france24--2019-02-12--US lawmakers reach tentative deal on border security to avoid shutdown

Joe Raedle, Getty Images, AFP | US President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at the El Paso County Coliseum in Texas on February 11, 2019  U.S. congressional negotiators on Monday reached a tentative deal to try to avert another partial government shutdown on Saturday, but congressional aides said it did not contain the $5.7 billion President Donald Trump wants for a border wall.  "We reached an agreement in principle" on funding border security programs through Sept. 30, Republican Senator Richard Shelby told reporters. "Our staffs are going to be working feverishly to put all the particulars together,” Shelby said.  Neither he nor three other senior lawmakers flanking him provided any details of the tentative pact. But it was far from clear if the Republican president would embrace the agreement.  His December demand for $5.7 billion this year to help pay for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border - rejected by congressional Democrats - triggered a 35-day partial government shutdown that ended last month without him getting wall funding.  A congressional aide, who asked not to be identified, said the outline of the deal included $1.37 billion for erecting new fencing along the southern border. That is about the same amount Congress allocated last year and far below what Trump has demanded.  The aide said none of the money would be for a "wall," which Trump has been touting since he launched his campaign for president in 2016.  Democrats say the wall would be costly and ineffective.  Two other congressional sources said only currently deployed designs could be used for constructing 55 miles (90 km) of additional barriers. Those designs, which include "steel bollard" fencing, have been in use since before Trump became president.  Shortly after the deal was reached in the U.S. Capitol, Trump held a rally in the border city of El Paso, Texas, to argue for the wall he says can protect Americans from violent criminals, drugs and a "tremendous onslaught" of migrant caravans.  Trump said he heard about progress in the talks just before he took the stage, but he too did not discuss details. "Just so you know - we're building the wall anyway," he said. "Maybe progress has been made - maybe not."  Beto O’Rourke, the former Democratic congressman from Texas considering a 2020 White House run, held a counter-rally just 200 yards away and accused Trump of stoking "false fear" about immigrants and telling "lies" about O'Rourke's hometown of El Paso.  But a vocal group of conservatives influential with Trump has urged him to remain steadfast in his demand for the border wall money.  In comments about the tentative congressional deal reached on Monday, Fox News commentator Sean Hannity told his viewers: "Any Republican that supports this garbage compromise, you will have to explain."  Under Monday's agreement, which must be fleshed out by congressional staff experts, Democrats gave up on a demand they floated on Friday night to lower the cap on immigrant detention beds in the interior of the United States.  Democrats had complained the Trump administration was increasing detention capacity as a way of speeding up deportations of illegal immigrants, some of whom were seeking asylum under U.S. law.  But an overall cap - on borders and in the interior - would remain at 40,520 beds.  The aide said that despite that cap, the number had actually grown to 49,057 and that under the deal, it would be brought down to the legal cap.  But one of the other aides said the deal would give Trump the flexibility to increase the number to 52,000 if necessary.  Democratic Representative Nita Lowey said on Monday night: "I hope by Wednesday we'll have a finished product."  Lowey said she had been in touch with House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who she said "has confidence I have made the right decision."  Trump agreed to reopen the government last month for three weeks to allow congressional negotiators time to find a compromise on government funding for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, to avert another shutdown.  The handful of lawmakers leading the negotiations met privately for about two hours on Monday.  They said they wanted to seal a plan by Monday night to allow time for the legislation to pass the House of Representatives and Senate and get Trump's signature by Friday, when funding is due to expire for the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and several other federal agencies.  Without a new injection of federal funds, an array of federal agencies would have to suspend some activities, ranging form the maintenance of national parks to publication of economic data that is important to financial markets.  During the record-long partial government shutdown, which ran from Dec. 22 to Jan. 25, 800,000 federal workers went without pay even though many of them were required to report to work.  The shutdown ended shortly after a shortage of federal air traffic controllers triggered delays of hundreds of flights at airports in the New York and Philadelphia areas.  In recent weeks, Trump has threatened to declare a "national emergency" if Congress did not give him money to build a border wall.  He says that would allow him to use existing funds for other activities to build a wall - an idea that Democrats and many Republicans in Congress oppose.


fusion--2019-12-20--Lawmakers leave without an agreement on impeachment trial rules

The battle in the Senate has already reached an impasse on the second day after impeachment. The majority and minority leaders were unable Friday to reach an agreement on the rules for a trial, this as the speaker of the House stands by her decision to not send the articles to the Senate until fair rules are established.


inquisitr--2019-01-01--Donald Trump Invites Congressional Lawmakers To First White House Meeting Since Shutdown Began

President Donald Trump invited leaders from both parties to the White House for a meeting to discuss negotiations over his border wall. According to CNN, it would be the first time top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders will have met with the president since the shutdown began on December 22 — and comes just a day before a new group of Democrats take their place as the majority in the House.  According to two sources familiar with the situation, on New Year’s Eve, President Trump invited Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, House GOP leaders Steve Scalise and Kevin McCarthy, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, and Majority Whip John Thune to sit down at the White House for a meeting on Wednesday.  The meeting is expected to include a briefing from Homeland Security Officials, and marks some of the only meaningful discussions that leaders from both parties will have had with the president since the shutdown began 11 days ago.  Democrats will take over leadership of the House tomorrow, and are expected to pass a bill that would reopen the government — but wouldn’t include any of the $5 billion the president has demanded for the planned wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The funding has been a sticking point between Democrats and the president — and is the primary reason for the current partial government shutdown.  Trump has been firm in his position, blaming Democrats for the shutdown while saying that he won’t compromise on border security. He spent the weekend — the New Year’s holiday — taunting leaders on the left through social media.  “The Democrats, much as I suspected, have allocated no money for a new Wall. So imaginative! The problem is, without a Wall there can be no real Border Security,” he wrote Wednesday morning.  A few hours later, Trump tweeted a somewhat more conciliatory message.  “Border Security and the Wall ‘thing’ and Shutdown is not where Nancy Pelosi wanted to start her tenure as Speaker! Let’s make a deal?” the president wrote on Twitter.  Pelosi replied that she and other Democrats would take advantage of the opportunity to end the “irresponsible” shutdown.  “@realDonaldTrump has given Democrats a great opportunity to show how we will govern responsibly & quickly pass our plan to end the irresponsible TrumpShutdown – just the first sign of things to come in our new Democratic Majority committed to working ForThePeople,” she wrote.  Trump believes that the public is on his side in the debate over the wall, per ABC 8 News, an element that he made a key part of his campaign and presidency. It is unclear if the Republican-led Senate would consider any bill put forward by the House that lacks wall funding.


inquisitr--2019-03-17--Trump Veto In Favor Of Border Wall Drives Lawmakers To Limit Emergency Powers

President Donald Trump, on Friday, used his veto power for the first time to overrule the Congress after their successful vote to block his border wall emergency declaration. As a result, many lawmakers are now looking to how they might limit such moves in the future, including reeling in the presidential powers granted by the National Emergencies Act of 1976, The New York Times reports.  “Ultimately, this is a problem created by Congress, and it has been allowed to persist by Congress,” said Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican. “Congress is starting to wake up to the fact that over time it has delegated out too much power.”  Last week, Lee introduced a bill intended to avoid such a showdown between the president and Congress. The bill would have allowed the current emergency declaration over the border wall to continue while simultaneously refining in presidential power for future declarations.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, however, expressed that she would block the bill in the House, essentially refusing to provide short-term cover for the president and congressional Republicans and to force the vote, and ultimately Trump’s veto, instead.  While some Republican politicians oppose the expansive nature of the National Emergencies Act in principal, indicating that it cedes too much power to the president, others are more pragmatic, simply worrying that a future Democratic president could use the act to their own ends.  Indeed, Lee joined 11 other Republican Senators to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats to block the emergency declaration, though the majority fell short of the two thirds margin needed to override a presidential veto. That still isn’t the end of the matter, however, as ultimately the constitutionality of Trump’s declaration will need to play out in the courts. It is possible that the congressional vote could be taken into consideration by judges hearing the case, including the Supreme Court, as evidence of congressional intent when it comes to this particular aspect of the law.  Senate Majority Mitch McConnell said last week that it is possible that the Senate might take up the issue again through a hearing of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.  “If Congress has grown uneasy with this law, as many have, then we should amend it,” he said. “If the 116th Congress regrets the degree of flexibility that the 94th Congress gave the executive, the 116th Congress can do something about it.”  Lee likewise expressed a commitment to finding a solution, with the border wall declaration the potentially galvanizing issue to drive bipartisan progress.  “This has been created over time under Congresses and White Houses of every conceivable partisan configuration,” Lee said. “It needs to be a bipartisan solution.”


latimes--2019-08-05--Despite Californias travel ban lawmakers find ways to visit states with anti-LGBTQ laws

Despite California's travel ban, lawmakers find ways to visit states with 'anti-LGBTQ' laws

Three years after the California Legislature banned taxpayer-financed travel to states it saw as discriminating against LGBTQ people, lawmakers and university athletic teams are still visiting the boycotted states and finding other ways to pay for their trips.  Signed in 2016 by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, California’s law bars state-funded travel to 10 states and says the purpose of the restrictions is to “avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.”  But California elected officials have tapped campaign contributions to continue visiting the targeted states, while state university sports teams and students participating in academic competitions have appealed for private donations to fund their travel.  The law has been criticized by officials from the states affected — Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas — who say it represents meddling in their affairs by left-leaning California. But supporters say it has had an effect, putting pressure on states that have adopted discriminatory laws, even if some California officials are using political funds to continue traveling to the targeted states.  “Ultimately this is about making sure that our taxpayer dollars aren’t going to those states, and I think in that way the law has been successful,” said Samuel Garrett-Pate, a spokesman for Equality California, an LGBTQ rights group.  The travel restrictions were pushed by Democratic lawmakers but opposed by Republicans, who say it has proved to be an empty gesture.  Assembly Republican leader Marie Waldron of Escondido cited as one example Gov. Gavin Newsom’s April fact-finding trip to El Salvador to determine the reasons so many migrants from that country have fled to the United States.  “The travel ban was virtue-signaling at its worst,” Waldron said. “El Salvador doesn’t allow same-sex couples to marry or adopt children and discrimination is rampant. Where was the outrage from legislative Democrats when Gov. Newsom traveled there?”  Some California officials have cut back on their travel to the states targeted by the law. Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) are among the many lawmakers who are opting not to attend the annual summit of the National Conference of State Legislators, scheduled to begin this week in Nashville, Tenn.  “If any legislators or staff were to attend, they would be traveling to Tennessee with private funds,” said Pablo Espinoza, a spokesman for Rendon.  Records show Mitchell spent $1,950 of her campaign funds during the last two years on trips to Montgomery, Ala. and Nashville to attend conferences by the National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women, or NOBEL Women, which she helped found as a staff member and for which she serves on the board of directors.  “I respect and understand the travel ban and therefore don’t use public resources,” said Mitchell, who voted for the law in 2016.  There is some value, she said, in having state lawmakers talk to counterparts in boycotted states to educate them about California’s ideas on issues including LGBTQ rights and criminal justice reform.  “It’s important for me to go because I am the only black woman who serves in the California state Senate, and NOBEL is an organization of black female state legislators from across the country,” Mitchell said. “It is for me and my own sense of connection to other women who look like me, who do my work.”  Texas was put on the travel-ban list for a law allowing foster care agencies to deny adoptions and services to children and parents based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”  A representative for California Secretary of State Alex Padilla defended Padilla’s decision to use campaign funds to travel to San Antonio in 2017, saying it was “to advocate for voting rights in a state that is ground zero for voter suppression.”  A similar justification was provided for state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, when as a state senator he traveled to Dallas in 2017 to attend the annual conference of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.  “With LGBT and immigrant rights under assault across the country, I thought it was important to join other Latino leaders and show California’s example,” Lara said at the time.  Like Lara and Mitchell, Assemblywoman Autumn Burke (D-Marina del Rey) voted for California’s travel ban and later reported spending campaign funds for travel involving a Technet conference in Austin, Texas last November. She did not respond to a request for comment.  Two employees of the state auditor’s office attended an annual conference in Mississippi last year, but the trip was paid for by the National Assn. of State Auditors so the pair could present information about an award-winning audit they conducted, a representative said.  State Auditor Elaine Howle is past president of the group and would normally have attended its annual meeting, but did not consider traveling to the event because of the state law, spokeswoman Margarita Fernández said .  Joel Anderson was a Republican state senator when he traveled in 2017 to Tennessee to attend legislative meetings sponsored by the American Legislative Exchange Council. The group paid all of his expenses because he is a board member, he said.  “My colleagues had an opportunity to grandstand but now that the television cameras are off it was unenforced,” Anderson said of the travel-ban law he voted against. “It was the dumbest thing I’ve heard of in my entire life.”  The law also prohibits using public resources to send academics and sports teams from California universities to the 10 states, but travel has continued as teams turn to private financing, including donations from boosters and corporate sponsors, to keep their schedules.  When the Cal State Long Beach men’s basketball team was invited in November to play in a tournament in Starkville, Miss., it asked the company that staged the tournament to cover its travel and hotel costs. Track stars were able to participate in the NCAA Track and Field National Championships this year because of private funds raised from supporters, said Andy Fee, the university’s athletic director.  “It’s extra work,” Fee said. “We’ve been lucky that we do have folks who understand the need to fundraise private dollars.”  Fee said he understands why California has the travel restrictions and that he is concerned about discriminatory policies that led to states being put on the no-go list.  UC officials support and comply with the state law, said spokeswoman Sarah McBride. “However, UC has faced challenges implementing this law in areas such as academic research and teaching, student recruitment and athletics,” she said. In one case, students at Cal State Fullerton had to crowdsource funding to attend a debate competition.  The policy has drawn the ire of government leaders in the boycotted states.  “California’s attempt to influence public policy in our state is akin to Tennessee expressing its disapproval of California’s exorbitant taxes, spiraling budget deficits, runaway social welfare programs, and rampant illegal immigration,” said a resolution approved by the Tennessee Legislature in 2017.  Tennessee’s Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who has seen California businesses including Mitsubishi decide to move operations to his state, believes the Golden State’s travel policy is a distraction.  “Gov. Lee thinks it’s better to focus less on divisive politics and more on job creation,” said Chris Walker, a spokesman for the governor. “If leaders in other states adopted a similar perspective, perhaps companies wouldn’t be leaving those states.”  California leads the nation in new business startups, said Lenny Mendonca, Newsom’s chief economic and business advisor and director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.  “This is a state that values inclusion, both in our society and in the workplace and we encourage all businesses that share that belief to join us,” Mendonca said. “They will be in good company.”  Despite the criticism of the law and how it has been followed, Garrett-Pate of Equality California said it has had an effect on the national dialogue on LGBTQ issues.  “I do think it is now part of the conversation when states are considering discriminatory policies like the ones we have seen in the states to which travel is banned in California,” Garrett-Pate said. “We want them to think twice before they do this.”


latimes--2019-08-31--Newsom and top California lawmakers strike a deal to cap rent increases

Millions of Californians would receive new protections against large rent increases under an agreement announced late Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders.  The deal, which needs the approval of the Legislature in the next two weeks, would cap rent increases statewide at 5% plus inflation per year for the next decade, according to Newsom’s office. The legislation, Assembly Bill 1482, would also include a provision to prevent some evictions without landlords first providing a reason.  “We are pleased to announce we have come to an agreement on a series of amendments to AB 1482 that would create strong renter protections,” said a statement from Newsom, Senate leader Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and bill author Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco). “The bill will protect millions of renters from rent-gouging and evictions and build on the Legislature’s work this year to address our broader housing crisis.”  The agreement represents a dramatic shift in the debate over whether tenants would see any new limits on rent increases this year, and represents a political risk for Newsom as he backs a highly visible bill not assured of passage.  Prior to Friday’s announcement, the California Assn. of Realtors, which holds significant sway at the Capitol, had agreed not to oppose a weaker version of the legislation that would have capped rents at a higher percentage for a shorter time. The new bill in many ways reverts to an earlier version fiercely opposed by the Realtor group. The organization said after the deal was announced that it would lobby lawmakers to vote against the bill.  The bill, Californian Assn. of Realtors President Jared Martin said in a statement, “will not incentivize production of rental housing or help more people find an affordable place to live. It discourages new rental housing, which is why CAR, representing more than 200,000 real estate agents and brokers across California, strongly opposes it.”  Three weeks ago, Newsom told reporters he wanted stricter caps than what was in the bill and he and his advisers then intensified efforts to negotiate, the governor’s office said. Previously, the California Apartment Assn., which represents landlords in the state, had opposed the bill. Friday’s deal includes an agreement by the organization to no longer do so.  “We applaud the governor for temporarily finding a solution for tenants,” said Deb Carlton, the association’s senior vice president. “Now we must get serious about moving forward on production, which is the only way we address our housing crisis.”  The proposed rent caps, which have yet to be incorporated into the bill, would not apply to properties built in the last 15 years, nor would they apply to single-family home rentals unless they were owned by large corporations.  The bill would not affect apartments already under rent control, such as those in Los Angeles and San Francisco, but they would extend caps to apartments in those cities not covered by the existing local measures. The bill’s anti-eviction protections, which would limit evictions to lease violations or require relocation assistance, would kick in after a tenant has lived in an apartment for a year.  Newsom’s striking of a rent cap deal comes less than a year after California voters decisively rejected a ballot measure that would have led to the expansion of local rent control policies statewide, which would have likely resulted in tighter restrictions in some cities than those now offered by AB 1482.  Newsom opposed last year’s ballot initiative, but after taking office in January said he would sign a package of rent stabilization bills if the Legislature passed them. The Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which financed last year’s rent control initiative, is currently collecting signatures to place a similar measure on the Nov. 2020 ballot.  Michael Weinstein, the foundation’s president, has said he’d pull the initiative if legislators agree to strong renter protections. But Weinstein has criticized AB 1482 as too weak since it was first introduced. In an interview Friday, Weinstein said the revised version of the bill was an improvement, but remained committed to his own measure because the cap was still too high.  “It’s a benefit that more people will be covered by some form of [rent] control, but it won’t stop the homeless crisis which is being caused by people losing their homes or being evicted,” Weinstein said. “It won’t advantage working people and people on fixed incomes who need affordable housing.”  Despite the backing of the governor and legislative leadership, AB 1482 still faces an uncertain path to clear both houses of the Legislature, which must occur by Sept. 13. Most major tenant legislation has already been defeated this year, and AB 1482 only advanced out of the Assembly in the spring when Chiu agreed to weaken it at the Realtors’ behest.  Tenant organizations that were initially behind the legislation said they supported the deal announced Friday. But they noted the measure’s ultimate approval wasn’t assured.  “We appreciate the leadership of Gov. Newsom,” said Christina Livingston, executive director of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. “There is still work to be done to pass this legislation and give tenants the protection that they need.”


liveaction--2019-06-02--Pro-life org claims Texas lawmakers let clock run out on many pro-life bills

Despite being dubbed a “Super Bowl Session,” Texas legislators have ended their 86th session on a disappointing note, passing very few of the pro-life bills brought to their attention. While Republican lawmakers celebrated their efforts at property taxes and school finance reform, at least one pro-life group believes more should have been done in the way of pro-life legislation.  The failure to pass pro-life laws at a time when other states around the country have made sweeping bans against abortion seems puzzling, especially as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick just claimed, “We are clearly the most pro-life state in the country.” The legislative track record during this last session has caused some pro-lifers to question Patrick’s claim. As the Star-Telegram noted, “Texas Republicans this year have conspicuously stayed on the sidelines. They’ve instead let other conservative states lead efforts squarely aimed at the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.”  Notably, it appears that representatives in the House failed to act on several bills which passed the Senate. Pro-life legislation that ultimately died included the following:  In a statement, Texas Right to Life conveyed its belief that legislators were too busy shoring up support for next year’s election to care about the important issues at hand. But House Speaker Dennis Bonnen slammed the criticism of the pro-life organization, telling reporters, “They aren’t worth responding to. If we passed every pro-life bill filed in the history of the state, they would say we had not done enough. You will never please or appease those folks and I’m sure as hell not going to waste my time trying.”  While many pro-life bills failed to pass, there were some smaller victories worth noting. SB 22, which prevents taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood or its entities passed both the Senate and the House and is headed to Gov. Gregg Abbott, who is expected to sign. HB 16, the Texas Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, provides protections to those infants who are abortion survivors. While these are undoubtedly victories, many still wonder what caused Texas pro-life legislators to refuse to act on so many important bills at such a critical time in our nation.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


motherjones--2019-01-23--When Will GOP Lawmakers Finally Break With Trump These Four Kansas Defectors May Provide the Answer

When Will GOP Lawmakers Finally Break With Trump? These Four Kansas Defectors May Provide the Answer.

On multiple occasions last year, Stephanie Clayton’s Republican Party affiliation led her to seek counsel from her priest. Clayton, a Kansas state representative, was losing sleep. Being a Republican, she says, was “starting to taint my integrity as a human being.” She wanted to know “what kind of a person I was morally by remaining a Republican.”  On December 19, Clayton left the party she had belonged to since she was a teenager and registered as a Democrat. She was one of four women in the Legislature, all from the Kansas City suburbs, who quit the GOP within the span of a week last month. There’s no record of so many defections in such a small period of time in Kansas. But there’s also little precedent—perhaps not since the political realignments of the 1960s—for the rapidity with which voters in suburban districts across the United States have gone from voting for Republicans to voting against them.  Over the last two years, Clayton felt her constituents moving away from the GOP, and particularly from President Donald Trump. “I had to spend a great deal of my energy apologizing for things that Trump said or did,” she says. “Which meant that I was apologizing every 15 minutes because of how many terrible things he says and does.”  Johnson County, which encompasses the Kansas City suburbs, typifies Republican suburbia. Its residents enjoy the highest median income in the state. It’s a place where, in the 1950s, well-educated whites fled the cities in search of good schools, parks, libraries, and racial homogeneity. Today, as suburbia recoils from Trump’s Republican Party, Johnson County is at the vanguard of that increasingly rapid shift.  This transformation over the last two years has scrambled American politics. It was suburbia, and particularly the women who live there, that gave Democrats 40 seats in the House of Representatives in 2018—including a pickup in Johnson County. But the defections in Kansas may signal a new chapter in the country’s political realignment. For the past two years, every extreme Republican policy proposal and offensive presidential utterance has led to questions about whether elected officials would finally break with the party and its leader. For the most part, the answer has been no. The four legislators from Johnson County are the first ones to say yes en masse.  The retreat from the GOP has been felt in suburbs across the country, from Orange County, California, to suburban Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, and New York. Johnson County’s shift was particularly stark. In 2016, its residents helped send Republican Kevin Yoder to Congress by a 10-point margin. Two years later, he lost by the same amount to Democrat Sharice Davids, one of two Native American women elected to Congress last year.  Since 2000, the suburbs, including Johnson County, have slowly shifted from reliably Republican to contested territory as voters with a higher educational level have clustered there. Trump’s candidacy jolted the transition into warp speed. In 2012, Johnson County supported Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by 18 points. In 2016, Trump won it by 3 points.  The four Kansas Republican women who walked away from the party were more liberal than most of their GOP colleagues: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, comfortable with taxation if it went to schools and roads and public services. All of them expressed in conversations with Mother Jones that they had been fighting with the right wing of their own party to try to enact more moderate policies. Then Trump came along and blew up the whole project by destroying the party’s reputation.  “When I think of Johnson County, I think it’s very much the story of what we’ve seen in suburbia,” says Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas who has tracked the county’s political evolution. Some of these women’s districts, he says, “have gone from being solidly Republican up and down the ballot to now solidly Democratic.”  On both style and substance, the party of Trump looks very different from the one these lawmakers and their constituents would feel comfortable in, says Miller. Trump provides “a kind of political theater” that does not appeal to Johnson County’s “country club” sensibility. Kansas is emerging from eight years of far-right policy that the state’s voters opted to reverse by electing a Democratic governor in November. From Washington, Trump has embraced the social conservatism and government dysfunction that Kansas voters just chose to extricate themselves from.  State Sen. Barbara Bollier, who had spent nearly 10 years in the Legislature and a lifetime as a Republican, was the first to switch parties, doing so on December 12.* (Like the other defectors, she is now caucusing with the Democrats in the new legislative session.) But her breaking point had come in March, when the state party approved a resolution to “oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity.” “It was just awful,” she says. This came on top of a yearslong push by conservatives in her party to cut funding for public schools and oppose an expansion of Medicaid, which Bollier, a retired physician, had (unsuccessfully) fought for.  Bollier shares an office with state Sen. Dinah Sykes, a moderate Republican in her first term. Last year, they began exploring the idea of creating a third party. But they ultimately decided the political system didn’t allow for an effective third party. So Bollier announced that she would become a Democrat; a week later, Sykes and Clayton followed.  When Clayton switched, she felt relief. “The moral and emotional freedom that I feel,” she says, “I can’t explain to you what a weight has been taken off of me by no longer having that association with some of the terrible things that were being done under that party mantle.” It turned out many of her constituents felt the same way. She estimates that the positive responses she received outnumbered the negative ones about 100 to 1. But one comment, which she heard over and over, really struck her. “Many of them said, ‘The only reason I stayed a Republican was so that I could support you in primaries,'” she says. “‘Now that you’ve left, I can leave too. I don’t have to stay.’”  Bollier, whose Senate district overlaps with Clayton’s House district, heard the same thing. Some constituents reported beating her to it. “I switched six months ago,” some wrote to her, she says. “I switched a year ago.”  Election results in their districts bear this out. In 2012, Clayton’s district voted for Romney over Obama by 9 points, according to data compiled by Miller. Four years later, her district chose Clinton by 14 points. In 2018, when the Republican gubernatorial candidate was Trump ally Kris Kobach, the district went for Democrat Laura Kelly by 31 points. (She won the race by 5 points.) In Bollier’s district, Obama beat Romney by 2 points in 2012, then Clinton won it by 21 points. In 2018, Bollier’s constituents chose Kelly by a margin of 66 percent to 27 percent. “Women are leaving the Republican Party, particularly more educated people,” says Bollier. “And that is my district.”  For the last two years, Bollier has watched the moderate wing of the party begin to disintegrate around her. Finding moderates to run for local Republican Party positions is increasingly difficult. “They don’t want to be associated publicly as Republican, and so they won’t run,” she says. “That’s how you really knew the party was losing its ability to have the moderate wing. It’s when the very grassroots-level people say, ‘I can’t do this. I don’t want people to publicly say, “You’re a Republican?”‘”  Johnson County is a harbinger of how severe the rebuke for Republicans may be in suburban areas across the country in 2020. Because in Kansas, Trumpism didn’t start in 2016. It started six years earlier, and the residents of the suburbs have lived with its effects for most of a decade. The rest of the country is just catching up.  In 2010, an arch-conservative, Sam Brownback, was elected governor and embarked on what he called a “real, live experiment” in right-wing governance. He slashed taxes and government services. Class sizes have expanded dramatically in public schools, roads are pocked with potholes, and mental health services have disappeared. “Many of the things that Trump is doing at the national level were first done by Sam Brownback here,” says former state Rep. Joy Koesten, who switched parties along with Bollier, Sykes, and Clayton in December. (She left office four weeks later, having been defeated in a primary last year by a more conservative Republican.) Brownback’s hallmarks, she says, were “putting incompetent people in charge of agencies” and “making sure that agencies didn’t function so that people got angry and went against government.” That kind of deliberate dysfunction is now playing out on the national scale, where the longest government shutdown in history still has no end in sight.  In both Kansas and Washington, conservative Republicans have actively undermined their more moderate colleagues. In the 2012 primaries, Brownback campaigned against moderate Republicans who opposed his policies. On the national level, outside conservative activist groups aligned with the tea party movement helped a new crop of conservatives beat moderates in primaries during the Obama presidency, pushing the GOP to the right. Trump is known to hold grudges against Republicans who cross him. In 2018, both the Kansas Legislature and Congress saw the decimation of the GOP’s moderate ranks, leaving behind a party that is politically right-wing and stylistically Trumpian.  Koesten was recruited by other moderate Republicans for a state House seat in 2016, as was Sykes. To run as a centrist Republican in Kansas is to run without the support of your party. “You get no funding from the party, no logistical help from the party,” says Koesten. Meanwhile, outside groups work against you. If you win, the reception from conservative colleagues is icy. Colleagues “would boo us” at some GOP caucus meetings, Koesten recalls. When she was invited to a national conference on the opioid epidemic, the House speaker never informed her and instead sent one of her colleagues, she says. Bollier was twice stripped of her leadership position on the health committees, the second time in retaliation for her endorsement of Kelly. “We were very aware that we were not welcome,” says Koesten.  Bollier, Koesten, Clayton, and Sykes tell a story about the suburbs not just as Republicans but also as women. Johnson County has a rich history of electing moderate Republican women, many of them drawn into politics from their local PTAs. Their decision to walk away from the party helps illustrate why women throughout America’s suburbs are doing the same. Nationwide, women supported Democrats over Republicans by 19 points in 2018, a record.  “It’s harder for women to stay with a party that has gotten just a lot more misogynistic,” Clayton says. She still can’t believe the party brushed off Trump’s Access Hollywood video, in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women. “It was difficult to remain and maintain my self-respect.” If more suburban women are starting to feel the same way, the political realignment may be just beginning.  Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the year of Bollier’s most recent election.


nationalreview--2019-01-29--Harris Lawmakers Should View Autopsy Photographs of Dead Kids before Gun-Control Votes

Harris: Lawmakers Should View ‘Autopsy Photographs’ of Dead Kids before Gun-Control Votes

Senator Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) made an emotional plea for increased gun control during CNN’s town hall in Iowa Monday night, arguing that her pro-Second Amendment colleagues should be forced to examine photos of dead children before voting on gun restrictions.  “I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room — in a locked room, no press, nobody else — and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience,” Harris said, referring to the 20 children murdered by a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.  “This has become a political issue. This has become a political issue, and it is — there is no reason why we cannot have reasonable gun-safety laws in this country,” she added.  Harris, a former prosecutor and California state attorney general, argued that solutions, such as an assault-weapons ban and universal-background-check legislation, have been devised and proven effective, but cannot be implemented because her colleagues in Congress lack “the courage to act the right way.”  Popular support for increased gun control surged in the wake of the Parkland shooting last February on the back of a public pressure campaign launched by the student survivors of the tragedy, but quickly receded in the following months.  Since reclaiming the majority in the House in November, Democrats have vowed to prioritize the passage of a universal-background-check bill — legislation that Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes is more politically feasible in the current climate than an assault-weapons ban.


naturalnews--2019-10-13--Now it’s OFFICIAL: Democratic lawmakers are actually siding with Marxist Antifa protesters

(Natural News) If you still wondered which side of the political aisle Democrats come down on when it comes to engaging in political violence, this should settle the issue for you.  On Thursday, President Donald Trump held a rally in Minneapolis, Minn., as his reelection campaign switches into high gear. It was his first rally the president held since coming under siege by Democrats pushing the latest phony scandal — “Ukrainegate.”  The president’s reelection campaign believes it can flip traditionally blue Minnesota to the red column next year, considering a) he only lost the state to Hillary by 1.5 percent; and b) CNN traveled to a ‘deep blue’ town in Minnesota recently and discovered most of its residents had become Trump supporters.  So the president and his team are going to focus on winning that state. They believe it’s well within range. But there are some state political leaders who not only don’t want Trump to win Minnesota, they are actively participating in violent acts to prevent his supporters from exercising their constitutional rights.  And, of course, they’re Democrats.  As reported by Katie Pavlich at TownHall, Rep. Aisha Gomez, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was captured on video Thursday night “engaged in protests with the violent Leftist group Antifa.”  Pavlich noted further, “After President Trump finished his rally in Minneapolis, members of the group assaulted Trump supporters and burned ‘Make America Great Again’ hats.”  “Rep. Aisha Gomez (DFL) of the Minnesota House of Representatives is caught on video protesting with ANTIFA in the streets outside Target Center during President Donald Trump’s visit to MN. Andy Mannix @AndrewMannix reports for @startribune on federal courts, and law enforcement. Andy Mannix captured on video Antifa protestors outside the Target Center, yelling profanities, beating on random cars driving by, verbally assaulting rally attendees,” Twin Cities Talk Radio host Jon Justice wrote regarding the situation in a Facebook post. “4:00 mins into the below video Rep. Gomez dressed in all block is seen participating in intimidating people as they leave the rally, clad in all black.”  What do Democrats hope to gain by threatening people?  So in other words, this woman wasn’t exercising her right to political discourse; she was engaged in political violence, which — by definition — is terrorism (using violence and intimidation to achieve a political objective).  Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: The Big Berkey water filter removes almost 100% of all contaminants using only the power of gravity (no electricity needed, works completely off-grid). Widely consider the ultimate "survival" water filter, the Big Berkey is made of stainless steel and has been laboratory verified for high-efficiency removal of heavy metals by CWC Labs, with tests personally conducted by Mike Adams. Explore more here.  “Does the MN House Speaker support Rep Gomez (dressed in all black wearing a hood) participating in an ANTIFA rally that clashed w MPD? Did any of her other caucus members join in the ANTIFA protests, and does Gov Walz support DFL Legislators joining ANTIFA in their anti-police riot?” Justice noted further.  What, precisely, do Democrats supporting Antifa, which has been identified by the Department of Homeland Security as a domestic threat, hope to gain? Converts? Do they really believe that beating people up, intimidating them, or destroying their property is going to suddenly make those folks say, ‘You know, Ms. Gomez, you’re right…I should be a Democrat. I’ve been such a fool!’  Communists, Nazis, and Marxists for more than 100 years have used, or attempted to use, violence and intimidation to push their own political agenda and gain power. And in many cases over the past several decades, they’ve been successful.  But America is a different beast — fundamentally, culturally, and politically. We don’t like to be told what to do, who to support, and what we can and cannot say. In fact, the more violent and crappy people are to us who are pushing their own agenda, the more resistant we become to the ideas and ideology they are pushing.  Democrats want to behave like modern-day Left-wing revolutionaries. They truly believe their bullying tactics are going to ultimately be successful.  After Election Day next year, they’re going to discover their violence and intimidation actually worked against them. In states like Minnesota.  Meanwhile, state lawmakers there need to figure out whether it’s okay for one of their members to harass and intimidate the citizens.


newsmax--2019-10-15--Trump to Meet Lawmakers on Syria at White House on Wednesday

Leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the congressional foreign affairs and armed services committees are to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the situation in Syria, congressional aides and an administration official said.  Those invited include the Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees, as well as the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, the congressional sources said on Tuesday.  According to a White House schedule, the meeting is due to take place at 3 p.m. EDT.  The meeting coincides with growing unease among members of the U.S. Congress, including some of Trump's fellow Republicans, about Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northeastern Syria, creating an opening for a Turkish offensive against U.S.-allied Kurdish militia who were fighting Islamic State alongside the Americans.


newsweek--2019-02-12--Lawmakers Reach Deal In Principle To Avoid Second Government Shutdown Reportedly Includes 13 Bi

Lawmakers Reach Deal "In Principle" To Avoid Second Government Shutdown, Reportedly Includes $1.3 Billion For Border Barriers

As President Donald Trump prepared a give a stump speech for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas on Monday, members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committee announced they had arrived at a tentative deal to avoid a second government shutdown.  The deal arrives just four days before the federal government will run out of money once again. Another shutdown would force thousands of federal workers to go without a paycheck and either be placed on furlough or to report to work without being paid.  “We’ve had a good evening. We’ve reached an agreement in principle between us on the Homeland Security and the other six bills,” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) told reporters on Monday as he stood with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Kay Granger (R-Texas).  The White House has yet to comment publicly on the bill, but Shelby was hopeful that Trump would sign the agreement.  "We think so. We hope so," Shelby told reporters when asked about the likelihood of getting the president's signature.  The agreement comes after multiple meetings between Shelby, Leahy, Lowey and Granger who spent much of Monday attempting to come to an agreement after negotiations broke down over the weekend regarding the number of detention beds afforded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as the ongoing fight regarding the $5.7 billion that Trump has requested to build the border wall.  "All of us realized us that we had a bigger obligation to get back together. I didn't know if it would happen," Shelby said. "I think the fact that it looked like there was going to be another shutdown imminently probably helped contribute to us getting together."  According to the Washington Post, the bill includes $1.375 billion for physical barriers. That money will also go towards 55 miles of new fencing at the southern border, though there are limitations to where that fencing may be placed.  Lowey, the House Appropriations Committee Chairman, said she informed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of the deal and that Pelosi had given her approval.  “Some may be happy, some may not be happy. We did the best we could," Lowey said in response to a reporter's question about the reaction from Democrats to the proposal.  According to The Hill, the agreement also includes 40,520 ICE detention beds. However, a congressional source who spoke to the media outlet under the condition of anonymity said that the proposal includes flexibility to reach Trump's "requested level of 52,000 beds."  "There's not a single one of us who's going to get every single thing we want, but nobody does. But we are going to get what is best for the United States," Leahy said to reporters. "If the four of us couldn't get it together, this Congress never could."


newyorkpost--2019-02-18--Ohio lawmakers studying error that could ban some guns

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A mistake in writing up an Ohio bill could inadvertently ban several types of already legal guns and must be fixed quickly, gun rights advocates say.  At issue is legislation approved by lawmakers last year that allows off-duty police officers to carry firearms and phases in pre-emption of many local firearms restrictions, among other changes.  The bill also attempted to align Ohio law with federal law regarding short-barrel weapons, or generally speaking shotguns with barrel lengths less than 16 inches.  Such guns are legal under federal law but classified as illegal in Ohio, even though many gun stores sell them. As the bill was being drafted, a misplaced paragraph unintentionally lumped a variety of long guns into a prohibited category.  Those could include semi-automatic AK-47s and any long gun with a pistol grip, which could also affect shotguns used in competitive shooting.  It’s unclear if the mistake would cause gun owners problems in “real-world terms,” said Dean Rieck, executive director of the gun rights group Buckeye Firearms, who said who said he’s consulted with lawyers for the National Rifle Association and Ohio’s Legislative Services Commission, among others.  Nevertheless, “We would prefer they deal with it immediately because it is causing a lot of concern and confusion among gun owners in Ohio,” Rieck said.  Republicans who control the Senate don’t believe the error would affect the way the law, which takes effect in late March, is applied. “However, members have prepared an amendment that would remove any alleged ambiguity,” said John Fortney, a Senate GOP spokesman.  Republican House Speaker Larry Householder plans to examine the issue further, said spokeswoman Gail Crawley.  One option is fixing the error in the state budget, which will be introduced March 15 but won’t be passed into law until July 1. Such a delay is unacceptable, said Chris Dorr, executive director of Ohio Gun Owners.  Without a quick solution, “it has the potential to make us all felons,” he said.  The mistake illustrates the problem of rushing legislation through a lame duck session, said Sen. Cecil Thomas, a Democrat from Cincinnati.  “It’s just a bad way to do business now, and mistakes are made, and this is an example of that,” said Thomas, a retired police officer.


newyorkpost--2019-03-31--Cuomo and state lawmakers reach last-minute agreement on budget plan

Gov. Cuomo and the state Senate and Assembly leadership reached a last-minute agreement on a $175.5 billion budget early Sunday — just in time to meet a voting deadline that will let legislators lock in their promised pay raises.  The measure creates a six-member board to govern the city’s contentious congestion pricing plan, which is now set to begin Dec. 31, 2020, and which will generate an estimated $15 billion for MTA improvements.  The revenue would fund improvements to subways, the Long Island Railroad and Metro North.  Officials offered a first look at the controversial toll plan, under which passenger vehicles entering Manhattan south of 60th Street will be charged once per day through electronic tolling devices installed at points of entry into that district.  The board will make recommendations on toll rates and possible exemptions.  The measure requires the MTA to undergo an independent forensic audit and efficiency review, and the creation of a “review unit” of outside experts who will evaluate major construction projects.  Beginning July 1, 2019, owners of pricey residential and commercial properties in the five boroughs will be hit with a “progressive mansion tax” when properties sell for $25 million or more.   Cuomo and suburban lawmakers also want to make the state’s 2  percent property-tax cap permanent.  Almost all of the wheeling and dealing was done behind closed doors on Saturday by three people — state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Westchester), Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) and Gov. Cuomo.  Lawmakers are expected to begin voting on the series of bills that make up the spending plan later Sunday morning, just in time to make a midnight April 1 deadline that, if missed, would cancel their promised pay raises.  Total state education spending will reach $27.9 billion, a 3.8 percent increase over last year’s budget.  Criminal-justice reform was a bone of contention as the leaders squabbled over whether a new cashless bail system should be used for those accused of violent crimes.  The measure would now eliminate cash bail for misdemeanors and non-violent felonies.  Prosecutors and defense lawyers will be given earlier deadlines for sharing evidence.  Also, police officers would be required to issue desk appearance tickets to most people charged with misdemeanors and the lowest level of felonies, rather than putting them through the lengthy process of taking the suspects into custody and having them booked and sent before a judge.  “From the beginning, I said we will not do a budget that fails to address three major issues that have evaded this state for decades – the permanent property tax cap, criminal justice reform and an MTA overhaul including Central Business District Tolling,” Cuomo said.


newyorkpost--2019-12-25--City lawmakers want to impose gentrification tax

Here’s one thing that unites local pols across the political divide — a gentrification tax.  A bipartisan group of city lawmakers is pushing Albany to approve tweaks to the state tax laws that would allow them to hit new homebuyers with tax bills based on the actual market prices of their properties.  The coalition of 13 Republican and Democratic city council members says that taxes would not go up for existing owners.  New York’s famously opaque property tax system offers big breaks to new homebuyers by taxing them at assessed values that are often millions of dollars less than the market price.  For instance, a buyer who snapped up a Clinton Hill brownstone for $3 million in 2017 only has to pay taxes on a sliver of that amount — $24,000, leaving the lucky owner with a tax bill of just $4,297 a year.  Meanwhile, the owner of a relatively modest half-million-dollar Bergen Beach bungalow pays nearly an identical amount, despite being worth just one-sixth the price on the market.  The current system amounts to a giant giveaway for gentrifiers, Staten Island Councilman Joe Borelli told The Post.  “People are just getting fed up with the loophole, and they’re demanding action,” the GOP politician added.  The bipartisan coalition also includes Park Slope Democrat Brad Lander and Bay Ridge Democrat Justin Brannan.  They’re backing a resolution that calls on state lawmakers to change the tax law to require new homebuyers to pay property taxes on the market rate instead of the heavily discounted assessed value.  The change would boost the Clinton Hill gentrifiers bill by $1,600 a year while keeping the Bergen Beach old timer’s costs the same.  “Borelli’s plan to reset the tax cap whenever a new owner purchases a property would bring a small drop of fairness to a system that is just completely screwed and totally unfair,” Brannan said.  Borelli sent the proposed resolution to City Council Speaker Corey Johnson and state Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie earlier this month with a letter asking for the change.  Reps for Heastie did not return calls.  Johnson’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Fermino, said, the speaker is awaiting the preliminary report from a property tax reform commission he convened with Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2018.  “The Advisory Commission is looking at Real Property Tax Law 1805 as part of its review of our broken system,” Fermino added. “Any recommendations for changes will be part of the commission’s preliminary report. The Speaker is looking forward to reviewing their recommendations when the report is ready.  There’s no deadline for the initial tax overhaul report, which has been reportedly near release since July.  A spokeswoman for de Blasio also punted on Borelli’s plan, referring to the overdue tax study.  “The property tax system is complex, and we appreciate Council Member Borelli’s interest in reforming the Real Property Tax Law,” said Marcy Miranda, press secretary for the city’s Department of Finance.


npr--2019-03-21--Pay Raises More Staff Earmarks Lawmakers Propose Ways To Overhaul Congress

Pay Raises, More Staff, Earmarks: Lawmakers Propose Ways To Overhaul Congress

Members of Congress have not received a pay raise in a decade. So like most Americans, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., would like a raise.  "The cost of rent, childcare, and other necessities has risen substantially in Washington and across the country in recent years, but members and staff pay and benefits have not kept pace with the private sector," Hoyer said last week at a hearing held by the new Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.  Most House members make $174,000 per year, but they often have to maintain two residences and related expenses. Congress has not approved a raise since the economic recession hit in 2009. Hoyer said if Congress wants to attract Americans from all socio-economic backgrounds to run for office, it needs to pay better. Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., said that applies not just to lawmakers, but also to the thousands of staffers that work on Capitol Hill.  "Simply put, we don't have enough staff to do our jobs. The staff we have are underpaid, and they don't stay very long," she told the committee.  Better pay and more employees are just two of hundreds of ideas offered up at a recent lawmaker spit-balling session on how to make Congress function better. It's a question a new bipartisan task-force has just one year to answer before making formal recommendations for change.  The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress is equally divided between six Republicans and six Democrats, and it is expected to file a report by the end of the year with formal recommendations for how best to reform the House's internal operations. Last week, the panel held a hearing in which all lawmakers were invited to come and offer up their best ideas for change.  Lawmakers' proposals largely fell into two categories: the kind that would change the culture of Congress, and the kind that would change how laws are made.  One common theme was that lawmakers need structured ways to become friends — it's a popular idea among freshmen like Minnesota Democrat Dean Phillips. "We should begin orientation by getting to know one another," he said, "By participating in team building exercises and by allowing each new member to share his or her life story in a full group setting." Phillips also said the U.S. Capitol complex needs a design overhaul akin to the way companies like Apple, Google and Tesla approach office and sales space. "And yet we operate in dark compartmentalized offices that were the hallmark of the 19th Century, designed to segregate not collaborate," he said.  Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., offered perhaps one of the more dramatic ways to shake up modern Capitol Hill culture with his proposal to ban lawmakers from living out of their offices. As many as 50 members are estimated to do it — former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was one of them.  "The actions of these members raise several obvious and potential violations that reflect negatively upon the decorum and the credibility of the House as a body and as an institution," Thompson said.  Some proposals came seemingly out of nowhere, such as one politically-charged proposal from Florida Republican Brian Mast to give rigorous background checks for lawmakers before they are given access to national security briefings. "Do we have members with lifestyle choices that make them targets for black mail? Do we have members with contra-American views?...Do we have representatives who are sympathetic to socialist ideas?" Mast said.  Another unexpected proposal came from Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., to revive the House Page program. "I do know that it costs money, but we spend money on what we value," she said. Then-Speaker John Boehner and then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi jointly agreed to end in 2011, citing costs and diminished need. The program also came under national scrutiny when Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned for sending sexually explicit messages to young boys who had served in the program. The Senate still uses a page system.  There were also many well-worn ideas. Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Mich., wants the House to consider a constitutional amendment for term limits. Hoyer wants to overturn a 2011 earmark ban to make it easier for lawmakers to steer money to projects in their districts. "Eliminating them all together, which was a winning talking point, but a misguided policy, has had the effect of taking Congress out of key funding decisions," he said.  Both Republicans and Democrats offered various proposals to completely reorganize the committee system, a process so complicated it's only been done twice since World War II. "I know this is a radical change," said Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., "I know I'm new and I'm sure there's things I'm not talking about, but time and again if you look at the history of congressional reforms, the successful periods, have been one in which they restructured the committee process."  How big and how bold to go in their final recommendations is no easy task. Two-thirds of the 12 committee members must vote in favor of a proposal for it to even have a shot at consideration by the full House. While some changes could be done in the House alone by amending House Rules or Ethics standards, anything that requires a new law would also need bipartisan support in the Senate.  It's one reason why some lawmakers voiced a bit of skepticism that this effort will produce lasting and meaningful change. "We can modernize this thing all we want, but if we don't change the culture of Washington and the politics in this place and some of the structural deficiencies, then we'll just have a more efficient way of running right off the cliff," said Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas.


politico--2019-02-08--Presidents lawmakers pay tribute to John Dingell

Presidents, lawmakers pay tribute to John Dingell

Presidents and politicians on Thursday paid tribute to John Dingell, the longest serving member of Congress, as a leader who had an extraordinary record of legislative achievement — with a work ethic and sense of humor to match.  “Today, we have lost a beloved pillar of the Congress and one of the greatest legislators in American history," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Dingell, who died Thursday at 92, in a statement. "John Dingell leaves a towering legacy of unshakable strength, boundless energy and transformative leadership."  Former President Barack Obama, whom Dingell sat next to when he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, said the lawmaker's legacy "reminds us that change does not always come with a flash, but instead with steady, determined effort."  "Over the course of the longest congressional career in history, John led the charge on so much of the progress we take for granted today," Obama said in a statement. "He had a long tradition of introducing legislation on the first day of each new Congress to guarantee health care for every single American. Because of him, we’ve come closer to that vision than ever before. And when we finally achieve it – and we will – we’ll all owe him our gratitude."  Former President George W. Bush said he spoke to Dingell on Thursday and thanked the former congressman "for being an example to those who have followed him into the public arena."  "He was a gentleman who showed great respect for our country and her people," Bush said in a statement. "He represented his district with decency and honor."  Summing up the Michigan Democrat's legacy, former President Bill Clinton said: "There are few major legislative triumphs since 1955 that he didn’t have a key hand in passing."  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer remembered his friend as a "giant," adding that Dingell "was a man of indefatigable spirit who loved life, the lovely Deborah his wife, and the House of Representatives."  "None of us who were close to him will ever forget John’s positive attitude, his humor, his pride in both his Polish roots and his service in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II, his love of America, and his abiding belief in working across the aisle to achieve results through consensus."  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Dingell left "a lasting impression with everyone he met."  Fellow Michiganders remembered Dingell, who first came to Capitol Hill as a page when his father, John Dingell Sr., was elected to Congress, as a gritty, determined lawmaker who found a way to forge deals with Republicans.  "The Congressman’s grit, humility and humor taught us all that we can disagree without being disagreeable, while still finding common ground and working together to get things done," Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer wrote on Twitter.  Oregon Republican Rep. Greg Walden, who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee before Democrats retook the House in November, added: "The U.S. House of Representatives and the nation lost one of its most faithful servants. John Dingell, the Dean, was a giant in Congress for decades – a true man of the House. He loved this institution; he loved the Energy and Commerce Committee."  For a new generation of lawmakers who were unable to serve with Dingell, the retired "Dean of Congress" shared his thoughts and wit with the world through Twitter, where he opined to his more than 250,000 followers on everything from the Kardashians and Michigan football to President Donald Trump.  "One day I hope to be as cool as @JohnDingell," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.) wrote on Twitter.  One of his former colleagues, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) poignantly recalled the advice the elder gave him when he was first elected.  "When I got to Congress, John sat me down to give me advice: 'You’re not important. It’s what you can now do to help others that’s important," Deutch said. 'If you never forget that, you’ll do fine.'  "John never forgot, and he helped millions. A very fine life indeed."

bgriffiths@politico.com (Brent D. Griffiths)


politico--2019-05-15--Trump officials to brief lawmakers after warning of Iranian threats

The Trump administration will brief congressional leaders on Thursday about the Middle East amid administration warnings that Iran might be planning attacks on U.S. people and facilities in the region.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will take part in the confidential briefing by Trump administration officials, according to two Democratic sources.  Leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees — Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), and Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) — will also take part.  “Let me say that we have to avoid any war with Iran,” Pelosi said in a closed door Democratic Caucus meeting Wednesday.  The briefing comes as tensions between the U.S. and Tehran have skyrocketed in recent days. Earlier Wednesday, the State Department ordered the evacuation of non-essential personnel from the U.S. embassy in neighboring Iraq and is urging Americans not to travel to the country in the near future.  The Defense Department has also beefed up its military presence in the Persian Gulf over the last week, citing a “credible threat” from Iran towards the U.S. without providing details. And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has twice switched up his foreign travel schedule in recent days to try to deal with the escalating crisis.  Pelosi is also seeking a broader congressional briefing on Iran but so far that has not been confirmed since she first put in the request eight days ago, according to a Democratic source.  “We still do not have that scheduled. They still haven’t given us a schedule,” Pelosi said, noting administration officials told her they couldn’t assemble a full member briefing “that fast.”  “That is on top of four months asking them for the classified briefing on North Korea," Pelosi added. "So, again, in many ways they are trying to deter us from having our role.”  Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 House Democrat, said on Wednesday, "This is a serious situation and we want to make sure we’re not getting ahead of ourselves."  Senators are also pushing for a wider briefing that isn’t just limited to congressional leaders.  “We need to have a classified briefing” for all senators, said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. “There’s concern of the rhetoric on both sides. We have to know what’s going on. And we don’t know.”  Some senators heard from intelligence community about Iran and other topics on Wednesday morning. Most said they needed a lot more information.  “I don’t know the urgency” of the situation, said GOP Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas. “I think there’s a lot more to be known before decisions are made.”  There are some lawmakers who have been briefed on the issue, though.  "I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee and on a bipartisan basis we’ve been briefed on the issue. So really that’s a decision for the leader," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).  An all-member meeting on Iran is possible next week but hasn't been set.  Trump on Tuesday denied a New York Times report that he was considering troops to the Middle East as the U.S. considers a more aggressive approach to Iran.  “Now, would I do that? Absolutely,” Trump told reporters. “But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we would send a hell of a lot more troops than that.”


realnewsrightnow--2019-08-12--Lawmakers Agree to Hold Conversation on Gun Violence at D.C.-Area Starbucks

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday said he and a select group of Republican congressmen have agreed to discuss the nation’s gun violence epidemic with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and other Democratic lawmakers after the August recess.  “We are going to do it. Absolutely,” Senator McConnell told WHAS 840, a Kentucky news radio station. “I’ll have my secretary pencil something in as soon as we return to Washington.” Without providing a specific date, McConnell said the bipartisan talks would take place at a Starbucks coffee shop located a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. “This will be an informal discussion, but a real discussion nonetheless,” Mr. McConnell told the station.  Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) have also agreed to take part in the upcoming talks on the gun violence epidemic, with Senator Graham serving as a “semi-official” mouthpiece for President Donald J. Trump, who does not drink coffee.  Florida senator Marco Rubio, who, in 2017, vowed never to set foot in a Starbucks again after the company “used holiday cups to launch a covert campaign propagating the gay agenda,” told Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson that he intends to bring a gun to Starbucks “for my own personal safety.” When pressed, Mr. Rubio declined to speculate on the duration of the conversation but said it would “likely depend on how long a line there is.”  A spokesperson for Senator Mitch McConnell’s re-election campaign issued a statement Monday morning defending the senate majority leader’s decision to hold the upcoming discussion on gun violence at a coffee shop rather than a conference room at the U.S. Capitol, saying the Kentucky senator recently received a $10,000 Starbucks gift card from the NRA.


rferl--2019-05-21--Zelenskiy Meets With Leading Lawmakers On Parliament Dissolution

KYIV -- A day after his inauguration, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is holding discussions with leading lawmakers on his plan to dissolve the parliament.  Zelenskiy held a meeting with Verkhovna Rada speaker Andriy Parubiy and leaders of parliamentary factions at the presidential administration building in Kyiv on May 21.  Zelenskiy announced in his inaugural address that he was disbanding the Rada, Ukraine's unicameral parliament, and the consultations are part of the process.  He is expected to sign a decree dissolving parliament after the talks. Under the constitution, new parliamentary elections must be held within two months of the decree.  A comedian and actor with no previous political experience, Zelenskiy defeated incumbent Petro Poroshenko by a wide margin in a presidential runoff vote on April 21.  The 41-year-old ran for president without the support of a political party and has no formal backing in parliament now.  The next parliamentary elections had been set for late October. As he starts a five-year term, early elections are a chance for Zelenskiy to strengthen his position and sideline allies of Poroshenko.  Opponents have questioned whether Zelenskiy has the authority to disband parliament under the constitution because of the timing of his inauguration, but there has been little sign of vocal resistance to his plan since he announced it on May 20.  Hours after Zelenskiy was sworn in, Prime Minister Volodymyr Hroysman said he will resign on May 22 and suggested that he will run in the snap elections.  "I proposed to the president and the parliament that we together form a new agenda and very quickly begin to make decisions that would make Ukraine stronger," Hroysman said. "The president has chosen a different path."  Zelenskiy has taken the helm of a country of 44 million that faces deep-seated corruption, economic challenges, and a deadly conflict with Russia-backed militants who hold parts of the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.  The war in the region known as the Donbas has killed some 13,000 people since 2014 and Russia continues to control Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula it occupied and seized the same year.


rferl--2019-06-19--Angry Afghan Lawmakers Disrupt Parliament Over Disputed Vote

KABUL -- Chaotic scenes erupted in Afghanistan's lower house of parliament on June 19 amid a weeks-long dispute over the election of a speaker.  Video footage showed angry members of the Wolesi Jirga smashing the speaker's chair and flipping his desk over to prevent businessman Mir Rahman Rahmani from taking his seat.     The violence came the day after Rahmani was elected as speaker -- a result that supporters of the other leading candidate, Kamal Nasir Osuli, refused to recognize.      Afghanistan's general elections in October 2018 were marred by security and organizational issues.      The official results were finalized in May, seven months after the poll.      The new Wolesi Jirga has since been trying to elect a speaker, but disagreements over vote-counting have led to an impasse.


rferl--2019-08-29--Ukrainian Lawmakers Approve Political Novice Honcharuk As Prime Minister

KYIV – Ukrainian lawmakers have approved 35-year-old lawyer Oleksiy Honcharuk as the country's new prime minister during parliament's first session since elections last month.  Honcharuk, a political newcomer who previously worked in the presidential office, was nominated on August 29 by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a comedian-turned-politician who has pledged to “break the system” in Ukrainian politics.  Despite his lack of experience, lawmakers easily approved Honcharuk with 290 deputies in the 450-seat house voting in favor of his appointment.  Honcharuk has spent much of his career as a lawyer, eventually becoming a lead partner at a firm that specializes in real estate development. In 2015, he ran the EU-funded nongovernmental organization BRDO that focused on reforms and advised Stepan Kubiv, the first deputy prime minister during ex-President Petro Poroshenko’s administration.  “It will be very difficult for this government," he acknowledged in a speech to parliament.  Honcharuk said Kyiv will start talks with the International Monetary Fund over a new program in the coming weeks, signaling that Ukraine is seeking a new longer-term deal to replace an existing $3.9 billion standby aid agreement.  "You all know about these problems that we have in the country. These are the debts we have inherited," he added.  Other appointments included former NATO Ambassador Vadym Prystaiko as foreign minister and Andriy Zahorodnuk, an expert on defense reform, as the new defense minister.  Before his confirmation, Prystaiko told parliament that Ukraine’s path toward EU and NATO integration would remain unchanged.  Zelenskiy’s former business partner, Ivan Bakanov, was appointed head of the SBU security service. The chairman of the Servant of the People party, Dmytro Razumkov, was chosen as parliamentary speaker.  Zelenskiy’s Servant of the People took a solid majority of 254 parliamentary seats in last month’s elections for the 450-seat legislature.  That unprecedented mandate is expected to give Zelenskiy a free hand to carry out his campaign pledge in April to turn Ukraine's political system upside down.  In his state-of-the-nation address before lawmakers, Zelenskiy noted that this legislature has the chance “to achieve the impossible” and accomplish what previous parliaments failed do in the last 28 years.  He named bolstering national security and defense as the highest priority, along with “ending the war” against Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, and “returning” the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine’s fold.  Russia forcibly annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region in March 2014 and has backed separatists in eastern Ukraine in a conflict that has killed more than 13,000 people since April 2014.  Zelenskiy also said he wants to end the practice of “raiding,” a reference to company takeovers enabled by crooked notaries and judges to transfer ownership of assets. Another priority is achieving energy independence.  The president called on lawmakers not to fight in the chamber, skip sessions, or engage in multiple voting, otherwise “this parliament will last only a year,” Zelenskiy said.  Among the 37 draft laws the president and his party registered on August 29, one would lift lawmakers’ immunity from prosecution. Because it’s a constitutional amendment, the bill requires a two-thirds majority vote that Servant of the People lacks.  Abolishing immunity has for Ukrainians consistently been one of the most desired anti-corruption measures, according to public opinion polls.  Zelenskiy registered a bill on corruption whistle-blowers and presidential impeachment as well.


rferl--2019-12-05--Pelosi Asks U.S. Lawmakers To Proceed With Articles Of Impeachment Against Trump

The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has instructed the legislative chamber’s Judiciary Committee chairman to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for his alleged pressuring of Ukraine to investigate a political rival.      The move, announced on December 5, effectively assures a formal impeachment process against the 45th president, who given the Democrats' majority in the house is likely to become just the third president to be impeached.      "Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment," Pelosi said.      "The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security.... In America, no one is above the law," Pelosi added.      Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee received a 300-page report from the fact-finding component of the proceedings, which were led by Democrats in the House Intelligence Committee. That report lays out the evidence Democrats say demonstrates Trump abused his office for political gain.      The U.S. House of Representatives has the sole responsibility to impeach a president. If impeachment is voted upon by the full chamber, a trial would be held in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, meaning conviction is highly unlikely.      White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham responded moments after the statement on Twitter, saying Trump "has done nothing but lead our country...We look forward to a fair trial in the Senate."      The Democrat-led House of Representatives has for two months probed whether the president committed impeachable offenses that constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a vaguely defined term in the U.S. Constitution.      At the center of the investigation is a July 25 phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy during which Kyiv was prodded to open investigations into Trump's political rivals.      The White House had frozen $391 million of military aid to Ukraine leading up to the phone call, but eventually released it in September.


rollcall--2019-10-16--Some lawmakers question amount of time spent in committees

California Rep. Mark DeSaulnier sits on four committees and seven subcommittees, one of the most packed rosters in the House. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo)  The House parliamentarian brought the hammer down on the Education and Labor Committee in April, ending a long-standing practice that allowed panel members from both parties to vote on bills in committee on a flexible schedule — a violation of the House ban on proxy voting.  Members say their schedules have become so hectic and compressed that the courtesy, which the committee has extended for years, is needed. But the practice raises a bigger question: How sustainable are members’ often packed and chaotic schedules?  It’s an issue being examined by the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, which holds another hearing on the matter Wednesday as part of its directive to offer recommendations on overhauling the way Congress does things.  Earlier this year, at another Modernization hearing that featured testimony from multiple members, Pennsylvania Democrat Chrissy Houlahan laid out the problem.  “Tomorrow I am supposed to be at two subcommittee meetings for the same committee at the same time, and I [and] nine other people are on both subcommittees,” the freshman lawmaker said in March. “There’s no way that I can physically be there, and that’s only one of my committees.”  One member who benefited from the voting flexibility at Education and Labor was California Democrat Mark DeSaulnier. There’s good reason he probably needed this special carve-out — he sits on four committees and seven subcommittees, one of the most packed rosters in the entire House.  A day with DeSaulnier illustrates the breakneck schedules of the chamber’s busiest members.  On a Wednesday morning in June, DeSaulnier threaded his way through the crowded Cannon Building basement, a staffer by his side, on his way to a 10 a.m. House Oversight and Reform hearing about the opioid crisis. It was one of three simultaneous hearings on his calendar that day.  After 10 minutes in that hearing, though, he ducked out and made his way to Transportation and Infrastructure, where he spent about 15 minutes before leaving for another hearing at Education and Labor. After 15 minutes there, he was back at Oversight and Reform for another 40 minutes, then back to Transportation and Infrastructure for 20 minutes.  Despite the stacked schedule of committee assignments, DeSaulnier said he thought he’d juggled it all pretty well.  “Personally, I like it,” he says. “It’s intellectually stimulating. You just have to manage your time with it.”  DeSaulnier is one of seven members who sit on four committees. But he and Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin are the only two of that group whose committees all meet frequently.  While DeSaulnier may be an extreme example, it’s common for members to dash between multiple commitments. It’s not a new problem, and its causes are multifaceted, but part of it is the declining influence of committees in the face of increasing party and leadership clout. Even though committee hearings and markups fill members’ schedules as they always have, votes in some panels are reliably party-line, reflecting party positions more than experience and knowledge of a particular policy area.  It’s also true that a major factor in the time crunch is that members simply are on more committees than in the past. According to data compiled by the Brookings Institution, the average number of standing committee, subcommittee and other committee assignments for members of the 84th Congress (1955-56) was three. By the 115th Congress (2017-18), the average number of assignments had increased to 5.3, while the number of committees had risen from 22 to 27.  Reducing committee slots is far from a priority for leadership because seats on certain high-profile panels like Ways and Means, Appropriations or Energy and Commerce can be valuable bargaining chips with members looking to help their districts or build a following, said Hugh Halpern, who was floor director for former Speaker Paul D. Ryan and staff director of the House Rules Committee.  Halpern said it’s a balancing act. “If you have to be on the Small Business Committee, they want to try to give you something that’s a little bit higher-profile,” he said. “If you’re just on Small Business and Science, that kind of sucks.”  Another contributing factor is the shift of work from the subcommittee level to the full committee level. The relevance of subcommittees has declined over the last few decades, experts say. In the 94th Congress (1975-76) there were 151 total subcommittees of standing committees; in the 115th, there were just 92, according to the Brookings data.  “The subcommittee activity has declined for some of the same reasons that the committee activity has declined,” said Bryan Jones, a University of Texas at Austin professor who has compiled data on congressional committee activity. “Too much is done through the parties and not enough through the committee structure.”  With the exception of committees that reliably produce complex legislation every year — like Appropriations and Armed Services — many panels have subcommittees that hold hearings but infrequently mark up legislation. Those hearings demand members’ time, but don’t prevent lengthy committee markups at a later stage.  “I would have less interest in being on four committees if the subcommittees did more work,” DeSaulnier said. “I like being busy at this level. I would prefer to be more busy, in-depth on specific issues.”  Alaska Republican Don Young, the longest-serving member of the House, sees a marked decline in productivity from his earlier days in the chamber, which he joined in 1973.  “I personally think most committee meetings are a waste of time,” he said. “I go to most markups because I do think you should be there to vote on a markup. I very rarely go to hearings because you’re not going to learn anything.”  Jones’ data shows that committees are holding fewer hearings than ever, and that hearings are far more likely to be related to oversight than a specific bill. It used to be about a half-and-half split. Today, according to Jones, committees hold eight oversight hearings for every legislative hearing.  Aside from committee meetings, members must also balance floor votes, constituent meetings, off-campus events and fundraising — a necessity for most members running for reelection. DeSaulnier spends one or two hours a day fundraising.  There is consensus that the current committee scheduling structure is far from ideal, but there’s less consensus on how to fix it.  Washington Democrat Derek Kilmer, who chairs the Modernization Committee, and Georgia Republican Tom Graves, the panel’s ranking member, said in a statement that lawmakers “often find themselves pulled in a number of different directions on any given day — whether it be committee business, floor votes or constituent engagement all at the same time.” They plan to further explore the issue.  Halpern said members of Congress have tried over the years to solve the problem, pointing to a proposal from Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop that involved “A” committees and “B” committees having different designated meeting days. Like other proposals, it was stymied by the reality of legislating on a tight timeline.  But Halpern is optimistic about the future. “The Modernization Committee has been doing great work,” he said. “If they can come up with an attempt to crack this nut, more power to them.”  “I can tell you that the high school scheduling of high school classes is much more effectively run than the scheduling of Congress,” the congresswoman said, remembering her days as a teacher.  Young is more skeptical, instead advising newcomers to work within the current committee structure.  “I’ve tried to tell all my freshmen: Don’t try to get on more than two. Dedicate yourself to what you have the most interest in and don’t worry about not being there if you’re not there,” the longtime lawmaker said. “You just can’t be every place at one time. It makes you really like a butterfly with no flowers, fluttering around here and there and not getting anything.”


sottnet--2019-01-16--As US govt shutdown grinds on most lawmakers keep their paychecks staying warm and well-fed

As US govt shutdown grinds on, most lawmakers keep their paychecks staying warm and well-fed

yet continued to take her own salary  President Trump attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for taking a paycheck during a government shutdown. But Pelosi is not the only lawmaker bringing home the cash while furloughed workers scrimp and save."Why is Nancy Pelosi getting paid when people who are working are not?" Trump tweeted on Tuesday.The government has been partially shut down for over three weeks, during which. Despite several rounds of negotiations, Trump and Congressional Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have failed to reach a compromise on Trump's request for $5.7 billion to build a wall along the Mexican border.Among those going without pay are the 42,000 active duty members of the Coast Guard, who missed their mid-monthly paycheck on Tuesday, the first time in the nation's history that a branch of the armed forces has gone unpaid. Over 20 government agencies have shut their doors, as have federally funded museums, national parks, and zoos.While the Senate passed a bill before Christmas guaranteeing backpay to all furloughed workers, those workers will only be paid once the government reopens, and a resolution currently seems a long way off.even those Democrats Trump attacked for jetting off on a fact-finding trip to sunny Puerto Rico. The 16 officers and officials on the hill - from the sergeants at arms to the chaplains - will also stay warm and fed during the shutdown.Congressmen and Senators take home $174,000 per year. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi is the highest paid lawmaker on Capitol Hill, bringing home $223,500 per year.Accepting that pay or not, however, has become a partisan issue in itself. More than 70 members of Congress have said they will either ask for their pay to be withheld, or donate it to charitable causes.Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw tweeted that he "cannot in good conscience get paid," in a post urging Democrats to support Trump's planned border wall.When pressed on this by a New York Post reporter earlier this month, the self-described Democratic Socialist told the reporter "I've gotta run," before cutting the impromptu interview short.Trump is still receiving his $400,000 salary, but has been donating his pay to charities and government initiatives since the start of his presidency.Most American voters share Trump's opinion that there is a "crisis" at the country's southern border, according to a poll released on Monday. 55 percent of voters are opposed to a border wall, however. As the shutdown drags on, Trump's approval rating has fallen to 43 percent, its lowest point since January 2018 and down from 50 percent last month.


sputnik--2019-03-14--British Lawmakers Debate Brexit Delay After No-Deal Voted Down VIDEO

British Lawmakers Debate Brexit Delay After No-Deal Voted Down (VIDEO)

UK lawmakers have tabled 10 amendments to the government's motion on a potential extension to Brexit deadline, which will be put to vote later on Thursday. Parliament Speaker John Bercow has selected four amendments for the vote.  Amendment H by Sarah Wollaston asks for an extension and a referendum. Brexit with an agreement or remaining an EU member should be referendum options.  Amendment E, backed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, wants an extension and parliamentary time to work out a proposal that would secure a majority in the House.  Amendment I, brought forward by Labour and Conservatives, wants the House to have indicative votes on Brexit next Wednesday. An amendment to this amendment has also been selected for the vote.  Amendment J by Chris Bryant asks the House to prevent the government from submitting its withdrawal deal for a vote again  The government says in its motion that if the House of Commons passes the withdrawal deal, it will ask the European Union for a Brexit deadline extension until June 30, instead of currently expected March 29. The government remarked that in case the deal has not been approved, the European Council would ask to give clear reasons for extensions. The government underlined that any extension beyond June 30 would oblige the United Kingdom to hold European elections scheduled for May.  The day before, lawmakers voted with a majority of 321 against 278 for the government's motion to rule out a no-deal Brexit. Following the rejection of a no-deal, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of UK opposition Labour Party, urged the parliament to take the initiative in settling the crisis around looming Brexit, adding that he would engage in talks with other lawmakers to find a compromise solution.