cnn--2019-01-29--Lawmakers skeptical that a broad immigration deal can be reached

(CNN) Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill enter the next chapter in the fight over President Donald Trump's border wall skeptical that a broad immigration deal can be reached and with a mission: Keep negotiations narrow and avoid another shutdown.  "I am not ruling anything out at this point. It's just an effort to pass a (Department of Homeland Security) appropriations bill and put an end to recurring presidential threats of a shutdown," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber. "I go into this to solve the problem as best I can, but I don't go in with any high expectations when it comes to the immigration side. ... I don't go in with any high hopes that will be successful on immigration issues and I am not walking in there with an immigration agenda."  "That would be really challenging," Sen. John Thune of Texas, the second-ranking Republican in the chamber, told reporters Monday night. "I think this is going to be all about the number. But who knows? That would be great. The President put some stuff in play. If the Democrats are willing to make a broader deal, I don't think we know the answer to that yet."  The contours of the spending negotiations are still taking shape. The conference committee -- made up of Republican and Democratic lawmakers from both the House and Senate -- will begin meeting Wednesday afternoon.  "My focus is on the appropriation aspect," said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia who's serving on the conference committee. "Whether we go bigger remains to be seen."  Asked if negotiators should try to tackle a broader immigration overhaul, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said that should depend on whether it brings them votes for a final deal.  "In my view, it depends on how you get the votes," she said. "I very much want the (recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) given a path to citizenship. I don't think that's going to happen."  Each party has long established its immigration battle lines. For Republicans, the President's border wall will be the prize even as rank-and-file Republicans acknowledge that the showdown may come down to a game of semantics. On Monday, many Republicans referred to the wall as a "barrier," a nod to a détente over the war of words that has transpired over the President's signature campaign promise. On Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn't definitively rule out a barrier at the Southern border.  Democrats, meanwhile, still argue they too support border security, just more in the form of technology and at ports of entry than in the form of a wall. Many Republicans, meanwhile, have long agreed there should be some protection for individuals with DACA status even as the extent of those protections is a source of division within the party.  As part of his negotiation during the shutdown, the President proposed $5.7 billion for his border wall in exchange for three years of protections for DACA recipients and another three years for immigrants who had Temporary Protected Status. Democrats rejected the offer, arguing they wanted a more permanent solution.  But even keeping a negotiation about border money and DACA recipients has proved too difficult in the past. The White House rejected a bipartisan proposal last year that included $25 billion for the wall over a decade in exchange for a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and significant changes to the country's legal immigration system.  "I think what the President proposed on TPS and DACA are a good starting point. That's not a comprehensive immigration bill, but they are significant changes, and I think that is possible, so I'm very interested in helping the President getting money for barriers as part of a broader border security package," said Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. "I think the way that happens is to focus on the two areas: DACA and TPS. If you go beyond that in a short period of time, I think it is difficult to see a solution."  Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters that he talked Monday to Trump and he thought "the President's in the mode of doing a deal."  "We'll just see if we can get reasonable people to agree," Graham said.  But winning over Democrats for significant funding for the border wall will be a tall task.  Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat who is on the conference committee, said Democrats are going to go in with a "united front." Asked if Democrats would agree to any money for the wall, he said, "I will be with the group together -- whatever the consensus of the group, I will be with."  "We do have a consensus with the wall -- I think we are all against the wall."


cnn--2019-01-30--Lawmakers kick off border negotiations in effort to avert shutdown

(CNN) Democratic and Republican negotiators expressed optimism on Wednesday that Congress can find a deal on border security to avert a shutdown.  Lawmakers left the first meeting of a bipartisan negotiating committee with no agreement on the President's coveted border wall, but outlined some opening proposals as negotiations begin.  House Democratic negotiators confirmed after the meeting that their opening offer at the start of negotiations does not include any new money for a border wall -- the key sticking point in the standoff between Democrats and President Donald Trump, who has demanded $5.7 billion in wall funding.  "If you're asking if there is any money for the border wall? No, there is not," Democratic Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard said bluntly at a press conference following the meeting.  Democrats did, however, outline a long list of border security-related initiatives they are willing to fund. Their proposal includes money for 1,000 new customs officers and to hire new Homeland Security agents who can work on issues such as drug smuggling.  House Appropriations Committee Chair Nita Lowey said at the news conference that the committee will "work thoughtfully and quickly to produce a compromise," but would not give a total dollar amount for what Democrats are willing to spend and sidestepped a question about whether Democrats will negotiate over physical barriers.  Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota left the meeting saying, "Everybody talked about the need for funding for a good, strong border security package — that means people, technology and a border barrier — so I'm hopeful we can get to a good solution."  The clock is ticking to find a deal. Lawmakers only have until February 15 before government funding will once again expire and it is not yet clear they will find a deal to prevent yet another shutdown.  Conference committee meetings are hardly known as blockbuster events on Capitol Hill. But with another shutdown at stake, the room was jam-packed with staffers and reporters from every major media outlet, as more reporters lined the hallways outside the room.  Sen. Pat Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, acknowledged the attention surrounding the meeting.  "Rarely has the work of our appropriations committee been watched as closely as it is today," the Vermont Democrat said during opening remarks. "The American people are depending on us to get our job done."  Leahy said later in the day that he had a "huge amount of respect" for his fellow negotiators and that "if left to us, left to the grown-ups in the room, we could get it done in a couple hours."  Following the first meeting, staffers will continue to work behind the scenes in an effort to broker a deal.  Trump attempted to sway the debate hours before the meeting started, tweeting in the early morning, "If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!"  Republican and Democratic congressional leaders urged Trump Wednesday to let the group do its work. Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said, "I think we ought to give them some room to negotiate this."  When asked if Trump should stay out of the negotiations, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "He should sign the bill."  "I think a conference committee can reach a good result left to its own devices without interference from anybody else," the California Democrat told CNN. "I have confidence in the appropriators."  In a private meeting with freshman Democrats Wednesday, Pelosi did not draw a red line in the spending talks, saying she has faith in the conference negotiators to reach an agreement, according to two attendees. Pelosi also discussed poll numbers showing the President upside down on a number of issues, suggesting Democrats won the argument over the shutdown.  The negotiators are 17 members of the House and Senate who serve on committees to appropriate government funding, dealmakers who rarely come from the hardline elements of either side of the party. Last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee came to a bipartisan agreement on a homeland security bill -- that included $1.6 billion in border security including funds for fencing and barrier repairs. But Trump has lately called for much more funding to build the wall.  While the negotiators believe they could come up with a compromise, they went into the meeting not knowing how their respective party's leadership will ultimately shape the debate.  "My goal would be to fund the government," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby earlier this week. The Alabama Republican added he couldn't "preclude" whether some immigration proposals, such as extending legal protections to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, would be negotiated because Trump, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky "might want to get involved."  On Tuesday, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said that Congress could reach a deal, but "if the President has the last word, it may not be enough" to avert a shutdown.  This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.


cnn--2019-07-07--AOC hits back at Pelosi for knocking far-left lawmakers who voted against border bill

Washington (CNN) Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit back at Nancy Pelosi after the House Speaker criticized her and three other far-left Democrats in Congress for voting against a Senate measure on border funding that President Donald Trump recently signed into law.  Ocasio-Cortez argued that Democrats cannot trust the Trump administration not to divert money for humanitarian aid toward immigration enforcement -- a comment that comes after the President acknowledged that ICE raids would begin after the Fourth of July.  "I don't believe it was a good idea for Dems to blindly trust the Trump admin when so many kids have died in their custody. It's a huge mistake," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Saturday echoing comments she made to CNN following the June vote on border funding.  The New York Democrat was responding to remarks Pelosi made in an interview with the New York Times where Pelosi slammed four liberal members of Congress -- Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley -- who broke with moderates and voted against the bill.  "All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world," Pelosi said in the interview with Times' columnist Maureen Dowd published Saturday. "But they didn't have any following. They're four people and that's how many votes they got."  Pelosi had faced mounting pressure last month to get the $4.6 billion Senate bill passed to send emergency funds to the southern border amid a humanitarian crisis there. The vote in the House triggered outrage from progressives, including Ocasio-Cortez, who objected to the legislation because they felt it did not go far enough to include demands for stronger protections for migrant children, among other issues.  Pelosi, on the other hand, believed it was the strongest bill that Congress could agree upon to pass.  On Sunday, Tlaib responded to a comment Pelosi made in the Times that the progressive cohort made themselves "irrelevant to the process" by voting against the funding bill.  "We know what it feels like to be dehumanized, we know what it feels like to be brown and black in this country," Tlaib said on ABC's "This Week," referring to the four singled-out congresswomen.  "I honor the fact that we are there ... all of us have these experiences that I think have been missing in the halls of Congress. Honor that, respect that, put us at the table. Let's come up with a solution together," Tlaib said. "Still, I will not support anything that is broken and that dehumanizes people."  "We have to have a solution, not just a Twitter fight," Pelosi told the Times. The White House had made it clear that it would veto the House version of the legislation.  Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi appear to have differing views on the power of Twitter when it comes to politics.  Ocasio-Cortez fired back at Pelosi, saying Saturday on Twitter, "I find it strange when members act as though social media isn't important," she tweeted. "I haven't dialed for dollars *once* this year & have more time to do my actual job. Yet we'd rather campaign like it's 2008."  Omar also weighed in Sunday about Pelosi's comments.


cnn--2019-11-30--Pelosi to lead group of Democratic lawmakers to UN climate change conference

The House speaker on Saturday announced she will lead the congressional delegation to the UN COP25 environmental summit "to combat the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis." Pelosi did not specify which dates the group will attend the conference, which takes place from December 2-13 in Madrid.  "On behalf of the United States Congress, I extend my gratitude to the Spanish government for hosting this critical meeting, and for elevating the priority of the climate crisis to the forefront of the international conversation," Pelosi said Saturday in a statement.  Pelosi said she was proud to lead the congressional group -- which includes Florida Rep. Kathy Castor, who Pelosi tapped to lead the House's select committee on climate change -- "to reaffirm the commitment of the American people to combating the climate crisis." In May, the Democratic-led House passed the Climate Action Now Act , which aims to keep the US in the Paris climate agreement.  Under the landmark agreement to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases, countries are supposed to increase their commitments to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases every five years -- with the first of these updated pledges submitted by the end of 2020. Those revised pledges will be a key focus of the UN COP25 summit.


cnsnews--2019-01-15--Trump Invites Lawmakers to Lunch Stop Playing Political Games

Trump Invites Lawmakers to Lunch; 'Stop Playing Political Games'

(CNSNews.com) - The border-wall/government funding impasse will be a main topic of discussion today when President Donald Trump has lunch with members of Congress at the White House.  Later this afternoon, he will join a telephone briefing on the border crisis with state, local and community leaders.  President Trump began this Tuesday with a number of tweets in defense of his call for a border wall. He also questioned why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is "getting paid when people who are working are not."  "Polls are now showing that people are beginning to understand the Humanitarian Crisis and Crime at the Border," Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "Numbers are going up fast, over 50%. Democrats will soon be known as the Party of Crime. Ridiculous that they don’t want Border Security!"  "A big new Caravan is heading up to our Southern Border from Honduras. Tell Nancy and Chuck that a drone flying around will not stop them. Only a Wall will work. Only a Wall, or Steel Barrier, will keep our Country safe! Stop playing political games and end the Shutdown!"  On Monday, President Trump suggested that "many" Democrats "are calling" and "many are breaking" when it comes to ending the stalemate.  "I think maybe in his dreams he's gotten phone calls from Democrats," Rep Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday morning.      "There's not a Democrat that I'm aware of in the House that would have called the president to say, I want to work with you and I want this wall to go up. There's not a Democrat that wants to see $5 billion wasted on a partial payment on a wall which would cost probably $60 billion when there's technology available to us that would do the job and do it much better than building a concrete or steel slatted fence."  Host John Berman noted that Trump has invited some "moderate" Democrats to Tuesday's lunch at the White House. "Do you think Democratic members should meet with the president?" Berman asked Speier.  "I think when the president calls, it is incumbent upon us to respect the office and to attend the meeting," Speier replied. "And if they have been asked, I would suggest that they go."  "What do you think they should tell the president?" Berman asked.  "I think they should tell the president he should cut his losses," Speier said. "He had a deal. It was supported by the Senate and the House. He has now caused so much disruption in the country that it's cost over $3.8 billion in lost revenues to businesses, people who are now struggling, who are federal employees.  "This has got to come to an end. It's really very shameful. And I'm one of those that feels we've got to come up with a compromise that's a win-win for everybody right now."  Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told Fox News on Tuesday he spoke with the president just yesterday, and "he's not budging."  Kennedy called it "ludicrous" to think you can secure the entire Southwest border without a barrier.  "And frankly, I don't understand why Speaker Pelosi is not tested more on her assertio that somehow a border wall...is ineffective and immoral. How's she going to seal a 1,900-mile border without using a barrier? Maybe she doesn't want to seal it," Kennedy said.


dailyheraldchicago--2019-06-01--Lawmakers OK rushed balanced state budget capital plan with tax increases awaits votes

Lawmakers OK rushed, balanced state budget; capital plan with tax increases awaits votes

SPRINGFIELD -- In a historic and busy day at the state Capitol, lawmakers released a $40.6 billion general revenue fund budget and a $45 billion capital spending plan Friday just 12 hours before the General Assembly's scheduled adjournment.  The Illinois House approved a balanced, $40 billion state operating budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1 on a bipartisan vote before adjourning Friday night, pushing further action on a host of other issues to an impromptu Saturday morning session  Funding for infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges would rely on an increase to the state's motor fuel tax and several other license and registration fee increases, and Cook County could add even more to the motor fuel tax.  The House approved the budget, after a day of negotiating between Democrats and minority Republicans, before adjourning for the night, The Associated Press reported.  The legislative leaders of each chamber had several meetings with Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker throughout the day as House Republicans withheld their votes while seeking concessions from Democrats.  While House Speaker Michael Madigan announced the House session would extend through Sunday, Senate President John Cullerton reportedly had no plans to extend the Senate's stay at the Capitol.  To take effect at the legislature's target dates, several key pieces of legislation would require three-fifths majorities, as opposed to simple majorities, if they were not passed by midnight Friday. But Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.  Minority Leader Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican, called the budget "a start" to progress in Illinois that is "fair" to taxpayers and businesses.  "Because we worked together and we made some concessions, both sides tonight, we're able to say that we have a balanced budget for this FY 20 year," he said.  Durkin said several business-centric measures requested by Republicans are expected to be approved Saturday.  Business-backed measures released with Demmer's afternoon statement include tax incentives aimed at enticing data centers to locate in Illinois; eliminating reporting of the retailer's discount in the comptroller's tax expenditure report; eliminating the franchise tax; reinstating the manufacturers purchase credit; and a "Blue Collar Jobs Act to help attract large-scale projects."  Republican Rep. David McSweeney, however, said he was not happy with the limited debate or the contents of the budget bill, calling Durkin a "failed leader" that is "in bed with the Democrats."  "Republicans and Democrats got together in a closed room and put together a budget that is at least $1 billion over what the governor himself requested," he said. "There's no provision for controlling spending. There's no pension reform. There's no Medicaid reform. There's actually no reduction in spending."  McSweeney, of Barrington Hills, said few if any lawmakers had time to read the 1,581 pages in the appropriations bill, which was released at noon, less than 10 hours before it was passed.  The General Revenue Fund spending in the fiscal year 2020 budget is estimated at $39.9 billion. An added $600 million in supplemental spending for fiscal year 2019, most of which will go to paying back pay for step increases to state employee salaries that former Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner withheld, would bring the total to about $40.6 billion. The budget includes $375 million in added state funding for K-12 education, $25 million more than is mandated by the state's evidence-based funding formula. It also increases mandated categorical funding for K-12 education by $47.3 million, bringing expenditures in that area to $928.8 million.  Funding for early childhood education would increase by $50 million, up to $543.7 million.  Higher education will see an increase by $134 million over fiscal year 2019 levels, increasing to $1.94 billion. The increase would include $50 million more than last year for Monetary Award Grant funding and 5% increases to state university and college operations.  The Department of Human Services, the Department on Aging, and the Department of Children and Family Services would all see rate increases to cover the state's increase to the minimum wage. Overall, human service departments would see an increase of $567 million from last year's budget. General revenue funding for DCFS would increase by $89 million from fiscal year 2019, bringing the total up to $845 million. The agency is reeling from criticism over its inability to save three children in its care who have died this year.  An ambitious infrastructure spending package would fund billions of dollars of backlogged road and bridge projects as well as vertical projects at schools, state higher education facilities and other state-owned buildings.  It has been more than 10 years since the state last had a capital plan, leading to crumbling roads, bridges and other state infrastructure.  More than 2,300 bridges are deemed structurally deficient, and the American Society of Civil Engineers gave Illinois transportation infrastructure a D grade.  The plan released Friday included $45 billion in spending, with $10.7 billion going to pay-as-you-go projects, $20.6 billion for bonded capital projects, $10 billion in federal funding and $2.6 billion to local governments for infrastructure projects.  That bill would allocate $33.2 billion for transportation projects including roads and bridges, $3.5 billion for education infrastructure projects, $4.3 billion for state facilities, $1.2 billion for environmental conservation projects, $420 million for broadband expansion and $465 million for health care and human services facilities.  The infrastructure spending is encompassed in House Bill 62, and it is made possible by increased transportation-related taxes and fees, a massive gambling expansion and other measures.  An increase to the state's per-gallon gas tax to 38 cents from 19 cents indexed each year at the consumer price index would generate $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2020. An additional 5-cent increase on diesel fuel would generate $78 million.  Cook County municipalities would be allowed to add a 3-cent tax on top of the state-issued motor fuel tax.  A $50 increase to vehicle registration fees, bumping them up to $151 for most vehicles, would generate $475 million. Electric vehicle registrations would cost $251, with the standard vehicle fee plus $100 replacing what would have been generated by gas usage. That would create an estimated $4 million in revenue.  An increase to title registration fees would generate $146 million in revenue, and $50 million in revenue would result from a $100 increase to truck registrations.  The bill also shifts 1% of revenues generated from a separate sales tax on motor fuel to the road fund.  The measure is House Bill 3096, and any funds raised from the motor fuel tax and licensing fees would be required to be spent on road and bridge safety due to a "lock box" amendment passed by voters in 2016.


dailyheraldchicago--2019-06-20--The Latest Lawmakers getting briefed on Iran at White House

The Latest: Lawmakers getting briefed on Iran at White House

WASHINGTON -- The Latest on the United States and Iran (all times local):  Top administration officials and lawmakers are arriving at the White House for a briefing about Iran's downing of an American surveillance drone in the Middle East amid mounting tension between the U.S. and Iran.  The White House invited House and Senate leaders of both parties and Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence and Armed Services committees to meet with President Donald Trump on Thursday.  It's unclear if Trump is planning a U.S. response. He told reporters that Iran made a "very big mistake" but also said he has the feeling that it might have been the result of someone being "loose" or doing something "stupid."  Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Army Secretary Mark Esper, who Trump has said he'll nominate as defense secretary, also arrived for the meeting.  Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden says that President Donald Trump has made military conflict with Iran more likely and that "another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need."  Biden made the remarks Thursday as tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated over the downing of an American drone over Iranian airspace.  Biden says Trump's strategy in Iran is "a self-inflicted disaster" since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated when Biden was vice president.  Biden says there's no question that Iran "continues to be a bad actor that abuses human rights and supports terrorist activities." But he says the U.S. needs presidential leadership at this moment.  Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand is demanding that President Donald Trump abstain from sending American troops into a conflict with Iran without congressional approval.  The New York senator outlined her position in a sharply worded letter to the White House on Thursday.  Gillibrand writes that she's "deeply concerned that your administration's stepped up military presence in the Middle East, in conjunction with your dangerous and confusing rhetoric, may lead the United States into a protracted, costly, and unnecessary war with Iran. Such a war is not authorized, would unnecessarily risk the lives of Americans and our allies, cause enormous human suffering, and destabilize the economy."  Gillibrand's position is not unique in her party, but she becomes one of the first Democratic presidential candidates to share her concerns with the White House directly.  The White House is inviting House and Senate leaders for a briefing with President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon to discuss tensions with Iran.  That's according to two people familiar with the invitation who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.  In addition to House and Senate leaders of both parties, the White House extended the invitation to the top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence and Armed Services committees.  The briefing comes after Iran's Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. surveillance drone. Trump said it might have been a mistake executed by someone just being "loose and stupid" and was coy about whether the U.S. would respond. He told reporters, "you'll find out."  President Donald Trump is playing down Iran's downing of an American drone, saying that it might have been a mistake executed by someone just being "loose and stupid."  Trump told reporters Thursday that the shoot down of the drone was a "new wrinkle" in escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran - a "fly in the ointment."  He was coy about whether the U.S. would respond, saying only that "you'll find out."  He said he has a feeling that it was a mistake - that a "general or somebody" made a mistake in shooting that drone down.  But he added that Iran made a "big mistake" and that the U.S. "will not stand for it."  Trump's words appear to signal that there may not be an immediate U.S. response to the incident.  President Donald Trump says Iran made a "very big mistake" when it shot down a U.S. drone, but he isn't saying how the U.S. plans to respond, saying only "you're going to find out."  Trump is speaking to reporters while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated over the downing of the drone, the U.S. exit from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and sanctions crippling Iran's economy.  Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it shot down the drone over Iranian airspace. The U.S. military is calling the downing an "unprovoked attack" and said it occurred over international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz.  Trump said: "It was in international waters."  Iran's Revolutionary Guard says it shot down the RQ-4 Global Hawk drone over Iranian airspace.  A senior U.S. military official says Iran shot down an unmanned American aircraft over international waters in an attempt to disrupt U.S. efforts to monitor the Persian Gulf area.  Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella says the shooting down of the drone follows recent threats to international shipping commerce in the region that the U.S. has blamed on Iran.  The commander of U.S. Central Command air forces in the region disputed Iranian claims that the drone was over Iranian air space.  Guastella told reporters Thursday that the aircraft was at high altitude and at least 34 kilometers from Iranian territory when it was shot over the Gulf of Oman.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the U.S. cannot be "reckless" amid rising tensions with Iran.  Pelosi said Thursday she doesn't think President Donald Trump wants to go to war. And she said the American people don't want war either.  "There's no appetite for going to war in our country," she said.  The country needs to be "strong and strategic" about protecting its interests, Pelosi said, and "cannot be reckless."  Pelosi called a caucus-wide meeting of Democrats for later Thursday on Iran. House and Senate leadership will also be briefed by administration officials.  Tensions between Tehran and Washington have been rising over the collapsing nuclear deal with world powers. On Thursday, Iran's Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. surveillance drone.  President Donald Trump declared Thursday that "Iran made a very big mistake" in shooting down a U.S. drone.  White House press secretary Sarah Sanders says Trump was briefed Wednesday night and again Thursday morning about the incident. She says the administration also will keep in touch with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.  Trump made his comment on Twitter in midmorning.  American and Iranian officials are disputing the circumstances of the incident.  Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it shot down the drone over Iranian airspace. The U.S. military is calling the downing an "unprovoked attack" and said it occurred over international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz.


dailyheraldchicago--2019-06-28--Supreme Court refuses to intervene in gerrymandering cases What Illinois lawmakers want to do

Supreme Court refuses to intervene in gerrymandering cases: What Illinois lawmakers want to do

Saying it's none of its business, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that partisan gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts will be allowed to continue.  The case involved a Republican-drawn congressional district map in North Carolina and a legislative district drawn by Democrats in Maryland. But Illinois leaders and "fair map" advocates were following the case closely because of the state's own long-documented history with rigging political district maps to help a specific party.  Madeleine Doubek, executive director of CHANGE Illinois, a nonpartisan anti-gerrymandering government research group, called the Supreme Court's decision a "failure of their duty."  "And they were cowardly in their refusal to protect the concept of one person, one vote," Doubek said. "But that ought to make all of us more committed than ever to advocate on our own behalf."  State Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican, urged his legislative counterparts to approve a joint constitutional amendment that he said will "create a new, nonpartisan system for drawing maps."  "A healthy democracy requires competitive elections and new ideas, which is in the people's best interest," Brady said. "We need to take the power of drawing legislative maps away from politicians and put it in the hands of the people."  A supermajority of state senators in Illinois have signed on as sponsors of a constitutional amendment to depoliticize the map-drawing process.  If approved by a three-fifths majority of both chambers of the legislature and then voters, a special commission would be created to draw the district map. It would be made up of seven Democrats, seven Republicans and two non-politically affiliated nominees chosen by the Illinois Supreme Court chief justice and the most senior justice from the opposing party, state officials said.  Ultimately, Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan would have to call for a vote on the constitutional amendment. Madigan fought such a plan just a few years ago that would have wrested control of the state's political map drawing process from him.  "I believe it makes it more urgent than ever that all of us rise up and pressure the parties that be to take this up," Doubek said.  Critics of Illinois' current system often point to the state's 4th Congressional District, which contains two large chunks of Chicago's northwest and southwest neighborhoods sandwiching the 7th District. It's often referred to as the "Pac-Man" district because it looks like the 4th District is eating the 7th District.  Thursday's Supreme Court ruling dealt a huge blow to efforts to combat the redrawing of district lines to benefit a particular party. Voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court. Federal courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes, he said.  "We have never struck down a partisan gerrymander as unconstitutional -- despite various requests over the past 45 years. The expansion of judicial authority would not be into just any area of controversy, but into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life," Roberts wrote.  The decision, on the last day before the justices' long summer break, has no effect on racial gerrymandering challenges. Courts have barred redistricting aimed at reducing the political representation of racial minorities for a half-century.  But the outcome brings an immediate halt to lawsuits that sought to rein in the most partisan districting plans that can result when one party controls a state's legislature and governor's office.  In the short term, Republicans are the prime beneficiaries of the ruling. They made dramatic political gains in the 2010 election just before the last round of redistricting, so they have controlled the process in many states. Democratic voters had persuaded lower courts to strike down districting plans in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. The one Republican suit came in Maryland, against a single congressional district.  Redistricting will next take place in 2021, once 2020 census results are available.  In a dissent for the four liberals, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, "For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities." Kagan, in mournful tones, read a summary of her dissent in court to emphasize her disagreement.  Partisan gerrymandering at its most extreme "amounts to 'rigging elections,'" Kagan wrote, quoting retired Justice Anthony Kennedy in a case from 2004.  The practice allows politicians to "cherry-pick voters to ensure their re-election," she wrote.  • The Associated Press contributed to this report.


dailymail--2019-04-17--Trump demands lawmakers return from their Vacations to work on an immigration overhaul

Trump demands lawmakers 'return from their Vacations' to work on an immigration overhaul

Donald Trump demanded Wednesday that lawmakers end a congressional recess and come back to Washington to work on an immigration overhaul.  'Democrats in Congress must return from their Vacations and change the Immigration Laws, or the Border, despite the great job being done by Border Patrol, will only get worse. Big sections of Wall now being built!' he said.  Legislators are working are working from their districts, and in some cases traveling abroad with their families or congressional delegations, in the lead-up to Easter Sunday.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in Dublin, wrapping up a trip to the U.K and Ireland.  The president usually leaves town later in the week to spend the Christian holiday at his Palm Beach resort with family and friends and was expected to make the trip again this year, assuming the release of the Mueller report doesn't get in his way.  Attorney General William Barr says he'll release the redacted report on Thursday, creating a mad dash to read the 400-page document and review the special counsel's determination that that no one in the Trump campaign committed criminal collusion.  Trump's tweet on Wednesday morning about immigration reform - something he knows isn't going to happen over a holiday that's celebrated by most Americans and almost all of his  base - was his second attempt to compel legislators to come back.  He made a similar plea on Monday morning, after watching a '60 Minutes' special on Pelosi, who was in London at the time.  'Congress should come back to D.C. now and FIX THE IMMIGRATION LAWS!' he insisted.  The President has the power, under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to call a special session of the Congress any time he chooses.  So far, he has not opted to override Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican. Instead, he has harped about immigration on Twitter from the White House as he awaits the release of Mueller's final report on the Russian-led conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 election.  The president claimed in a Monday tweet that illegal immigrants the Department of Homeland Security cannot keep in custody will be transported to cities that promote themselves as safe spaces for migrants without papers.  'Those Illegal Immigrants who can no longer be legally held (Congress must fix the laws and loopholes) will be, subject to Homeland Security, given to Sanctuary Cities and States!' he said.  DHS has not formally announced such a policy since, nor has it responded to requests for comment on the topic.  Trump made building a border wall and stemming the tide of illegal immigrants a key promise of his 2016 campaign.  But as his 2020 re-election bid gets closer, his wall remains unfunded by Congress.  He declared a national emergency to get the money but he will not be able to finish the border barrier before the next presidential election.  Even if he does, his administration has admitted that it won't totally solve the immigration problems the president has been raging about. That will take additional legislation from Congress and new Department of Homeland Security regulations.  Trump fired his Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen a week ago as he moved to put immigration hardliners in charge of it.  He insisted Monday, at a tax day event, that American immigration laws are 'horrible and foolish' and they allow thugs to claim asylum.  'It's a big con job that's what it is,' he contended. 'And Congress has to get smart. and when I say Congress, I can't blame the Republicans. The Republicans want to do it.'  He noted that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most bills and Democrats currently control the House.  The president predicted in Minnesota, he state he lost in the 2016 election, that immigration would be a winning issue for him.  'We can retake the House,' he said. 'We can retake the House.'  He said last week that the White House was considering alternative ideas - such as dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities - to control where migrants roam after they're mandatory release from government custody.  White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Sunday that Trump likes an administration plan to send them to sanctuary cities and called it a win 'everybody' as she appeared on Sunday morning news programs.  'The president likes the idea and Democrats have said they want these individuals into their communities so let's see if it works and everybody gets a win out of it,' she said on ABC's 'This Week.'  The president confirmed that he was 'strongly' considering the measure, after the Washington Post reported on a plan to send immigrants in custody to the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Trump also made clear he intends to target the immigrants in U.S. custody in the home-states and districts of his political rivals – despite statements by his staff that it was not in the offing.  'California is always saying 'We want more people.' We will give them a lot. We will give them an unlimited supply,' Trump said Friday.  Pelosi's office blasted his idea. 'Using human beings - including little children - as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable,' said Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne said in statement Friday.  Sanders said the White House has explored a number of options to stop illegal immigrants from coming over the U.S.-Mexico border. She added that the sanctuary cities option would not be a top choice.  'We talked about a number of different things over the last two years that we'd love to see happen. Certainly, this wouldn't be our first choice because ideally we wouldn't be dealing with the massive influx of illegal immigrants coming across the border, the crisis that we have both from a national security and humanitarian standpoint,' she told ABC News.  She said if immigrants were released into sanctuary cities it would be because of the Democrats.  'If Democrats continue to be unwilling to do that, then we're going to look at all of our options and we don't want to put all of the burden on one or two border communities. And Democrats have stated time and time again they support open borders, they support sanctuary cities. So, let's spread out some of that burden and let's put it in some of those other locations if that's what they want to see happen and are refusing to actually help fix the problem,' she said.  Sanders also sought to unravel a situation in which White House staff and the president had been contradicting one another.  'This was raised at a staff level initially and pushed back on. The president wants us to explore again, so that is being done and they're doing a complete and thorough review. But again, the big thing is, if Democrats, including the mayors and members of Congress in these communities want these individuals, they should be helping the president frankly look for solutions to bring them to their communities instead of fighting that president every step of the way,' she said on 'Fox News Sunday.'  Trump said last week in tweets that the idea was indeed under consideration.  'Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only,' Trump wrote, confirming a story in the Washington Post, an outlet he often attacks as part of the 'fake news.'  'The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!' Trump said.  By adding the word 'only,' the president provided a new detail to the plan.  Although the paper had reported top aides pushed the idea with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it did not say sanctuary cities would be the only location where his administration would ship the illegal immigrants.  He also took a different tack than the White House, which shortly before his tweet downplayed the idea. 'The idea was briefly and informally raised and quickly rejected, according to a White House statement, the Washington Post reported.  A White House statement in the original story said: 'This was a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion.'  Trump denied a separate claim from two other news outlets that he offered to pardon his acting DHS secretary if he violates U.S. immigration law.  'I never offered Pardons to Homeland Security Officials, never ordered anyone to close our Southern Border (although I have the absolute right to do so, and may if Mexico does not apprehend the illegals coming to our Border), and am not 'frustrated.' It is all Fake & Corrupt News!,' he said in a Saturday tweet.  Sanders also said Sunday that President Trump did not tell the top border agent he would pardon him if he arrested for enforcing policies to stop immigrants.  'We're a country of laws and we have a president who supports that and is not asking anybody to do anything outside of those bounds. In fact, he's asking Congress to step up and give greater legal standing so they can do more to stop this crisis. No one's trying to skirt the law and certainly not being encouraged by the president to do so,' she said on ABC's 'This Week.'  CNN and The New York Times reported last week that the president - during an earlier visit to the border - offered Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan a pardon should he be arrested for enforcing any policy to keep out immigrants that ran afoul of the law.  Sanders slammed a source of the story, picking a fight with Trump nemesis CNN.  'I don't know about you, but CNN isn't usually my first stop for a good source, particularly not when it comes to this president. The president is actually the president trying to enforce laws not go around them,' she said.  Sanders said the president has asked border agents to do 'everything they are allowed to do under the law.  'It's the same thing he says publicly day in and day out. It's the same thing he says behind closed doors to staff, is figure out how we stop this crisis, how we fix this problem,' she said on 'Fox News Sunday.'  The president was reported to have told McAleenan he 'would pardon him if he ever went to jail for denying US entry to migrants,' according to the CNN report, which said the comment was paraphrased.  Trump allegedly dangled the offer on his visit to the border town of Calexico, amid a looming staff shakeup at DHS that would leave McAleenan in charge temporarily.  The network sourced the report to two officials briefed on the exchange, and said it was unclear if it was intended as a joke.  Trump met with McAleenan during a border visit, where he railed against immigration and declared the nation 'full' and unable to take any additional people.  'The system is full. Can't take you anymore. Whether it's asylum, whether it's anything you want, it's illegal immigration. We can't take you anymore, Trump said. 'We can't take you. Our country is full. Our area is full. The sector is full. Can't take you anymore, I'm sorry. Can't happen. So turn around. That's the way it is,' he said.  After mentioning the Border Patrol at the event, Trump mentioned backstage conversations, where he expressed a hint of defeatism about the existing laws.  'And I was telling some of the people before: If it's full, there's nothing you can do about it. We have some horrible court decisions that have been made over the years. It's very unfair and that's the way it is.'  'But the system is full. And when it's full, there's nothing you can do. You have to say, 'I'm sorry, we can't take you.' We've been trying to take people, and I have to disagree with it. We've been trying to take people and you can't do it. You can't do it. So we're going to look at that and we're going to look at it very, very strongly,' Trump said.  As the acting head McAleenan does not need Senate confirmation, although he could be required to testify before Congress on budget matters or as his role as head of the Border Patrol. This would give lawmakers an opportunity to ask him about the reported exchange under oath.


dailymail--2019-10-30--Purple Heart colonel told lawmakers there WAS a quid pro quo linking military aid to a Biden probe

White House Ukraine expert Alexander Vindman told lawmakers he became convinced that President Trump was personally holding up $400 million in aid for Ukraine to force the country into announcing that it was investigating 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son.  CNN reported Wednesday that Vindman, who sat down for a deposition on Capitol Hill Tuesday, was convinced that a quid pro quo existed by July 10, which was before the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  Vindman also told lawmakers, according to Politico, that he planned to debrief Trump on Zelenksy's May inauguration, but was instructed 'at the last second' not to attend because advisers worried it might confuse the president.  Trump, Vindman said, was under the impression that the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert was Kash Patel, a longtime staffer of Rep. Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee's top Republican.  Vindman's boss, NSC Senior director for European and Russian affairs Fiona Hill told Vindman that she and national security adviser John Bolton decided to keep Vindman out of the meeting to avoid 'an uncomfortable' situation.  Vindman said Patel 'misrepresented' himself as a Ukraine expert, Politico reported.  The president began his day on Twitter swinging at Vindman, an active-duty Army lieutenant colonel who was awarded a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq, saying he had 'never heard of' him but insisting he is a 'Never Trumper.'  But hours in, Vindman's testimony was already alarming Democratic members of Congress.  Acting chair of the Oversight Committee, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, called it 'extremely disturbing,' NBC News reported.  During the closed-door questioning by lawmakers in a secure room used by the House Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats clashed. Democrats, led by panel chair Rep. Adam Schiff, accused Republicans of trying to use the interview to out the whistle-blower who first brought forward claims of an alleged effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, using military aid and a White House meeting as leverage.  'It's very hard to out somebody that you don't know who they are,' Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump ally, told DailyMail.com, denying the charge.  'In general, you want to know who your witnesses have talked to about certain information that they're sharing. And that's the extent of the conversation,' he said. He said he wanted to know 'whomever they've talked to.'  Even as he denied trying to unmask the whistle-blower though stoked the impeachment inquiry, Meadows said he had a high amount of certainty of who it might be.  'This was just some questions about who did you talked to, and [Democrats] got all weirded out because they thought we were going to out somebody that we have no knowledge of who they are,' he said.  'If I had a degree of certainty of who the whistle-blower is, I promise you I would tell you. I have no idea who it is. Well, I have an idea, but I don’t – I’m less than 80 per cent confident,' he continued. 'I think there’s three or four people it could be.'  'I don’t do anything without a hundred per cent knowledge. It’s not 100, I’m not going to say it,' he concluded.  Vindman told investigators Tuesday that he listened to Donald Trump's call with Ukraine's new president Volodymr Zelensky and 'did not think it was proper' - potentially a huge boost to the Democrats' impeachment inquiry.  The White House also ordered the officer not to testify, prompting the House Intelligence Committee to issue a subpoena directing him to give evidence.  Vindman testified that he twice raised concerns over the Trump administration's interest in having Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son.  He is the first White House official to say he heard the July 25 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry.  House Republican conference chair Rep. Liz Cheney blasted 'shameful' questioning of Vindman's patriotism after attacks from Trump allies.  Cheney, a Wyoming Republican and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, issued her public admonition hours after high-profile conservative commentators sought to discredit Vindman before his testimony – with a former top Bush administration comparing him to a spy.  'I also want to say a word about something else that's been going on over the last couple of hours, and last night, which I think is also shameful, and that is questioning the patriotism, questioning the dedication to country, of people like Mr. Vindman – Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who will be coming today – and others who have testified,' Cheney said at a House leadership press conference.  She spoke after former top Bush Administration official John Yoo even compared some of Vindman's activities on the National Security Council to 'espionage.'  Former Wisconsin GOP Rep. Sean Duffy joined in the attack, saying on CNN Tuesday about Vindman: 'It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense. I don't know that he's concerned about American policy ... we all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from ... he has an affinity for the Ukraine.'  Vindman arrived at the Capitol wearing his dress uniform, displaying his Purple Heart and a series of other decorations for his service.  He was due to tell lawmakers he was a Ukrainian-born Jewish refugee who had lived 'the American dream' by serving his country in combat and as a diplomat.  Trump vented just before Lt. Col. Vindman arrived that that a transcript of the call makes it clear he did nothing wrong, and that Vindman is an unimportant figure who never crossed paths with him.  'Why are people that I never even heard of testifying about the call. Just READ THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX IS OVER! Ukrain [sic] said NO PRESSURE,' Trump tweeted.  But calling Vindman a 'Never Trumper' came as pro-Trump pundits were attacked by other Republicans for questioning Lt. Col Vindman's patriotism, with one Fox News commentator going as far as to accuse him of 'espionage' against the president.  The officer was to testify that he is explicitly not the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint about the call launched a now weeks-long chapter in the impeachment saga.  'The Impeachment Hoax is a disgrace. Read the transcript!' Trump added in another message.  Trump used the same 'never Trumper' insult to go after career diplomat William Taylor, who said in his own deposition that the was troubled by the administration's push to get Ukraine to make public statements about investigations that would help the president in order to get military aid and a White House meeting.  Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call with Trump to take action. The transcript doesn't appear to support Democrats' contention that Trump directly linked U.S. military aid to Ukraine with Zelensky's decision on launching an investigation that could give the president a political advantage in 2020.  Trump followed up his social media outrage with a string of retweets of congressional allies calling the entire impeachment inquiry illegitimate because of its secretive and one-sided beginning.  In his opening statement, first published by The New York Times, Vindman claimed the National Security Council proposed that Trump call President Zelensky to congratulate him after his party won parliamentary elections.  He explained: 'On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President.  'As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said. I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine.  'I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.'  Burisma Holdings is the Ukrainian energy company where Biden's son Hunter held a lucrative board seat while his father was vice president.  'I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.  Vindman claimed: 'This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel.'  The New York Times reported that Vindman is due to be interviewed privately on Tuesday by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees.  Vindman served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and was deployed to Iraq for combat operations. He was wounded in an IED attack and was subsequently awarded a Purple Heart.  He served in United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia. In Washington, D.C., he was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before his appointment to the NSC.  In his statement he adds: 'I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics.'  Vindman is due to tell the committee that he is not the whistle-blower who brought the issue to the CIA and the Committees' attention. He also claimed he never had direct contact or communications with the President.  'I did convey certain concerns internally to National Security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command.  'As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me.' Vindman said there was another incident which he thought was improper and he reported it to the National Security Council's lead counsel.  He claimed that on July 10, Oleksandr Danylyuk, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor John Bolton.  He said that Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt Volker, who resigned as U.S. special envoy to Ukraine earlier this month, were also in attendance.  In his testimony he claimed the Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner.  'Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short.  'Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma.  'I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.  'Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.'  Vindman is married with one child and has a twin brother named Eugene, who also serves in the military. It is understood he is a lawyer in the National Security Council.  In his statement, Alexander claimed his family fled the Soviet Union when he was three. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, his father worked multiple jobs to support them while learning English at night.  The Trump campaign has alleged that Biden quashed a Ukrainian investigation into Burisma, where Biden's son Hunter served on the board from 2014 until earlier this year, using the threat of withholding U.S. foreign aid.  Biden has denied any wrongdoing, and Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian president asking him to look into the matter is at the heart of House Democrats' mounting impeachment probe into Trump.  Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump's personal attorney, claimed earlier this month that Ukrainian gas company Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 in lobbying fees, citing documents released by a Ukrainian member of parliament.  'Biden, his son and his brother had a 30-year-long scam to make money, millions, selling his public office,' Giuliani said in an interview on Wednesday night with Fox News host Sean Hannity.  The interview with Giuliani was just hours after Biden backed the impeachment of Trump for the first time.  'Senator first, vice president second. Ukraine, just the tip of the iceberg,' Giuliani continued.  Giuliani cited new allegations raised at a press conference in Kyiv by Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach, who claimed he had investigative documents showing that Burisma paid Biden nearly a million dollars in lobbying fees.  In his concluding remarks, Vindman said it is vital that the U.S. and Ukraine remain 'stragetic partners' with a relationship that is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace.  He adds: 'It has been a great honor to serve the American people and a privilege to work in the White House and on the National Security Council. I hope to continue to serve and advance America' s national security interests.'  Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced there will be a vote this week on a resolution to affirm the impeachment investigation, set rules for public hearings and outline the potential process for writing articles of impeachment against Trump.  Pelosi told colleagues Monday in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that the vote will 'eliminate any doubt' about whether the Trump administration must comply with the investigation.  Republicans argue the impeachment probe is not legitimate unless the House takes a vote to authorize it. Pelosi disputes that view as having 'no merit.'  The White House released the bombshell transcript of President Donald Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine where Trump urges his counterpart to investigate Joe Biden and work directly with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani – and even brings up the DNC's hacked email server.  But the transcript does not show Trump tying the investigation to aid for Ukraine as he spoke to Zelensky, the quid pro quo which some reports had suggested it contained.  The call forms part of the whistle-blower complaint from an unknown intelligence official which alleges a pattern of wrongdoing by the president in his dealings with Ukraine, but which has been blocked from being given to Congress.  In the call, the president mentions political rival Biden by name, seeks an inquiry into a company tied to Biden's surviving son, Hunter, and predicts Ukraine's economy will do 'better and better' - but does not explicitly tie the United States' aid to the country to the investigation he demands.  He urges the president to contact Giuliani, who this summer called off a planned mission to Ukraine after bringing up a Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden served on the board.  'There is a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,' Trump says, according to the transcript.  'Biden went about bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... it sounds horrible to me,' the president told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  The Ukrainian president assured Trump: 'The next prosecutor general will be 100 per cent my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start. As a new prosecutor in September.  'He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation.'


dailysignal--2019-05-29--Conservative Lawmakers Fight the Swamp

Conservative Lawmakers Fight the Swamp

It’s typical Washington, D.C., to want to pass a $19 billion bill without even giving lawmakers a chance to weigh in.    But thanks to the effort of Republican Reps. Chip Roy and Thomas Massie, the swamp hit a speed bump.    On Friday and again on Tuesday, there was an effort to pass a $19 billion disaster aid package in the House—despite the fact that the House was on recess.  This would seem to be an important matter for the House to hash out in open debate before sending to the president’s desk. After all, the Founding Fathers intentionally put the purse strings in the hands of the House, a body closest to the interests of the people.    The average American household pays about [$26,000 in taxes to the federal government a year](https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/14/in-1-chart-how-your- taxes-are-spent/). That $19 billion is roughly equal to the annual federal taxes of 730,000 households—hardly a trivial amount of money.    But instead of having a robust debate, the  bill was rushed through in the metaphorical dead of night. Rachel Bovard, the policy director of the Conservative Partnership Institute,[ explained in the Washington Examiner](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/chip-roy-wants-to- actually-debate-a-19-billion-spending-bill-and-democrats-think-its-the-end-of- the-world) how this all went down. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. brought the bill to the floor after sending legislators home for vacation on Thursday.    Enter Roy.    “What [Pelosi] wasn’t counting on, however, was that one member wanted to actually read the bill—the final text of which had only come over from the Senate hours earlier,” Bovard wrote. “Not only that, but horror of horrors, he wanted to debate and vote on it.”    “Roy [objected](https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-chip-roy- objecting-disaster-supplemental) to passing the bill by unanimous consent, asserting his right to request that the House of Representatives debate and vote on the measure with all members present,” Bovard continued.    Roy [explained](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/24/disaster-aid- bill-chip-roy-bts-vpx.cnn) in a CNN interview that he believes disaster relief for places like Puerto Rico, Texas, and Georgia should be debated, as should border security—especially in light of President Donald Trump’s request for additional border wall funding.    “I objected because I didn’t think that the people’s House should be subjected to unanimous consent when everyone is out of town, and instead we should vote,” Roy said.    Unsurprisingly, pundits and politicians immediately lashed out at Roy and anyone who might object to the particulars of the bill.    Others,[ like Massie and Rep. Alex Mooney, R-W.Va.](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/28/another-gop-lawmaker- blocks-massive-disaster-aid-package-1345524), have now joined in criticizing the way this bill was brought up as well. On Tuesday, Massie, Mooney by his side, prevented the bill from being passed, saying, “If the speaker of this House felt that this was must-pass legislation, the speaker of this House should have called a vote on this legislation before sending its members on recess for 10 days.”    Tucking needless pork into emergency relief bills is the kind of swampy behavior that rarely gets punished in Washington, but now that a congressman wants to do his job and make sure the people’s money isn’t being wasted, he’s being attacked over it.    NPR [reported](https://www.npr.org/2019/05/24/726600378/disaster-aid-bill- stalled-after-republican-blocks-house-vote) on the disaster relief provisions of the bill:       > The bill includes specific provisions to speed money to communities recovering from tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, volcanoes and other natural disasters. [It earmarks ](https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Emergency%20Supplemental%20Summary_Disaster.pdf)$3 billion for farms, places that were hit by flooding in the South and Midwest; nearly $800 million for the Army Corps of Engineers for rebuilding and investigations; and more than $500 million for the Coast Guard.   >  >  > The bill also includes $600 million in nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and about $300 million for Community Development Block Grants for U.S. territory.   >  However, some of the Republican senators who voted against the legislation attacked it for pairing wasteful spending with disaster relief.    “If legislators in Washington actually read this $19.1 billion spending bill, maybe they would share my concern with spending taxpayer funds on pet projects—like provisions for cherry farmers who make over $900,000 a year—instead of dealing with real problems like relief for victims of natural disasters or the humanitarian crisis on our southern border,” said Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., in a [statement](https://www.theindychannel.com/news/politics /sen-mike-braun-of-indiana-votes-against-19-1-billion-disaster-relief-aid- bill).    Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, [derided](https://www.romney.senate.gov/romney- opposes-wasteful-191-billion-spending-bill) the bill for being “loaded up with billions of dollars in unrelated pet projects” in a statement.    There are certainly reasons to think that much of this bill is egregious waste rather than necessary relief, and the included funding for the Community Development Block Grant is of particular concern.    Vanessa Brown Calder, formerly a policy analyst at the Cato Institute,[ highlighted](https://www.cato.org/blog/community-development-block-grant- spending-poorly-targeted-poor) in March just a few of the dubious spending projects of the program in recent years, including $375,000 for a burrito restaurant in New York and $276,000 for a skateboard park in Massachusetts.    Furthermore, was all the spending in this package truly for emergencies that occurred because of disasters? Romina Boccia, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told The Daily Signal in an email:    > Congress is yet again using the guise of disaster relief as an excuse to engage in more deficit spending.   >  >  > Supplemental appropriations should be reserved for truly unforeseen events that have a large scale impact on the country, not for recurring problems such as seasonal flooding and wildfires.   >  >  > Congress should strictly adhere to a 1991 Office of Management and Budget definition of what qualifies for emergency spending: necessary; sudden; urgent; unforeseen; and not permanent. This disaster package does not meet these criteria.   >  Jessica Anderson, vice president of Heritage Action for America, said in a statement to The Daily Signal: “Congress should not be taking shortcuts and cutting out debate on a bill that would increase spending by $19.1 billion with zero offsets. The American people have a right to know where their elected representatives stand on these important issues, and representatives should go on record with their votes.”    There are many reasons why America is now saddled with more debt than any time in its history, but casual wasting of money and endless borrowing has certainly been a contributing factor. We should be more careful with how our hard-earned tax money is spent or try to understand why in this instance we need to borrow against our future.    Continually pushing legislation through with seemingly little input for our representatives makes a mockery of our republican system, as common as this sort of practice has become.    It also adds to the reputation of Congress as a rubber-stamp body, overshadowed by the power of the presidency, and overruled by the mandates of our vast federal bureaucracy.    This shouldn’t be the case, and certainly doesn’t reflect the institution the Founding Fathers created to be the most powerful branch of the federal government.    Perhaps yet another opaque spending bill passed without debate won’t make or break the republic, but what does it say of us that we continue to allow this to happen unchecked?    It’s not grandstanding for legislators to halt the spending of billions of dollars to come to a better understanding of what such vast sums of money are actually being used for—and whether they would be better spent elsewhere.    Frankly, that’s their job.    What we should be lamenting is a dereliction of duty; duty to the people to make sure their money is well spent.


dailysignal--2019-10-11--Voters Will ‘Send Home’ Lawmakers Who Act to Impeach Trump, House Conservative Says

If Democrats are successful in impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump, voters will send them home, a leading House conservative said Friday at a gathering of “values voters” in Washington.  “Even before this president was sworn in they were talking about impeachment, and they’re bound and determined to do it,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said at the annual Values Voter Summit organized by FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Washington-based Family Research Council.  “And we need to send a clear message [that] if they do it we will send them home,” Meadows told the crowd at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., last month opened what she called an official impeachment inquiry, saying Trump’s actions as president “have seriously violated the Constitution,” and that Trump “must be held accountable.”  Pelosi said Trump had “seriously violated the Constitution,” citing his July 25 phone conversation with the president of Ukraine that she said was meant to “benefit him politically.”  “We’re not taking this sitting down, or even lying down,” Meadows said. “We’re going to stay in the fight because of people like you that continue to encourage us to stay in the fight.”  Meadows, former chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said it has become commonplace for politicians to stray from what their constituents sent them to Congress to accomplish.  “We need to have some kind of vaccination for the Potomac fever,” the North Carolina Republican said, adding:  You know, it’s amazing when members of Congress and senators, they elected, you go out, you work hard, you try to make sure that they’re going to make a difference. They get elected, they raise their right hand. They say they’re going to defend the Constitution, they’re going to support your values. They come across the Potomac River, and they lose their mind. I’ve said it here before, I might as well say it again: You know they have the backbone of a banana.  Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., last month assumed the chairmanship of the Freedom Caucus, a group of House conservatives, following Meadows’ stint.  Meadows said that Americans need to be vocal with their elected representatives about their support of the Trump administration, so they aren’t surprised that a vote to impeach Trump could result in voters tossing them out.  “I can tell you that there is backbones that are like bananas that start to stiffen up when they hear from hundreds if not thousands of people from back home, because there is only one thing that a member of Congress fears [and that] is being voted out of office,” he said.  The Values Voter Summit, which runs Friday through Sunday at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, was created in 2006 to help inform and mobilize Americans to preserve the “bedrock values” of religious liberty, the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and limited government. Since its inception, the primary sponsor has been FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.


dcgazette--2019-05-30--Conservative Lawmakers Fight the Swamp

Conservative Lawmakers Fight the Swamp

It’s typical Washington, D.C., to want to pass a $19 billion bill without even giving lawmakers a chance to weigh in.  But thanks to the effort of Republican Reps. Chip Roy and Thomas Massie, the swamp hit a speed bump.  On Friday and again on Tuesday, there was an effort to pass a $19 billion disaster aid package in the House—despite the fact that the House was on recess.  This would seem to be an important matter for the House to hash out in open debate before sending to the president’s desk. After all, the Founding Fathers intentionally put the purse strings in the hands of the House, a body closest to the interests of the people.  The average American household pays about $26,000 in taxes to the federal government a year. That $19 billion is roughly equal to the annual federal taxes of 730,000 households—hardly a trivial amount of money.  But instead of having a robust debate, the  bill was rushed through in the metaphorical dead of night. Rachel Bovard, the policy director of the Conservative Partnership Institute, explained in the Washington Examiner how this all went down. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. brought the bill to the floor after sending legislators home for vacation on Thursday.  “What [Pelosi] wasn’t counting on, however, was that one member wanted to actually read the bill—the final text of which had only come over from the Senate hours earlier,” Bovard wrote. “Not only that, but horror of horrors, he wanted to debate and vote on it.”  “Roy objected to passing the bill by unanimous consent, asserting his right to request that the House of Representatives debate and vote on the measure with all members present,” Bovard continued.  Roy explained in a CNN interview that he believes disaster relief for places like Puerto Rico, Texas, and Georgia should be debated, as should border security—especially in light of President Donald Trump’s request for additional border wall funding.  “I objected because I didn’t think that the people’s House should be subjected to unanimous consent when everyone is out of town, and instead we should vote,” Roy said.  Unsurprisingly, pundits and politicians immediately lashed out at Roy and anyone who might object to the particulars of the bill.  Others, like Massie and Rep. Alex Mooney, R-W.Va., have now joined in criticizing the way this bill was brought up as well. On Tuesday, Massie, Mooney by his side, prevented the bill from being passed, saying, “If the speaker of this House felt that this was must-pass legislation, the speaker of this House should have called a vote on this legislation before sending its members on recess for 10 days.”  Tucking needless pork into emergency relief bills is the kind of swampy behavior that rarely gets punished in Washington, but now that a congressman wants to do his job and make sure the people’s money isn’t being wasted, he’s being attacked over it.  NPR reported on the disaster relief provisions of the bill:  However, some of the Republican senators who voted against the legislation attacked it for pairing wasteful spending with disaster relief.  “If legislators in Washington actually read this $19.1 billion spending bill, maybe they would share my concern with spending taxpayer funds on pet projects—like provisions for cherry farmers who make over $900,000 a year—instead of dealing with real problems like relief for victims of natural disasters or the humanitarian crisis on our southern border,” said Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., in a statement.  Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, derided the bill for being “loaded up with billions of dollars in unrelated pet projects” in a statement.  There are certainly reasons to think that much of this bill is egregious waste rather than necessary relief, and the included funding for the Community Development Block Grant is of particular concern.  Vanessa Brown Calder, formerly a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, highlighted in March just a few of the dubious spending projects of the program in recent years, including $375,000 for a burrito restaurant in New York and $276,000 for a skateboard park in Massachusetts.  Furthermore, was all the spending in this package truly for emergencies that occurred because of disasters? Romina Boccia, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told The Daily Signal in an email:  Jessica Anderson, vice president of Heritage Action for America, said in a statement to The Daily Signal: “Congress should not be taking shortcuts and cutting out debate on a bill that would increase spending by $19.1 billion with zero offsets. The American people have a right to know where their elected representatives stand on these important issues, and representatives should go on record with their votes.”  There are many reasons why America is now saddled with more debt than any time in its history, but casual wasting of money and endless borrowing has certainly been a contributing factor. We should be more careful with how our hard-earned tax money is spent or try to understand why in this instance we need to borrow against our future.  Continually pushing legislation through with seemingly little input for our representatives makes a mockery of our republican system, as common as this sort of practice has become.  It also adds to the reputation of Congress as a rubber-stamp body, overshadowed by the power of the presidency, and overruled by the mandates of our vast federal bureaucracy.  This shouldn’t be the case, and certainly doesn’t reflect the institution the Founding Fathers created to be the most powerful branch of the federal government.  Perhaps yet another opaque spending bill passed without debate won’t make or break the republic, but what does it say of us that we continue to allow this to happen unchecked?  It’s not grandstanding for legislators to halt the spending of billions of dollars to come to a better understanding of what such vast sums of money are actually being used for—and whether they would be better spent elsewhere.  What we should be lamenting is a dereliction of duty; duty to the people to make sure their money is well spent.  The post Conservative Lawmakers Fight the Swamp appeared first on The Daily Signal.


dcgazette--2019-10-12--Voters Will ‘Send Home’ Lawmakers Who Act to Impeach Trump, House Conservative Says

If Democrats are successful in impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump, voters will send them home, a leading House conservative said Friday at a gathering of “values voters” in Washington.  “Even before this president was sworn in they were talking about impeachment, and they’re bound and determined to do it,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said at the annual Values Voter Summit organized by FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Washington-based Family Research Council.  “And we need to send a clear message [that] if they do it we will send them home,” Meadows told the crowd at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., last month opened what she called an official impeachment inquiry, saying Trump’s actions as president “have seriously violated the Constitution,” and that Trump “must be held accountable.”  Pelosi said Trump had “seriously violated the Constitution,” citing his July 25 phone conversation with the president of Ukraine that she said was meant to “benefit him politically.”  “We’re not taking this sitting down, or even lying down,” Meadows said. “We’re going to stay in the fight because of people like you that continue to encourage us to stay in the fight.”  Meadows, former chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said it has become commonplace for politicians to stray from what their constituents sent them to Congress to accomplish.  “We need to have some kind of vaccination for the Potomac fever,” the North Carolina Republican said, adding:  You know, it’s amazing when members of Congress and senators, they elected, you go out, you work hard, you try to make sure that they’re going to make a difference. They get elected, they raise their right hand. They say they’re going to defend the Constitution, they’re going to support your values. They come across the Potomac River, and they lose their mind. I’ve said it here before, I might as well say it again: You know they have the backbone of a banana.  Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., last month assumed the chairmanship of the Freedom Caucus, a group of House conservatives, following Meadows’ stint.  Meadows said that Americans need to be vocal with their elected representatives about their support of the Trump administration, so they aren’t surprised that a vote to impeach Trump could result in voters tossing them out.  “I can tell you that there is backbones that are like bananas that start to stiffen up when they hear from hundreds if not thousands of people from back home, because there is only one thing that a member of Congress fears [and that] is being voted out of office,” he said.  The Values Voter Summit, which runs Friday through Sunday at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, was created in 2006 to help inform and mobilize Americans to preserve the “bedrock values” of religious liberty, the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and limited government. Since its inception, the primary sponsor has been FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.  The post Voters Will ‘Send Home’ Lawmakers Who Act to Impeach Trump, House Conservative Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.


drudgereport--2019-02-14--House Set to Vote on Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill Lawmakers Have NOT Read

House Set to Vote on Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill Lawmakers Have NOT Read...

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a government appropriations bill Thursday evening and, with a day until the vote, lawmakers still have not received the text of the legislation.  “No one has seen the final wording of a long and complicated bill we will be expected to vote on tomorrow evening,” Republican Maryland Rep. Andy Harris told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “That’s no way to run a legislature.”  Republican Study Chairman Mike Johnson also confirmed that “as of lunch on Wednesday, members of the RSC, and to our knowledge, even members of the conference committee, had not seen the text.”  “It has been reported that [House Majority Leader Steny] Hoyer has said if the bill is dropped today we will consider it tomorrow. This is reminiscent of the, ‘you must pass it to find out what is in it,’ Obamacare debacle,” Johnson said to TheDCNF. “This bill is expected to be well over 1,000 pages, and we will potentially have less than 24 hours to digest it. This is absurd.”  The bicameral and bipartisan Homeland Security funding conference committee signaled last week that they are nearing a final border security deal that could be voted on prior to the Feb. 15 funding deadline. However, after hitting a snag over Democrats’ demand to limit to how many criminals Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should be allowed to detain, Congress reportedly reached an “agreement in principle” late Monday.  The agreement includes $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new bollard fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, far short of the $5.7 billion that President Donald Trump initially sought for 234 miles of steel or concrete walls.  Regardless, the legislation is expected to be finalized Wednesday night, giving members of Congress less than 24 hours to read what they are voting on. A senior House Republican source confirmed to TheDCNF that no Republican lawmakers have received a copy of the legislation or seen any text as of Wednesday afternoon. (RELATED: Democrats Wall Deal Seeks To Limit ICE’s Ability To House Criminal Illegal Immigrants)  “When one bemoans the swamp, look no further than spending a trillion dollars and jamming through legislation when none of us have even seen it,” Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy told TheDCNF. “We should be a no on such incompetence even if it weren’t perpetuating drunken spending and failing to actually secure the border.”  “Pelosi and the Democrats promised a full 72 hours to review legislation,” a senior conservative congressional aide told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “But now we’re voting on a massive, probably thousands-page long conference report tomorrow and we haven’t even seen text the day before? This is worse than under Speaker Ryan.”  Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


foxnews--2019-01-03--New Congress in 2019 5 things to watch as lawmakers go back to work

New Congress in 2019: 5 things to watch as lawmakers go back to work

The federal government will remain partially shuttered as the new 116th Congress begins work Thursday – but history will be made as many of the new members are sworn in.  Following the midterm elections, Democrats regained control of the U.S. House – setting up Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to take back the speaker’s gavel. Pelosi was the first woman ever to serve as House speaker when she was first tapped for the job in 2007.  Here’s a look at five things to watch as Congress comes back to work.  California Rep. Nancy Pelosi is expected to get her old job as House speaker back as the new Congress convenes Thursday. Pelosi made history as the first woman elected speaker of the House in 2007 – and she will be the first lawmaker to regain the gavel in more than a half-century.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP  Pelosi, 78, faced early opposition from some in her own party who called for a fresh generation of guidance. But one-by-one, Pelosi managed to win over several skeptics through promising lead positions on their legislative priorities or special panels. She also struck a deal with Democrats by vowing to serve no more than four years in the leadership position.  TRUMP VERSUS DEMOCRATS: A LOOK AT WHICH LAWMAKERS ARE SET TO BATTLE THE PRESIDENT IN 2019  In accepting the gavel, Pelosi will give a nod to the new era of divided government with a pledge to “reach across the aisle in this chamber and across the divisions in this great nation,” according to excerpts of her prepared remarks.  As the new Congress convenes, the partial government shutdown continues in its 13th day – with no end in sight in the showdown between Trump and lawmakers over funding for a border wall.  The Democrat-controlled House plans to vote on a pair of bills to reopen the government, which includes a plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security at current levels through Feb. 8, with $1.3 billion allotted for border security. Other departments affected by the partial shutdown would be funded for the remainder of the fiscal year until the end of September.  LINDSEY GRAHAM: TRUMP CAVING ON BORDER SECURITY ‘PROBABLY THE END OF HIS PRESIDENCY’  But neither the White House nor the Republican-controlled Senate is likely to budge and support a bill that doesn’t allocate for the $5 billion for a border wall that Trump demanded.  “Both parties must work together to pass a Funding Bill that protects this Nation and its people – this is the first and most important duty of government,” Trump tweeted Wednesday night. “I remain ready and willing to work with Democrats to pass a bill that secures our borders, supports the agents and officers on the ground, and keeps America Safe.”  The new Congress will make history for seating a record number of women and becoming the most racially and ethnically diverse. Additionally, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, is the youngest woman elected to Congress at 29 years old.  Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar will become the first Muslim women to serve in Congress. Tlaib will take her oath on a 1734 English translation Quran that belonged to former President Thomas Jefferson.  And Sharice Davids of Kansas along with Deb Haaland of New Mexico will be the first Native American women to serve in Congress. Davids, an activist and lawyer, will also set a record as the first LGBT Native American elected to the House.  In all, 127 women — 106 Democrats 21 Republicans — will serve in the 116th Congress, holding nearly 24 percent of all seats, according to the Center for Women and Politics at Rutgers University.  Two self-described Democratic Socialists will officially join Congress Thursday (Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez) as big-government policies – such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for all – are on the agenda for some party members.  It’s unclear when and if any of these programs will make it to the floor, let alone pass the House. But their growing support marks an astonishing rise for socialist-leaning policies in just a few years and reflects a shift in the party itself.  While echoing the language of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Green New Deal aims to combat both climate change and income inequality. It’s pushed by progressive lawmakers including Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.  A draft proposal, which calls for a select committee to be formed to create an official plan, calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and agriculture while “dramatically” expanding energy sources to meet 100 percent of power demand through renewable sources as well. It also demands a job guarantee program offering a “living wage job to every person who wants one.”  Single-payer proposals, like Medicare for all, would rely on the government to control the health care system. It’s been championed by more progressive Democrats, and more than half of House Democrats in the new Congress have supported plans to open Medicare to any American, regardless of age, according to The New York Times.  Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., plans to hit the ground running as Democrats take control of the House Thursday – by introducing articles of impeachment against Trump, according to the Los Angeles Times.  He is accusing the president of obstructing justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey, the newspaper reported.  “Every day, Donald Trump shows that leaving the White House would be good for our country,” Sherman, 64, said.  This isn’t the first time Sherman has introduced articles of impeachment against Trump. But when he did so in 2017, Republicans controlled the House.  Pelosi isn’t ruling out impeachment proceedings entirely. Ahead of the new Congress convening, she told NBC News she wants to “see what comes” from special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia.  “We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason,” she said.  Fox News’ Lukas Mikelionis, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


foxnews--2019-01-07--Lawmakers can now wear religious headwear after House Democrats change rules

Congress hasn't been allowed to wear hats on the House floor since 1837, but the newly Democratic-controlled House voted to change that to accommodate lawmakers who wear religious headwear.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., proposed the changes last month and it passed Thursday 234-197. The changes allow one of the first female Muslim members of Congress, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who also co-authored the proposal, to wear her headscarf.  NEW CONGRESS HAS FEW CHRISTIANS, MORE RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY  The new rule reads: “During the session of the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not wear nonreligious headdress or a hat or remain by the Clerk’s desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots," the rule change reads.  Omar celebrated the change Friday on Twitter, calling it a move to make Congress "more inclusive for all" with an apparent swipe at the Trump administration.  "I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones," she wrote.  Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, known for her wide collection of hats, tried to get the rule evoked in 2010, calling it “sexist,” according to the Miami Herald.  “It dates back to when men wore hats and we know that men don't wear hats indoors, but women wear hats indoors,” Wilson said. “Hats are what I wear. People get excited when they see the hats. Once you get accustomed to it, it's just me. Some people wear wigs, or high heel shoes or big earrings or pins. This is just me.”  While her efforts were unsuccessful, a spokesman for then-House Speaker John Boehner told PolitiFact: “The rule regarding hats has never been interpreted to apply to religious headcoverings.”  FIRST DAY OF 116TH CONGRESS BEGINS WITH PRAYER, ENDS WITH A PROFANITY  Nathan Diament, executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, which represents the interests of Orthodox Jews, said no Jewish House member had made the ban an issue in the past.  But there have been special House sessions when Jewish men wore head coverings — including when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress, and Israeli officials wore kippahs or "kippot" in Hebrew.  “The Orthodox Union has long supported laws and policies that foster the accommodation of religious practices in the workplace," Diament told the Washington Post. "Religious practices — such as wearing religious garb, whether a kippot or a hijab, should be accommodated in all workplaces — including in the halls of Congress,”