Negotiations between the administration of Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden and lawmakers in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives over the government’s debt limit will resume Wednesday. 

Talks between the two sides broke off Tuesday without any apparent progress towards an agreement that would give the U.S. Treasury permission to exceed the current $31 trillion ceiling and continue borrowing money to pay the government’s outstanding debt.  Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned that the department will run out of money by Thursday, June 1, which could force the government to default on its debts, plunging the U.S. into a catastrophic recession and creating turmoil on global markets. 

House Republicans are demanding the Biden administration agree to reduce federal spending back to 2022 levels. Republicans also want to impose strict work requirements for Americans enrolled in such low-income relief programs as food and cash assistance and the Medicaid health insurance program.   

The White House has proposed freezing federal spending at this year’s current levels, and wants to end tax breaks for wealthier Americans and some corporations. The administration has also proposed that defense spending be included in any potential spending cuts.  

Both President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy have rejected the competing proposals, but news outlets say a potential deal could include taking back up to $30 billion in unspent COVID-19 pandemic relief funds and reforms to simplify the approval process of new energy projects.  

White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Tuesday that the negotiations were “moving forward,” but insisted that both Democrats and Republicans “have to understand that they’re not going to get everything they want.” She said the goal is “to get to a budget that is reasonable, that is bipartisan, that Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate will be able to vote on and agree on.” 

But Representative Garret Graves, one of the House Republican negotiators, said Tuesday there were still “significant gaps” between the two parties.

SEE ALSO: A related video by VOA’s Veronica Balderas Iglesias

A group of hardline conservative Republicans are urging Speaker McCarthy – who needed their support to be elected to his post back in January – not to reach a compromise with Biden and instead force the president to give in to their demands.  Biden is also being pressured by House Democrats not to give into Republicans and simply declare that the government will continue to borrow money by invoking the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that the “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.” 

The negotiations are also complicated by the need to convert the agreement into legislation and allow House lawmakers 72 hours to review the bill before bringing it to a vote. It then must go to the Democratic-controlled Senate for passage before it goes to Biden for his signature.  

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse.  
…

New York’s mayor asked a judge on Tuesday to let the city suspend its long-standing “right to shelter” obligation, saying officials are no longer able to house every homeless person because of the arrival of tens of thousands of international migrants.

The right to shelter has been in place for more than four decades in New York, after a court in 1981 required the city to provide temporary housing for every homeless person who asks for it. Other big U.S. cities don’t have such a rule.

But with the arrival of 70,000 asylum-seekers since last spring, many of whom crossed into the U.S. from Mexico, the city has been challenged to find room for everyone in need of a temporary roof and bed.

SEE ALSO: A related video by Evgeny Maslov

“It is in the best interest of everyone, including those seeking to come to the United States, to be upfront that New York City cannot single-handedly provide care to everyone crossing our border,” Mayor Eric Adams said in a statement.

“Being dishonest about this will only result in our system collapsing, and we need our government partners to know the truth and do their share,” said the mayor, a Democrat.

Adams said he was not seeking to permanently end the right to shelter but was seeking “clarity from the court.”

The proposal was condemned by some housing advocates, who said it could result in more people living outdoors.

Joe Loonam, housing campaign coordinator for the advocacy organization VOCAL-NY, said Adams wants “to end the right to shelter that has prevented New York City from following in the footsteps of places like L.A. and San Francisco where thousands of people are in horrendous conditions out on the street.”

New York’s shelter system is now filled to record levels. The city says it is currently providing housing for 93,000 people. In recent months it has rented out entire hotels to house the influx of migrants, at great cost. It has also put cots in schools, and temporarily housed people in tents, a cruise ship terminal and a former police academy building.

In a letter to the deputy chief administrative judge for New York City Courts, the city’s lawyers asked for a change in the mandate that would allow officials to suspend the right to shelter when the Department of Homeless Services lacks the resources to house everyone safely.

Adams has sought financial help from the state and federal government and has been critical of President Joe Biden’s administration for not providing funding to care for migrants.

In an appearance on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Adams said the White House offer of $30 million is insufficient.

“We’ve spent over a billion dollars,” the mayor said. “We’re projected to spend close to $4.3 billion, if not more. This estimate was based on a number of migrants coming to the city, and those numbers have clearly increased.”

In recent weeks, the city has begun paying to house some asylum-seekers at hotels in counties north of the city, but that action has stoked anger and accusations that the city was dumping its problems on other communities.

In the initial months of the crisis, Adams heralded the right to shelter mandate as an emblem of his city’s empathy toward asylum-seekers. Many of the first arrivals were bused to New York by the governors of Republican-led border states including Texas and Arizona who were trying to bring attention to the border crisis. The governors also targeted Washington, D.C., another city with a Democratic mayor.

Catherine Trapani, executive director of Homeless Services United, a nonprofit that advocates for affordable housing, urged the city to alleviate the shelter crisis by increasing rental assistance programs.

“There are alternatives,” she said. “The mayor does not need to take this drastic step to limit what should be a fundamental right.”

In a joint statement, the Coalition for the Homeless and the Legal Aid Society said they both “vigorously oppose” the mayor’s request.

“New Yorkers do not want to see anyone, including asylum-seekers, relegated to the streets,” the statement said.
…

The United States would not accept preconditions set by the People’s Republic of China while pursuing open lines of communication with Beijing, a senior State Department official told VOA on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the official said there is not much indication that China is willing to use its influence over Russia to end its war on Ukraine.

State Department counselor Derek Chollet spoke Tuesday to VOA State Department bureau chief Nike Ching about China and Ukraine ahead of the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference to be held in mid-June when U.S. ambassadors will return to Washington for meetings.

The following excerpts from the interview have been edited for brevity and clarity.

VOA: What can you tell us about Ukraine’s spring counteroffensive since summer is around the corner?

DEREK CHOLLET, COUNSELOR OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE: We have been supplying Ukraine, along with our 50 other coalition partners, with the resources they need to defend themselves and to take back territory. I’m going to let the Ukrainians speak for themselves in terms of the timing of their counteroffensive and what their aims are.

VOA: Which countries are willing to, or have promised to provide Ukraine with F-16s? And what numbers are we looking at?

CHOLLET: We’re working through those specifics right now. Our Pentagon colleagues are working closely with Ministries of Defense throughout Europe and elsewhere to talk about the way forward on F-16s. It’s got to start with training, because these are planes that are not easy to operate. They require weeks and weeks of training. We’re still working through who is actually going to be providing those planes. We’ve made no decisions on that for ourselves.

I don’t think it’s going to be a system particularly relevant, because of the timing, to the coming counteroffensive. But nevertheless, when we think about Ukraine’s needs for the future, and its ongoing needs to deter and defend itself, these planes are going to be a critical part of a modern Ukrainian military.

VOA: Can you talk about Ukraine’s diplomatic push to challenge Russia’s influence in the Global South? Because Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba is starting his tour to Africa this week.

CHOLLET: Foreign Minister Kuleba and [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and the entire Ukrainian leadership have been very determined to try to take their case throughout the world, all corners of the world. There’re no better people to make the case for Ukraine than the Ukrainian leadership, and so we very much support their efforts. And I know President Zelenskyy had a successful visit to Jeddah and the Arab League Summit. I know they’re also engaging with Middle East partners, as well.

VOA: Chinese envoy Li Hui is visiting European Union headquarters in Brussels before heading to Russia, according to media reports. How do you assess China’s peacemaking efforts? Does China have the credibility?

CHOLLET: It’s a good thing that the Chinese are now talking to the Ukrainians and that an envoy has visited. Quite frankly, I’ve modest expectations for this effort. I mean, what China can be most helpful in doing is trying to make the case to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and getting Vladimir Putin to stop this war. It’s important to note this war could end tomorrow if Vladimir Putin decided to pull his troops out of Ukraine. I see no evidence to suggest that Putin is thinking about that anytime soon.

VOA: To clarify, does the United States see the PRC [People’s Republic of China] as having a case with Putin or not?

CHOLLET: Clearly, they have a close relationship with Russia. President Xi [Jinping] and President Putin have met several times, and before this war, they released a very lengthy joint communique talking about a relationship, a partnership within their limits. What we would be asking our PRC friends to do is use whatever influence they have over Russia to get Putin to stop this war.

I haven’t seen much to suggest that they’re willing to use that influence. And I haven’t seen much to suggest that even if they were willing to use the influence, it would work to change Putin’s mind. But that’s the simple thing we’re asking.

VOA: Moving on to the U.S.-China relationship: Was national security adviser Jake Sullivan’s recent meeting with top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi bad news for Russia?

CHOLLET: Well, I don’t want to talk about whether it’s bad news for Russia or good news for Russia. It was a very businesslike meeting between our national security adviser and Wang Yi to talk about the U.S.-China relationship, and to speak forthrightly from our side about some of the challenges that we see emanating from the PRC, some of the fundamental differences we have with them. But also, importantly, to talk about the areas for dialogue and cooperation that we continue to hope to be able to achieve with the PRC.

We, again, have some fundamental differences with the PRC, and we’re going to stay true to our principles and values and our interests there. But at the same time, we think it’s important to have dialogue with the PRC to talk about how we manage those differences, how we put guardrails on this relationship.

VOA: Are Sullivan and Wang going to meet regularly, such as quarterly?

CHOLLET: Well, no, there’s no decision at all on a regular meeting. Secretary [Antony] Blinken was just hours from departing for Beijing several months ago until the Chinese irresponsibly and unacceptably flew a surveillance balloon over the United States. So, that’s a dialogue that we very much hope to be able to restart at some point. There’s no plans for that as of yet. There’s no decision on sort of the frequency of the dialogue. What’s important is that we are willing to have that dialogue, and that’s the case we’re making to China.

VOA: Can you tell us about U.S. Ambassador to PRC Nicholas Burns’ meetings at the Chiefs of Mission Conference in Washington next month?

CHOLLET: Nick Burns is one of our most accomplished diplomats in modern U.S. history. We very much trust his judgment, and we’re thrilled that he’s taken on this difficult assignment to return to service to be in Beijing. He’s had several meetings in Beijing just in the last week to help talk about ways we’re going to try to get this relationship in some place where we have, again, guardrails on it, and we have a floor on, beneath it, to help support it. So, we’ll look forward to his firsthand impressions on how that’s going.

VOA: Chinese officials have said that there’s a need to stabilize a relationship with the United States. But at the same time, they also demand the U.S. to stop strengthening ties with Taiwan, stop putting restrictions on trade, on technology. Are those preconditions?

CHOLLET: There’s certainly nothing that we would accept. Let the PRC speak for themselves about what kind of conditions they put on any sort of dialogue with us. We’re very clear that we will not diminish our commitment to our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific or anywhere. We will continue to defend our interests and stay true to our values. While doing that, there is space to have a dialogue with the PRC or anyone else.
…

Representatives of U.S. President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans ended another round of debt ceiling talks on Tuesday with no signs of progress as the deadline to raise the government’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit or risk default ticked closer.

The two parties remain deeply divided about how to rein in the federal deficit, with Democrats arguing wealthy Americans and businesses should pay more taxes while Republicans want spending cuts.

White House negotiators Shalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and senior White House adviser Steve Ricchetti met with their Republican counterparts for about two hours. They left without making substantive comments to the media.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned that the federal government could no longer have enough money to pay all its bills as soon as June 1, which would cause a default that would hammer the U.S. economy and push borrowing costs higher.

The two sides still disagree on spending, and it was not clear when talks would resume, said Republican Representative Patrick McHenry, who chairs the House Finance Committee.

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre called the talks “incredibly tough.”

“Both sides have to understand that they’re not going to get everything that they want,” Jean-Pierre said at a briefing. “And what we’re trying to get to is a budget that is reasonable, that is bipartisan, that Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate will be able to vote on and agree on.”

Global markets on edge

The lack of clear progress continued to weigh on Wall Street with U.S. stocks sharply lower on Tuesday and global markets on edge.

Democrats want to freeze spending for the 2024 fiscal year that begins in October at the levels adopted in 2023, arguing that would represent a spending cut because agency budgets won’t match inflation. The idea was rejected by Republicans, who want spending cuts.

Biden wants to cut the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and closing tax loopholes for the oil and pharmaceutical industries. McCarthy said he will not approve tax increases.

McCarthy told reporters on Monday that he expected to talk with Biden daily at least by telephone.

If and when Biden and McCarthy reach a deal, they will still need to sell it to their caucuses in Congress. It could easily take a week to pass a deal through the House and Senate, which would both need to approve the bill before Biden could sign it into law.

‘Why is June 1 the drop dead?’

Hard-line Republicans and progressive Democrats both voiced anger at the idea of compromise.

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal, who chairs the 101-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, said “the vast majority” of the group’s members would oppose any deal that included spending cuts or new work requirements for federal benefit programs for low-income Americans, both of which are major Republican demands.

Some hard-line members of the Republican House Freedom Caucus on Tuesday said they were skeptical of how firm the June 1 deadline is. Treasury has said the U.S. could run short of cash as soon as June 1, or perhaps in the days following.

“Secretary Yellen needs to not only testify, but in writing, she needs to justify her dates that she’s given. Why is June 1 the drop dead?” Republican Representative Ralph Norman said.

Democrat Representative Hakeem Jeffries — the top Democrat in the House — dismissed that skepticism as unfounded.

“The June 1 date is a real one. Secretary Yellen continues to make that clear,” Jeffries told reporters.

Unless Congress raises the debt ceiling and allows the federal government to borrow money to pay its bills, the United States could default on its obligations, potentially tipping the nation into recession and plunging global financial markets into chaos.

Any deal to raise the limit must pass both chambers of Congress, and therefore hinges on bipartisan support. McCarthy’s Republicans control the House 222-213, while Biden’s Democrats hold the Senate 51-49.

Despite the gridlock, the two sides have found some common ground on several areas, including permit reform that will help energy projects move forward.

On Monday, McCarthy said including some permitting reforms in the debt deal would not solve all of the related issues and that talks on further reforms could continue later, declining to address transmission for renewable energy.

The two sides are also discussing clawing back unused COVID-19 relief funds and imposing stricter work requirements on two popular public benefit programs aimed at helping Americans out of poverty.
…

A top U.S. defense official is dismissing China’s use of surveillance balloons as a distraction, calling them inconsequential when compared to the larger problem posed by Beijing’s increasing ability to militarize space.

China’s use of spy balloons has grabbed headlines since the Pentagon announced it was tracking one of the high-altitude devices as it traveled across the continental United States this past February.

Since then, the United States has shot down a handful of Chinese balloons and other suspicious high-altitude objects, at times using advanced weaponry and U.S. officials have even acknowledged the balloon was able to gather some information around sensitive military sites.

But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said Monday, in some ways, China’s use of balloons, which Beijing has described as weather balloons, is a distraction.

“They have a very aggressive intelligence collection program. The balloons are a very small part of that and not highly consequential,” Kendall told reporters during a briefing to the Defense Writers Group in Washington.

What worries him more, Kendall said, is higher up.

“The space part of it is very significant and very consequential,” he said. “They’re linking their space-based capabilities to their operational forces.”

Other U.S. officials have likewise warned of China’s advances in space.

“China sees space as a potential vulnerability for the United States,” said Doug Wade, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s China Mission Group, this past March.

“There’s a variety of space and counter-space assets or capabilities in China that worry us a lot,” Wade said, calling Beijing’s space program, “second only to the United States.”

The U.S. chief of space operations, General Chance Saltzman, likewise warned about Beijing growing prowess, calling China “our most substantial threat into and from space.”

Kendall on Monday said specifically it is China’s growing ability to use its satellites to track U.S. troops and assets that has him “very concerned.”

“A big part of that operational capability is surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting … to do things like try to target aircraft carriers, trying to target mobile units, ground units of various types,” he said. “It’s a huge efficiency enhancement for them potentially.”

Despite pleas from officials like Kendall for lawmakers to focus on China’s space capabilities, there has been a push by some lawmakers to address the potential threat from high-altitude balloons.

“The [U.S. Northern Command commander] has told us that he has additional unfunded requirements for Air Force over the horizon and long-range expeditionary radars,” Democrat Jon Tester, chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said during a hearing last month.

“We need to provide the resources, and I think this committee on both sides of the aisle wants to make sure our nation is safe and provide the resources to do that,” Tester added.

The Air Force’s Kendall called on lawmakers to pass a defense budget on time and support modernization efforts, including reforms that would allow the service more flexibility to better respond to China’s advancements.

“The threat to our airbases, the threats to our carriers, their air superiority drive … have all been going on for quite some time and we have not responded, I think, as quickly as we should have,” he said, adding that in some cases, “We’re giving away over a year to China for no good reason.”
…