Boebert refused to apologize and instead demanded that Omar publicly ask forgiveness for “anti-American” comments.

Democrats were not the only ones who condemned Boebert’s behavior. Mace, a highly regarded newcomer and the first woman to graduate from the Citadel military college, appeared on CNN to say, “I have time after time condemned my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for racist tropes and remarks that I find disgusting, and this is no different than any others.”

Greene, who like Boebert is a favorite of Trump’s, criticized Mace on social media and on Steve Bannon’s broadcast, “War Room,” and condemned Republican leaders.

“They’re always all over us whenever we say or do anything, but it’s the Nancy Maces that should be called out,” Greene told Bannon. She added that she, not Mace, represented the Republican base, a comment seconded by others on the far right, including Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona.

Rep. Peter Meijer, R-Mich., defended Mace.

“Nancy is a serious legislator who rolls up her sleeves and looks for solutions where they can be found, such as federal cannabis decriminalization, but also digs in and fights when progressives put politics above policy,” Meijer said. “I can’t think of a single credible thing those attacking her have even tried to accomplish.”

Republican leaders were left pointing fingers at their Democratic counterparts, who they said had also taken no action against members who had crossed lines, whether through anti-Israel comments or exhortations to protesters that they said encouraged violence.

Hoyer did say that McCarthy reached out to him to say Boebert wanted to apologize to Omar, an overture that Hoyer said would not end well. He was proved correct.

McCarthy finds himself in a delicate position. He does not know how large a majority his party might win in November, especially since much of the redistricting has focused on shoring up incumbent advantages than creating more competitive races. A sweeping Republican win would allow him to write off the votes of his party’s fringe.

But if Republicans claim a narrow majority, McCarthy would need virtually all of the conference’s votes to claim the speakership, a prize he has sought for nearly a decade. The far right brought down Boehner in 2015, and Republican divisions over the prospects of McCarthy’s speakership sunk his last run for the post weeks later.

A handful of members, including Greene, have been cool to the idea of granting him the gavel should his party claim the majority. 
&nbsp;

Hostilities between the Republican far right and its typically muted center burst into the open Tuesday, highlighting deep divisions that could bedevil the party’s leaders if they capture a narrow majority in the House in 2022.

Hostilities between the Republican far right and its typically muted center burst into the open Tuesday, highlighting deep divisions that could bedevil the party’s leaders if they capture a narrow majority in the House in 2022. Initially prompted by the anti-Muslim comments of Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, the Republican-on-Republican war of words Tuesday was remarkably bitter and an indication of a brewing power struggle between an ascendant faction that styles itself after former President Donald Trump and a quieter one that is pushing back. First, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called her freshman colleague Nancy Mace of South Carolina “trash” for condemning Boebert’s remarks in a television interview. Mace then used a series of emojis — a bat, a pile of excrement and a crazy clown — to describe Greene, then kept up a steady stream of social media attacks, calling her a liar, a grifter and a nut. Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, came to Mace’s defense, calling Greene “unserious circus barker McSpacelaser” — a reference to a social media post that she once circulated suggesting that wildfires in the West had been started by lasers owned by the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family. Kinzinger added that Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader and would-be speaker who has done nothing to discipline rank-and-file members of his conference for bigoted and violent statements, “continues his silent streak that would make a monk blush.” Then Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, an ally of Greene’s, took to Twitter to amplify an attack by right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec denouncing Mace as a “scam artist” for promoting coronavirus vaccinations on CNN. The carnivallike behavior would amount to little more than a sideshow if it did not have real implications for midterm campaigns and, possibly, a fractured Republican majority in 2023. Party leaders again chose to remain mum as their backbenchers brawled, and Democrats took full advantage of the spectacle. “The atmosphere is what it has been and what has been created by the Republican Party over the last 50 years, where they have continued to move down the path of divisiveness, of acrimony, of threats and accusations, which have demeaned the politics of America,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader, told reporters. He again called on Republican leaders to discipline their members, referring to the episode that touched off the hostilities: public comments by Boebert in which she suggested that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a Muslim who wears a hijab, could be a suicide bomber and called her a member of the “jihad squad.” The House’s three Muslim lawmakers — Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and André Carson of Indiana, all Democrats — suggested that their party was looking at options to sanction Boebert. “Muslims in this country are proud Americans, hardworking members of our community,” Carson said. “And we are not anyone’s scapegoat.” These should be heady days for House Republicans. Off-year elections in November showed real disenchantment with Democratic control of the House, Senate and White House. Redistricting in Republican-controlled state legislatures has given the party a running start to win the four or five seats it needs to control the House, and polling suggests that a narrow plurality of Americans would rather have Republicans in control of Congress. Given the party’s structural advantages on redistricting, access to polls and enthusiasm, that suggests a much broader victory would be at hand if the voting were today. Michael Steel, a former spokesperson for Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, a former Republican speaker, said the party’s leaders should be working behind the scenes to calm dissent and keep members focused on building a platform and an argument for control. “The top priority right now should be for everyone in the canoe to have their rifles pointing outward, not at each other,” Steel said. “And the focus should be on addition, not subtraction. That means keeping all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, even if some of those frogs are pretty ugly.” Instead, Republicans are stepping on their own message. On Tuesday, CNN unearthed another video of Boebert from September, when she said she turned to Omar and referred to the “jihad squad,” again insinuating that she could be a suicide bomber. Omar has said that no such confrontation occurred. During a call initiated by Boebert Monday — ostensibly to offer contrition — the situation only devolved further, as Boebert refused to apologize and instead demanded that Omar publicly ask forgiveness for “anti-American” comments. Democrats were not the only ones who condemned Boebert’s behavior. Mace, a highly regarded newcomer and the first woman to graduate from the Citadel military college, appeared on CNN to say, “I have time after time condemned my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for racist tropes and remarks that I find disgusting, and this is no different than any others.” Greene, who like Boebert is a favorite of Trump’s, criticized Mace on social media and on Steve Bannon’s broadcast, “War Room,” and condemned Republican leaders. “They’re always all over us whenever we say or do anything, but it’s the Nancy Maces that should be called out,” Greene told Bannon. She added that she, not Mace, represented the Republican base, a comment seconded by others on the far right, including Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona. Rep. Peter Meijer, R-Mich., defended Mace. “Nancy is a serious legislator who rolls up her sleeves and looks for solutions where they can be found, such as federal cannabis decriminalization, but also digs in and fights when progressives put politics above policy,” Meijer said. “I can’t think of a single credible thing those attacking her have even tried to accomplish.” Republican leaders were left pointing fingers at their Democratic counterparts, who they said had also taken no action against members who had crossed lines, whether through anti-Israel comments or exhortations to protesters that they said encouraged violence. Hoyer did say that McCarthy reached out to him to say Boebert wanted to apologize to Omar, an overture that Hoyer said would not end well. He was proved correct. McCarthy finds himself in a delicate position. He does not know how large a majority his party might win in November, especially since much of the redistricting has focused on shoring up incumbent advantages than creating more competitive races. A sweeping Republican win would allow him to write off the votes of his party’s fringe. But if Republicans claim a narrow majority, McCarthy would need virtually all of the conference’s votes to claim the speakership, a prize he has sought for nearly a decade. The far right brought down Boehner in 2015, and Republican divisions over the prospects of McCarthy’s speakership sunk his last run for the post weeks later. A handful of members, including Greene, have been cool to the idea of granting him the gavel should his party claim the majority.

Republican recriminations point to a rocky path to a House majority

For the first time in over a decade, the US House of Representatives have censured a member on Wednesday. &nbsp;

The House criticised the Republican lawmaker over an anime video. In the clip, Representative Paul Gosar was depicted killing progressive Democrat Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and swinging two swords at US President Joe Biden. &nbsp;

In the Democratic-controlled House, Gosar was called to the stand in the well of the chamber to hear his censure. He was also stripped of two committee assignments after the 223-207 largely party-line vote.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/days-after-promising-to-fight-climate-change-us-auctions-off-oil-and-gas-drilling-lease-in-gulf-of-mexico-430125" hreflang="en">Days after promising to fight climate change, US auctions off oil and gas drilling lease in Gulf of Mexico</a>&nbsp;

This move got only two votes of support from Republicans. The party largely decried the action by the Democrats as partisan politics.&nbsp;This month, Gosar had posted the anime video. &nbsp;&nbsp;

In debate before the vote, Ocasio-Cortez asked, "What is so hard about saying this is wrong? Will we live up to the promises that we make our children, that this is a place where we will defend one another regardless of belief, that our core human dignity matters?" &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-will-soon-be-capable-of-launching-a-surprise-nuke-attack-on-us-warns-top-military-official-430166" hreflang="en">China will soon be capable of launching a surprise nuke attack on US, warns top military official</a>

Gosar, who is a staunch Trump ally and hardline conservative, rejected the accusations that the video was "dangerous or threatening." &nbsp;

"There is no threat in the cartoon other than the threat that immigration poses to our country," Gosar said, while adding that he did not also advocate violence towards anyone. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

For the first time in over a decade, the US House of Representatives have censured a member on Wednesday. The House criticised the Republican lawmaker over an anime video.

For the first time in over a decade, the US House of Representatives have censured a member on Wednesday. The House criticised the Republican lawmaker over an anime video. In the clip, Representative Paul Gosar was depicted killing progressive Democrat Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and swinging two swords at US President Joe Biden. In the Democratic-controlled House, Gosar was called to the stand in the well of the chamber to hear his censure. He was also stripped of two committee assignments after the 223-207 largely party-line vote. Also Read: Days after promising to fight climate change, US auctions off oil and gas drilling lease in Gulf of Mexico This move got only two votes of support from Republicans. The party largely decried the action by the Democrats as partisan politics. This month, Gosar had posted the anime video. In debate before the vote, Ocasio-Cortez asked, "What is so hard about saying this is wrong? Will we live up to the promises that we make our children, that this is a place where we will defend one another regardless of belief, that our core human dignity matters?" Also Read: China will soon be capable of launching a surprise nuke attack on US, warns top military official Gosar, who is a staunch Trump ally and hardline conservative, rejected the accusations that the video was "dangerous or threatening." "There is no threat in the cartoon other than the threat that immigration poses to our country," Gosar said, while adding that he did not also advocate violence towards anyone. (With inputs from agencies)

US House censures Republican Paul Gosar for posting violent anime video of killing Democrat

US president Joe Biden's domestic agenda hangs in the balance. Biden's 'build, back, better' and infrastructure bills are put into votes in the US house of representatives shortly.

US House to vote on Joe Biden's 'Build, Back, Better'; vote on infrastructure, spending bills

House Democrats are scrambling to line up the votes needed to push through a $1.85 trillion social safety net, climate and tax bill, as moderate Democrats, spooked by Tuesday’s electoral drubbing, have raised concerns about the cost and details of the rapidly evolving plan.

Late Thursday night, Democratic leaders postponed a vote on the measure to Friday, when they also hoped to clear a Senate-passed $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill for President Joe Biden’s signature. A senior aide who disclosed the update on the condition of anonymity said they were confident they could complete the measures by Friday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had previously privately told her top deputies that she had hoped to hold a vote on the social policy bill Thursday night, with the vote on the infrastructure measure Friday morning, according to two people briefed on the discussions.

With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could afford to lose as few as three votes from their side. Among the biggest issues were the cost and economic effects of the social safety net bill.

A few centrists were also balking at supporting the package — which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, a four-week paid family and medical leave program, health care subsidies and a broad array of climate change initiatives — before evaluating the fiscal impact of the latest, hastily assembled 2,135-page version of the legislation.

“There is certainly a lack of trust among some of the moderates,” Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Democrat from South Texas, told reporters. “I want to move the ball forward. But I mean, I still want to know, what are the differences?”

Biden made personal calls Thursday, as did Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary, who reached out to at least one Democrat facing a tough reelection.

Yet final sticking points continued to crop up throughout the day. Working to appease Democrats who wanted the bill to grant a pathway to citizenship for millions of people living in the country illegally, leaders included a compromise proposal to instead give them work permits and protection from deportation, a status that would eventually allow the immigrants access to some federal benefits.

But some Democrats in swing districts, worried about their party’s deteriorating political fortunes, resisted allowing them access to any benefits, worried that it might be used by Republicans as an election cudgel.

House Democrats are scrambling to line up the votes needed to push through a $1.85 trillion social safety net, climate and tax bill, as moderate Democrats, spooked by Tuesday’s electoral drubbing, have raised concerns about the cost and details of the rapidly evolving plan.

House Democrats are scrambling to line up the votes needed to push through a $1.85 trillion social safety net, climate and tax bill, as moderate Democrats, spooked by Tuesday’s electoral drubbing, have raised concerns about the cost and details of the rapidly evolving plan. Late Thursday night, Democratic leaders postponed a vote on the measure to Friday, when they also hoped to clear a Senate-passed $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill for President Joe Biden’s signature. A senior aide who disclosed the update on the condition of anonymity said they were confident they could complete the measures by Friday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had previously privately told her top deputies that she had hoped to hold a vote on the social policy bill Thursday night, with the vote on the infrastructure measure Friday morning, according to two people briefed on the discussions. With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could afford to lose as few as three votes from their side. Among the biggest issues were the cost and economic effects of the social safety net bill. A few centrists were also balking at supporting the package — which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, a four-week paid family and medical leave program, health care subsidies and a broad array of climate change initiatives — before evaluating the fiscal impact of the latest, hastily assembled 2,135-page version of the legislation. “There is certainly a lack of trust among some of the moderates,” Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Democrat from South Texas, told reporters. “I want to move the ball forward. But I mean, I still want to know, what are the differences?” Biden made personal calls Thursday, as did Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary, who reached out to at least one Democrat facing a tough reelection. Yet final sticking points continued to crop up throughout the day. Working to appease Democrats who wanted the bill to grant a pathway to citizenship for millions of people living in the country illegally, leaders included a compromise proposal to instead give them work permits and protection from deportation, a status that would eventually allow the immigrants access to some federal benefits. But some Democrats in swing districts, worried about their party’s deteriorating political fortunes, resisted allowing them access to any benefits, worried that it might be used by Republicans as an election cudgel.

House Democrats hunt for votes to pass Biden's domestic agenda

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

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

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

Biden scales back his agenda in hopes of bringing moderates onboard

US lawmakers on Thursday gave a go-ahead to USD 1 billion funding to resupply Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system. The funding was passed separately after provision for it was removed from another bill that addressed a possible government shutdown.

The funding was passed by House of Representatives by a comfortable 420-9

"Passage of this bill reflects the great unity in Congress... for Israel's security," Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats, said in a speech on the chamber floor.&nbsp;

"Assistance to Israel is vital, because Israel's security is an imperative for America's security."&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-huddles-with-democrats-as-divisions-threaten-his-agenda-415220">Biden huddles with Democrats as divisions threaten his agenda</a>

Iron Dome missile defense system has till now destroyed thousands of short-range rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza before they struck populated areas of Israel. The system was launched a decade ago and has been backed by the US.

Provision for fresh funding was initially removed from the legislation addressing government shutdown after section of Democratic Party lawmakers threatened to oppose the legislation unless Iron Dome funding was removed from the wording

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/harvard-poll-reveals-donald-trump-has-higher-positive-rating-than-biden-415194">Harvard poll reveals Donald Trump has higher positive rating than Biden</a>

This elicited disapproving remarks from several lawmakers from both parties.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy termed it a Democratic capitulation to "the anti-Semitic influence of their radical members."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-crack-down-on-potent-class-of-greenhouse-gases-415169">US to crack down on potent class of greenhouse gases</a>

Dean Phillips, a Democratic congressman from Minnesota, tweeted he was "incredulous" that colleagues would object to defending "one of our most important allies and only Jewish nation in the world" from Hamas rockets.

Israel's Prime Minister Naftali Bennett thanked both parties for their commitment to the country's security and the American people for their "steadfast friendship."

(With inputs from agencies)

US lawmakers on Thursday gave a go-ahead to USD 1 billion funding to resupply Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system. The funding was passed separately after provision for it was removed from another bill that addressed a possible government shutdown.

US lawmakers on Thursday gave a go-ahead to USD 1 billion funding to resupply Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system. The funding was passed separately after provision for it was removed from another bill that addressed a possible government shutdown. The funding was passed by House of Representatives by a comfortable 420-9 "Passage of this bill reflects the great unity in Congress... for Israel's security," Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats, said in a speech on the chamber floor. "Assistance to Israel is vital, because Israel's security is an imperative for America's security." Also Read | Biden huddles with Democrats as divisions threaten his agenda Iron Dome missile defense system has till now destroyed thousands of short-range rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza before they struck populated areas of Israel. The system was launched a decade ago and has been backed by the US. Provision for fresh funding was initially removed from the legislation addressing government shutdown after section of Democratic Party lawmakers threatened to oppose the legislation unless Iron Dome funding was removed from the wording Also Read | Harvard poll reveals Donald Trump has higher positive rating than Biden This elicited disapproving remarks from several lawmakers from both parties. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy termed it a Democratic capitulation to "the anti-Semitic influence of their radical members." Also Read | US to crack down on potent class of greenhouse gases Dean Phillips, a Democratic congressman from Minnesota, tweeted he was "incredulous" that colleagues would object to defending "one of our most important allies and only Jewish nation in the world" from Hamas rockets. Israel's Prime Minister Naftali Bennett thanked both parties for their commitment to the country's security and the American people for their "steadfast friendship." (With inputs from agencies)

US House greenlights $1 billion for Israel's Iron Dome

House Democrats on Monday presented a plan to pay for their expansive social policy and climate change package by raising taxes by more than $2 trillion, largely on wealthy individuals and profitable corporations.

But the proposal, while substantial in scope, stopped well short of changes needed to dent the vast fortunes of tycoons like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, or to thoroughly close the most egregious loopholes exploited by high flying captains of finance. It aimed to go after the merely rich more than the fabulously rich.

Facing the delicate politics of a narrowly divided Congress, senior House Democrats opted to be more mindful of moderate concerns in their party than of its progressive ambitions. They focused on traditional ways of raising revenue: by raising tax rates on income rather than targeting wealth itself.

Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., who is on the Ways and Means Committee, which crafted the plan, called it “the boldest common denominator.”

“Being for something doesn’t make it law; 218 votes in the House, 50 votes in the Senate and the president’s signature make it law,” he said, adding, “What I don’t want is another noble defeat.”

The proposal includes nearly $2.1 trillion in increased tax revenues, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated on Monday. Democrats say those increases will go a long way to funding President Joe Biden’s ambitions to expand the federal government’s role in education, health care, climate change, paid leave and more.

But the bill dispenses with measures floated by the White House and Senate Democrats to tax wealth or to close off avenues that the super-rich have exploited to pass on a lifetime of gains to their heirs tax-free.

“It would be a monumental mistake for Congress to pass a bill that really exempts billionaires,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee.

Key Democrats cautioned Monday that the House proposal was likely to change — perhaps considerably — as Biden’s economic agenda wends its way through the House and Senate, where Democrats hold slim majorities and must hold nearly every member of their ideologically diverse caucus together. But White House officials welcomed the Ways and Means plan and said it took important steps toward the president’s vision of a tax code that rewards ordinary workers at the expense of the very rich.

The proposal includes substantial measures to raise taxes on the rich. Taxable income over $450,000 — or $400,000 for unmarried individuals — would be taxed at 39.6%, the top rate before President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut brought it to 37%. The top capital gains rate would rise to 25% from 20%, considerably less than a White House proposal that would have taxed investment gains as income for the richest, at 39.6%.

Under the committee’s plan, a 3% surtax would be applied to incomes over $5 million. The value of estates shielded from estate taxation, which doubled to $24 million for married couples under the Republican tax cuts of 2017, would go back to $12 million at the end of this year, four years earlier than the scheduled expiration.

The proposal would also raise taxes in a variety of ways on businesses called pass-through entities — like many law firms and financial companies — that distribute profits to their owners, who then pay individual income taxes on them. Those changes, including the extension of an existing 3.8% surtax to include pass-through income, would raise taxes primarily on high earners, generating several hundred billion dollars in revenues, by Democratic estimates.

The joint committee estimated Monday that the changes would raise about $1 trillion from high-income individuals.

Republicans balked at the proposal. Business lobbying groups rejected the package, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce slamming it as “an existential threat to America’s fragile economic recovery and future prosperity.”

“President Biden, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are ramming through trillions of wasteful spending and crippling tax hikes that will drive prices up even higher, kill millions of American jobs and drive them overseas, and usher in a new era of government dependency with the greatest expansion of the welfare state in our lifetimes,” Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the committee’s ranking Republican, said of the plan.

But what is not included is notable. The richest of the rich earn little from actual paychecks (Bezos’ salary as the founder of Amazon was $81,840 in 2020), so a surtax on income would have little impact. Their vast fortunes in stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets grow largely untaxed each year.

“The proposal is extremely modest in the area of structural change,” said Eric Toder, a co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. “Mostly, it is about raising rates on existing tax bases.”

In the Senate, Democrats are taking aim directly at accumulated wealth. The Finance Committee has proposed a one-time surtax on billionaires’ fortunes, followed by annual levies on the gains in value of billionaires’ assets, similar to the way property taxes are adjusted each year to reflect gains in housing values.

Biden’s expansive tax proposals, during his campaign and as president, did not include a wealth tax. But he and top senators had called for a variety of measures to more heavily tax inherited wealth and the investments of very high earners.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., who is on the Ways and Means Committee, conceded Monday that large swaths of wealth in the country were tied up in assets, not large salaries. But he said many Democrats were leery of going too far.

“I am very suspect of a wealth tax,” he said. “I think it’s perceived as ‘soak the rich.’ I don’t think it is, but that’s how it’s perceived.”

The committee did take aim at a loophole in retirement savings exploited by billionaire Peter Thiel, who, according to a ProPublica investigation, was able to take a Roth individual retirement account worth less than $2,000 in 1999 and grow it to $5 billion, which could be completely shielded from taxation.

To prevent such exploitation, the Ways and Means Committee would stop contributions to retirement accounts once they reach $10 million.

In other areas, the committee appears to be making only glancing blows at the wealthiest Americans. Former President Barack Obama, Trump and Biden have all vowed to close the so-called carried interest loophole, in which private equity managers pay low capital gains taxes on the fees they charge clients, asserting that the money is not income because it is drawn from their clients’ investment gains.

Senate Democrats have proposed closing the loophole completely, saving Treasury $63 billion over 10 years. The House proposal would merely limit the practice, forcing Wall Street financiers to hold their clients’ investment gains for five years before claiming them as capital gains and cashing out. It would save $14 billion, a fraction of the Senate proposal.

Another item missing from the House plan: a measure to tax inheritances more aggressively. Biden and many other Democrats want assets such as stocks and real estate to be taxed when they are inherited by wealthy heirs, based on the gain in value from the time the original owner purchased them. Under current law, such assets face capital gains taxation only when they are sold, according to their worth when they were inherited, allowing all the gain in value over the lifetimes of the superwealthy to go untaxed as long as they are passed on to heirs.

But the new proposal faced a fierce lobbying campaign, led by rural Democrats like former Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana. Rep. Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, left it out.

To some liberals, Neal’s pragmatism felt more like surrender.

“America’s billionaires are popping Champagne tonight as the House Ways and Means Committee — led by Chair Richie Neal — fails the president, fails the country and fails history,” said Erica Payne, the president of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy liberals that embraces much higher taxes on the rich.

Some Democrats expressed surprise Monday at Neal’s political calculations.

“A wealth tax? I don’t know anyone who says that’s not working for them politically,” said Rep. Donald Beyer Jr., D-Va., a member of the committee.

But with Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., suggesting that the final package might have to be half the size of the House plan, Beyer said he understood why Democratic leaders did not want to make vulnerable lawmakers embrace the most aggressive options.

“People will be saying, ‘You raised our taxes by $2.9 trillion,’” Beyer said. “Pelosi and leadership do not want to put a lot of threatened members on anything that’s just going to die in the Senate.”

White House officials on Monday welcomed the House plan, while acknowledging that it was far from a final product.

“We see it as a first step,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary.

House Democrats on Monday presented a plan to pay for their expansive social policy and climate change package by raising taxes by more than $2 trillion, largely on wealthy individuals and profitable corporations.

House Democrats on Monday presented a plan to pay for their expansive social policy and climate change package by raising taxes by more than $2 trillion, largely on wealthy individuals and profitable corporations. But the proposal, while substantial in scope, stopped well short of changes needed to dent the vast fortunes of tycoons like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, or to thoroughly close the most egregious loopholes exploited by high flying captains of finance. It aimed to go after the merely rich more than the fabulously rich. Facing the delicate politics of a narrowly divided Congress, senior House Democrats opted to be more mindful of moderate concerns in their party than of its progressive ambitions. They focused on traditional ways of raising revenue: by raising tax rates on income rather than targeting wealth itself. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., who is on the Ways and Means Committee, which crafted the plan, called it “the boldest common denominator.” “Being for something doesn’t make it law; 218 votes in the House, 50 votes in the Senate and the president’s signature make it law,” he said, adding, “What I don’t want is another noble defeat.” The proposal includes nearly $2.1 trillion in increased tax revenues, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated on Monday. Democrats say those increases will go a long way to funding President Joe Biden’s ambitions to expand the federal government’s role in education, health care, climate change, paid leave and more. But the bill dispenses with measures floated by the White House and Senate Democrats to tax wealth or to close off avenues that the super-rich have exploited to pass on a lifetime of gains to their heirs tax-free. “It would be a monumental mistake for Congress to pass a bill that really exempts billionaires,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee. Key Democrats cautioned Monday that the House proposal was likely to change — perhaps considerably — as Biden’s economic agenda wends its way through the House and Senate, where Democrats hold slim majorities and must hold nearly every member of their ideologically diverse caucus together. But White House officials welcomed the Ways and Means plan and said it took important steps toward the president’s vision of a tax code that rewards ordinary workers at the expense of the very rich. The proposal includes substantial measures to raise taxes on the rich. Taxable income over $450,000 — or $400,000 for unmarried individuals — would be taxed at 39.6%, the top rate before President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut brought it to 37%. The top capital gains rate would rise to 25% from 20%, considerably less than a White House proposal that would have taxed investment gains as income for the richest, at 39.6%. Under the committee’s plan, a 3% surtax would be applied to incomes over $5 million. The value of estates shielded from estate taxation, which doubled to $24 million for married couples under the Republican tax cuts of 2017, would go back to $12 million at the end of this year, four years earlier than the scheduled expiration. The proposal would also raise taxes in a variety of ways on businesses called pass-through entities — like many law firms and financial companies — that distribute profits to their owners, who then pay individual income taxes on them. Those changes, including the extension of an existing 3.8% surtax to include pass-through income, would raise taxes primarily on high earners, generating several hundred billion dollars in revenues, by Democratic estimates. The joint committee estimated Monday that the changes would raise about $1 trillion from high-income individuals. Republicans balked at the proposal. Business lobbying groups rejected the package, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce slamming it as “an existential threat to America’s fragile economic recovery and future prosperity.” “President Biden, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are ramming through trillions of wasteful spending and crippling tax hikes that will drive prices up even higher, kill millions of American jobs and drive them overseas, and usher in a new era of government dependency with the greatest expansion of the welfare state in our lifetimes,” Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the committee’s ranking Republican, said of the plan. But what is not included is notable. The richest of the rich earn little from actual paychecks (Bezos’ salary as the founder of Amazon was $81,840 in 2020), so a surtax on income would have little impact. Their vast fortunes in stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets grow largely untaxed each year. “The proposal is extremely modest in the area of structural change,” said Eric Toder, a co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. “Mostly, it is about raising rates on existing tax bases.” In the Senate, Democrats are taking aim directly at accumulated wealth. The Finance Committee has proposed a one-time surtax on billionaires’ fortunes, followed by annual levies on the gains in value of billionaires’ assets, similar to the way property taxes are adjusted each year to reflect gains in housing values. Biden’s expansive tax proposals, during his campaign and as president, did not include a wealth tax. But he and top senators had called for a variety of measures to more heavily tax inherited wealth and the investments of very high earners. Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., who is on the Ways and Means Committee, conceded Monday that large swaths of wealth in the country were tied up in assets, not large salaries. But he said many Democrats were leery of going too far. “I am very suspect of a wealth tax,” he said. “I think it’s perceived as ‘soak the rich.’ I don’t think it is, but that’s how it’s perceived.” The committee did take aim at a loophole in retirement savings exploited by billionaire Peter Thiel, who, according to a ProPublica investigation, was able to take a Roth individual retirement account worth less than $2,000 in 1999 and grow it to $5 billion, which could be completely shielded from taxation. To prevent such exploitation, the Ways and Means Committee would stop contributions to retirement accounts once they reach $10 million. In other areas, the committee appears to be making only glancing blows at the wealthiest Americans. Former President Barack Obama, Trump and Biden have all vowed to close the so-called carried interest loophole, in which private equity managers pay low capital gains taxes on the fees they charge clients, asserting that the money is not income because it is drawn from their clients’ investment gains. Senate Democrats have proposed closing the loophole completely, saving Treasury $63 billion over 10 years. The House proposal would merely limit the practice, forcing Wall Street financiers to hold their clients’ investment gains for five years before claiming them as capital gains and cashing out. It would save $14 billion, a fraction of the Senate proposal. Another item missing from the House plan: a measure to tax inheritances more aggressively. Biden and many other Democrats want assets such as stocks and real estate to be taxed when they are inherited by wealthy heirs, based on the gain in value from the time the original owner purchased them. Under current law, such assets face capital gains taxation only when they are sold, according to their worth when they were inherited, allowing all the gain in value over the lifetimes of the superwealthy to go untaxed as long as they are passed on to heirs. But the new proposal faced a fierce lobbying campaign, led by rural Democrats like former Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana. Rep. Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, left it out. To some liberals, Neal’s pragmatism felt more like surrender. “America’s billionaires are popping Champagne tonight as the House Ways and Means Committee — led by Chair Richie Neal — fails the president, fails the country and fails history,” said Erica Payne, the president of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy liberals that embraces much higher taxes on the rich. Some Democrats expressed surprise Monday at Neal’s political calculations. “A wealth tax? I don’t know anyone who says that’s not working for them politically,” said Rep. Donald Beyer Jr., D-Va., a member of the committee. But with Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., suggesting that the final package might have to be half the size of the House plan, Beyer said he understood why Democratic leaders did not want to make vulnerable lawmakers embrace the most aggressive options. “People will be saying, ‘You raised our taxes by $2.9 trillion,’” Beyer said. “Pelosi and leadership do not want to put a lot of threatened members on anything that’s just going to die in the Senate.” White House officials on Monday welcomed the House plan, while acknowledging that it was far from a final product. “We see it as a first step,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary.

House Democrats’ plan to tax the rich leaves vast fortunes unscathed

Former US&nbsp;President Donald Trump pressured the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, according to internal documents released by the chair of the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee on Friday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: <a href="https://twitter.com/OversightDems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@OversightDems</a> released notes taken by then-Acting Deputy AG Donoghue of a 12/27/20 call with Pres. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a> &amp; former Acting AG Rosen, revealing attempts by Trump to pressure the 2 most senior officials at the DOJ to help overturn the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2020election?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2020election</a> or risk losing their jobs.
— Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) <a href="https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/1421131296462544902?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The department ultimately did not join the effort and numerous courts rejected lawsuits seeking to overturn election results in various states.

The handwritten notes, taken by then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, paint a damning picture of Trump as he desperately sought to get the Justice Department to take the unprecedented step of intervening in the 2020 presidential election, which he lost.

The notes of the December&nbsp;27 call, released Friday by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee, underscore the lengths to which Trump went to overturn the results of the election and to elicit the support of law enforcement officials and other government leaders in that effort.

"Don't expect you to do that," Trump replied. "Just say that the election was corrupt and&nbsp;leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen," in a reference to Republicans.

The documents also show then-White House&nbsp;Chief of Staff Mark Meadows&nbsp;asking&nbsp;Justice Department officials to investigate an unfounded conspiracy theory called "Italygate" alleging that US&nbsp;electoral data was changed in Italian facilities with the knowledge of the CIA.

The fact that the Justice Department allowed the handwritten notes to be turned over the congressional investigators marks a dramatic shift from the Trump administration, which repeatedly invoked executive privilege as a means of skirting congressional scrutiny.

(With inputs from agencies)

Former US President Donald Trump pressured the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, according to internal documents released by the chair of the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee on Friday.

Former US President Donald Trump pressured the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, according to internal documents released by the chair of the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee on Friday. NEW: @OversightDems released notes taken by then-Acting Deputy AG Donoghue of a 12/27/20 call with Pres. #Trump & former Acting AG Rosen, revealing attempts by Trump to pressure the 2 most senior officials at the DOJ to help overturn the #2020election or risk losing their jobs. — Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) July 30, 2021 × The department ultimately did not join the effort and numerous courts rejected lawsuits seeking to overturn election results in various states. The handwritten notes, taken by then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, paint a damning picture of Trump as he desperately sought to get the Justice Department to take the unprecedented step of intervening in the 2020 presidential election, which he lost. The notes of the December 27 call, released Friday by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee, underscore the lengths to which Trump went to overturn the results of the election and to elicit the support of law enforcement officials and other government leaders in that effort. "Don't expect you to do that," Trump replied. "Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen," in a reference to Republicans. The documents also show then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asking Justice Department officials to investigate an unfounded conspiracy theory called "Italygate" alleging that US electoral data was changed in Italian facilities with the knowledge of the CIA. The fact that the Justice Department allowed the handwritten notes to be turned over the congressional investigators marks a dramatic shift from the Trump administration, which repeatedly invoked executive privilege as a means of skirting congressional scrutiny. (With inputs from agencies)

Former US President Donald Trump urged Justice officials to declare election 'corrupt'

When the House revamped its rules in the early days of the pandemic to allow lawmakers to vote remotely, 161 Republicans sued to block the arrangement, arguing that it “subverts” the Constitution.

But those objections were a distant memory by late June, when several Republicans skipped town during a legislative workweek to rally at the southwestern border with Donald Trump. While they glad-handed with the former president, the lawmakers certified they were “unable to physically attend proceedings in the House chamber” because of the coronavirus and designated colleagues in Washington to cast proxy votes.

The arrangement might have attracted more notice had it not become so widespread since the House adopted rules last spring to allow members, for the first time, to cast votes without being physically present in the chamber. Once billed as a temporary crisis measure to keep Congress running and lawmakers protected as a deadly pandemic ripped across the country, the proxy voting system has become a tool of personal and political convenience for many House members.

Perhaps no one has benefited more from the arrangement than Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Proxy voting has allowed Pelosi, whose majority is slim, to all but ensure that absences alone do not cost her pivotal support.

With the current rules in need of reauthorization in August, senior Democrats are among those pushing for a fuller debate — both over when to end the emergency powers in place and whether the House ought to take a cue from other American institutions and use the pandemic as an impetus for more lasting change.

Nearly 3 in 4 House Democrats have voted remotely at least once under the current rules, according to an analysis by CNN. Republican use has been less widespread, but dozens of party members have also voted by proxy.

But Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the minority leader, and other top Republicans have taken a hard line against the practice. They have vowed to immediately do away with proxy voting should they win back the majority in 2022.

McCarthy’s stance is likely to make it harder to reach the bipartisan consensus that would be needed to make any changes truly lasting. Republicans’ lawsuit to strike down proxy voting as unconstitutional is still slowly winding its way though the courts.

When the House revamped its rules in the early days of the pandemic to allow lawmakers to vote remotely, 161 Republicans sued to block the arrangement, arguing that it “subverts” the Constitution.

When the House revamped its rules in the early days of the pandemic to allow lawmakers to vote remotely, 161 Republicans sued to block the arrangement, arguing that it “subverts” the Constitution. But those objections were a distant memory by late June, when several Republicans skipped town during a legislative workweek to rally at the southwestern border with Donald Trump. While they glad-handed with the former president, the lawmakers certified they were “unable to physically attend proceedings in the House chamber” because of the coronavirus and designated colleagues in Washington to cast proxy votes. The arrangement might have attracted more notice had it not become so widespread since the House adopted rules last spring to allow members, for the first time, to cast votes without being physically present in the chamber. Once billed as a temporary crisis measure to keep Congress running and lawmakers protected as a deadly pandemic ripped across the country, the proxy voting system has become a tool of personal and political convenience for many House members. Perhaps no one has benefited more from the arrangement than Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Proxy voting has allowed Pelosi, whose majority is slim, to all but ensure that absences alone do not cost her pivotal support. With the current rules in need of reauthorization in August, senior Democrats are among those pushing for a fuller debate — both over when to end the emergency powers in place and whether the House ought to take a cue from other American institutions and use the pandemic as an impetus for more lasting change. Nearly 3 in 4 House Democrats have voted remotely at least once under the current rules, according to an analysis by CNN. Republican use has been less widespread, but dozens of party members have also voted by proxy. But Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the minority leader, and other top Republicans have taken a hard line against the practice. They have vowed to immediately do away with proxy voting should they win back the majority in 2022. McCarthy’s stance is likely to make it harder to reach the bipartisan consensus that would be needed to make any changes truly lasting. Republicans’ lawsuit to strike down proxy voting as unconstitutional is still slowly winding its way though the courts.

Born of a crisis, remote voting in Congress has become a useful perk

The panel will be a 10-member commission that was approved with a vote of 252 to 175 in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

US House appoints 10-member commission on Capitol riots

US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that limits the ability of a US president to impose travel ban on the basis of religion. The bill is informally known as the No Ban Act. It has come as a response to former US President Donald Trump's decision to bar travel from several Muslim-majority countries.

It was passed in US House of Representatives by a 218-208 vote. In order to become a law, the bill must pass in US Senate.

Passage of the bill has invited praise from the right groups.

Donald Trump had issued the ban shortly after assuming presidency in 2017. Most people from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, as well as from North Korea and Venezuela were barred from travelling to US.

The ban was considered discriminatory and punitive. Joe Biden had struck down these provisions as soon as he became president earlier this year.

US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that limits the ability of a US president to impose travel ban on the basis of religion. The bill is informally known as the No Ban Act.

US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that limits the ability of a US president to impose travel ban on the basis of religion. The bill is informally known as the No Ban Act. It has come as a response to former US President Donald Trump's decision to bar travel from several Muslim-majority countries. It was passed in US House of Representatives by a 218-208 vote. In order to become a law, the bill must pass in US Senate. Passage of the bill has invited praise from the right groups. Donald Trump had issued the ban shortly after assuming presidency in 2017. Most people from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, as well as from North Korea and Venezuela were barred from travelling to US. The ban was considered discriminatory and punitive. Joe Biden had struck down these provisions as soon as he became president earlier this year.

US House passes bill limiting president's power to bar travel based on religion

The US House of Representatives has passed two immigration bills that would provide legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants.

The House on Thursday voted to open a gateway to citizenship for young Dreamers and immigrants who have fled war or natural disasters abroad, giving Democrats a win in the year's first vote on an issue.

US lawmakers on Thursday approved one bill offering legal status to around two million Dreamers, brought to the US illegally as children, and hundreds of thousands of other migrants from a dozen troubled countries on a 228-197 vote.

The other formalises the legal status of migrant farmworkers -- who the White House notes are "living in the shadows and vulnerable to exploitation" -- and offers them an opportunity to earn citizenship.

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act would permit farmworkers&nbsp;and their families to remain in the country, and in many cases become US citizens, through continued employment in agriculture.

It passed by 247 to 174, an even stronger bipartisan margin.

Democrats said their bills were aimed not at border security but at addressing groups of immigrants who deserve to be helped.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-signals-hes-flexible-on-immigration-overhaul-364503">Also read |&nbsp;Biden signals he’s flexible on immigration overhaul</a>

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that Biden supports both bills as "critical milestones toward much needed relief for the millions of individuals who call the United States home."

The Dreamer bill would grant conditional legal status for 10 years to many immigrants up to age 18 who were brought into the US illegally before this year. They would have to graduate from high school or have equivalent educational credentials, not have serious criminal records and meet other conditions.

To attain legal permanent residence, often called a green card, they'd have to obtain a higher education degree, serve in the military or be employed for at least three years. Like all others with green cards, they could then apply for citizenship after five years.

The measure would also grant green cards to an estimated 400,000 immigrants with temporary protected status, which allows temporary residence to people who have fled violence or natural disasters in a dozen countries.

The other bill would let immigrant farm workers who've worked in the country illegally over the past two years -- along their spouses and children -- get certified agriculture worker status. That would let them remain in the US for renewable 5 1/2-year periods.

The legislation's success in the Senate, which is comprised of 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, is in question.&nbsp;

Any immigration bill would need the support of at least 10 Republicans to overcome minority blocking tactics.

Striking a Senate deal on the complex issue looked unlikely, for now, especially with waves of undocumented immigrants including children arriving at the US-Mexico border.

Republicans have warned that Biden's border policies will only worsen the flow of illegal immigration.

Biden has suspended work on Trump's wall along the Mexican border, ended his separation of young children from migrant families and allowed apprehended minors to stay in the US as officials decide if they can legally remain. He has also turned away most single adults and families.

President Barack Obama initiated the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program in 2012 after Congress failed to protect Dreamers.

Trump moved to end DACA but the Supreme Court upheld the programme last year.

(with inputs from agencies)

The US House of Representatives has passed two immigration bills that would provide legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants. The House on Thursday voted to open a gateway to citizenship for young Dreamers and immigrants who have fled war or natural disasters abroad, giving Democrats a win in the year's first vote on an issue.

The US House of Representatives has passed two immigration bills that would provide legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants. The House on Thursday voted to open a gateway to citizenship for young Dreamers and immigrants who have fled war or natural disasters abroad, giving Democrats a win in the year's first vote on an issue. US lawmakers on Thursday approved one bill offering legal status to around two million Dreamers, brought to the US illegally as children, and hundreds of thousands of other migrants from a dozen troubled countries on a 228-197 vote. The other formalises the legal status of migrant farmworkers -- who the White House notes are "living in the shadows and vulnerable to exploitation" -- and offers them an opportunity to earn citizenship. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act would permit farmworkers and their families to remain in the country, and in many cases become US citizens, through continued employment in agriculture. It passed by 247 to 174, an even stronger bipartisan margin. Democrats said their bills were aimed not at border security but at addressing groups of immigrants who deserve to be helped. Also read | Biden signals he’s flexible on immigration overhaul White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that Biden supports both bills as "critical milestones toward much needed relief for the millions of individuals who call the United States home." The Dreamer bill would grant conditional legal status for 10 years to many immigrants up to age 18 who were brought into the US illegally before this year. They would have to graduate from high school or have equivalent educational credentials, not have serious criminal records and meet other conditions. To attain legal permanent residence, often called a green card, they'd have to obtain a higher education degree, serve in the military or be employed for at least three years. Like all others with green cards, they could then apply for citizenship after five years. The measure would also grant green cards to an estimated 400,000 immigrants with temporary protected status, which allows temporary residence to people who have fled violence or natural disasters in a dozen countries. The other bill would let immigrant farm workers who've worked in the country illegally over the past two years -- along their spouses and children -- get certified agriculture worker status. That would let them remain in the US for renewable 5 1/2-year periods. The legislation's success in the Senate, which is comprised of 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, is in question. Any immigration bill would need the support of at least 10 Republicans to overcome minority blocking tactics. Striking a Senate deal on the complex issue looked unlikely, for now, especially with waves of undocumented immigrants including children arriving at the US-Mexico border. Republicans have warned that Biden's border policies will only worsen the flow of illegal immigration. Biden has suspended work on Trump's wall along the Mexican border, ended his separation of young children from migrant families and allowed apprehended minors to stay in the US as officials decide if they can legally remain. He has also turned away most single adults and families. President Barack Obama initiated the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program in 2012 after Congress failed to protect Dreamers. Trump moved to end DACA but the Supreme Court upheld the programme last year. (with inputs from agencies)

A divided US House passes immigration bills, including pathway for 'Dreamers'

The US House voted to reauthorise the Violence Against Women Act, which enshrines critical legal protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence.

The act had lapsed during the previous Congress. The original bill was first passed in 1994 and was championed by President Joe Biden, who was a US senator at the time. It was updated in 2000, 2005 and 2013.

The measure -- which would provide grants to groups addressing domestic violence,&nbsp;sexual assault&nbsp;and prevention, fund rape crisis centres and facilitate outreach in underserved communities --&nbsp;passed on a bipartisan 244-172 vote.&nbsp;

It also funds a first-time programme to fight domestic violence against LGBTQ individuals through the use of prevention education and training, and improves housing access for victims and survivors.&nbsp;

Twenty-nine Republicans joined all Democrats present in supporting the measure.

The updated version of the Violence Against Women Act also closes the so-called dating partner and stalker loopholes by extending gun purchase bans to any ex-partner or stalker charged with domestic abuse, an element that could complicate passage of VAWA in the 50-50 Senate.

The 2019 version of VAWA passed the House, but the Senate's Republican leader at the time, Mitch McConnell, refused to put it to a vote.

Biden hailed the bill's passage in the House, calling the original one of his proudest legislative accomplishments, and urged the Senate to pass the measure.

"This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue -- it's about standing up against the abuse of power and preventing violence," he said in a statement.

The vote came against a backdrop of horrific violence against women in the United States.

On Tuesday, eight people, including six women of Asian descent, were murdered in three attacks at spas and massage parlors near Atlanta, Georgia.

The US House voted to reauthorise the Violence Against Women Act, which enshrines critical legal protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence. The act had lapsed during the previous Congress.

The US House voted to reauthorise the Violence Against Women Act, which enshrines critical legal protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence. The act had lapsed during the previous Congress. The original bill was first passed in 1994 and was championed by President Joe Biden, who was a US senator at the time. It was updated in 2000, 2005 and 2013. The measure -- which would provide grants to groups addressing domestic violence, sexual assault and prevention, fund rape crisis centres and facilitate outreach in underserved communities -- passed on a bipartisan 244-172 vote. It also funds a first-time programme to fight domestic violence against LGBTQ individuals through the use of prevention education and training, and improves housing access for victims and survivors. Twenty-nine Republicans joined all Democrats present in supporting the measure. The updated version of the Violence Against Women Act also closes the so-called dating partner and stalker loopholes by extending gun purchase bans to any ex-partner or stalker charged with domestic abuse, an element that could complicate passage of VAWA in the 50-50 Senate. The 2019 version of VAWA passed the House, but the Senate's Republican leader at the time, Mitch McConnell, refused to put it to a vote. Biden hailed the bill's passage in the House, calling the original one of his proudest legislative accomplishments, and urged the Senate to pass the measure. "This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue -- it's about standing up against the abuse of power and preventing violence," he said in a statement. The vote came against a backdrop of horrific violence against women in the United States. On Tuesday, eight people, including six women of Asian descent, were murdered in three attacks at spas and massage parlors near Atlanta, Georgia.

US House reauthorises Violence Against Women Act

US President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill is expected to be passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

The House Tuesday voted to advance and cleared the way clearing the way for the measure to be considered the next day.&nbsp;The House will consider the legislation starting at 9 a.m. (1400 GMT) on Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters. The bill was sent over to the House on Tuesday morning from the Senate, where Democrats have effective control.&nbsp;

Preliminary debate began on Tuesday afternoon.

The House voted 219-210 along party lines to advance the measure to a final debate and vote. No Republicans voted yes, and just one Democrat voted no. The bill's expected approval on Wednesday will enable the Democratic president to sign the legislation into law later this week.

Passage of the massive package, one of the biggest US anti-poverty measures since the 1960s, would give Biden and the Democrats who control Congress a major legislative victory less than two months into his presidency.

During the debate, multiple Republican members repeatedly asked unanimous consent to call up another measure, the Reopen Schools Act, but were ruled out of order.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/senate-impasse-broken-us-covid-relief-bill-now-back-on-track-368456">Also read |&nbsp;Senate impasse broken, US Covid relief bill now back on track</a>

The Senate passed its version of the bill on Saturday after a marathon overnight session. The chamber eliminated or pared back some provisions in an original House bill, including an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

The changes the Senate made must be approved by the House before it can make its way to Biden's desk.

Republicans, who broadly supported economic relief early in the coronavirus pandemic, have criticized the price tag of the relief package. It now appears likely to go to Biden without a single Republican voting for it in either the House or Senate.

Democrats hold a very narrow majority in the House, meaning that without any Republican support, they can afford to lose only a handful of votes by their own members against the bill. They lost two moderate Democrats the first time the bill went through the House, but one of those, Representative Kurt Schrader, said he changed his mind and backed the Senate-passed version.

(with inputs)

US President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill is expected to be passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday. The House Tuesday voted to advance and cleared the way clearing the way for the measure to be considered the next day.

US President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill is expected to be passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday. The House Tuesday voted to advance and cleared the way clearing the way for the measure to be considered the next day. The House will consider the legislation starting at 9 a.m. (1400 GMT) on Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters. The bill was sent over to the House on Tuesday morning from the Senate, where Democrats have effective control. Preliminary debate began on Tuesday afternoon. The House voted 219-210 along party lines to advance the measure to a final debate and vote. No Republicans voted yes, and just one Democrat voted no. The bill's expected approval on Wednesday will enable the Democratic president to sign the legislation into law later this week. Passage of the massive package, one of the biggest US anti-poverty measures since the 1960s, would give Biden and the Democrats who control Congress a major legislative victory less than two months into his presidency. During the debate, multiple Republican members repeatedly asked unanimous consent to call up another measure, the Reopen Schools Act, but were ruled out of order. Also read | Senate impasse broken, US Covid relief bill now back on track The Senate passed its version of the bill on Saturday after a marathon overnight session. The chamber eliminated or pared back some provisions in an original House bill, including an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. The changes the Senate made must be approved by the House before it can make its way to Biden's desk. Republicans, who broadly supported economic relief early in the coronavirus pandemic, have criticized the price tag of the relief package. It now appears likely to go to Biden without a single Republican voting for it in either the House or Senate. Democrats hold a very narrow majority in the House, meaning that without any Republican support, they can afford to lose only a handful of votes by their own members against the bill. They lost two moderate Democrats the first time the bill went through the House, but one of those, Representative Kurt Schrader, said he changed his mind and backed the Senate-passed version. (with inputs)

Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid package expected to pass Congress Wednesday

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that bans controversial police tactics and eases the way for lawsuits against officers violating suspects' constitutional rights.

Democrats pushed the "George Floyd Justice in Policing Act" through the House by a vote of 220-212, with the support of only one Republican. This&nbsp;happened just days before former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin goes on trial on a state murder charge in the death of Floyd last year.

The 46-year-old African-American man died when he was detained with Chauvin kneeling on his neck for nearly eight minutes. His killing sparked weeks of nationwide and global protests, many of which were led by Black Lives Matter activists.

In a turnaround though, later on Wednesday evening, Representative Lance Gooden, the sole Republican who voted for the legislation, wrote in a post on Twitter that his vote had been a mistake and in fact he opposes the bill.

The said bill includes measures such as restricting certain funds to local governments that allow law enforcement officers to use choke holds, banning "no-knock warrants" that allow police officers to enter premises without announcing themselves and requiring law enforcement agencies to provide data on instances when police officers used deadly force.

The bill would hold police "accountable" when constitutional rights are violated but would also support local law enforcement by fostering improvements in community policing, especially for minority neighbourhoods.

Also, one of its most controversial provisions would change "qualified immunity" for police, further opening the door for lawsuits over the use of excessive force.

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that bans controversial police tactics and eases the way for lawsuits against officers violating suspects' constitutional rights.

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that bans controversial police tactics and eases the way for lawsuits against officers violating suspects' constitutional rights. Democrats pushed the "George Floyd Justice in Policing Act" through the House by a vote of 220-212, with the support of only one Republican. This happened just days before former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin goes on trial on a state murder charge in the death of Floyd last year. The 46-year-old African-American man died when he was detained with Chauvin kneeling on his neck for nearly eight minutes. His killing sparked weeks of nationwide and global protests, many of which were led by Black Lives Matter activists. In a turnaround though, later on Wednesday evening, Representative Lance Gooden, the sole Republican who voted for the legislation, wrote in a post on Twitter that his vote had been a mistake and in fact he opposes the bill. The said bill includes measures such as restricting certain funds to local governments that allow law enforcement officers to use choke holds, banning "no-knock warrants" that allow police officers to enter premises without announcing themselves and requiring law enforcement agencies to provide data on instances when police officers used deadly force. The bill would hold police "accountable" when constitutional rights are violated but would also support local law enforcement by fostering improvements in community policing, especially for minority neighbourhoods. Also, one of its most controversial provisions would change "qualified immunity" for police, further opening the door for lawsuits over the use of excessive force.

US House passes 'George Floyd' police reform bill

US President Joe Biden scored a legislative win on early Saturday as the&nbsp;House passed his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package -- four days after the Covid-19 death toll surpassed 500,000 in the United States.

The sprawling measure backed by Biden and described by Democrats as a moral imperative now heads to the Senate for consideration next week.

The bill, which cleared the House on a party-line vote of 219 to 212, includes a provision to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but due to a Senate ruling the language will be stripped out of the final version.

The American Rescue Plan would pay for vaccines and medical supplies and send a new round of emergency financial aid to households, small businesses and state and local governments.

Democrats said the package was needed to fight a pandemic that has killed more than 500,000 Americans and thrown millions out of work.

The House vote amounted to a successful first test for Democrats, who hold a narrow 221-211 majority in the chamber. Progressives and moderates in the party who are often at odds will face tougher battles ahead on immigration and climate change initiatives that Biden wants to push.

The president has focussed his first weeks in office on tackling the greatest US public health crisis in a century, which has upended most aspects of American life.

Democrats aim to get the bill to him to sign into law before mid-March, when enhanced unemployment benefits and some other types of aid are due to expire.

The bill's big-ticket items include $1,400 direct payments to individuals, a $400-per-week federal unemployment benefit through August 29, and help for those in difficulty paying rents and home mortgages during the pandemic.

The action now moves to the Senate, where Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris may have to cast a tie-breaking vote in a chamber where Republicans control 50 seats and Democrats and their allies control the other 50.

(with inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden scored a legislative win on early Saturday as the House passed his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package -- four days after the Covid-19 death toll surpassed 500,000 in the United States.

US President Joe Biden scored a legislative win on early Saturday as the House passed his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package -- four days after the Covid-19 death toll surpassed 500,000 in the United States. The sprawling measure backed by Biden and described by Democrats as a moral imperative now heads to the Senate for consideration next week. The bill, which cleared the House on a party-line vote of 219 to 212, includes a provision to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but due to a Senate ruling the language will be stripped out of the final version. The American Rescue Plan would pay for vaccines and medical supplies and send a new round of emergency financial aid to households, small businesses and state and local governments. Democrats said the package was needed to fight a pandemic that has killed more than 500,000 Americans and thrown millions out of work. The House vote amounted to a successful first test for Democrats, who hold a narrow 221-211 majority in the chamber. Progressives and moderates in the party who are often at odds will face tougher battles ahead on immigration and climate change initiatives that Biden wants to push. The president has focussed his first weeks in office on tackling the greatest US public health crisis in a century, which has upended most aspects of American life. Democrats aim to get the bill to him to sign into law before mid-March, when enhanced unemployment benefits and some other types of aid are due to expire. The bill's big-ticket items include $1,400 direct payments to individuals, a $400-per-week federal unemployment benefit through August 29, and help for those in difficulty paying rents and home mortgages during the pandemic. The action now moves to the Senate, where Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris may have to cast a tie-breaking vote in a chamber where Republicans control 50 seats and Democrats and their allies control the other 50. (with inputs from agencies)

Biden scores legislative win, Covid relief plan to move to Senate next

The top House Republican refused to punish Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading false and bigoted conspiracy theories and endorsing political violence against Democrats, condemning the Georgia freshman’s previous comments but declining to take away her posts on influential congressional committees.

Republicans choose not to punish provocateur Greene

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday (February 4) to strip Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of two high-profile committee assignments, over her incendiary remarks including support for violence against Democrats.

US House strips Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene of committee assignments

Democrats began the process of impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time on Monday if Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet do not remove him from office. 
 
Democrats introduced a resolution calling on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution and remove Trump from the White House for being unfit to discharge his duties.

<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/us-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-says-ready-to-start-impeachment-against-donald-trump-356032/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Republicans blocked an immediate vote on the resolution and Democrats followed up by introducing an article of impeachment of Trump for "incitement of insurrection" over his role in Wednesday's storming of the US Capitol by his supporters.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/key-impeachment-witness-quits-army-is-trumps-bullying-the-reason-311795" hreflang="en">Key impeachment witness quits army. Is Trump's bullying the reason?</a> 
 
The dramatic moves come just nine days before Trump is to leave the White House and President-elect Joe Biden is to be sworn in as the 46th president of the United States. 
 
Democratic Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland introduced the resolution calling on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare Trump "incapable of executing the duties of his office."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/twitters-regular-audit-labelled-a-purge-by-trump-supporters-after-losing-followers-356033" hreflang="en">Twitter's regular audit labelled a 'purge' by Trump supporters after losing followers</a> 
 
Republican Representative Alex Mooney of West Virginia objected to passing the resolution by what is known as "unanimous consent" and it will be put to a vote on Tuesday. 
 
After Republicans blocked the resolution, a single article of impeachment against Trump was introduced in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. 
 
Trump was impeached by the House in December 2019 and now risks being the first president ever to be impeached twice. 
 
He was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate following his last impeachment and it is unclear whether the body would hold a trial this time to consider the latest charges.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

Democrats began the process of impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time on Monday if Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet do not remove him from office.

Democrats began the process of impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time on Monday if Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet do not remove him from office. Democrats introduced a resolution calling on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution and remove Trump from the White House for being unfit to discharge his duties. × Republicans blocked an immediate vote on the resolution and Democrats followed up by introducing an article of impeachment of Trump for "incitement of insurrection" over his role in Wednesday's storming of the US Capitol by his supporters. Also read: Key impeachment witness quits army. Is Trump's bullying the reason? The dramatic moves come just nine days before Trump is to leave the White House and President-elect Joe Biden is to be sworn in as the 46th president of the United States. Democratic Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland introduced the resolution calling on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare Trump "incapable of executing the duties of his office." Also read: Twitter's regular audit labelled a 'purge' by Trump supporters after losing followers Republican Representative Alex Mooney of West Virginia objected to passing the resolution by what is known as "unanimous consent" and it will be put to a vote on Tuesday. After Republicans blocked the resolution, a single article of impeachment against Trump was introduced in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. Trump was impeached by the House in December 2019 and now risks being the first president ever to be impeached twice. He was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate following his last impeachment and it is unclear whether the body would hold a trial this time to consider the latest charges.

Democrats introduce Trump impeachment article in US House

Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in November was just half the battle won. His ability to govern&nbsp; for at least the next two years hinged on two senate races in Georgia. The results for one of them are out, and the other run-off remains uncalled.

As of January 5, the Republican Party had a two seat advantage in the US Senate, and the Republicans controlled 50 of the 100 seats while the Democrats controlled 48. The remaining two are independent candidates who lean&nbsp;towards the Democrats.

A senate majority is very crucial for the upcoming Biden administration. It matters for cabinet appointments, policy decisions, fulfilling campaign promises, passing laws, paying debts, and allocating funds for government projects.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/bullying-china-slams-us-over-trumps-order-to-ban-chinese-apps-354822" hreflang="en">'Bullying': China slams US over Trump's order to ban Chinese apps</a>

The senate race in Georgia was a make-or-break runoff for the Democratic Party, and the fight was over 2 seats - both controlled by Republicans. These two&nbsp;seats will ultimately determine the balance of power in the senate.

In November, all four candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties fell short of the 50% plus one vote threshold - mandated in the state of Georgia.

So elections were held once again. Democrat Raphael War-Naak has been declared the winner of his race against the incumbent Republican senator Kelly Leff-ler. As of 9 pm IST on Wednesday, Mr. War-naak has secured a total of&nbsp; over 2 million votes.

With a vote percentage of 50.6%, Miss Kelly Leff-ler has secured two million and one hundred and seventy three thousand votes. With a vote percentage of 49.4%, Raphael War-naak is the clear winner, becoming Georgia's first black senator!

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-hits-iran-with-fresh-sanctions-as-trump-term-nears-end-354789" hreflang="en">US hits Iran with fresh sanctions as Trump term nears end</a>

Democrats have a lead in the second run offs as well. As of 9 PM IST&nbsp;on Wednesday, Democratic candidate Jon o-soff had secured over 2 million votes, with a vote percentage of 50.2%.

The incumbent Republican senator - David Perdew has secured over 2 million votes, with a vote percentage of 49.8%. 98% of the votes have been counted, and the Republicans want to wait for the remaining 2%.

But the Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff has already claimed victory.

“Georgia, thank you so much for the confidence that you've placed in me. I am honored, honored by your support, by your confidence, by your trust, and i will look forward to serving you in the united states senate with integrity, with humility, with honor, and getting things done for the people of Georgia. Thank you so much”, Jon Ossoff said.

After the house of representatives, the senate too is going to the Democrats, making Donald Trump very upset. He has gone back to ranting about election fraud.

“The states want to redo their votes...They found out they voted on a fraud... Legislatures never approved...Let them do it..Be strong…”, he tweeted. In just four years, Donald Trump has cost the Republican Party the house, the senate, and the presidency.

Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in November was just half the battle won. His ability to govern for at least the next two years hinged on two senate races in Georgia.

Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in November was just half the battle won. His ability to govern for at least the next two years hinged on two senate races in Georgia. The results for one of them are out, and the other run-off remains uncalled. As of January 5, the Republican Party had a two seat advantage in the US Senate, and the Republicans controlled 50 of the 100 seats while the Democrats controlled 48. The remaining two are independent candidates who lean towards the Democrats. A senate majority is very crucial for the upcoming Biden administration. It matters for cabinet appointments, policy decisions, fulfilling campaign promises, passing laws, paying debts, and allocating funds for government projects. Also read: 'Bullying': China slams US over Trump's order to ban Chinese apps The senate race in Georgia was a make-or-break runoff for the Democratic Party, and the fight was over 2 seats - both controlled by Republicans. These two seats will ultimately determine the balance of power in the senate. In November, all four candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties fell short of the 50% plus one vote threshold - mandated in the state of Georgia. So elections were held once again. Democrat Raphael War-Naak has been declared the winner of his race against the incumbent Republican senator Kelly Leff-ler. As of 9 pm IST on Wednesday, Mr. War-naak has secured a total of over 2 million votes. With a vote percentage of 50.6%, Miss Kelly Leff-ler has secured two million and one hundred and seventy three thousand votes. With a vote percentage of 49.4%, Raphael War-naak is the clear winner, becoming Georgia's first black senator! Also read: US hits Iran with fresh sanctions as Trump term nears end Democrats have a lead in the second run offs as well. As of 9 PM IST on Wednesday, Democratic candidate Jon o-soff had secured over 2 million votes, with a vote percentage of 50.2%. The incumbent Republican senator - David Perdew has secured over 2 million votes, with a vote percentage of 49.8%. 98% of the votes have been counted, and the Republicans want to wait for the remaining 2%. But the Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff has already claimed victory. “Georgia, thank you so much for the confidence that you've placed in me. I am honored, honored by your support, by your confidence, by your trust, and i will look forward to serving you in the united states senate with integrity, with humility, with honor, and getting things done for the people of Georgia. Thank you so much”, Jon Ossoff said. After the house of representatives, the senate too is going to the Democrats, making Donald Trump very upset. He has gone back to ranting about election fraud. “The states want to redo their votes...They found out they voted on a fraud... Legislatures never approved...Let them do it..Be strong…”, he tweeted. In just four years, Donald Trump has cost the Republican Party the house, the senate, and the presidency.

Donald Trump cost Republican Party the House, and now the Senate

A US congressman has introduced a bill in the US House of Representative to terminate Pakistan's designation as a major non-NATO ally. This bill was introduced on&nbsp;the first of 117th Congress.

The bill has been introduced by a Republican Congressman Andy Biggs. "On the first day of the 117th Congress, my staff and I have hit the ground running, working hard for the great people of #AZ05," he tweeted. "Today, I reintroduced 28 bills that keep the promises I've made to my constituents and help to reduce the size and scope of the federal government."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
On the first day of the 117th Congress, my staff and I have hit the ground running, working hard for the great people of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AZ05?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AZ05</a>. 
 
Today, I reintroduced 28 bills that keep the promises I've made to my constituents and help to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. <a href="https://t.co/HplIcEazR8">pic.twitter.com/HplIcEazR8</a>
— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1345897986619043845?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

As per the bill, Biggs claims the President is not in a position to&nbsp;issue a separate designation of Pakistan as a major NATO ally&nbsp;unless a presidential certification is issued that Pakistan continues to conduct military operations that are contributing to significantly disrupting the safe haven and freedom of movement of the Haqqani network in Pakistan.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-for-attack-on-pakistans-shiite-hazara-minority-that-kills-11-354279" hreflang="en">Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on Pakistan's Shi'ite Hazara minority that kills 11</a>

Biggs' bill claims Pakistan has taken several steps to demonstrate that the government is preventing the&nbsp;Haqqani network from operating within the country and has done its best to stop the network from using the Pakistani territory as a safe haven.&nbsp;

It has also been claimed that the Imran Khan-led government maintain regular contact with the Afghanistan government to chalk out effective plans to restrict the movement of militants across the&nbsp;Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Biggs has also asked the President to clarify that the Pakistan government has shown 'significance progress' in arresting and taking action against the&nbsp;Haqqani Network senior leaders and mid-level operatives.&nbsp;

A US congressman has introduced a bill in the US House of Representative to terminate Pakistan's designation as a major non-NATO ally. This bill was introduced on the first of 117th Congress.

A US congressman has introduced a bill in the US House of Representative to terminate Pakistan's designation as a major non-NATO ally. This bill was introduced on the first of 117th Congress. The bill has been introduced by a Republican Congressman Andy Biggs. "On the first day of the 117th Congress, my staff and I have hit the ground running, working hard for the great people of #AZ05," he tweeted. "Today, I reintroduced 28 bills that keep the promises I've made to my constituents and help to reduce the size and scope of the federal government." On the first day of the 117th Congress, my staff and I have hit the ground running, working hard for the great people of #AZ05. Today, I reintroduced 28 bills that keep the promises I've made to my constituents and help to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. pic.twitter.com/HplIcEazR8 — Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) January 4, 2021 × As per the bill, Biggs claims the President is not in a position to issue a separate designation of Pakistan as a major NATO ally unless a presidential certification is issued that Pakistan continues to conduct military operations that are contributing to significantly disrupting the safe haven and freedom of movement of the Haqqani network in Pakistan. Also read| Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on Pakistan's Shi'ite Hazara minority that kills 11 Biggs' bill claims Pakistan has taken several steps to demonstrate that the government is preventing the Haqqani network from operating within the country and has done its best to stop the network from using the Pakistani territory as a safe haven. It has also been claimed that the Imran Khan-led government maintain regular contact with the Afghanistan government to chalk out effective plans to restrict the movement of militants across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Biggs has also asked the President to clarify that the Pakistan government has shown 'significance progress' in arresting and taking action against the Haqqani Network senior leaders and mid-level operatives.

US House introduces bill to terminate Pakistan as major non-NATO ally

Members of Congress on Thursday hurled withering comments and furious questions at two members of the billionaire Sackler family that owns Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, seeking to use a rare public appearance to extract admissions of personal responsibility for the deadly opioid epidemic as well as details about $10 billion that records show the family withdrew from the company.

The hearing, before the House Oversight Committee, offered a highly unusual opportunity for the public to hear directly from some members of the family, whose company is a defendant in thousands of federal and state lawsuits for misleading marketing of OxyContin, the painkiller seen as initiating a wave of opioid addiction that has led to the deaths of more than 450,000 Americans. Eight members of the family have been individually named in many state cases.

The singularity of the Sacklers’ appearance on Thursday was underscored by the likelihood that they may never testify in open court, because the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings and nationwide litigation may resolve in settlements rather than trials. Despite millions of dollars in legal expenses racked up by plaintiffs and Purdue alike — and the company’s subsequent filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2019 — one obstacle to resolution persists: the refusal of the Sacklers to be held personally or criminally responsible and to turn over substantial portions of their fortune.

During the tense, nearly four-hour hearing, David Sackler, 40, and his cousin, Kathe Sackler, 72, who both served on the company’s board for years, testified remotely and largely sidestepped would-be booby traps and deflected blame to “management” and independent, nonfamily board members.

Or, as David Sackler said, “That’s a question for the lawyers.”

Repeatedly, the committee members pitted hard statistics about the destruction from the epidemic against images of the family’s concurrent gains, including a $22.5 million mansion in the Bel Air neighborhood of Los Angeles, paid for in cash in 2018 — which David Sackler characterized as a trust investment in which he had not spent a single night.

Throughout the session, both Sacklers voiced regret for the role of OxyContin in the epidemic, but not for their own actions during the years that the company, with the board’s oversight and encouragement, aggressively promoted the painkiller.

Indeed Kathe Sackler cast herself as scrupulously concerned about the well-being of patients. “I thought Purdue was acting responsibly to reduce the incidence of abuse and overdose while still serving those in need of pain relief,” she said.

“I have tried to figure out, was there anything that I could have done differently? Knowing what I knew then — not what I know now?” said Kathe Sackler, who served on the board from 1990 to 2018. “There’s nothing that I can find that I would have done differently based on what I believed and understood then.”

She said that what she subsequently learned from management and reports to the board was “extremely distressing.”

David Sackler, who served on the board from 2012 to 2018, echoed a similar sensibility: “I believe I conducted myself legally and ethically and I believe the full record will demonstrate that I still feel absolutely terrible that a product created to help so many people” is associated with death and addiction, he said.

Deeply skeptical committee members asked the Sacklers whether, in fact, they subscribed to newspapers or had access to cable television.

Addressing the Sacklers, Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., said: “Watching you testify makes my blood boil. I’m not aware of any family in America that is more evil than yours.”

Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.V., asked David Sackler whether he had ever visited Appalachia to see the impact of the crisis firsthand.

“Yes,” he replied, though not with the express purpose of fact-finding.

“I visited with my wife for a vacation,” he said.

In the absence of direct admissions of responsibility by the Sacklers — or by Craig Landau, Purdue’s CEO since 2017, who also testified — committee members used their questions to highlight the most egregious actions over the years by the company and by David Sackler’s father, Richard Sackler, a hands-on executive during the cresting period of the epidemic.

In particular, they explored the actions that followed a 2007 federal fine of nearly $635 million that the company and three executives paid after pleading guilty to federal criminal charges of “misbranding.” The settlement included no admission of liability by any of the Sacklers.

The committee chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked David Sackler whether in 2008, after the company’s federal settlement, the family was concerned about state investigations. David Sackler denied knowing that investigations had been mounting.

But then Maloney read from an email exchange between David Sackler and other relatives in 2007, just a week after that settlement. Referring to courtroom activity, he wrote: “We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family?”

She then asked David Sackler: “Were you trying to cash out profit so that opioid victims couldn’t claim them in future losses?”

He replied, “No, I don’t believe that’s what I meant then.”

The committee was able to elicit a commitment from the Sacklers to turn over a list of what Maloney characterized as “offshore shell companies.” According to court documents, between 2008 through 2017, the family withdrew approximately $10 billion from Purdue Pharma.

David Sackler said Thursday that the family had paid about half that amount in taxes.

Landau said that under his tenure, the company has halted its promotion of opioids and has turned its focus toward developing drugs that reverse overdoses.

Three generations of family members have overseen Purdue since the 1950s, when three brothers — including Raymond (David’s grandfather) and Mortimer (Kathe’s father) — founded it. (A third brother, Arthur Sackler, sold his shares long before OxyContin was introduced.) During the opioid epidemic, family members served as Purdue board members, and often took a vigorous hands-on approach in urging the sales department to swarm high-prescribing doctors and downplay the addictive properties of the medication, according to extensive court documents.

Last month, Purdue pleaded guilty to three felonies involving kickbacks and fraud related to promotion of its opioid and failure to report aberrant sales. The Justice Department settled with the company for $8.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties, and family members for $225 million in civil penalties. The Sacklers did not admit any wrongdoing. The amount they paid represents about 2% of the family’s net worth.

Maura Healey, attorney general for Massachusetts, the first state to name individual Sacklers in litigation, said that the Sacklers want “special treatment.” In a letter to the House committee, she wrote, “If we let powerful people cover up the facts, avoid accountability, or create a government-sponsored OxyContin business — that’s not justice. This time, we have to get it right.”

In 2019, congressman Elijah E. Cummings, the now-deceased committee chairman, initiated an investigation into the company and the family to examine whether their actions should lead to potential policy or legislative changes. In October, the committee released a trove of documents, underscoring how individual Sacklers urged the company to rev up sales. The committee sought to bring in numerous Sacklers to testify, which, through their lawyers, they refused to do, saying that the appearances would impede ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

Committee lawyers threatened to issue subpoenas. After considerable wrangling, the Sacklers agreed to present two of the four family members originally requested.

Members of Congress on Thursday hurled withering comments and furious questions at two members of the billionaire Sackler family that owns Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, seeking to use a rare public appearance to extract admissions of personal responsibility for the deadly opioid epidemic as well as details about $10 billion that records show the family withdrew from the company.

Members of Congress on Thursday hurled withering comments and furious questions at two members of the billionaire Sackler family that owns Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, seeking to use a rare public appearance to extract admissions of personal responsibility for the deadly opioid epidemic as well as details about $10 billion that records show the family withdrew from the company. The hearing, before the House Oversight Committee, offered a highly unusual opportunity for the public to hear directly from some members of the family, whose company is a defendant in thousands of federal and state lawsuits for misleading marketing of OxyContin, the painkiller seen as initiating a wave of opioid addiction that has led to the deaths of more than 450,000 Americans. Eight members of the family have been individually named in many state cases. The singularity of the Sacklers’ appearance on Thursday was underscored by the likelihood that they may never testify in open court, because the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings and nationwide litigation may resolve in settlements rather than trials. Despite millions of dollars in legal expenses racked up by plaintiffs and Purdue alike — and the company’s subsequent filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2019 — one obstacle to resolution persists: the refusal of the Sacklers to be held personally or criminally responsible and to turn over substantial portions of their fortune. During the tense, nearly four-hour hearing, David Sackler, 40, and his cousin, Kathe Sackler, 72, who both served on the company’s board for years, testified remotely and largely sidestepped would-be booby traps and deflected blame to “management” and independent, nonfamily board members. Or, as David Sackler said, “That’s a question for the lawyers.” Repeatedly, the committee members pitted hard statistics about the destruction from the epidemic against images of the family’s concurrent gains, including a $22.5 million mansion in the Bel Air neighborhood of Los Angeles, paid for in cash in 2018 — which David Sackler characterized as a trust investment in which he had not spent a single night. Throughout the session, both Sacklers voiced regret for the role of OxyContin in the epidemic, but not for their own actions during the years that the company, with the board’s oversight and encouragement, aggressively promoted the painkiller. Indeed Kathe Sackler cast herself as scrupulously concerned about the well-being of patients. “I thought Purdue was acting responsibly to reduce the incidence of abuse and overdose while still serving those in need of pain relief,” she said. “I have tried to figure out, was there anything that I could have done differently? Knowing what I knew then — not what I know now?” said Kathe Sackler, who served on the board from 1990 to 2018. “There’s nothing that I can find that I would have done differently based on what I believed and understood then.” She said that what she subsequently learned from management and reports to the board was “extremely distressing.” David Sackler, who served on the board from 2012 to 2018, echoed a similar sensibility: “I believe I conducted myself legally and ethically and I believe the full record will demonstrate that I still feel absolutely terrible that a product created to help so many people” is associated with death and addiction, he said. Deeply skeptical committee members asked the Sacklers whether, in fact, they subscribed to newspapers or had access to cable television. Addressing the Sacklers, Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., said: “Watching you testify makes my blood boil. I’m not aware of any family in America that is more evil than yours.” Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.V., asked David Sackler whether he had ever visited Appalachia to see the impact of the crisis firsthand. “Yes,” he replied, though not with the express purpose of fact-finding. “I visited with my wife for a vacation,” he said. In the absence of direct admissions of responsibility by the Sacklers — or by Craig Landau, Purdue’s CEO since 2017, who also testified — committee members used their questions to highlight the most egregious actions over the years by the company and by David Sackler’s father, Richard Sackler, a hands-on executive during the cresting period of the epidemic. In particular, they explored the actions that followed a 2007 federal fine of nearly $635 million that the company and three executives paid after pleading guilty to federal criminal charges of “misbranding.” The settlement included no admission of liability by any of the Sacklers. The committee chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked David Sackler whether in 2008, after the company’s federal settlement, the family was concerned about state investigations. David Sackler denied knowing that investigations had been mounting. But then Maloney read from an email exchange between David Sackler and other relatives in 2007, just a week after that settlement. Referring to courtroom activity, he wrote: “We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family?” She then asked David Sackler: “Were you trying to cash out profit so that opioid victims couldn’t claim them in future losses?” He replied, “No, I don’t believe that’s what I meant then.” The committee was able to elicit a commitment from the Sacklers to turn over a list of what Maloney characterized as “offshore shell companies.” According to court documents, between 2008 through 2017, the family withdrew approximately $10 billion from Purdue Pharma. David Sackler said Thursday that the family had paid about half that amount in taxes. Landau said that under his tenure, the company has halted its promotion of opioids and has turned its focus toward developing drugs that reverse overdoses. Three generations of family members have overseen Purdue since the 1950s, when three brothers — including Raymond (David’s grandfather) and Mortimer (Kathe’s father) — founded it. (A third brother, Arthur Sackler, sold his shares long before OxyContin was introduced.) During the opioid epidemic, family members served as Purdue board members, and often took a vigorous hands-on approach in urging the sales department to swarm high-prescribing doctors and downplay the addictive properties of the medication, according to extensive court documents. Last month, Purdue pleaded guilty to three felonies involving kickbacks and fraud related to promotion of its opioid and failure to report aberrant sales. The Justice Department settled with the company for $8.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties, and family members for $225 million in civil penalties. The Sacklers did not admit any wrongdoing. The amount they paid represents about 2% of the family’s net worth. Maura Healey, attorney general for Massachusetts, the first state to name individual Sacklers in litigation, said that the Sacklers want “special treatment.” In a letter to the House committee, she wrote, “If we let powerful people cover up the facts, avoid accountability, or create a government-sponsored OxyContin business — that’s not justice. This time, we have to get it right.” In 2019, congressman Elijah E. Cummings, the now-deceased committee chairman, initiated an investigation into the company and the family to examine whether their actions should lead to potential policy or legislative changes. In October, the committee released a trove of documents, underscoring how individual Sacklers urged the company to rev up sales. The committee sought to bring in numerous Sacklers to testify, which, through their lawyers, they refused to do, saying that the appearances would impede ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. Committee lawyers threatened to issue subpoenas. After considerable wrangling, the Sacklers agreed to present two of the four family members originally requested.

Sacklers deny personal responsibility for opioid epidemic in House hearing

The US House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would broaden researchers' ability to study marijuana and its effects, a move hailed by cannabis advocates.&nbsp;

The bill, passed in a bipartisan voice vote, allows authorized researchers access to parts of cannabis plants grown under state programs.&nbsp;

The use of marijuana for medical purposes is legal in 36 of the 50 states plus Washington, and for recreational use in 15 states plus the capital.

But until now, only the University of Mississippi was federally licensed to grow and clinically research the drug. &nbsp;

The plants that were available for study at the university, however, were of "poor quality" and failed "to accurately reflect the varieties of marijuana commercially available in the United States," according to US pro-cannabis organization NORML.&nbsp;

"The reality that most high-schoolers have easier access to cannabis than do our nation's top scientists is the height of absurdity and an indictment of the current system," said NORML deputy director Paul Armentano.&nbsp;

Bill co-sponsor Earl Blumenauer, a Democratic lawmaker from Oregon, welcomed the law's passage in the lower house of Congress.

"It's illegal everywhere in America to drive under the influence of alcohol, cannabis or any other substance. But we do not have a good test for impairment because we can't study it," he said.

He pointed out that four million Americans have received permission to use cannabis for medical purposes and that "many more likely self-medicate" with it.&nbsp;

Maryland Republican Andy Harris was the bill's other co-sponsor -- he opposes the legalization of marijuana while Blumenauer supports it.&nbsp;

But "we agree 100 percent that we need to do this research," Harris said.&nbsp;

The bill must next be approved by the Senate to take effect. &nbsp;

The Democratic-controlled House last week also passed a bill that would remove cannabis from the federal list of dangerous drugs, a historic step towards federal decriminalization of the substance. It stands little chance however in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would broaden researchers' ability to study marijuana and its effects, a move hailed by cannabis advocates.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would broaden researchers' ability to study marijuana and its effects, a move hailed by cannabis advocates. The bill, passed in a bipartisan voice vote, allows authorized researchers access to parts of cannabis plants grown under state programs. The use of marijuana for medical purposes is legal in 36 of the 50 states plus Washington, and for recreational use in 15 states plus the capital. But until now, only the University of Mississippi was federally licensed to grow and clinically research the drug. The plants that were available for study at the university, however, were of "poor quality" and failed "to accurately reflect the varieties of marijuana commercially available in the United States," according to US pro-cannabis organization NORML. "The reality that most high-schoolers have easier access to cannabis than do our nation's top scientists is the height of absurdity and an indictment of the current system," said NORML deputy director Paul Armentano. Bill co-sponsor Earl Blumenauer, a Democratic lawmaker from Oregon, welcomed the law's passage in the lower house of Congress. "It's illegal everywhere in America to drive under the influence of alcohol, cannabis or any other substance. But we do not have a good test for impairment because we can't study it," he said. He pointed out that four million Americans have received permission to use cannabis for medical purposes and that "many more likely self-medicate" with it. Maryland Republican Andy Harris was the bill's other co-sponsor -- he opposes the legalization of marijuana while Blumenauer supports it. But "we agree 100 percent that we need to do this research," Harris said. The bill must next be approved by the Senate to take effect. The Democratic-controlled House last week also passed a bill that would remove cannabis from the federal list of dangerous drugs, a historic step towards federal decriminalization of the substance. It stands little chance however in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans.

US House approves bill to widen marijuana research

The US House of Representatives on Friday voted to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, days after the United Nations removed it from the list of world's most dangerous drugs.&nbsp;

This was the first time either chamber of Congress has voted to end the federal ban on cannabis.

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/marijuana-vote-divides-new-zealand-jacinda-ardern-admits-using-cannabis-world-news-331663/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, the bill is not expected to gather support at the Senate as long as it remains under the control of Republicans.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/un-removes-cannabis-from-list-of-worlds-most-dangerous-drugs-347118">UN removes cannabis from list of world's most dangerous drugs</a>

Already, 15 US states and the District of Colombia allow recreation use of marijuana and 30 states permit the use of the drug for medicinal purposes.&nbsp;

However, the drug faces a ban at the federal level, which limits cannabis companies' access to banking services and funding.&nbsp;

The House, which has a majority of Democrats, voted 224-168, by and large on party lines to remove the ban on marijuana.&nbsp;

However, it will be difficult for the bill to get it approved by the Senate as its majority leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, opposes it.

The Democrats can move the bill only if they take control of Senate after winning both Georgia seats where voting will occur on January 5.&nbsp;

“This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. It stops the federal government from interfering with what states have decided to do," said Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat and co-chairman of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.&nbsp;

The US House of Representatives on Friday voted to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, days after the United Nations removed it from the list of world's most dangerous drugs.

The US House of Representatives on Friday voted to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, days after the United Nations removed it from the list of world's most dangerous drugs. This was the first time either chamber of Congress has voted to end the federal ban on cannabis. Watch | However, the bill is not expected to gather support at the Senate as long as it remains under the control of Republicans. Also read | UN removes cannabis from list of world's most dangerous drugs Already, 15 US states and the District of Colombia allow recreation use of marijuana and 30 states permit the use of the drug for medicinal purposes. However, the drug faces a ban at the federal level, which limits cannabis companies' access to banking services and funding. The House, which has a majority of Democrats, voted 224-168, by and large on party lines to remove the ban on marijuana. However, it will be difficult for the bill to get it approved by the Senate as its majority leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, opposes it. The Democrats can move the bill only if they take control of Senate after winning both Georgia seats where voting will occur on January 5. “This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. It stops the federal government from interfering with what states have decided to do," said Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat and co-chairman of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.

US House passes landmark bill to decriminalise marijuana

The US House of Representatives voted Wednesday to force companies to disclose products that come from China's&nbsp;Xinjiang&nbsp;region, in a new bid to stop what lawmakers say is widespread forced labor in the restive area.

The bill follows a broader act approved a week earlier that aims to ban imports from&nbsp;Xinjiang, contending that abuses of the Uighur people are so widespread that all goods from the region should be considered made with slave labor.

Also see:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/how-us-china-relationship-took-a-turn-for-the-worse-314882">How US-China relationship took a turn for the worse</a>

"The exploitation and enslavement of the Uighurs must stop. Americans don't want to purchase goods made with slave labor," said Representative Jennifer Wexton, a Democrat who led the latest effort.

The legislation would require all publicly traded companies to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission whether they are involved in&nbsp;Xinjiang, a major source of the global textile industry's yarn.

Unlike the broader act, which passed almost unanimously, the Uighur Forced Labor Disclosure Act drew opposition from most Republicans but passed 253-163 in the Democratic-led House.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-on-chinese-officials-over-abuse-of-muslim-minorities-in-xinjiang-312101">US imposes sanctions on Chinese officials over 'abuse' of Muslim minorities in Xinjiang</a>

Its prospects are uncertain as it needs to clear the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans and consumed by discussions on a Supreme Court nomination and Covid-19 relief a month before elections.

Republicans raised objections after concerns voiced by the US Chamber of Commerce, which said that the regulations imposed an impossible burden on legitimate companies.

The business lobby drew a parallel with previous efforts to label minerals from conflict-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, saying that companies had no reliable way to certify if products are free from abuses.

Representative Patrick McHenry, a Republican, accused bill sponsor Wexton of wanting to appear tough on China and said a better approach was to impose sanctions on officials, as President Donald Trump's administration has done.

"The bill before us is nothing more than a press release for an election," he said.

Wexton, whose district in northern Virginia has a large Uighur American community, scoffed at the suggestion and said Republicans were ignoring abuses and "perhaps even genocide" in&nbsp;Xinjiang.

"Republicans talk a good game but only if it doesn't create any kind of burden on US corporations or their profit margins," she said.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute in a recent report said it had identified more than 380 suspected detention facilities where China is believed to have held more than one million Uighurs and other mostly Muslim Turkic-speaking people.

The US House of Representatives voted Wednesday to force companies to disclose products that come from China's Xinjiang region, in a new bid to stop what lawmakers say is widespread forced labor in the restive area.

The US House of Representatives voted Wednesday to force companies to disclose products that come from China's Xinjiang region, in a new bid to stop what lawmakers say is widespread forced labor in the restive area. The bill follows a broader act approved a week earlier that aims to ban imports from Xinjiang, contending that abuses of the Uighur people are so widespread that all goods from the region should be considered made with slave labor. Also see: How US-China relationship took a turn for the worse "The exploitation and enslavement of the Uighurs must stop. Americans don't want to purchase goods made with slave labor," said Representative Jennifer Wexton, a Democrat who led the latest effort. The legislation would require all publicly traded companies to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission whether they are involved in Xinjiang, a major source of the global textile industry's yarn. Unlike the broader act, which passed almost unanimously, the Uighur Forced Labor Disclosure Act drew opposition from most Republicans but passed 253-163 in the Democratic-led House. Also read: US imposes sanctions on Chinese officials over 'abuse' of Muslim minorities in Xinjiang Its prospects are uncertain as it needs to clear the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans and consumed by discussions on a Supreme Court nomination and Covid-19 relief a month before elections. Republicans raised objections after concerns voiced by the US Chamber of Commerce, which said that the regulations imposed an impossible burden on legitimate companies. The business lobby drew a parallel with previous efforts to label minerals from conflict-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, saying that companies had no reliable way to certify if products are free from abuses. Representative Patrick McHenry, a Republican, accused bill sponsor Wexton of wanting to appear tough on China and said a better approach was to impose sanctions on officials, as President Donald Trump's administration has done. "The bill before us is nothing more than a press release for an election," he said. Wexton, whose district in northern Virginia has a large Uighur American community, scoffed at the suggestion and said Republicans were ignoring abuses and "perhaps even genocide" in Xinjiang. "Republicans talk a good game but only if it doesn't create any kind of burden on US corporations or their profit margins," she said. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute in a recent report said it had identified more than 380 suspected detention facilities where China is believed to have held more than one million Uighurs and other mostly Muslim Turkic-speaking people.

US passes bill requiring firms to disclose Xinjiang products

The Democratic-led US House of Representatives has approved a legislation to&nbsp;provide the cash-strapped Postal Service with $25 billion and block policy changes that have stirred concerns about mail-in balloting ahead of the November 3 election.

The Saturday bill was passed 257-150, largely along party lines, with Democrats supporting it -- defying President Donald Trump, who actively urged Republicans to oppose it.

The vote sent the legislation dubbed the "Delivering for America Act" on to the Republican-controlled Senate.

The Republican-held Senate is unlikely to vote on it -- and hence, the matter won't reach Trump's desk.

The White House also strongly opposes the legislation and has said it would recommend that President Donald Trump veto the measure.

But more than two-dozen House Republicans broke ranks to join Democrats in approving the bill, during a rare Saturday session called by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the middle of the congressional August recess. She&nbsp;had predicted bipartisan support for the USPS legislation ahead of the vote.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/you-may-never-get-election-results-trump-warns-against-vote-count-322329">Also read |&nbsp;You may never get election results: Trump warns against vote count</a>

With mail-in voting expected to surge during the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has alarmed Democrats by repeatedly denouncing mail-in ballots as a possible source of fraud. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy recently suspended cost-cutting measures that have slowed deliveries in recent weeks.

Democrats, who accuse Trump of trying to discourage mail-in balloting to gain an electoral advantage over Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, cast themselves as defenders of a public that relies on the Postal Service for vital deliveries, including prescription drugs.

The fight over the postal service is unfolding as Democrats and the Trump administration have not yet come together to successfully negotiate a new stimulus bill.

Democratic leaders introduced the measure after the Trump administration made policy changes at the USPS. Those moves included cutting overtime for employees, limiting post office hours, and removing some high-volume mail sorting machines from USPS facilities.&nbsp;

As lawmakers prepared to vote, Trump took to Twitter to accuse Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of seeking unnecessary funding for the Postal Service and trying to pull off a "Universal Mail-In Ballot Scam."

"Vote NO to the Pelosi/Schumer money wasting HOAX which is taking place now," the president wrote.

US Postmaster Louis DeJoy told a Senate committee on Friday that the Postal Service would deliver ballots "securely and on time" in the November election but said bigger changes could come after that.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-postmaster-promises-timely-election-mail-dramatic-changes-after-322341">Also read |&nbsp;US postmaster promises timely election mail, 'dramatic' changes after</a>

In fact, the House bill would prevent DeJoy from taking any action that would impede service until after next January or the end of the coronavirus health emergency, whichever comes later.

Pelosi insisted that congressional action is necessary, calling DeJoy's assurances ambiguous and unsatisfactory.&nbsp;

The Democratic-led US House of Representatives has approved a legislation to provide the cash-strapped Postal Service with $25 billion and block policy changes that have stirred concerns about mail-in balloting ahead of the November 3 election.

The Democratic-led US House of Representatives has approved a legislation to provide the cash-strapped Postal Service with $25 billion and block policy changes that have stirred concerns about mail-in balloting ahead of the November 3 election. The Saturday bill was passed 257-150, largely along party lines, with Democrats supporting it -- defying President Donald Trump, who actively urged Republicans to oppose it. The vote sent the legislation dubbed the "Delivering for America Act" on to the Republican-controlled Senate. The Republican-held Senate is unlikely to vote on it -- and hence, the matter won't reach Trump's desk. The White House also strongly opposes the legislation and has said it would recommend that President Donald Trump veto the measure. But more than two-dozen House Republicans broke ranks to join Democrats in approving the bill, during a rare Saturday session called by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the middle of the congressional August recess. She had predicted bipartisan support for the USPS legislation ahead of the vote. Also read | You may never get election results: Trump warns against vote count With mail-in voting expected to surge during the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has alarmed Democrats by repeatedly denouncing mail-in ballots as a possible source of fraud. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy recently suspended cost-cutting measures that have slowed deliveries in recent weeks. Democrats, who accuse Trump of trying to discourage mail-in balloting to gain an electoral advantage over Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, cast themselves as defenders of a public that relies on the Postal Service for vital deliveries, including prescription drugs. The fight over the postal service is unfolding as Democrats and the Trump administration have not yet come together to successfully negotiate a new stimulus bill. Democratic leaders introduced the measure after the Trump administration made policy changes at the USPS. Those moves included cutting overtime for employees, limiting post office hours, and removing some high-volume mail sorting machines from USPS facilities. As lawmakers prepared to vote, Trump took to Twitter to accuse Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of seeking unnecessary funding for the Postal Service and trying to pull off a "Universal Mail-In Ballot Scam." "Vote NO to the Pelosi/Schumer money wasting HOAX which is taking place now," the president wrote. US Postmaster Louis DeJoy told a Senate committee on Friday that the Postal Service would deliver ballots "securely and on time" in the November election but said bigger changes could come after that. Also read | US postmaster promises timely election mail, 'dramatic' changes after In fact, the House bill would prevent DeJoy from taking any action that would impede service until after next January or the end of the coronavirus health emergency, whichever comes later. Pelosi insisted that congressional action is necessary, calling DeJoy's assurances ambiguous and unsatisfactory.

US House approves bill to send $25 billion to Postal Service and block policy changes

us-house

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

us house