Biden also addressed the news media’s ongoing interest in the documents, as he answered a reporter’s question following a survey of a community affected by recent extreme weather in California.
“Quite frankly, what bugs me is that we have a serious problem here we’re talking about … and the American people don’t quite understand why you don’t ask me questions about that,” Biden said, referring to his remarks on the storm and climate.
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed former U.S. Attorney Robert Hur last week as special counsel to investigate the storage of the documents.
Members of both parties have decried what they call a double standard on the media reaction and legal handling of the document discovery, as classified documents were also found in an August FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate.
The situations have notable differences: Biden has had fewer sensitive documents discovered than his predecessor, and unlike Trump, he appears to have cooperated with authorities in turning them over.
[ad_2]
#Biden #regrets #documents #handled
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
More than 1 million protesters took to the streets across France in a day of mass strikes, as transport, schools and refineries were hit by significant industrial action against Emmanuel Macron’s unpopular plans to raise the retirement age by two years to 64.
Local and regional train services across France ground almost to a standstill, and public transport in cities such as Paris was ‘very disrupted’, according to transport operators. Authorities estimated that 40% of primary school teachers and more than 30% of secondary teachers went on strike. Unions said participation was higher.
Macron insists he will deliver his key election pledge to change the French pension system – raising the retirement age for most people to 64 from 62 and increasing the years of contributions required for a full pension.
[ad_2]
#million #march #France #planned #pension #reforms #video
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
Florida’s education agency, in its decision, doesn’t spell out exactly which law the course is violating, but the state in 2022 passed the “Stop WOKE” act that regulates lessons on race and gender in the classroom.
That legislation, FL HB 7 (22R), or the Individual Freedom Act, was passed by Florida’s Republican-led Legislature to expand state anti-discrimination laws and prohibit schools and companies from leveling guilt or blame to students and employees based on race or sex. It created new protections for students and workers, including that a person should not be instructed to “feel guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” due to their race, color, sex or national origin.
Gov. Ron DeSantis, who championed the “Stop WOKE” act, has sought to reshape how children are taught in Florida. His Education Department previously rejected math textbooks over “impermissible” content, including teachings on critical race theory and DeSantis vigorously defended a law that bans educators from leading classroom discussions on sexual orientation or gender identity for kids in kindergarten through third grade. He also used his influence and party cash to support dozens of conservatives running for local school boards.
The move is part of a push by Florida conservatives to root out traces of “wokeness” in education, efforts that are on track to continue during the 2023 Legislative session, which begins in March. Florida, for example, is now is gearing up to scrutinize diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education.
The AP program is said to be the first African American studies course offered by the College Board and is meant to help high school students earn credits and advanced placement at colleges throughout the country. They have been developing the course for more than a decade to intersect literature, the arts and humanities, political science, geography, and science to “explore the vital contributions and experiences of African Americans.”
Florida’s decision to scrap the course statewide has been criticized by academics and Democratic lawmakers alike.
“This political extremism and its attack of Black History and Black people, is going to create an entire generation of Black children who won’t be able to see themselves reflected at all within their own education or in their own State,” state Sen. Shevrin Jones (D-Miami Gardens) wrote in a tweet.
[ad_2]
#Florida #nixes #African #American #studies #claims #lacks #educational
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege. And, because the claimed assertion of executive privilege is unproven, Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt,” Mehta wrote in the 39-page ruling.
It’s a significant decision in an area with little precedent: what current and former presidents must do to assert executive privilege. Mehta acknowledged that there’s not much to guide how courts should determine when a proper assertion has been made. But he said limited court rulings on the subject suggest there must be at least some formal evidence it occurred.
Mehta noted that two other Trump aides whom the House sought to hold in contempt — Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino — produced letters from Trump ordering them to assert executive privilege on his behalf. The Justice Department declined to prosecute the men, and Mehta indicated that the absence of a similar letter from Trump to Navarro led to a reasonable conclusion that Trump had not asserted executive privilege over his testimony.
Mehta’s ruling means that Navarro’s trial on two charges of contempt of Congress is likely to commence later this month. He faces a maximum sentence of a year in prison on each charge — one for refusing to testify and the other for refusing to provide documents — if convicted.
The select committee had hoped to interview Navarro about his coordination with former Trump adviser Bannon and efforts to strategize with members of Congress seeking to challenge the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, 2021, during the counting of Electoral College ballots. The committee recommended that Navarro be held in contempt in April 2022, and the full House quickly followed suit. The Justice Department charged him in June.
Mehta’s ruling also gutted a series of defenses Navarro had hoped to raise at his trial, including that he had a “good-faith belief” that he was immune from the committee’s subpoena. Mehta also agreed to prohibit Navarro from arguing that the select committee’s subpoena was invalid because the panel didn’t have a full complement of 13 members or a ranking Republican member appointed by GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Although he declined to say whether the committee was operating improperly, Mehta noted that Supreme Court precedent required Navarro to first raise his rules complaint with Congress itself. Because he didn’t do that, he effectively waived that argument. Navarro had argued that raising his complaints to Congress would have been “futile” because the House would have simply rejected them. But Mehta said the rules were clear.
“Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has recognized a futility exception. … And, given the rationale of the rule, it is doubtful that higher courts would recognize one,” Mehta wrote.
The ruling essentially puts Navarro on a track similar to his close ally Bannon, who was tried and convicted of contempt of Congress in July. Bannon, like Navarro, had hoped to argue that he believed he was immune from testifying and that longstanding Justice Department precedents precluded Congress from subpoenaing advisers to former presidents. But in that case, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols relied on a decades-old appeals court ruling — United States v. Licavoli — to reject Bannon’s proposed defenses, ruling that prosecutors simply needed to show that Bannon deliberately refused to appear before Congress.
Mehta cited the case, as well, in tossing most of Navarro’s defenses.
“Defendant apparently believes the law applies differently to him,” he wrote of Navarro. “Because he is a former aide to the President of the United States, he contends, a more stringent state-of-mind standard applies, meaning that the government must be held to a higher burden of proof to convict him as opposed to the average person.”
[ad_2]
#Judge #denies #Navarro #effort #dismiss #contempt #case #defying #Jan #committee
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The high court also released a 20-page report of the investigation, announced by Chief Justice John Roberts last May immediately after POLITICO’s publication of the draft opinion and conducted by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley.
“No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document,” Curley’s report said. “All personnel who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion nor know anything about who did.”
While not pinning blame for the leak on any individual, the review found that several court staffers had been cavalier in their handling of sensitive information, including about the abortion case in question, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
“Some individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count, in violation of the Court’s confidentiality rules,” the report said. “Several personnel told investigators they had shared confidential details about their work more generally with their spouses and some indicated they thought it permissible to provide such information to their spouses. Some personnel handled the Dobbs draft in ways that deviated from their standard process for handling draft opinions.”
Curley’s investigation found no indication that the early disclosure of the opinion was the result of a hack or electronic intrusion, but added that “investigators cannot rule out the possibility” that the draft emerged because it was left in a public place inside or outside the court.
Curley said investigators ran down various suggestions in public social media posts that particular law clerks were responsible for the leak, but found nothing to suggest that speculation was true.
“Investigators looked closely into any connections between employees and reporters. They especially scrutinized any contacts with anyone associated with Politico. Investigators also assessed the wide array of public speculation, mostly on social media, about any individual who may have disclosed the document. Several law clerks were named in various posts,” the report said. “In their inquiries, the investigators found nothing to substantiate any of the social media allegations regarding the disclosure.”
The final majority opinion the court released in June in Dobbs was largely identical to the draft Justice Samuel Alito wrote and POLITICO reported on more than a month earlier. The 5-4 vote to overturn Roe v. Wade was the same as the internal vote count POLITICO reported on in May.
The court’s statement Thursday emphasized the thoroughness of the probe and said former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was retained to review Curley’s work. Chertoff, a widely-respected former federal appeals court judge before joining President George W. Bush’s Cabinet, said there was little else the court could do to solve the mystery.
“The court has already taken steps to increase security and tighten controls regarding the handling of sensitive documents,” Chertoff wrote. “More significantly, the Chief Justice has also directed a comprehensive review of the Court’s information and document security protocols to mitigate the risk of future incidents….I cannot identify any additional useful investigative measures.”
Despite the court’s assurances, questions about the rigor of the investigation are likely to linger. Neither the report nor Chertoff’s statement indicates whether the justices themselves were interviewed or whether they disclosed the draft or the vote count to their spouses. A Supreme Court spokesperson did not respond to a query about whether the justices were questioned.
As word spread Thursday of the probe’s inconclusive result, some prominent Republicans sharply criticized the court’s failure to identify the source of the disclosure.
“This is inexcusable,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) wrote on Twitter. “It means brazen attempts like this one to change the Court’s decisions—from within—will become more common. Someone ought to resign for this.”
Hawley, who served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts, also said the leak had endangered the lives of “pregnancy care center volunteers [and] the justices themselves.”
Former President Donald Trump called for the journalists involved in the POLITICO story to be drawn into the investigation.
“Go to the reporter & ask him/her who it was. If not given the answer, put whoever in jail until the answer is given,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, a social media site he co-owns. “Stop playing games, this leaking cannot be allowed to happen. It won’t take long before the name of this slime is revealed!…Arrest the reporter, publisher, editor – you’ll get your answer fast. Stop playing games and wasting time!”
Trump’s remarks drew a pointed retort from President Joe Biden’s White House, which opposed any efforts to question reporters.
“The freedom of the press is part of the bedrock of American democracy,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement shared exclusively with POLITICO. “Calling for egregious abuses of power in order to suppress the Constitutional rights of reporters is an insult to the rule of law and undermines fundamental American values and traditions. Instead, it’s the responsibility of all leaders to protect First Amendment rights. These views are not who we are as a country, and they are what we stand against in the world.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) deplored the leak but painted the episode as part of a broader decline in ethics at the high court and urged Americans not to lose sight of the substance of the court’s ruling overturning abortion rights.
“The leak of the majority draft opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case was an unacceptable breach of the Supreme Court’s confidentiality and trust,” Durbin said in a statement. “It’s important that we address serious concerns about the Court’s lack of transparency and refusal to adopt a binding code of ethics….As the Marshal of the Supreme Court continues her investigation into the leak, it’s important that we allow her process to continue.”
While Curley’s report asserts that the high court’s confidentiality policies clearly forbade disclosing a draft opinion, she suggests that there might be merit in making it a crime to disclose internal court documents. Some Republican legislators have suggested such a step.
“Bills were introduced in the last Congress which would expressly prohibit the disclosure of the Supreme Court’s non-public case-related information to anyone outside the Court. Consideration should be given to supporting such legislation,” Curley wrote.
Chris Cadelago and Marianne Levine contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Supreme #Court #identify #shared #draft #abortion #opinion
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Zonal Police Headquarters Jammu has invited applications in the prescribed format from the eligible domiciles of J&K for the post of In-charge Drug De-addiction Centre.
News WhatsApp Group Links – Join Now
J&K Police Jobs Recruitment 2023: Details
Organization JK Police (Zonal Police Headquarters Jammu)
Advt No. DIP/J-14305/22
Post Name In-charge Drug De-addiction Centre
No. of Posts 01
Category Government Job
Job Location Drug De-addiction Centre Jammu
Application Mode Online
Official Website https://www.jkpolice.gov.in
J&K Police Jobs Recruitment 2023: Important Dates
Start date for submission of applications 17 January 2023
Last Date of Application 28 January-2023
J&K Police Jobs Recruitment 2023: Vacancy Details
Name of Post In-charge Drug De-addiction Centre Jammu
No. of Post 01
Qualification MD Psychiatry and experience in psychiatry of at least 3 years.
Salary Rs. 50,000/-
J&K Police Jobs Recruitment 2023: How To Apply ?
Application forms completed in all respects should reach the office of the Superintendent of Police (Hqrs) Jammu, at DPL Jammu (Nodal officer Drug De-Addiction Centre Jammu) by or before 28-01-2023.
J&K Police Jobs Recruitment 2023: Documents Required
Date of birth (D.0.B) Certificate (Matriculation).
Academic Qualification/Technical qualification/experience Certificate, if any.
Domicile Certificate.
04 recent passport-size photographs
J&K Police Jobs Recruitment 2023: Terms & Condition
The engagement is purely for a period of six months or till the project is completed whichever is earlier. However, in case of unsatisfactory performance indiscipline ncluding absence from duty can be disengagement without an intimation/prior notice by the Appointing Authority.
The candidate would have no claim for his/her continuous engagement/ permanent absorption.
The selected candidates may be required to undergo induction trainings/workshops within or outside the UT. Initially, the contract shall be for a period of six months and the further yearly extension will be subjected to the satisfactory performance of the candidate/approval of the Competent Authority.
In case the performance of the selected candidate is rated as unsatisfactory by the controlling officer at any point of time, the Contract is liable to be terminated without any notice.
The selected candidates will have to work under he overal supervision of Appointing Authority. The selected candidates will have to work under the overall supervision of Appointing Authority. Application forms incomplete in any manner or not filled up properly shall be rejected.
Appointing authority reserves the right to terminate any candidate’s engagement at any point of time without any notice or assigning any cause of disengagement.
J&K Police Jobs Recruitment 2023: Hiring Authority:
Superintendent of Police (Hqrs) Jmu For Additional Director General of Police Jammu Zone, Jammu. Telephone :- 01912439919-(0),94695-23888- (M)
Click on below link to download official Notification PDF and Application Form:
Apply form / Official Notification
CLICK ON THE BELOW PROVIDED LINKS TO FOLLOW KASHMIR NEWS ON:
OUR APPLICATION IS ALSO LIVE ON GOOGLE PLAY STORE, DOWNLOAD MOBILE APPLICATION
Govt Releases PDF File List Of State Land In Kashmir District – Search Your Name In The List
In Richmond, everything from “parasitic” capital investors making below-value cash offers to a lack of adequate care for acquired property has ruined swaths of his city, Democratic Mayor Levar Stoney said during a panel discussion at the conference, particularly in low-income and historically Black areas.
Stoney and other local leaders also blamed short-term rental markets, house flippers and corporate investors as detractors in struggling housing markets. He called for mayors to establish a new working group to convene on pilot programs and initiatives.
“Mayors cannot address this problem alone. We need to work together with all levels of government, private corporations, landlords, tenants and community organizations,” Stoney said. “Housing is a vaccine for poverty, and home ownership is one of the fundamental ways for families to build generational wealth.”
Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller sought to offer a Western perspective, hailing from a city that didn’t face a housing shortage until a few years ago. “All of a sudden, people want to move to Albuquerque,” he said, which created a 30,000-unit-wide gap. Cheap housing from the 1960s and 1970s, as well as dilapidated apartments and hotels, worsened the issue, added Keller, who has led the city since 2017.
The city is considering whether to convert some old buildings, particularly hotels and commercial areas, into condos or apartments to make them renter-friendly. Keller said the next four months will decide the physical future of the city’s housing situation.
“We’ve got to understand the big picture, but also the details. … The problem in our city is our zoning code,” Keller said. “We zoned our entire city for single-family dwellings, and it is destroying Albuquerque. It will hollow us out.”
This year, several state legislatures have proposed widely different solutions to their individual housing problems and needs. In Washington state, a bill in the Senate would increase the amount of single-family detached housing options, while a bill in the state House aims to address the shortage by issuing up to $4 billion in general obligation bonds and give loans to some organizations that develop low-income housing.
Other chambers in states like Virginia, Washington and Connecticut have introduced measures that would strengthen protections for tenants against landlords on issues like rent increases and document translation in attempts to prevent unfair evictions. Many have also adopted stronger regulations on short-term rentals, cracking down on out-of-state property managers and adding new regulations like license requirements.
Biden administration officials sought to highlight what kinds of relief mayors could tap to quell their housing struggles.
Marion McFadden, principal deputy assistant secretary of community planning and development at HUD, touted a federal loan guarantee program that provides grants for low-cost and flexible housing. She also listed new funding sources, including $75 million in permanent supportive housing construction and $225 million in new money for manufactured housing communities.
But some mayors in the audience expressed irritation with funneling grant money through the state coffers instead of going directly to local leaders themselves.
“A lot of us are frustrated. We need more funds to go directly to local government,” Frank Cownie, the Democratic mayor of Des Moines, Iowa, said to a flurry of applause, citing concerns with how the state had doled out federal funding in the past. Other mayors in the room concurred, with one adding that small cities seem to receive even less attention and financial support.
HUD panelists responded by reiterating current federal funding, including the 2021 HOME American Rescue Plan program, a one-time infusion of affordable housing and preservation money.
“This is still low on every policymaker’s radar,” Keller, the Albuquerque mayor, said. “We are trying to push it at the state level, we are trying to let our federal delegation know about this, and we’re trying to let everyday citizens know we have to do something about housing or we’re going to lose our city to the suburbs.”
[ad_2]
#Mayors #Affordable #housing #demand #crushing
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The frustration among all members of the House about a broken process — where huge omnibus spending bills are negotiated behind closed doors and then voted on in the middle of the night — is totally understandable. It has also been a complaint from just about every backbencher in congressional history.
The process, of course, has gone seriously off the rails in the last couple of decades in Congress, culminating in the Nancy Pelosi years. The former speaker had little interest in a fair process and was more than willing to trample on the rights of the House minority.
When I was a senior aide to then-Speaker Denny Hastert, the so-called Accidental Speaker who picked up the reins of power in 1999 after Newt Gingrich’s stormy leadership came to an abrupt end, we promised to deliver regular order.
What regular order meant back then was a devotion to a predictable, repeatable, democratic and orderly process. It relied on the authorizing committees to do their authorizing, the budget committee to do its budgeting, the taxing committee (Ways and Means) to do its taxing and the spending committee (Appropriations) to do the spending.
We promised to give members back their power to make decisions and we outlined a clear agenda that promised to secure America’s future. Hastert had deep personal failings, but he was effective as a leader on Capitol Hill because he promised to be a listener more than a speaker, and he was rewarded by his colleagues by becoming the longest Republican speaker of the House in history.
In Congress, it was a great approach. But then conservatives learned that regular order didn’t necessarily reflect what they wanted, which was a lot less government. The regular order wheels started to fall off the bus when Hastert insisted on passing legislation to modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit. Conservatives revolted and the speaker had to keep a vote open for three and a half hours, which was decidedly against the regular order. But as Hastert explained at the time, for senior citizens who were waiting for 30 years for their drug benefit, three hours was not too long to wait.
Bill Thomas (McCarthy’s former boss) was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and one of the principal architects of the Medicare Modernization Act, and he wasn’t all that concerned about regular order. He just wanted to get the bill passed, as did President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other members of the Republican establishment. Conservatives were furious, but senior citizens were mostly pleased to get the new drug benefit.
Regular order is great until the point that you need to pass legislation that pleases your caucus and the American people simultaneously. And that is the challenge for McCarthy and House Republicans as they move forward. Regular order is fine in theory. But at the end of the day, the American people don’t care about process. They care about results.
I appreciate the sentiments of the small band of rebels who demanded that McCarthy give them a bigger say in the legislative process, and I appreciate that they were using all their leverage to extract concessions before they gave him their vote as speaker. But they need to understand that regular order doesn’t necessarily mean that conservatives will get the results they want. And they need to ask themselves a question: What is it that they want? Do they want an open process where they can win debate points but perhaps lose amendment votes? Or do they want to tilt the process in their favor, stifle debate and hopefully get enough moderates to come their way in a House that has historically tight margins?
These questions become even more salient as Congress considers what to do about the debt limit.
It is the rare member of Congress who loses his or her seat when it comes to extending the debt limit. Voters simply don’t care about the esoteric parliamentary debates that revolve around our absurd fiscal irresponsibility.
But that doesn’t mean that political campaigns don’t try to make hay out of the debt limit and especially for Republicans, it is a hard vote to swallow. GOP lawmakers don’t like out-of-control spending, and they get frustrated when they seemingly can’t do anything about it.
A regular order approach to dealing with the debt limit would entail committee hearings at the Ways and Means and Budget committees, a markup at the committee level, a Rules Committee hearing, where the panel would decide which amendments would be considered, and then a robust floor debate, where those amendments would be considered.
If that regular order process were actually employed, the House would likely vote down most conservative-backed amendments to sharply curtail spending on entitlement programs, and then it would pass a relatively clean debt ceiling lift and send it over to the Senate. Then the Democratic-led Senate, with help from some Republicans, would pass that bill in the name of economic stability, and President Joe Biden would eagerly sign it.
It would be a fair and open debate, but it wouldn’t deliver a particularly conservative result.
The truth is that while the House GOP skews conservative on many issues, in certain areas — like spending money on the military, keeping the government open and avoiding a debt default and potential financial crisis — there is a bipartisan majority to do the opposite of what the hard right wants.
Regular order rarely yields unambiguously happy results for the conservative movement. And that is the reality for the Freedom Caucus and for Kevin McCarthy. They can proclaim the need for regular order all they want, but at the end of the day, the speaker has to find a way to keep his majority happy and also prove that he can govern for the rest of the American people. I wish the new speaker luck.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #McCarthy #Holdouts #Regret #Deal
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
It was a charge that captured the wounded feelings and political frustrations of America’s allies in Europe after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, H.R. 5376 (117), which included a mammoth program of clean-energy subsidies and made-in-America manufacturing rules that has thrown the transatlantic economic relationship into turmoil. Manchin, as the crucial fiftieth vote for the legislation and whose office wrote the controversial provisions, did more to shape the final version of the law than any legislator.
Now, Manchin has marched into the den of the European elite, mingling at the World Economic Forum in Davos with an audience of continental technocrats, true-believing free traders and oligarchs more at ease in Monte Carlo than Morgantown, West Virginia, where Manchin played college football.
The gulf in political and cultural sensibilities could scarcely have been starker.
In the Swiss Alps, Manchin was determined to change the minds of men and women who see him as the face of a new American rival, the cause of a great rupture in transatlantic economic relations. Now, having made the trip across the Atlantic, he’s trying to put the pieces back together. He has been in one mode and one mode only here: sell, baby, sell.
Manchin is unabashedly proud of his role in shaping the IRA, handing out one-pagers and telling stories about the people — some of them at Davos — who are already benefiting from it. But American allies like France and Germany see the $369 billion investment in energy security, including subsidies for climate and tech companies and incentives for consumers, as a frontal assault on European industry, a blunt-force instrument aimed at coercing companies to shift investments out of Europe and perhaps enter into energy and manufacturing deals in North America that they would not otherwise pursue.
A new man about town
In Washington, Manchin is among the most famous members of Congress. But now, the once-unknown, gum-chewing, no-nonsense West Virginian is infamous in Europe. European leaders, typically used to dealing with fellow heads of state, are now seeking facetime with the newfound Davos Man himself. They are getting plenty of it.
Strolling into Anthony Scaramucci’s wine-tasting party in the Piano Bar of Hotel Europe on Tuesday night, Manchin had earlier that day come out of another grilling from a group of Europeans. He seemed more bemused than upset by the experience. He said he explained that the IRA is good for the U.S. and for the European allies.
Did he convince anyone?
Not really, he said, but he made his case.
As snow fell on Davos Wednesday afternoon, Manchin joined the congressional delegation here for a quiet meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the leader of Europe’s largest economy. Manchin related to POLITICO that Scholz expressed frustration that the American law would directly harm German’s vital car market. The incentives would prove damaging to Germany and Europe and eventually spark a trade war, Scholz added.
Manchin pushed back, saying there’s nothing stopping Germany from producing more cars in the United States — a point that wasn’t exactly a response to Scholz’s frustration.
“I think it rubs him wrong when I say that,” the senator told POLITICO.
Manchin said that Scholz countered that the U.S. places too many penalties on European cars entering the American market. So the West Virginian pulled out his cellphone and Googled “tariff cost on autos in Germany.” In bold, the search engine’s front page excerpted the relevant part of a 2019 Deutsche Welle article: “US levies a 2.5 percent tariff on European auto imports, while the European Union imposes a 10 percent duty.”
A German government spokesman called Scholz’s conversation with Manchin and the other 11 lawmakers on the IRA a “direct exchange” that was “an expression of our close and good relationship with the USA.”
Still, Manchin says his main message to Scholz — and Europe more broadly — is that “this piece of legislation was not intended to harm anybody. It was intended to keep America strong so we could help our friends. That’s it.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the leader of the American congressional delegation in Davos, said the conversation with Scholz on the IRA was cordial and professional. But Coons, an experienced diplomat who sits on the Senate’s foreign relations committee, acknowledged there were clear differences.
“We are optimistic we can find a way forward through this,” he said. “We have work to do to hear each other.”
Nobody likes being the last to know
Manchin is proud that he was able to have frank conversations with allies about a disagreement, having them learn from him and him learn from them. But he was surprised by the rancor and confusion he encountered from European officials who felt blindsided by America’s robust industrial policy.
Manchin never heard from lobbies or governments about the controversial part of the law because his team drafted it in secret. No one, save for senior Democrats in the Senate, knew they were drafting the measure. Once it came to light, and proved the saving grace for President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, the legislative process moved so quickly that no one had time to react.
“They just didn’t know,” Manchin said — but they know now.
The initial confusion about the law in Europe gave way to rage and, soon after that, an aggressive policy response from EU and national leaders who are crafting their own program of large-scale support for clean-energy industry.
The night the IRA passed last year, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission’s president, issued a late-night tweet to congratulate Biden on the IRA’s passage in Congress. A few weeks later, her team was openly panicking about the IRA’s measures, particularly regarding subsidies on electric vehicles which it regarded as discriminatory.
By the winter, when Macron clashed with Manchin in Washington, European leaders grasped that the American energy law could have sweeping unintended consequences for their own countries. Manchin said that when Macron approached him, the French leader decried the investments that were leaving other parts of the world — including Europe — and flooding into the United States.
According to Manchin’s recollection, he countered by telling Macron that the U.S. took the approach to incentivize its way to energy security while France and Europeans chose to tax their way to it. The American approach “attracts people from all over the world” to work on hydrogen, small nuclear reactors and battery storage, Manchin recalled saying.
He said he told Macron: “I will sit down and work with you in any way, shape or form to relieve your concerns and fears that we’re trying to basically do any harm to you or your society.”
A French official with direct knowledge of the exchange confirmed it, noting the president “explained very calmly our serious concerns.”
Sticking to his guns
Worries have continued mounting in Europe, and Manchin has not always worked hard to ease them.
At a dinner Manchin and his congressional colleagues had with Xavier Bettel, Luxembourg’s prime minister, at Davos this week, the leader raised Europe’s concerns about the IRA, particularly in light of the spiking cost of energy due to Russia’s war in Ukraine, a person familiar with the conversation said. Manchin argued that Luxembourg would see those prices fall if the country entered into long-term contracts with U.S.-based producers.
Those kinds of comments are likely to alienate the EU even further, confirming the view in Brussels that American natural gas producers are poised to benefit from EU’s energy woes as the bloc tries to wean off Russian energy.
Asked about the dinner with lawmakers, Bettel said “Luxembourg remains committed to keep up the dialogue with our U.S. friends around European concerns including IRA and energy security,” adding his country informed the European Commission about the dialogue he had with Manchin and others.
Manchin was not the only American struck by the intensity of European leaders’ resentment over the legislation, which some suggested was misplaced.
“Over the last couple of decades our friends in Europe have encouraged the United States to address climate change, and now we’re doing it in a major way and some are criticizing the way we’re doing it,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), chair of the EU Caucus on Capitol Hill who is part of the U.S. delegation in Davos.
“This bill took a year and a half,” said Boyle. “I’m chair of the congressional EU caucus; pretty much every week I am meeting with fellow parliamentarians and EU countries. Not once — ever — was it expressed to me by any European official of any country that they had problems or concerns with any specific aspect of the Inflation Reduction Act that were being discussed publicly.”
But European officials say they were annoyed to have learned about it first in the media. After all, the U.S. and the EU had just barely over a year before set up a new body — called the Trade and Technology Council – for the express purpose of coordinating on such policies.
Crisis mode
EU officials are now scrambling to find some way out of the conundrum inflicted on them by the IRA, particularly the bill’s provisions on electric vehicles, which gave favorable treatment to Mexico and Canada, but not the EU. A leader of an EU country, who didn’t want to be named, said this week that, “We are confident that by raising it we can make sure the U.S. does the right thing.”
The European Commission established a “task-force” in October led by Von der Leyen’s chief of staff Bjoern Seibert and deputy national security adviser Mike Pyle to explore options. In particular, they are trying to ensure that the local provisions part of the law which allows manufacturers from Mexico and Canada to benefit from tax breaks, could also apply to Europe.
But there isn’t great hope in Europe at this point that the United States will fundamentally change the offending provisions of the IRA. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said following a meeting with Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis in Brussels this week that the EU needed to be “realistic” about resolving concerns.
Manchin said he is open to addressing any suggestions the Europeans may have, working with them closely to ensure there isn’t a brutal fight to win the technological race toward a new energy economy.
It’s unclear how much power he’ll have now that Democrats have a 51-member majority in the Senate, rather than the 50-50 split that regularly gave Manchin the swing vote. And with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, the prospects look dim for major legislation on complex subjects.
For now, Manchin is looking forward to resting on his flight home and shifting out of sales mode — at least for now.
“I didn’t know it would be this intense, to be honest with you,” he said.
Burgess Everett, Matt Kaminski, Jakob Hanke Vela, Hans von der Burchard and Ryan Heath contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Youre #hurting #country #Manchin #faces #Europes #wrath
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Jammu And Kashmir Bank Personal Consumption Loan Scheme For permanent employees of Govt, PSUs, Institutions and Autonomous Bodies of Govt maintaining salary account with J&K Bank: 42 X Monthly Gross Salary. For employees of Govt not maintaining salary account with J&K Bank: 24 X Monthly Gross Salary or Rs 15.00 lacs, whichever is lower. For employees of other reputed institutions/ Corporate Houses maintaining salary account with J&K Bank: 30 X Monthly Gross Salary or Rs 25.00 lacs, whichever is lower.
News WhatsApp Group Links – Join Now
Make your home cosy and comfortable. Meet every dream of yours with J&K Bank Personal Consumption Loan.
Minimum: Rs. 50000.00 Maximum: For permanent employees of Govt, PSUs, Institutions and Autonomous Bodies of Govt maintaining salary account with J&K Bank: 42 X Monthly Gross Salary For employees of Govt not maintaining salary account with J&K Bank: 24 X Monthly Gross Salary or Rs 15.00 lacs, whichever is lower. For employees of other reputed institutions/ Corporate Houses maintaining salary account with J&K Bank: 30 X Monthly Gross Salary or Rs 25.00 lacs, whichever is lower
Permanent Employees of
Government (State/Central/ Union Territories).
Public Sector Undertakings,
Autonomous Bodies & Institutions of Government
Govt. Employees (J&K and Ladakh only) recruited under SRO 202 with minimum service of 18 months. Note: Employees of State Govt/Central Govt/ UT Govt, PSUs, Autonomous Bodies & Institutions of Government not maintaining salary account with J&K Bank shall also be eligible.
Permanent Employees of Reputed Institutions banking with J&K Bank. Only those regular/ permanent employees shall be eligible who are maintaining their salary accounts with J&K Bank and/or will shift existing salary accounts to J&K Bank with at least one salary received in that account.
Permanent Employees of Corporate Houses banking with J&K Bank. Only those regular/ permanent employees shall be eligible who are maintaining their salary accounts with J&K Bank and/or will shift existing salary accounts to J&K Bank with at least one salary received in that account provided:
These corporate houses have a minimum business of Rs 5.00 crore (Advances+ Deposits) with the branch/bank.
Concerned Zonal offices will identify such corporate houses and permit the respective branches under their jurisdiction to grant personal consumption Loans to their regular employees.
For branches operating outside J&K and Ladakh UTs, such loans shall be granted only to those regular employees of corporate customers who are permanent residents of periphery of the branch, otherwise such loans shall be additionally guaranteed by the employer.
For permanent employees of Govt, PSUs, Institutions and Autonomous Bodies of Govt maintaining salary account with J&K Bank:
For all Others:
3 rd party Guarantee of Two persons having individual net worth of at least 200% of loan amount
Employees maintaining salary account with the bank: MCLR 3Y+3.00%
Employees not maintaining salary account with the bank: MCLR 3Y+4.00%
Click here for rate of Interest
The maximum repayment period shall be 120 months with the repayment commencing next month of disbursement.
Important to note that repayment is to be fixed in such a way that loan shall be fully adjusted by or before employee retires from active service.
CLICK ON THE BELOW PROVIDED LINKS TO FOLLOW KASHMIR NEWS ON:
OUR APPLICATION IS ALSO LIVE ON GOOGLE PLAY STORE, DOWNLOAD MOBILE APPLICATION