Category Archives: News

worldwide news

Fed’s Powell: ‘No Rush’ to Hike Rates in ‘Solid’ But Slowing Economy

The Federal Reserve is in “no rush to make a judgment” about further changes to interest rates, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday as he spelled out the central bank’s approach to an economy that is likely slowing.

In two hours of testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, Powell elaborated on the “conflicting signals” the Fed has tried to decipher in recent weeks, including disappointing data on retail sales and other aspects of the economy that contrast with steady hiring, wage growth, and ongoing low unemployment.

“The baseline outlook is a good one,” Powell said, but slower growth overseas is a drag on the U.S. economy that “we may feel more of” in the coming months.

“We have the makings of a good outlook and our (rate-setting) committee is really monitoring the crosscurrents, the risks, and for now we are going to be patient with our policy and allow things to take time to clarify.”

If anything, Powell’s comments solidified a Fed policy shift last month in which it indicated it would pause a three-year cycle of rate hikes, which had been projected to run well into 2020, until the inflation or growth dynamics change.

The flow of new workers into the labor force, for example, has surprised the central bank and means “there is more room to grow,” Powell said.

Powell, who has led the Fed for just over a year, faced virtually no pushback from Republicans on the Senate panel, as former Fed chief Janet Yellen had in the past, that the central bank was courting inflation or financial risks by leaving rates too low.

After raising rates four times in 2018, and anticipating further hikes in 2019, the Fed in January switched to a “patient” stance as concerns about the global economy took root, and markets voiced doubts about the U.S. economic recovery.

The Fed’s benchmark overnight lending rate currently is within a range of 2.25 percent to 2.50 percent.

There was also little said by lawmakers about the Fed’s evolving plan to maintain a balance sheet of perhaps $3.5 trillion, which would be lower than the current $4 trillion but still massive by historical standards. Republican lawmakers generally have pushed the central bank to reduce a financial footprint inflated by crisis-era programs many in the party considered risky.

Financial markets were largely unmoved by Powell’s testimony, which was the first of his two hearings this week in Congress. He is due to appear before the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee on Wednesday.

U.S. Treasury yields were lower in afternoon trading while major U.S. stock indexes were slightly higher. The dollar was weaker against a basket of currencies.

Political Shift

Powell told lawmakers that the Fed expected the U.S. economy to grow solidly but at a slower pace this year than the estimated 3 percent growth for 2018, an outlook that was built into the central bank’s policy statement in January.

The “patient” approach to rate hikes has been a staple of Fed commentary since early last month.

“As long as we have steady growth with no inflation, that should keep the Fed at bay,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Cresset Wealth Advisors in Chicago.

But Tuesday’s hearing did offer a preview of issues the central bank may confront as the 2020 presidential campaign takes shape, and Democrats use their recently-won control of the House to press new economic and political ideas.

Amid a growing debate over whether the U.S. government may have far more room to expand its debt than conventional economics might recommend, or whether the Fed’s own balance sheet might help finance a “Green New Deal” of economic and environmental programs, Powell made clear he was among the traditionalists.

“The idea that deficits don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong. I think that U.S. debt is fairly high as a level of (gross domestic product) and, much more importantly than that, it’s growing faster than GDP,” Powell said. “To the extent that people are talking about the Fed – our role is not to provide support for particular policies” on environmental, social or other related issues.

Indeed, asked about the upcoming need to boost the U.S. debt ceiling, he said he considered the prospect of a U.S. government default on its obligations “a bright line, and I hope we never do pass it.”

Powell’s appearances on Capitol Hill this week, part of his semi-annual testimony to Congress, are his first since Democrats won control of the House in the November elections. They also follow the kickoff of a number of 2020 presidential campaigns.

Along with questions that ranged from the sources of rural poverty to the impact of climate change on banks, Senate committee members pressed points likely to figure into the Democratic primary battle.

“The Fed works for big rich banks that want to get bigger and richer,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat running for president. She questioned whether Powell would be adequately aggressive in reviewing a proposed megamerger between U.S. regional lender BB&T and rival SunTrust Banks.

Powell pledged an “open and transparent” review of the deal.

When asked whether there had been any “direct or indirect” communication from the White House about interest rates, Powell deferred, saying he would not comment on private conversations with other officials.

President Donald Trump has castigated the Fed for raising rates, arguing that the monetary tightening was undercutting his administration’s efforts to boost economic growth.

On Tuesday, Powell repeated his oft-heard pledge that the Fed will make policy decisions “in a way that is not political.”

EPA Defends Enforcement Record, Despite Drop in Penalties

The Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement chief on Tuesday defended the Trump administration’s work, despite a report by her own agency showing that civil and criminal crackdowns on polluters have dropped sharply in the past two years.

Assistant administrator Susan Bodine, who heads the office of enforcement, said the idea that EPA is soft on enforcement is “absolutely not true,” adding that the agency is giving states a greater role in regulation and enforcement and stressing education and voluntary compliance by companies.

Bodine told a House subcommittee that a media “narrative” about lax enforcement “discredits the tremendous work of the compliance and assurance staff” at EPA.

“A strong environment program doesn’t mean we have to collect a particular dollar amount or pick up a number of penalties,” Bodine said.

But Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said EPA’s own statistics show an agency that’s “sitting on its hands” and “giving polluters a free pass. And it’s putting our health and environment at risk.”

When EPA enforcement activities go down, “pollution goes up. That’s a fact,” said DeGette, who chairs an Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

The EPA has been one of the most active agencies in carrying out President Donald Trump’s deregulatory goals. Environmental and public health groups say the business-friendly rollbacks place public health and the environment at greater risk, a claim Democrats repeatedly made at Tuesday’s hearing.

The hearing was the first oversight hearing on EPA since Democrats reclaimed the House majority last month.

Congress has enacted a series of laws to protect health and the environment, “and this panel will not sit back and allow this administration to simply ignore those laws,” DeGette said. “We expect the EPA to do its job.”

Historically low levels

The latest numbers from EPA show its overall enforcement activities for 2018 were at historically low levels, according to an agency report earlier this month.

The EPA assessed polluters a total of $69 million in civil penalties in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the lowest dollar amount since EPA created the enforcement office in 1994, the report showed.

Inspections and evaluations dropped to about 10,600, half the number EPA conducted at its peak in 2010.

Civil investigations carried out by the agency declined to 22 last year, down from 40 in 2017 and 125 in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration.

Criminal fines and restitution tumbled, from $207 million in 2016 and $3 billion in 2017, which includes a $2.8 billion fine against Volkswagen over emissions-rigging in a case initiated under the Obama administration — to $86 million last year.

Rep. Frank Pallone, who chairs the full energy panel, told Bodine there was “no way to sugarcoat these numbers.”

Pallone, D-N.J., said it appears that under Trump, the EPA “is relying on industry to voluntarily come forward and disclose when they are not in compliance” with federal laws.

Pallone scoffed at that idea and said EPA must have a robust enforcement presence, with active inspections and investigations and, where appropriate, referrals to the Justice Department.

Pallone and other Democrats questioned Bodine about reports that EPA has lost 17 percent of its enforcement staff since 2017. Bodine disputed that, saying the agency has 607 enforcement employees of 649 authorized by Congress. More inspectors are being hired, including eight in March, she said.

‘Carrot and stick’ approach

Bodine challenged Democrats’ contention that higher penalties lead to improved compliance.

“Enforcement is a critical tool but it’s not an end to itself,” she said, adding that EPA uses a “carrot and stick” approach that ranges from helping companies better understand their obligations to supporting state enforcement actions “all the way to putting people in jail for knowing and egregious violations that endanger public health or the environment.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., said Bodine appeared to be making excuses.

“I think it’s fairly clear EPA is not doing its job as it should,” said Castor, who chairs a special House committee on climate change.

“I’m sorry you feel that way,” Bodine replied.

Cameroon Cracks Down on Illegal Fuel Trade

Cameroonian police officers, assisted by members of the country’s elite corps, seized hundreds of containers of fuel illegally transported from Nigeria by suspected Central African Republic rebels in the northern town of Mbe, Cameroon.

Rigobert Ojong, a member of a task force of military, police and civil society members created three weeks ago to stop the illegal fuel trade, said the group received a tip that the fuel was on its way to the C.A.R., where it would be used by rebels fighting the central African state’s government. 

“We have put aside personnel dedicated to this fight, within the framework of this task force, and we have been able to intercept about 1,500 drums of fraudulently imported fuel. If we go by the price in the black market, we are talking about more than 3 billion CFA francs [$5 million] a year,” Ojong said.

Cameroon’s government says an unknown quantity of oil is smuggled from Nigeria through its territory because the border is so porous. The military says it has opened an investigation to track dealers who might be collaborating with rebel groups in the C.A.R.

Alleged corruption

Businessman Patrice Essola, who supplies fuel to the C.A.R. from Cameroon, says illegal trade with C.A.R. rebels is facilitated by corrupt government officials in both countries.

He said the rebels and traffickers work in collaboration with corrupt Cameroonian military officials and C.A.R. border immigration staff to import the fuel from Nigeria. Some of the tankers and trucks that smuggle the fuel are even protected by corrupt officials while in Cameroon and in the C.A.R., Essola added.

Kildadi Taguieke Boukar, governor of the Adamawa region that shares a border with the C.A.R., denies corrupt military officials assist rebels and smugglers, but said investigations had been opened.

Each time the traffickers are arrested, they answer charges in courts of law, Boukar said, but added the task is very, very difficult because Cameroon’s borders with Nigeria and the C.A.R. are very porous. All of the fuel will be taken to C.A.R. authorities, he said.

C.A.R. violence, peace deal

In January, Cameroon said 300 of its citizens had been abducted by suspected C.A.R. rebels within the past two years, along with at least 5,000 cattle. Local border communities asked the government to authorize self-defense groups to be equipped with guns to face rebels who they said continued to cross to their villages for supplies.

The C.A.R. was plunged into turmoil in 2013 when Muslim rebels known as the Seleka seized power in the majority-Christian country. A band of mostly Christian militias, called the anti-Balaka, rose up to counter the Seleka. Thousands of people have been killed in the violence and more than one million are internally displaced. An estimated 570,000 people have fled to neighboring countries, with about 350,000 in Cameroon.

On Feb. 2, the U.N. mission in the C.A.R., known as MINUSCA, and the African Union announced that a peace deal between the C.A.R. government and 14 rebel groups had been reached after sponsored talks in Sudan. They called on the C.A.R.’s neighbors to help bring peace by not allowing their borders to be used for supplies or as a hiding ground for fighters who refuse to respect the deal.

Boeing Nominates Former UN Ambassador Haley to Join its Board

U.S. aerospace manufacturer Boeing said on Tuesday it has nominated Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a close ally of President Donald Trump, to join its board of directors at the company’s annual shareholders meeting on April 29.

If elected by Boeing shareholders, she would help guide the future of America’s largest exporter, with a network of suppliers across the United States and the world, as Washington and Beijing have been locked in intense negotiations to end a trade war.

Haley’s nomination comes as Boeing grapples with a major decision: whether to launch an all-new jetliner known as NMA, a midsize plane that would serve a niche market falling between narrow- and wide-body aircraft.

The world’s largest planemaker has said it would make a final launch decision in 2020 on the new program, which is expected to define competition with archrival Airbus SE.

Viewed as a rising Republican Party star, Haley has often been mentioned as a future presidential candidate. Her counterparts at the United Nations saw her as a voice of clarity in the Trump administration.

Haley, 47, is the first female governor of South Carolina and a three-term legislator in the South Carolina House of Representatives. As governor in 2015, Haley was a key opponent of a campaign by Boeing’s largest labor union to form a collective bargaining unit at its 787 Dreamliner factory in South Carolina – though the machinists were later successful in forming a small bargaining unit there.

Boeing has faced growing scrutiny over its links to the Trump administration after a former senior planemaking executive, Pat Shanahan, was named deputy defense secretary and later acting defense secretary. The 31-year Boeing veteran has recused himself, however, from matters relating to the aerospace company.

The U.S. government has been weighing the purchase of an advanced version of the F-15 Boeing fighter. Last year, Boeing’s defense side had a series of wins, including the U.S. Air Force’s next training jet, which could be worth up to $9.2 billion, as well as a contract to replace UH-1N Huey helicopters worth $2.4 billion over the life of the programs.

In a press release, Muilenburg praised Haley’s record in government and industry partnership.

“Boeing will benefit greatly from her broad perspectives and combined diplomatic, government and business experience to help achieve our aspiration to be the best in aerospace and a global industrial champion,” Muilenburg said.

Based on total compensation for Boeing’s other 13 board members, Haley can expect to earn more than $300,000, well above her salary as U.N. ambassador.

Separately on Tuesday, the shareholders of Brazilian planemaker Embraer SA approved a deal to sell 80 percent of the Sao Paulo-based company’s commercial jet division to Boeing, a move that could reshape the global market for aircraft of up to 150 seats.

Boeing shares were flat at $427.88 a share in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Mobile World Congress Overshadowed by Huawei 5G Spying Standoff

Robots, cars, drones and virtual-reality gaming sets connected by cutting-edge 5G networks are among the thousands of futuristic gadgets on display at this year’s Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain.

While there is much excitement over how 5G will transform our everyday lives, the conference is overshadowed by the standoff between the United States and Beijing over the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei, which the U.S. says could be used by the Chinese government for espionage.

Some U.S. cities and parts of Asia are already operating 5G mobile networks. They offer speeds of over a gigabyte per second and low latency — in other words, practically instant connections with no delay.

Experts say that opens up whole new fields of connectivity, from new generations of virtual reality gaming and communication, to remote robotic surgery.

The technology promises to transform not only the mobile phone in your pocket — but also the world around us, says Paul Triolo of the Eurasia Group, who spoke to VOA from the conference.

“The really key aspects of 5G, like some of the low latency communications and massive sensor, massive machine-to-machine communications, that’s more about industry and industrial uses. And that gets into thing like critical infrastructure so you’re going to have a lot more non-personal or industrial data flying around and that really has people concerned. For example, military forces in countries like the U.S. will also leverage large parts of the commercial network,” said Triolo.Chinese firm Huawei is a big presence at the Mobile World Congress and a big player in 5G network technology.

Washington has banned the company from 5G rollout in the United States, citing Chinese legislation requiring companies to cooperate with the state — raising fears Huawei 5G networks overseas could be used as a ‘Trojan horse’ to spy on rivals.

Attending the Mobile World Congress Tuesday, the U.S. State Department’s Deputy Secretary for Cyber Policy Robert L. Strayer urged allies to do the same.

“We will continue to engage with these governments and the regulators in these countries to educate them about what we know and keep sharing the best practices for how we can all successfully move to next generation of technology. I´ll just say there are plenty of options in the West,” Strayer told reporters.

Huawei’s management has said the company would never use ‘back doors’ for espionage — and the Chinese government has dismissed the accusations.

Australia, New Zealand and Japan have followed Washington’s lead and restricted Huawei’s involvement in 5G. Europe remains undecided — but the industry needs clarity, said analyst Paul Triolo.

“The European community in particular and also the U.S. have to clarify what these policies mean, what a ban would mean or what some kind of a partial ban would mean, if there’s really a middle ground that can be found here.”

Vodafone’s CEO Nick Read told the Barcelona conference that banning Huawei could set Europe’s 5G rollout back another two years.

The eye-catching gadgets show the potential that 5G networks are about to unleash. But the question of who controls those networks, and the data they carry, looms large over this futuristic world.

China-US Huawei 5G Standoff Overshadows Mobile Tech Summit in Spain

5G-connected robots, cars, drones and virtual-reality gaming sets are among the thousands of futuristic gadgets on display at this year’s Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. While there is much excitement over how 5G networks will transform our everyday lives, the conference is overshadowed by the standoff between the United States and Beijing over the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei – which the U.S. says could be used by the Chinese government for espionage. Henry Ridgwell has more.

Look But Don’t Touch as Smartphone’s Flexible Future Unfolds

Flexible and folding formats framed the future of smartphones this week as manufacturers focused on new forms in an effort to jolt the market out of uniformity and re-invigorate sales.

But anyone hoping to tap or swipe Huawei’s Mate X, a smartphone that wraps the screen around the front and back, was soon disappointed at Barcelona’s Mobile World Congress.

Initial cheers were quickly followed by gasps when the Chinese firm revealed its eye-watering 2,299 euros ($2,600) price tag, although that includes a 5G connection.

This is even more than Samsung’s Galaxy Fold, which was unveiled last week and will be priced from $1,980 when it goes on sale in some markets in April. It was on display in Barcelona in a glass case like a museum artefact.

While the hands-off stance indicates neither firm has a consumer-ready device, 2019 would be remembered as the year of the foldable Ben Wood, chief of research at CCS Insight, said, adding that the new format was still in its infancy.

“But we are at the stone age of devices with flexible displays; it’s a whole new phase of experimentation after the sea of smartphone sameness we have seen for the last decade.”

Samsung took the opposite approach to Huawei by putting its folding screen on the inside of its device, with another smaller screen on the front panel for use when its is closed.

“That was the solution we felt was best for longevity,” Samsung’s European Director of Mobile Portfolio & Commercial Strategy Mark Notton told Reuters.

Smartphone makers have been trying to innovate to persuade consumers to upgrade from devices which already meet most of their needs, in an effort to reverse falling sales.

And although more vendors will soon follow with their own takes on foldable displays, 2019 will not be the year they go mainstream, market analysts Canalys said. They will remain exclusively ultra-luxury devices with fewer than 2 million expected to be shipped worldwide this year, Canalys added.

The mobile market slipped 1.2 percent in 2018, research company Gartner says, although it expects growth of 1.6 percent in 2019, driven by replacement cycles in the largest and most saturated markets China, the United States and Western Europe.

Gearing up for 5G

With 5G next generation mobile networks not becoming widely available until 2023 in the United States and China and 2026 in Europe, analysts say, the vast majority of customers will be buying the latest 4G devices like Samsung new Galaxy S10.

Nonetheless, manufacturers such as LG were keen to show they could squeeze 5G technology into 4G smartphone form, although most lacked launch or pricing information.

Chinese maker OnePlus had a 5G device running a video game using a 5G connection on show, but visitors were teased with only a glimpse of the phone’s screen in a display cabinet.

“For us, launching means commercial availability, it doesn’t mean PowerPoint,” OnePlus co-founder Carl Pei told Reuters.

“We are confident we are going to be one of the first with a commercially available smartphone in Europe,” he said, adding that this would be within the first half of 2019.

Xiaomi Corp, which ranked fifth in smartphone shipments in the last quarter according to IDC, did reveal pricing information along with its first 5G device.

“Xiaomi has fired the starting gun with a $599 price. That will bring tears to the eyes of many other mobile phone makers,” Wood said, adding that many sub-scale makers such as Sony, LG and others could find it tough to make any kind of margin on 5G.

Sony did not show a 5G device, relying instead on its ownership of a major Hollywood studio to release a new line of Xperia phones with a 21:9 display ratio optimized to watch movies and Netflix content.

 

House to Vote on Measure to Revoke Trump’s Border National Emergency

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass a measure Tuesday to revoke President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the country’s southern border.

Democrats introduced the bill after Trump’s February 15 declaration, arguing his actions went against the constitutional separation of powers that gives Congress control over how federal money is spent.

Democratic control of the House means the bill is sure to pass there. Several Republicans in the Senate have indicated they would support the measure as well, but it remains to be seen if enough would join Democrats there to send the bill to Trump’s desk.

What seems certain is that once there, Trump would use his veto power to kill the initiative, and that there would not be enough votes in Congress to override the veto.

Trump has argued since his campaign for president that the United States needs a wall along its border with Mexico to stop people from entering the country illegally and to halt the flow of drugs. 

He demanded Congress approve $5.7 billion in spending for wall construction, but Democrats refused, saying a wall is an expensive and ineffective way to address border security issues. Instead, they agreed to a border security spending package that included nearly $1.4 billion for about 90 kilometers of border barriers in Texas.

Trump’s emergency declaration allows him to reallocate about $6 billion in money already approved for other purposes, most of it from the Defense Department.

On Monday, a group of 58 former U.S. national security officials, both Republicans and Democrats, issued a statement saying Trump had “no factual basis” to declare a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. 

Signatories included former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, along with former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former United Nations Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former Defense chief and Central Intelligence Agency director Leon Panetta and former State Department counselor Eliot Cohen.

Another letter from 28 former Republican members of Congress expressed their disapproval for Trump’s declaration, saying it undermined both Congress and the Constitution.

Bernie Sanders Says He’ll Soon Release Decade of Tax Returns

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday pledged to “sooner than later” make public 10 years of his tax returns and vowed to support the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, saying he held no grudges against the Democratic National Committee over his unsuccessful 2016 campaign.

 

Sanders appeared at a town hall hosted by CNN ahead of the official launch of his 2020 presidential campaign with events this weekend in Brooklyn, where he grew up, and Chicago, where he graduated from college. He joins a crowded field of nearly a dozen other contenders, including a number of fellow senators.

 

Asked Monday whether he would release a decade’s worth of his tax returns, as 2020 rival Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has already done, Sanders said that he would.

 

“Our tax returns will bore you to death, nothing special about them,” Sanders said, adding that his wife, Jane, does most of his taxes rather than using an accountant.

 

Sanders’ fellow contenders for the Democratic nomination have made similar pledges of transparency, in stark contrast with President Donald Trump, who has refused to release his tax returns, saying they are under audit. He is the only president in modern history to decline to do so.

 

During his first presidential bid, Sanders endured questioning by Hillary Clinton over why he had not released several years of his tax returns and had instead opted to release just his 2014 tax returns. Sanders said Monday that he would have released more of his tax returns had he been the Democratic nominee.

 

Sanders’ plan to release a decade’s worth of tax returns was first reported by National Journal.

 

Sanders took questions from attendees in Washington on a variety of issues, including allegations of sexual harassment and other mistreatment of female staffers who worked on his first presidential campaign.

 

Sanders said his 2018 senatorial campaign had instituted strong protocols to handle any incidents of harassment. He said that all staffers on his presidential campaign would receive training on harassment and would have access to an independent entity if they experience harassment.

 

“I was very upset to learn what I learned,” Sanders said, adding, “It was very painful, very painful.”

 

Sanders clashed with the DNC during his first White House bid, especially after WikiLeaks released stolen documents and emails in which DNC officials appeared to support Clinton’s campaign over Sanders’. Sanders said Monday that he did not have lingering issues with the DNC, despite believing the group was “not quite even-handed” in 2016.

 

“I think we have come a long way since then, and I fully expect to be treated quite as well as anyone else,” Sanders said.

 

In response to a question Monday, he defended the role he played as a surrogate for Clinton’s campaign after she won the nomination. He referenced an October 2016 letter sent to him by Clinton in which she thanked him for campaigning for her in multiple states.

 

Sanders said he would back the eventual 2020 Democratic nominee, whomever that may be.

 

“I hope and believe that every Democratic candidate will come together after the nominee is selected and make certain that Donald Trump is not re-elected president of the United States,” Sanders said. “I pledge certainly to do that.”

 

Asked how he would engage with Trump on the debate stage if he is the Democratic presidential nominee, Sanders said he would “bring a lie detector along.”

 

“Every time he lies, it goes ‘beep,'” Sanders said as the audience laughed. “That would be the first thing.”

Taiwan Concerns Mean China Defense Budget Likely to Defy Slowing Economy

A slowing economy is unlikely to crimp China’s 2019 defense budget rise, as Beijing earmarks more spending for modernization and big-ticket items like stealth jets, and focuses on Taiwan after a stern new year’s speech from President Xi Jinping.

The defense spending figure is closely watched worldwide for clues to China’s strategic intentions as it develops new military capabilities, including aircraft carriers and anti-satellite missiles.

In 2018, China unveiled its largest defense spending increase in three years, setting an 8.1 percent growth target for the year, fueling an ambitious military upgrade program and making its neighbors nervous.

The 2019 number should be revealed at the March 5 opening of the annual session of China’s largely rubber-stamp parliament, although in 2017 it was initially not announced, prompting renewed concerns about transparency.

China plans to set a lower economic growth target of 6-6.5 percent in 2019 compared with last year’s target of around 6.5 percent, policy sources have told Reuters. The government will also announced the economic growth target on March 5. 

However, the defense budget increase could well surpass that.

Influential state-run tabloid the Global Times, which takes a strongly nationalistic line, this month cited an unidentified military expert as saying “a stable 8-9 percent increase from 2018 would be a reasonable prediction.”

China still has a long way to go to catch Western forces because the number of advanced weapons now in its arsenal, such as the J-20 stealth fighter, remain limited, the paper said.

Xie Yue, a professor of political science at Tongji University in Shanghai and a security expert, said with a weakening economy there would naturally be an expectation for a slower increase in military spending.

“It should go down, as the defense budget is connected to economic growth, but certainly factors will probably mean it will still go up, like the South China Sea and Taiwan issues,” Xie said.

Xi’s January speech threatening to attack Taiwan should it not accept Chinese rule has shot the issue back up the agenda for China’s military thinkers, especially as the island gears up for presidential elections next year.

“The Taiwan question can’t keep being put off, passed down through the generations,” retired Chinese Major General Luo Yuan, one of the country’s most prominent and widely read military commentators, wrote on his blog last month. “Our generation must complete our historic mission.”

‘Itching for a fight’

One source with ties to China’s military said the armed forces were itching for a fight over self-ruled Taiwan, claimed by China as its sacred territory, especially after Xi’s speech.

“Every day, they’re like ‘fight, fight, fight,'” said the source, who regularly meets senior officers.

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly warned of the threat from China, and vowed to defend the island and its democratic way of life. The United States has said it is closely watching Chinese intentions towards Taiwan.

“Even with just a broom, I would fight against China,” Taiwan Premier Su Tseng-chang told parliament last week. “You would pay a price if you want to annex Taiwan.”

The United States again sent two Navy ships through the Taiwan Strait on Monday as the U.S. military increased the frequency of movement through the strategic waterway despite opposition from China.

China’s Defense Ministry did not respond to a request for comment on this year’s military budget. China routinely says spending is for defensive purposes only, comparatively small and that critics just want to keep the country down.

“What people are scared of is China getting strong,” said Xu Guangyu, a senior consultant at the China Arm Control and Disarmament Association and another former senior Chinese officer, dismissing concerns about defense spending.

U.S. President Donald Trump has backed plans to request $750 billion from Congress for defense spending in 2019. That compares with the 1.11 trillion yuan ($165.40 billion) China set for its military budget in 2018.

China provides no breakdown of its defense budget, leading neighbors and other military powers to complain that Beijing’s lack of transparency has added to regional tension. China says it is fully transparent and no threat.

Diplomats and many foreign experts say China’s defense numbers probably underestimate true military spending for the People’s Liberation Army, the world’s largest armed forces, which also runs the country’s space program.

Another Ceasefire: Can the US and China End Their Trade War?

Relief swept across world financial markets Monday after President Donald Trump pushed back a March 2 deadline in a trade dispute with China.

 

But the respite might not last.

 

The world’s two biggest economies have squared off over Beijing’s aggressive campaign to turn Chinese companies into world leaders in advanced industries such as robotics and electric vehicles. Both sides have said they’ve made progress but haven’t provided much detail.

 

“Popping the champagne today would be premature,” Gregory Daco, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, wrote in a research note.

 

Daco added that vast differences between the two countries “will prevent a significant de-escalation of trade tensions between the two giants.”

 

In the United States, business groups and lawmakers fear that Trump will settle for a deal that doesn’t require China to change its sharp-elbowed business practices.

 

A look at the dispute:

 

What Are the U.S. and CHINA Fighting About?

 

The United States accuses China of deploying predatory tactics in a headlong push to challenge American technological dominance. These, the U.S. says, include: outright theft of trade secrets, forcing foreign companies to hand over technology as the price of access to the Chinese market, and unfairly subsidizing Chinese tech companies and using regulations to hobble their foreign competitors.

 

The accusations elevate the standoff from a typical trade dispute to a battle over whether the United States or China dominates the industries of the future, the outcome of which has implications for national security.

 

Trump is also obsessed with America’s massive trade deficit with China, $336 billion in 2017 and likely higher last year.

 

Critics complain that the administration has been inconsistent about what it wants — sometimes demanding sweeping changes in Chinese economic policy, sometimes seeming willing to settle for China just buying more American stuff to narrow the trade deficit.

 

Robert Daly, director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Wilson Center think tank, said he would be disappointed if the Trump administration settles only for more exports to China and vague promises to make structural reforms. “The Trump administration could have had that in week one,” Daly said.

 

What’s Happened So Far?

 

In July, the Trump administration gradually began slapping import taxes on Chinese goods to pressure Beijing into changing its policies. It now has imposed 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports and 25 percent tariffs on another $50 billion.

 

Twice, Trump has pushed back plans to raise the tariffs on the $200 billion to 25 percent. He extended a Jan. 1 deadline by three months after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires Dec. 1. And on Sunday, following meetings last week between U.S. and Chinese negotiators, he delayed indefinitely the tariff hike that was scheduled to kick in at 12:01 EST March 2.

 

The U.S. is also restricting Chinese investment in high-tech American industries and U.S. exports of sensitive technology to China.

 

Meanwhile, the Chinese have punched back by slapping import taxes on $110 billion in U.S. goods, focusing on soybeans and agricultural products in a direct shot at Trump supporters in the American farm belt.

 

Forecasters at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have all downgraded their forecasts for the global economy, citing the heightened trade tensions.

 

Are U.S. and Chinese Negotiators Making Headway?

 

They say they are but haven’t provided many particulars. Trump tweeted Sunday that negotiators had made “substantial progress” on issues including protection of intellectual property, coerced tech transfer, currency manipulation and U.S. access to the Chinese farm and services markets among “many other issues.” China’s official Xinhua news agency echoed that assessment.

 

Trump has said he would likely have to meet one-on-one with Xi — probably late next month at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida — to resolve the thorniest issues.

 

What Happens Next?

 

Trump sees the stock market as a measure of the success of his economic policies. Investors’ view is clear: When U.S.-China negotiations go well, American stocks rise. When talks falter, they drop.

 

So the question is whether Trump, having taken U.S.-China economic relations to the brink, has the patience to hold out in the face of likely stock-market volatility for an enforceable deal that requires China to change its behavior. Or whether he’ll agree to more exports and promises of change.

 

“If the U.S. has already achieved quite a bit, and we are just clarifying the details of substantial Chinese concessions, then that’s not a huge concern,” said Scott Kennedy, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But if the U.S. has come away with very little in terms of binding commitments (after dropping the tariff deadline), then the chance of getting more in the coming weeks could be quite low.”

 

Daly at the Wilson Center faulted the administration for not imposing a new deadline. “They are expert at the use of time and delay until conditions have changed and leverage has been lost, to get a better outcome,” he said.

 

Trump has also alarmed Canada and critics by suggesting the U.S. might drop criminal charges against Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and its chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, in a quest to cut a deal. The U.S. has charged Huawei with lying about violating sanctions against Iran and with stealing trade secrets. Canada arrested Meng Dec. 1 at America’s request and is weighing whether to extradite her to the United States. China arrested two Canadians in apparent retaliation.

 

Former Canadian Ambassador to China David Mulroney tweeted Monday that “it’s now the US that has to hang tough, and not sell out its integrity in Huawei case for a trade deal with China.”

Court Filing: Manafort Asks Judge for Sentence Far Below the Maximum

Lawyers for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Monday asked a federal judge in Washington to impose a prison term “significantly below the statutory maximum” when he is sentenced on March 13, according to a court filing.

Manafort pleaded guilty in a federal court in Washington last September to conspiracy against the United States — a charge that includes a range of conduct from money laundering to unregistered lobbying — and conspiracy to obstruct justice for attempts to tamper with witnesses.

He can be sentenced up to five years for each count, for a statutory maximum of 10 years.

“We respectfully request that the Court impose a sentence significantly below the statutory maximum sentence in this case,” Manafort’s lawyers said in the filing.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team said in a filing on Saturday that Manafort, 69, “repeatedly and brazenly” broke the law, and argued he did not deserve leniency at sentencing.

While Mueller did not recommend a specific sentence, he portrayed Manafort as a “hardened” criminal who was at risk of repeating criminal behavior if released from prison.

Mueller is investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and any collusion between Russia and the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Russia denies trying to interfere in the election, and Trump says his team did not collude with Moscow.

Manafort is due to be sentenced on March 8 in a separate case in Alexandria, Virginia. He faces up to 25 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines in that case, in which he was convicted last year of financial crimes.

In Monday’s filing, Manafort’s lawyers asked the Washington judge to impose a concurrent sentence if he receives prison sentences in both cases.

Trump Goes After Spike Lee After Oscars Speech

President Donald Trump is going after director Spike Lee, who used his Oscar acceptance speech to urge mobilization for the 2020 election.

Trump tweeted Monday that Lee did a “racist hit on your President.” Trump claimed that he had “done more for African Americans” than “almost” any other president.  

Lee won for best adapted screenplay for his white supremacist drama “BlacKkKlansman,”  sharing the award with three co-writers. The film includes footage of Trump after the violent white supremacist protests in Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Lee did not directly name Trump. He spoke about black history and his family history, saying his grandmother’s mother was a slave, before stressing the presidential election next year.

 

Said Lee: “Let’s all be on the right side of history. Make the moral choice between love versus hate.”

Former US Security Officials to Oppose Emergency Declaration

A group of 58 former U.S. national security officials, both Republicans and Democrats, contended Monday that President Donald Trump had “no factual basis” to declare a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to thwart illegal immigration.

“Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border,” the group said.

The officials who signed the statement included former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, along with former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former United Nations Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former Defense chief and Central Intelligence Agency director Leon Panetta and former State Department counselor Eliot Cohen.

Trump declared the emergency 10 days ago to circumvent congressional refusal to give him the $5.7 billion he wanted to build the border wall he says is necessary to block illegal migrants and criminals from entering the United States and to interdict drug shipments. Congress approved $1.375 billion for border barriers, but none for a wall.

WATCH: Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, a U.S. president has broad power to declare a national emergency. But what does that mean?

Trump did not respond directly to the statement by the former security officials, but defended his plans for a wall at a White House meeting with the country’s state governors.

“You take a look at Tijuana, Mexico,” Trump said. “Thousands and thousands of people are sitting there trying to get into our country. And if we didn’t have that wall there that we’ve totally renovated and fixed, if we didn’t have that wall, it would be impossible even for the military to stop them.”

He added, “It’s incredible, what that wall has done. And that’s not even the upper, you know, the best of our walls. We have a great system now. We have a prototype. We expect to have 250 to 300 miles of wall built in the very near future. It’s actually a beautiful wall, it’s a beautiful looking—actually, you know, I’ve always said part of the wall was that previous administrations when they did little walls, they built them so badly. So badly, so unattractive. So—I wouldn’t want them in my backyard.”

“And the new one is incredible looking,” he concluded. “It’s a piece of art, in a sense. And by the way, it’s more effective. It’s more effective.” 

But the former security officials said that contrary to Trump’s claim, there is no emergency at the border, noting that illegal border crossings are at nearly 40-year lows. They also said there is no drug trafficking emergency at the border since “the overwhelming majority of opioids” enter the country through legal ports of entry, a contention supported by government statistics but one that Trump disputes.

Trump plans to tap about $8 billion in government funds already earmarked for other projects to build the wall, including some designated for the Defense Department. But the former security officials claimed that redirecting the money “will undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.”

The officials’ statement comes a day before the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is likely to reject Trump’s national emergency declaration. A majority of House members has signed on to the resolution opposing Trump’s action.

The measure would then head to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority, although several Republican lawmakers have voiced opposition to the emergency declaration. Whether they eventually will join Democrats in voting to oppose Trump’s action is uncertain.

Trump has started lobbying fellow Republicans to stand with him in support of the emergency declaration.

“I hope our great Republican Senators don’t get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security,” he said on Twitter. “Without strong Borders, we don’t have a Country – and the voters are on board with us. Be strong and smart, don’t fall into the Democrats ‘trap’ of Open Borders and Crime!”

Sixteen states and other groups have sued to block the emergency declaration, but court hearings on the dispute have yet to held.

Afghanistan Begins Exports To India Through Iranian Port

Afghanistan has started shipping goods to India for the first time through a newly developed Iranian seaport in a bid to improve exports and reduce reliance on routes through its uneasy neighbor, Pakistan.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani traveled Sunday to the western border city of Zaranj to see off the inaugural convoy of 23 trucks loaded with 570 tons of cargo to the Chabahar port in neighboring Iran. The consignment is destined for the Indian port city of Mumbai. 

For decades, landlocked Afghanistan has mostly relied on Pakistani land and seaports for international trade. But mutual tensions have in recent years significantly reduced Afghan trade and transit activities through Pakistan. 

Addressing the nationally televised ceremony, Ghani credited a “healthy cooperation between India, Iran and Afghanistan” for achieving the milestone. He said the new export route will help improve economic growth in his war-shattered country, saying “Afghanistan is not landlocked anymore.”

New Delhi has financed and developed Iran’s Chabahar Port to enable Kabul get direct and easy sea trade access.

India took operational control of a portion of the Iranian port late last year for 18 months and plans to send cargo ships from its ports of Mumbai, Kandla and Mundra every two weeks, according Indian media reports. 

The United States last year waived certain anti-Iran sanctions to allow development of Chabahar to support efforts aimed at stabilizing Afghanistan. The waiver has enable India, Iran and Afghanistan to continue their work to establish a new transit and transport corridor linking the three countries to help improve Afghan economy and allow the war-ravaged country to import food and medicines.

India successfully shipped 1.1 million tons of wheat to Afghanistan through Chabahar Port in 2017. That year, New Delhi also launched an air corridor with Kabul for bilateral trade. 

Indian ambassador to Afghanistan, Vinay Kumar, while addressing Sunday’s ceremony in Zaranj said the air corridor has since helped increased Afghan exports to his country by 40 percent. 

China also opened an air corridor with Afghanistan in November and has since imported thousands of tons of Afghan pine nuts, bringing much-need foreign exchange to Kabul. Afghanistan is the largest producer of pine nuts in the world, with an annual output of about 23,000 tons. The increase in exports to China has led to an unusual rise in in prices of pine nuts in Afghanistan, say local traders and consumers.

Pakistan allows Afghanistan to use its seaports for international trade under a bilateral trade and transit agreement. It also allows use of overland routes for Afghan exports to India. However, Islamabad wants improvement in ties with New Delhi before it will allow Indian exports via the same routes back to Afghanistan. 

Top Democrat to Sue Justice Department if Mueller Report is Withheld

A top House Democrat says his committee will sue the Trump administration if the Justice Department withholds the Mueller report from the public.

“We will obviously subpoena the report, we will bring Bob Mueller in to testify before Congress, we will take it to court, if necessary,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff told ABC’s This Week program Sunday.

“We are going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to share this information with the public and if the president is serious about all of his claims of exoneration, then he should welcome the publication of this report.”

Reports say Robert Mueller is wrapping up his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to turn the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor, and if the president obstructed justice in the probe.

Mueller will hand over his report to the Justice Department which, based on Mueller’s recommendations, will decide if anyone should be charged with a crime.

Attorney General William Barr failed to make it clear during his confirmation hearings whether he would release the report to the public.

But Barr said in his written testimony that he wants as much “transparency” as he can.

“If he were to try to withhold or try to bury any part of this report, that will be his legacy and it will be a tarnished legacy,” Schiff said. “So I think there will be immense pressure not only on the department, but on the attorney general to be forthcoming.”

While many Republicans also say they believe the public needs to know the whole story, Republican Senator Roy Blunt said he does not think Congress can subpoena the report.

But Blunt said “We need to get the facts out there, get this behind us in a way that people thought that anybody that should have been talked to was talked to, any question that schooled have been asked was asked.”

Blunt appeared on CBS television’s Face the Nation.

Teens Tweet Trump, Find Senate Ally, Score Civil Rights Win

All the bill needed to become law was President Donald Trump’s signature. It would create a national archive of documents from civil rights cold cases. Students had been working on the project for years, families waiting on it for decades. But time was running out.

Legislation dies in the transition from one session of Congress to the next, and unless Trump acted, it would be lost.

So the students at New Jersey’s Hightstown High School did what teenagers do: They started tweeting at the president.

And not just Trump. They tweeted at his advisers, his staff and even Trump-friendly celebrities whose thousands of followers could carry their message to the White House.

As the deadline neared, Oslene Johnson, 19, was managing the project’s Twitter account from under the blankets in her bedroom and trying not to be discouraged.

“When you really look at it, it’s about providing closure for communities, families, and also as a country,” said Johnson, who has since graduated but still works with the students.

Imagine, the class considered, all the people, African-Americans mostly, who have lived with questions about what happened to their loved ones 50 years or more ago. The killings and injuries have long passed. The perpetrators are gone. But the families, she said, “they’re still with us.”

The students’ interest began in 2015, when teacher Stuart Wexler’s Advanced Placement government and policy class at Hightstown High was studying the civil rights movement. They couldn’t believe that in America, so many criminal cases involving racial violence and death could remain unsolved.

Srihari Suvramanian, 17, a senior, said in an Associated Press telephone interview with the class: “It’s just atrocious that these individuals have gotten away with crimes committed decades ago, for so long, even though the majority of Americans know it’s wrong.”

He added: “We think it’s very important to provide a sense of closure. Even if we can’t get a full sense of closure, maybe provide some answers to the people that were denied justice.”

The students crowdsourced a list of cases, filed Freedom of Information Act requests and then waited. Research on old cases often runs into dead ends, and they could imagine the difficulties that families go through trying to get answers.

They turned their attention to Congress.

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which collects records at the National Archives from the assassination, provided a model for the legislation they wanted. They took bus trips to Washington to find supporters. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., was among the first to sign on, inspired, his office said, by the work and the possibility it held.

Then Democrat Doug Jones won a Senate seat from Alabama in December 2017. They had already reached out to Jones, the U.S. attorney who won convictions after reopening the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing case from 1963 in Birmingham.

Six months after he was sworn in as the first Democratic senator from Alabama in a generation, Jones stood on the Senate floor and introduced the bill that would become the Civil Rights Cold Case Collection Act. The students watched from the gallery above.

“Justice can take many forms,” Jones said. Reconciliation can be a potent force, he said. “After all this time, we might not solve every one of these cold cases, but my hope is, our efforts today will, at the very least, help us find some long overdue healing and understanding of the truth.”

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who was presiding in the chamber that day, has said he was so moved that he told Jones he would sign on as a co-sponsor. Cruz helped bring Republicans on board. By December, in the final days of the congressional session, the bill unanimously passed the Senate and was approved in the House, 376-6. From there, it was off to the president’s desk.

But the students worried the bill would expire when the new Congress convened in January.

“We went on a mad, desperate scramble to get the president to sign the bill,” said James Ward, a 17 year-old senior who helped mobilize the student body, class by class, “to take out their phones and tweet.”

In Wexler’s classroom, students posted photos of Trump’s “midnight advisers” — aides, media celebrities — and started putting “X’s” through the ones they had reached out to. “We were tweeting at as many people as we could,” Suvramanian recalled.

He was finishing class one afternoon when he dashed off an email to Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax and a Trump ally. “He got back to me within 30 minutes,” the teenager said. After a short exchange, another note came back, “He said, ‘I dropped a message to the president around 10 minutes ago and I really hope your bill gets signed into law.’”

Even with the new Congress starting the next day, the actual deadline for signing the bill was still a week away — the night of Trump’s border security address to the nation amid what became the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

Johnson, a student leader when the project started, tried not to lose hope as she tweeted. She had graduated and moved on, as had many other students. There have been dozens in all, over the past several years, who had been involved in the project.

Then word came. Jones’ office told Wexler, who told the students: Trump had signed the bill, which focuses on unsolved criminal cases from 1940 until 1980.

Johnson cried.

“The families could now, with access to information, at least know something about what happened,” she said.

Along with Trump’s signature came a lengthy signing statement of potential concerns about the process for review and public release of the documents, but also support for Congress to fund the effort. Ruddy confirmed he had reached out to the White House, impressed by the students. He thinks the president would have been, too.

Margaret Burnham, a law professor at Northeastern University and director of the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project, said what Wexler and his class did was “nothing short of amazing.”

“The creativity was not so much in framing potentially effective legislation, but in strategizing how to get it through the Congress,” said Burnham, who has worked for years on these issues and similar efforts in Washington. “That’s where Stuart and his students, over several classes, were just dogged — and creative, incredibly creative — in their ability to persuade Congress, people on both sides of the aisle, of the meaning and continuing urgency and significance of this issue.”

Tahj Linton, 17, said he hopes other Americans understand the power they have to shape political outcomes. “If we can start to solve some of the racial problems that were never really closed in the past decades or 50 years or so, maybe we can start to work on the ones that are happening today and make a difference about it,” he said.

US Senate to Consider ‘Green New Deal’

The U.S. Senate is expected to consider the most ambitious and sweeping measure to combat climate change ever put before Congress. The “Green New Deal” calls for a rapid transformation of America’s economy and infrastructure to eliminate carbon emissions and fight economic and racial inequality. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports.

US Senate to Consider ‘Green New Deal’

In coming days, the U.S. Senate is expected to consider the Green New Deal, the most ambitious and sweeping measure to combat climate change ever put before Congress, as Republicans push to vote on a proposal they oppose but believe will split Democrats and make them vulnerable ahead of the 2020 elections.

A non-binding resolution introduced earlier this month, the New Green Deal aims to rapidly forge a carbon emissions-free economy while fighting economic and racial inequality. It calls for a 10-year “national mobilization” to remake power production, transportation, manufacturing and farming.  It also sets forth wide-ranging guarantees for worker retraining, higher education, health care, and retirement benefits, with special emphasis on disadvantaged sectors and those currently facing risks from a warming planet.

“We choose to assert ourselves as a global leader in transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy,” New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said at a recent news conference outside the Capitol. “We should do it because we should lead. We should do it because we are an example to the world.”

“We will save all of creation by engaging in massive job creation,” Democratic Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts said. “When we talk about a Green New Deal, we are talking about jobs and justice.”

Republicans have a different take on the resolution.

“This Green New Deal is nothing more than a socialist agenda disguised as feel-good environmental policy,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said. “This is, in reality, a new entitlement program on steroids.”

Noting an estimated price tag in the trillions of dollars and the many promises the measure makes to multiple constituencies, Cornyn added, “They [proponents] might have thrown in free beer and pizza, too.”

Another Republican, Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, labelled the Green New Deal “a raw deal for the American public.”

Barrasso said, “This is just so extreme, way out of the mainstream of the American public, to the point that it is scary.”

But it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are pressing for a vote. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California pointedly declined to endorse the Green New Deal at a recent news conference, saying, “There are all kinds of ideas coming forward” but stressing that a “well-defined approach” is needed “to make a difference.”

By contrast, the Senate’s Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, could barely suppress a smile when announcing a vote on a measure his entire caucus opposes.

“I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate and give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal,” McConnell recently told reporters.

Climate change activists said they are energized.

“I’m excited,” Ben Beachy, director of the Sierra Club’s living economy program, told VOA. “It [Green New Deal] is a bold program to transition from an economy of low wages and climate pollution to one driven by dignified work and 100 percent clean energy for all.”

Some Democrats, meanwhile, are feeling the pressure. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein drew criticism on social media for her response to a youth group that urged her to vote in favor of the Green New Deal.

“It [carbon emissions] is not going to get turned around in 10 years [as the resolution mandates],” Feinstein said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing.”

But if Republicans believe they have set a trap for Democrats, Senate Democrats are determined to fight back when floor debate on climate change begins.

“Go for it. Bring it on,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in response to McConnell’s vote announcement. “I challenge Leader McConnell to say that our climate change crisis is real, that it is caused by humans, and that Congress needs to act.”

The forthcoming floor debate likely will expose divisions among Democrats on how to respond to climate change. But Democrats predicted Republicans will be even more exposed.

“We [Democrats] have never been more fired up,” Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said. “We’re going to take this opportunity to have a real debate about climate, because Republicans do not have a plan to address climate change.”

Proponents don’t deny the Green New Deal is strong medicine, insisting the time for half-measures is over.

“Climate change isn’t far-off and hypothetical. It’s here and now,” Beachy said. “Just last year, direct impacts from climate change in the United States killed hundreds of people and cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars. So it’s already here and it’s only going to get worse unless we act at the scale and speed that justice and science and demand.”

Critics see the resolution as a costly economic disaster in the making.

“It would be a central planning, one-size-fits-all solution from Washington,” Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards told VOA. “While it has nice warm and fuzzy language about helping people, I think some of the top-down proposals would actually end up hurting people.”

Edwards noted that the free market is producing more energy efficient automobiles and appliances than existed a generation ago, arguing that a downward trend in energy consumption is already underway without massive governmental intervention.

Where Edwards sees unnecessary and harmful federal meddling, Beachy sees opportunity.

“We have a really big opportunity to renew our neglected infrastructure in this country. And doing so would simultaneously create new jobs, help ensure clean air and water, and tackle climate change,” Beachy said.

Polls show Americans increasingly concerned about a warming planet and destructive weather patterns. But that concern has yet to spur substantive congressional action.

“Yes, most Americans think climate change is real, it’s a problem,” Progressive Policy Institute founder Will Marshall said. “But they also don’t really rank it up there with health care, with the economy, with immigration, with issues they think are more pressing priorities for the country. That means that there isn’t a movement now to support the most ambitious definitions of what this Green New Deal means.”

With Republicans opposed and Democrats divided, the Green New Deal is expected to be soundly defeated in any final Senate vote. Proponents hope, at very least, it serves to advance America’s discourse on climate change and what might be done about it.

Pentagon Chief: Border Security Needs Broader Approach

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Saturday after visiting the U.S.-Mexico border that the government needs a broader, more effective approach to border control. He suggested the Pentagon might contribute with its expertise in surveillance and monitoring.

“How do we get out of treating the symptoms and get at the root of the issue,” Shanahan said in an interview while flying back to Washington.

Considering how the military could reinforce efforts to block drug smuggling and other illegal activity comes as the Pentagon weighs diverting billions of dollars for President Donald Trump’s border wall.

Shanahan said he was not volunteering the Pentagon to take over any part of border control, which is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. But he said his visit led him to question whether there should be a “wholesale redesign” of the way border control is done by the federal government.

Shanahan said the Pentagon is willing to continue supporting the DHS but wants to see a longer-term solution.

“I don’t want to just add resources and not fix the problem,” he said.

​Surveillance, reconnaissance expertise

The Pentagon, for example, has agreed to temporarily provide active-duty troops to operate Border Patrol vehicles whose cameras can surveil wide areas along the border. Shanahan said this will free up the Border Patrol to do other important aspects of their mission. He said this is a function that could be developed more fully with the benefit of decades of U.S. military experience with ground and aerial reconnaissance and surveillance around the world.

In addition to speaking with Border Patrol agents and other leaders during his visit, Shanahan flew in a V-22 Osprey aircraft along dozens of miles of border west of El Paso, including two areas where DHS is proposing to replace vehicle barriers with 18-foot and 30-foot border walls.

Shanahan and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, visited a border site called Monument Site 3 where a stretch of 18-foot border wall stands atop a huge landfill. They also got a close look at Border Patrol vehicles used for surveillance. Vehicle-mounted surveillance cameras can see as far as eight miles away.

High-priority projects

During the visit Shanahan tried his hand at firing a couple of Border Patrol weapons, including one that fires plastic bullets.

The two border control sites farther west are on a list of high-priority projects DHS submitted to Shanahan Friday to support its request for money to pay for construction of roads, replacement of vehicle barriers and dilapidated pedestrian fencing, and installation of lighting. The pedestrian fencing would include detection systems that could alert border patrol agents when someone is attempting to damage or break through the fencing. The money would come from the Pentagon’s drug interdiction programs.

One such project proposed by DHS, dubbed “El Paso Project 1,” includes segments of border west of El Paso, in Luna and Dona Ana counties, in New Mexico. This is among areas DHS cites as known drug smuggling corridors used by Mexican cartels.

These projects are separate from, but related to, those Shanahan is expected to pay for by diverting money that Congress appropriated for military construction projects. This could total as much as $3.6 billion, although Shanahan has not yet determined that the diversion is justified. His visit Saturday was meant to help him decide whether to approve such spending.

DHS has yet to provide the details that Shanahan says he needs before making his decision on the repurposing of military construction funds. He has said he is likely to provide the full $3.6 billion the White House is expecting, plus $2.5 billion from the drug interdiction program. Trump authorized the use of these military funds when he declared a national emergency to build a wall.

Corps of Engineers

Wall construction would be done under contracts managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, whose commander, Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, accompanied Shanahan on Saturday. The Corps has built 126 miles (203 kilometers) of border wall in the last two years — mostly replacement barriers, Semonite told reporters.

There are about 2,900 active-duty troops and about 2,100 National Guard troops on the border in support of Customs and Border Protection. That combined total of 5,000 is expected to grow to 6,000 by March 1 as the Pentagon provides additional support.

The border mission for active-duty forces began on Oct. 30, 2018, as Trump asserted that caravans of Central American migrants posed an urgent national security threat. Critics dismissed his use of the military on the border as a political gimmick on the eve of midterm congressional elections. The active-duty mission has since been extended to Sept. 30.

Mueller: Manafort ‘Brazenly Violated the Law’ for Years

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort committed crimes that cut to “the heart of the criminal justice system” and over the years deceived everyone from bookkeepers and banks to federal prosecutors and his own lawyers, according to a sentencing memo filed Saturday by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

In the memo, submitted in one of two criminal cases Manafort faces, prosecutors do not yet take a position on how much prison time he should serve or whether to stack the punishment on top of a separate sentence he will soon receive in a Virginia prosecution. But they do depict Manafort as a longtime and unrepentant criminal who committed “bold” crimes, including under the spotlight of his role as campaign chairman and later while on bail, and who does not deserve any leniency.

“For over a decade, Manafort repeatedly and brazenly violated the law,” prosecutors wrote. “His crimes continued up through the time he was first indicted in October 2017 and remarkably went unabated even after indictment.”

Citing Manafort’s lies to the FBI, several government agencies and his own lawyer, prosecutors said that “upon release from jail, Manafort presents a grave risk of recidivism.”

The memo is likely the last major filing by prosecutors as Manafort heads into his sentencing hearings next month and as Mueller’s investigation approaches a conclusion. Manafort, who has been jailed for months and turns 70 in April, will have a chance to file his own sentencing recommendation next week. He and his longtime business partner, Rick Gates, were the first two people indicted in the special counsel’s investigation. Overall, Mueller has produced charges against 34 individuals, including six former Trump aides, and three companies.

The memo was filed in federal court in Washington, where Manafort last September pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy arising from his Ukrainian political consulting work. As part of that plea, he acknowledged he had tampered with witnesses even after he had been indicted by encouraging them to lie on his behalf. Even after his plea, prosecutors said, Manafort repeatedly lied to investigators, including about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, a business associate who the U.S. says has ties to Russian intelligence. That deception voided the plea deal.

The sentencing memo comes as Manafort, who led Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for several critical months, is already facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison in a separate tax and bank fraud case in Virginia. Mueller’s team endorsed a sentence of between 19.5 and 24.5 years in prison in that case.

Prosecutors note that the federal guidelines recommend a sentence of more than 17 years, but Manafort pleaded guilty last year to two felony counts that carry maximum sentences of five years each.

Prosecutors originally filed a sealed sentencing memo on Friday, but the document was made public on Saturday with certain information still redacted, or blacked out.

In recent weeks, court papers have revealed that Manafort shared polling data related to the Trump campaign with Kilimnik. A Mueller prosecutor also said earlier this month that an August 2016 meeting between Manafort and Kilimnik goes to the “heart” of the Russia probe. The meeting involved a discussion of a Ukrainian peace plan, but prosecutors haven’t said exactly what has captured their attention and whether it factors into the Kremlin’s attempts to help Trump in the 2016 election.

Like other Americans close to the president charged in the Mueller probe, Manafort hasn’t been accused of involvement in Russian election interference. His criminal case in Washington stems from illegal lobbying he carried out on behalf of Ukrainian interests. As part of a plea deal in the case, Manafort admitted to one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Washington on Edge as Mueller Report Looms

Official Washington is on edge with the news that special counsel Robert Mueller could finish his report on the Russia investigation in the coming days. After nearly two years of investigation and numerous indictments and guilty pleas from former associates and campaign aides to President Donald Trump, the long-awaited report on Russian interference in the 2016 election could have huge ramifications for Trump and the country. VOA national correspondent Jim Malone has a preview from Washington.