# data[].attributes.body
The research found that on average each utilization pathway could use around 0.5 gigatonnes (a gigatonne is 1 billion tonnes, or about 1.1 billion U.S. tons) of carbon dioxide per year that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.headline
many immigrants have been aproved for daca  however many of then are students 

# data[].attributes.subject
many immigrants have been aproved for daca  however many of then are students 

# data[].attributes.body
on of the action that is treating this is what trump want to do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Polls show the program to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation is broadly popular. Democratic organizers see an opportunity to mobilize voters if it is ended.

DACA plaintiffs and immigration rights activists held a rally in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, after the court heard arguments about ending the program. Credit... Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

Welcome to Poll Watch, our weekly look at polling data and survey research on the candidates, voters and issues that will shape the 2020 election.
It increasingly looks like the Supreme Court's conservative majority will allow the Trump administration to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, according to close observers of the court.

Legal arguments aside, polls show that DACA - which has shielded from deportation roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children - enjoys overwhelming popular support. Allowing it to end would put the court out of step with trends in national public opinion, which has recently become more sympathetic to immigration than at any point in recorded history.

But the voters who pay the closest attention to immigration tend to be Republicans, and they hold much more conservative views on this issue. Just before the 2018 midterm elections, a Pew survey found that Republican voters were four times as likely as Democratic voters to say illegal immigration was a very big problem: 75 percent of Republicans said it was, compared to 19 percent of Democrats.

The public's views on immigration have gradually become more liberal over all in recent years, even as President Trump has made his opposition to immigration a central component of his political persona.

In the past two years, three quarters of Gallup respondents have said that immigration is generally a good thing - more than ever before recorded. By a double-digit margin, Americans are more likely to say that immigrants help the economy rather than hurt it, Gallup found.

DACA enjoys broader consensus than almost any other proposed immigration policy. A Marquette Law School poll found in September that 53 percent of voters nationwide would oppose a Supreme Court decision to strike down the program, while 37 percent would favor it. Before the case reached the Supreme Court, 84 percent of Americans said in a March 2018 Politico/Harvard University poll that they generally supported DACA. And in another Politico/Harvard poll, from December of that year, 66 percent of respondents said it was "extremely important" that Congress renew the program.

All of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have expressed support for DACA. People who are sympathetic to the Dreamers - undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children - now make up a sizable chunk of the electorate in swing states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And the Hispanic population is climbing especially quickly in some competitive Southern states; it roughly doubled from 2000 to 2010 in North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

Most Americans seem comfortable with these developments. The share of the country that said immigration levels should be increased hit 30 percent earlier this year, the highest number since Gallup started asking the question in the 1960s. All told, more than three in five Americans now say that immigration levels should either rise or remain where they are.

Daniel Herrera, a communications consultant at the left-leaning Raben Group, said that if DACA ends, it could propel a youth mobilization campaign similar to the one that led to the program's passage in the first place.

"Where DACA does come into play is: How well are Dreamers and Dreamer allies going to mobilize people who may not vote?" he said.

"It's about your traditional get-out-the vote operations, where Dreamers are the public face of a campaign to get the youth vote out," he added. "That's how you're going to mobilize youth voters, because theoretically they'll see themselves in those Dreamers and be more motivated to vote."

But there is a deeper partisan rift on immigration than on almost any other issue. Eighty-two percent of Democrats in a September Pew poll said it was important for the government to build a path to citizenship for immigrants who are currently in the country illegally, but just 48 percent of Republicans did.

While 58 percent of all Americans said in a CNN poll last month that they disapproved of Mr. Trump's handling of immigration, that number plunged to just 12 percent among Republicans. Eighty-six percent of Republicans approved of how he has handled the issue.

Immigration may be more of a motivating issue for the Republican base than the Democratic one. Forty-six percent of liberal Democrats rank building a path to citizenship as "very important," but a larger share of conservative Republicans - fully six in 10 - say the opposite: that it is very important for the government to increase deportations of immigrants who have entered the United States illegally.

"When you just look at conservative Republicans, you can see that a hard-line approach to immigration is broadly supported - and conservatives make up two thirds of all Republicans," said Carroll Doherty, an analyst at Pew Research Center. "That shows you how those issues have resonated with the Trump base."

Still, Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster, said that even many voters who support tough immigration policies often do not strongly favor ending DACA. "The first step is to distinguish between attitudes about DACA and attitudes about immigration overall: Consistently, Americans on the order of 80 percent have supported allowing the DACA kids to stay," he said.

If the Supreme Court were to allow the Trump administration to end DACA, Mr. Ayres said, the focus would shift to the legislative branch. He argued that this could provide an opportunity for Republicans to push through one of their immigration-related goals, such as increased border security, in exchange for restoring DACA.

"What it does is increase pressure on Congress to put DACA legalization together with border security, and pass a limited immigration reform - with just those two components - that gives something to both sides," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court May Let Trump End DACA. Here's What the Public Thinks About It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Polls show the program to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation is broadly popular. Democratic organizers see an opportunity to mobilize voters if it is ended. Welcome to Poll Watch, our weekly look at polling data and survey research on the candidates, voters and issues that will shape the 2020 election .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Polls show the program to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation is broadly popular. Democratic organizers see an opportunity to mobilize voters if it is ended.

DACA plaintiffs and immigration rights activists held a rally in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, after the court heard arguments about ending the program. Credit... Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

Welcome to Poll Watch, our weekly look at polling data and survey research on the candidates, voters and issues that will shape the 2020 election.
It increasingly looks like the Supreme Court's conservative majority will allow the Trump administration to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, according to close observers of the court.

Legal arguments aside, polls show that DACA - which has shielded from deportation roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children - enjoys overwhelming popular support. Allowing it to end would put the court out of step with trends in national public opinion, which has recently become more sympathetic to immigration than at any point in recorded history.

But the voters who pay the closest attention to immigration tend to be Republicans, and they hold much more conservative views on this issue. Just before the 2018 midterm elections, a Pew survey found that Republican voters were four times as likely as Democratic voters to say illegal immigration was a very big problem: 75 percent of Republicans said it was, compared to 19 percent of Democrats.

The public's views on immigration have gradually become more liberal over all in recent years, even as President Trump has made his opposition to immigration a central component of his political persona.

In the past two years, three quarters of Gallup respondents have said that immigration is generally a good thing - more than ever before recorded. By a double-digit margin, Americans are more likely to say that immigrants help the economy rather than hurt it, Gallup found.

DACA enjoys broader consensus than almost any other proposed immigration policy. A Marquette Law School poll found in September that 53 percent of voters nationwide would oppose a Supreme Court decision to strike down the program, while 37 percent would favor it. Before the case reached the Supreme Court, 84 percent of Americans said in a March 2018 Politico/Harvard University poll that they generally supported DACA. And in another Politico/Harvard poll, from December of that year, 66 percent of respondents said it was "extremely important" that Congress renew the program.

All of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have expressed support for DACA. People who are sympathetic to the Dreamers - undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children - now make up a sizable chunk of the electorate in swing states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And the Hispanic population is climbing especially quickly in some competitive Southern states; it roughly doubled from 2000 to 2010 in North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

Most Americans seem comfortable with these developments. The share of the country that said immigration levels should be increased hit 30 percent earlier this year, the highest number since Gallup started asking the question in the 1960s. All told, more than three in five Americans now say that immigration levels should either rise or remain where they are.

Daniel Herrera, a communications consultant at the left-leaning Raben Group, said that if DACA ends, it could propel a youth mobilization campaign similar to the one that led to the program's passage in the first place.

"Where DACA does come into play is: How well are Dreamers and Dreamer allies going to mobilize people who may not vote?" he said.

"It's about your traditional get-out-the vote operations, where Dreamers are the public face of a campaign to get the youth vote out," he added. "That's how you're going to mobilize youth voters, because theoretically they'll see themselves in those Dreamers and be more motivated to vote."

But there is a deeper partisan rift on immigration than on almost any other issue. Eighty-two percent of Democrats in a September Pew poll said it was important for the government to build a path to citizenship for immigrants who are currently in the country illegally, but just 48 percent of Republicans did.

While 58 percent of all Americans said in a CNN poll last month that they disapproved of Mr. Trump's handling of immigration, that number plunged to just 12 percent among Republicans. Eighty-six percent of Republicans approved of how he has handled the issue.

Immigration may be more of a motivating issue for the Republican base than the Democratic one. Forty-six percent of liberal Democrats rank building a path to citizenship as "very important," but a larger share of conservative Republicans - fully six in 10 - say the opposite: that it is very important for the government to increase deportations of immigrants who have entered the United States illegally.

"When you just look at conservative Republicans, you can see that a hard-line approach to immigration is broadly supported - and conservatives make up two thirds of all Republicans," said Carroll Doherty, an analyst at Pew Research Center. "That shows you how those issues have resonated with the Trump base."

Still, Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster, said that even many voters who support tough immigration policies often do not strongly favor ending DACA. "The first step is to distinguish between attitudes about DACA and attitudes about immigration overall: Consistently, Americans on the order of 80 percent have supported allowing the DACA kids to stay," he said.

If the Supreme Court were to allow the Trump administration to end DACA, Mr. Ayres said, the focus would shift to the legislative branch. He argued that this could provide an opportunity for Republicans to push through one of their immigration-related goals, such as increased border security, in exchange for restoring DACA.

"What it does is increase pressure on Congress to put DACA legalization together with border security, and pass a limited immigration reform - with just those two components - that gives something to both sides," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court May Let Trump End DACA. Here's What the Public Thinks About It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Polls show the program to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation is broadly popular. Democratic organizers see an opportunity to mobilize voters if it is ended. Welcome to Poll Watch, our weekly look at polling data and survey research on the candidates, voters and issues that will shape the 2020 election .

# data[].attributes.body
1. Nearly 80,000 immigrants approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)program, which shields those who came to the country illegally as minors from deportation, have an arrest record -- including arrests for violent or sexual offenses.
2. Its good news that these people got approved because it allows more individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S.
3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly 80,000 immigrants approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shields those who came to the country illegally as minors from deportation, have an arrest record -- including arrests for violent or sexual offenses.

The data released Saturday by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shows only arrests or apprehensions for a criminal offense or an immigration-related civil offense and does not take into account whether there was a conviction, acquittal, dismissal or a lessening of charges.
TRUMP BLASTS 'TOTALLY ILLEGAL' DACA ORDER, SAYS OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SIGN IT
The report finds that of the nearly 889,000 applicants for the DACA program, 110,000 had arrest records. Of the more than 765,000 approved for DACA, 79,398 had arrest records. Of that number, 67,861 were arrested before their most recent DACA approval, while 15,903 were arrested after their most recent approval.

The offenses incurred by DACA requestors who were arrested before their most recent approval include battery (3,421), assault (3,308), burglary, breaking and entering (1,471), rape (62), murder (15) and theft or larceny (7,926). The largest population arrested were suspected of driving-related offenses excluding DUIs (23,305) and immigration-related offenses (12,968.)

The report comes as the Obama-era program's constitutionality is under examination at the Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case began this week.

"As DACA continues to be the subject of both public discourse and ongoing litigation, USCIS remains committed to ensuring transparency and that the American people are informed about those receiving DACA," USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli said in a statement.

"This agency is obligated to continue accepting DACA requests from illegal aliens as a direct result of the previous administration's decision to circumvent the laws as passed by Congress. We hope this data provides a better sense of the reality of those granted the privilege of a temporary deferral of removal action and work authorization under DACA," he said.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES FEES ON ASYLUM APPLICATIONS, DACA RENEWALS
The Trump administration announced its plan to phase out the program in 2017, only for the federal courts to rule that it could not apply retroactively and that DACA should be restarted in full. The White House fought back against those decisions, saying the president has broad authority over immigration enforcement policy.

Trump on Tuesday ripped into the program, saying that some in DACA are "far from 'angels'" but also promising to make a deal to let recipients of the program stay.

"Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from 'angels,'" Trump tweeted. "Some are very tough, hardened criminals. President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!"
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Supporters of DACA have noted that the program comes with restrictions on who can be eligible with a criminal record. According to the USCIS website, those eligible can request DACA only if they "have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Supporters will also note that the level of arrests for DACA recipients is lower than the estimated 30 percent of U.S. adults who have an arrest record.

The Trump administration announced last week that it will place a $275 fee on DACA recipients, as part of an across the board increase in fees for immigration applications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nearly 80,000 immigrants approved for DACA have arrest records, USCIS report finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly 80,000 immigrants approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shields those who came to the country illegally as minors from deportation, have an arrest record -- including arrests for violent or sexual offenses. The data released Saturday by U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Judicial Branch is trying to convince others that the CFPB is not trust worthy in handling economy because they are unconstitutionally structured.  wielding essentially unilateral power to inundate employers and employees alike with financial regulations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently assailed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency with all sorts of baggage. The appellate court described the CFPB as "unconstitutionally structured" and "[a] gross departure from settled historical practice."

As U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh argues, the agency's structure "poses a far greater risk of arbitrary decision-making and abuse of power, and a far greater threat to individual liberty, than does a multi-member independent agency."

The judicial backlash is long overdue. Created out of fear after the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has gone rogue, wielding essentially unilateral power to inundate employers and employees alike with financial regulations.

The agency operates almost entirely outside the realm of congressional oversight, receiving its funds as a percentage of the Federal Reserve's budget. The CFPB does not rely on funding approval through the normal appropriations process nor is it under any obligation to alter its practices based on congressional inquiries.

The agency's head, Director Richard Cordray, is a White House appointee and can only be fired by the president for just cause. That is, until the appellate court recently voided the for-cause provision when it shined a flashlight on the CFPB's lack of transparency.

CFPB leadership still reserves the right to issue and enforce financial regulations without congressional approval. Once a multiagency job, financial services that fall under CFPB jurisdiction now include mortgages, credit cards, loan servicing, check guaranteeing, and payday loans among others.

This regulatory burden is especially heavy for payday lenders, who provide millions of low-income Americans in need of quick cash with short-term loans. The agency argues that regulatory oversight can protect payday borrowers from inordinately high interest rates and "payday debt traps," which prevent small-dollar borrowers from ever paying off their loans.

And it has used the "debt trap" argument to undermine the lender-borrower relationship. The CFPB now requires payday lenders to verify a borrower's income, major financial obligations, and borrowing history before issuing a loan. It has also issued a long list of "affordability criteria" to lengthen the payday lending process, erecting a barrier between small-dollar lenders and the low-income individuals in dire need of resources.

Community banks are also victims of excessive red tape. Since the passage of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reforms-which created the CFPB-only three new community banks have opened, compared to a historical average of 100 every year. There are 20 percent fewer community banks today than there were before the legislation took effect. While its 22,000 pages of regulations are aimed at the largest investment banks in hope of preventing another financial crisis, they disproportionately hurt the country's smallest banks.

The CFPB's overzealousness continues the federal government's longstanding overregulation of the U.S. economy. If the District Court's ruling showed anything, it's that government should play a much smaller role.

Alfredo Ortiz is president & CEO of Job Creators Network.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2eHimpe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently assailed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency with all sorts of baggage. The appellate court described the CFPB as "unconstitutionally structured" and "[a] gross departure from settled historical practice." As U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Crown Seeks Canada Hearing in  Rail Terror Case

# data[].attributes.subject
Crown Seeks Canada Hearing in  Rail Terror Case

# data[].attributes.body
Two men who were charged with terror on Railroad in New York city in 2015, have appealed to the supreme court because of a jury selection mistake in the lower courts. In August Court of Appeals ordered a fresh trial for the two men.

# data[].attributes.headline
Court: 2015 Kraft-Heinz Merger Not Grounds for Last-Minute Transfer of Egg Antitrust Claims

# data[].attributes.subject
Court: 2015 Kraft-Heinz Merger Not Grounds for Last-Minute Transfer of Egg Antitrust Claims

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2019/10/23/court-2015-kraft-heinz-merger-not-grounds-for-last-minute-transfer-of-egg-antitrust-claims/

1. Currently, a class-action claim is in the works; however, the judicial branch itself has not played a large role yet except to set the hearing date.

2. I am neutral on these actions. The Kraft-Heinz company is trying to sway the Judicial Branch to loosen regulations that impact their production.

3. The Executive Branch is involved through the FDA. The Legislative Branch, in coordination with the FDA, previously passed a law that make antitrust claims stricter for businesses. As the Judicial Branch will, in the future, preside over this hearing, they are carrying the bulk of the load--the Executive and Legislative Branches have little involvement anymore.

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers found that collecting CO2 can help save money, reduce fossil fuels and chemicals, and soil management/forestry. Research was found that we could use .5 gigatonnes (1 billion tonnes or about 1.1 billion US tons) of CO2 per year that would have escaped into the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Capturing carbon dioxide and turning it into commercial products, such as fuels or construction materials, could become a new global industry, according to a study by researchers from UCLA, the University of Oxford and five other institutions.

Should that happen, the phenomenon would help the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The research, published in Nature, is the most comprehensive study to date investigating the potential future scale and cost of 10 different ways to use carbon dioxide, including in fuels and chemicals, plastics, building materials, soil management and forestry. The study considered processes using carbon dioxide captured from waste gases that are produced by burning fossil fuels or from the atmosphere by an industrial process.

And in a step beyond most previous research on the subject, the authors also considered processes that use carbon dioxide captured biologically by photosynthesis.

The research found that on average each utilization pathway could use around 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere. (A tonne, or metric ton, is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms, and a gigatonne is 1 billion tonnes, or about 1.1 billion U.S. tons.)

A top-end scenario could see more than 10 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year used, at a theoretical cost of under $100 per tonne of carbon dioxide. The researchers noted, however, that the potential scales and costs of using carbon dioxide varied substantially across sectors.

"The analysis we presented makes clear that carbon dioxide utilization can be part of the solution to combat climate change, but only if those with the power to make decisions at every level of government and finance commit to changing policies and providing market incentives across multiple sectors," said Emily Carter, a distinguished professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering and a co-author of the paper. "The urgency is huge and we have little time left to effect change."

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over the rest of the 21st century will require the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on the order of 100 to 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. Currently, fossil carbon dioxide emissions are increasing by over 1% annually, reaching a record high of 37 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2018.

"Greenhouse gas removal is essential to achieve net zero carbon emissions and stabilise the climate," said Cameron Hepburn, one of the study's lead authors, director of Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and Environment. "We haven't reduced our emissions fast enough, so now we also need to start pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Governments and corporations are moving on this, but not quickly enough.

"The promise of carbon dioxide utilization is that it could act as an incentive for carbon dioxide removal and could reduce emissions by displacing fossil fuels."

Critical to the success of these new technologies as mitigation strategies will be a careful analysis of their overall impact on the climate. Some are likely to be adopted quickly simply because of their attractive business models. For example, in certain kinds of plastic production, using carbon dioxide as a feedstock is a more profitable and environmentally cleaner production process than using conventional hydrocarbons, and it can displace up to three times as much carbon dioxide as it uses.

Biological uses might also present opportunities to reap co-benefits. In other areas, utilization could provide a "better choice" alternative during the global decarbonization process. One example might be the use of fuels derived from carbon dioxide, which could find a role in sectors that are harder to decarbonize, such as aviation.

The authors stressed that there is no "magic bullet" approach.

"I would start by incentivizing the most obvious solutions -- most of which already exist -- that can act at the gigatonne scale in agriculture, forestry and construction," said Carter, who also is UCLA's executive vice chancellor and provost, and the Gerhard R. Andlinger Professor in Energy and Environment Emeritus at Princeton University. "At the same time, I would aggressively invest in R&D across academia, industry and government labs -- much more so than is being done in the U.S., especially compared to China -- in higher-tech solutions to capture and convert carbon dioxide to useful products that can be developed alongside solutions that already exist in agriculture, forestry and construction."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
organic chemistry; graphene; alternative fuels; global warming; air quality; climate; environmental policies; energy issues; resource shortage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carbon dioxide capture and use could become big business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Capturing carbon dioxide and turning it into commercial products, such as fuels or construction materials, could become a new global industry, according to a study by researchers from UCLA, the University of Oxford and five other institutions. Should that happen, the phenomenon would help the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Roger Stone, a confidant of President Trump's, was found guilty on seven counts by a jury. The next step in the Judicial Branch process will be for a judge to decide his sentence.
2. I think these actions are good. It was a bizarre trial, but evidence presented properly in court demonstrated serious damage done by Roger Stone
3. Neither the Executive or Legislative Branch have the power to decide whether or not someone is guilty, and that's a good thing. The closest thing in those branches is the presidential pardon in the Executive Branch. Or if the Legislative Branch was to somehow pass a law deciding that something wasn't illegal anymore, which could still be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Republican operative Roger Stone was found guilty Friday of all seven counts against him, including witness tampering and making false statements.

Prosecutors portrayed Stone, 67, as a serial liar who tried to bully witnesses into not cooperating with authorities. They charged Stone, a confidant of President Donald Trump, with making false statements, obstruction and witness tampering in a case that was an offshoot of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

Stone is the sixth Trump aide or adviser to be convicted of charges brought as part of Mueller's probe.

His sentencing was set for Feb. 6, and he faces up to 20 years in prison. The jury deliberated for two days.

Trump tweeted shortly after the verdict was announced, asking "what about" Hillary Clinton, James Comey, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and others. "Didn't they lie?"

The colorful trial in Washington lasted nearly two weeks and featured references to "The Godfather Part II," threats of dognapping, complaints of food poisoning and a gag order.

Stone was arrested in January in an early morning FBI raid and charged with misleading the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 about his efforts to find out when WikiLeaks would be releasing emails hacked from the Democratic Party and Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.

The prosecution rested its case on Tuesday with the testimony of former FBI agent Michelle Taylor. She was recalled to testify about Stone's testimony to the Intelligence Committee, specifically when he told the panel about his thoughts on the potential connection between Guccifer 2.0 and the Russian government.

The trial also featured various former Trump aides, including ex-White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and onetime Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, who struck a plea deal with Mueller.

Bannon told jurors he saw Stone as "an access point" to WikiLeaks.

Gates testified that it was his understanding that Stone had inside, nonpublic information into WikiLeaks' operation and that the campaign acted on it.

After the DNC announced it had been hacked and WikiLeaks planned a news conference, the campaign had "brainstorming" sessions about what to do with the information. Gates said that the Trump campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, who was convicted earlier this year in the Mueller probe, told him he would update Trump with any information that he could get from Stone.

The jury also saw an email between Gates and Stone after the DNC announced it had been hacked. In it, Stone asks for Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner's contact information.

In late July 2016, Gates testified, he was in the car when Trump received a phone call from Stone. After the call, Trump told Gates that "more information would be coming" about WikiLeaks.

"This is a bigger message about truth," Mimi Rocah, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and MSNBC legal analyst, said of the guilty verdict. "The public has been seeing people lying so brazenly for so long and the jury saying facts still matter is a big deal."

Stone, a Trump confidant for more than 30 years and self-described "dirty trickster," has been a well-known Republican operative dating to President Richard Nixon's campaign. Stone also served early on as an adviser to Trump's 2016 campaign and has called the case against him politically motivated.

Stone did not testify in his trial, but his defense team played a 50-minute clip of his Intelligence Committee testimony for the jury, claiming the prosecution did not prove its case. Stone had denied knowing about the WikiLeaks' releases of hacked emails ahead of time.

Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and an NBC/MSNBC legal analyst, said in cases like Stone's it is unlikely the sentence would be close to a 20-year sentence.

"The guidelines are significantly lower than the statutory maximum. For example, the witness intimidation crime is a 20-year statutory maximum. Sentences for white-collar crimes are typically very short, especially someone convicted of a first offence," she said. "People convicted of white-collar crimes could easily end up with zero to six months. They typically serve their sentences in minimum-security facilities. But this is Roger Stone so we don't know exactly what will happen."

Prosecutors, who had Stone's emails and texts, said he pressured Randy Credico, a radio talk show host and former comedian, to lie about being an intermediary between him and WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange.

"Stonewall it. Plead the fifth," Stone texted him in November 2017. Stone also called a Credico a "rat" and a "stoolie" in a threatening April 2018 email.

"My lawyers are dying to rip you to shreds. I'm going to take that dog away from you," he said in the email, which Credico read aloud in court.

Stone also urged Credico to emulate a character from "The Godfather Part II," Frank Pentangeli, who recants his testimony to Congress about mob boss Michael Corleone after being intimidated. Prosecutors sought permission to show a clip from the movie, but the judge declined to allow it and informed the jury to not watch the movie.

The trial that promised to be a circus lived up to expectations. Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos attended every day, telling reporters that he's writing a book about it. Yiannopoulos often took lunch breaks with Stone and his legal team in the courtroom cafeteria.

A 20-foot-tall inflatable rat with Trump hair was stationed at the front entrance of the courthouse. Explicative-laden communications between Stone and Credico were often read aloud in court. Credico attempted a Bernie Sanders impression while testifying, something that Judge Amy Berman Jackson shot down.

"I know you're a comedian, but this is serious business," she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roger Stone, confidant of Trump and WikiLeaks connection, found guilty on all seven counts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republican operative Roger Stone was found guilty Friday of all seven counts against him, including witness tampering and making false statements. Prosecutors portrayed Stone, 67, as a serial liar who tried to bully witnesses into not cooperating with authorities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fremont attempts to tackle Bay Area Housing Crisis

# data[].attributes.subject
Fremont attempts to tackle Bay Area Housing Crisis

# data[].attributes.body
Fremont takes its steps on the Bay Area housing crisis by funding programs and attempting to lower housing prices. They have experienced homelessness for almost as long as San Francisco and other big cities now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
FREMONT, Calif. (KGO) -- For the past month, ABC7 News has been embedded in the City of Fremont and this week we'll bring you stories about their solutions to problems we're all facing.

One of the most universal challenges for the Bay Area is housing - how to have enough, how to make it affordable, and how to get it for those who don't have it. While Fremont is the Bay Area's fourth-largest city, it's still very much a suburban community, dealing with big-city challenges such as homelessness.

"There's a lot, more than I ever realized and it's growing," said Ronda Saladis, 55, who has lived on the streets of Fremont for nearly a decade. "You feel powerless. I mean, I feel powerless, I have four kids. Well, one of them, my oldest was killed, and my two daughters, they too are homeless."

Fremont has the third-largest homeless population in Alameda County, behind Oakland and Berkeley. As of January of this year, the city's biennial survey counted 608 homeless people, which is up 27% since 2017. Alameda County saw a 43% increase in that time.
RELATED: Building A Better Bay Area: Fremont Town Hall
"I think they're doing what they can with an awareness of, you know, a bigger picture," said Saladis, when asked if she thought the city was doing enough to help the homeless.

This summer, hundreds protested against a proposed homeless navigation center in Fremont. After months of debate, members of the city council, including Mayor Lily Mei, made the decision to build it in a parking lot behind city hall.

"This is the best location for the navigation center because there's so many resources nearby," said Mei. "From Fremont's Family Resource Center, as well as our city staff, I think it allows us some great oversight."

City officials say the center could open by mid-2020 and will cost about $7.7 million dollars to build and operate for the next three fiscal years.

Mei added: "For us to do nothing, was not an option."

So, how did we get to this point? California is short millions of housing units, and wages haven't kept up with the rising cost of housing, especially for those who are low-income.

"The homeless problem has become more visible... it's impacting everyday life for most citizens in Fremont," said Louis Chicoine, executive director of Adobe Services, one of the region's largest providers of permanent supportive housing for the homeless.

Chicoine, who also lives in Fremont, says it's estimated for every person who gets housed, there are three people who are newly homeless.
RELATED: Building a Better Bay Area: Fremont
"I want my community to be healthier, I want it to be a place that we're all proud of, and we can't do that when some of us are unhoused, when some of us don't have our basic needs met," said Chicoine, who added that the vast majority of the homeless are hidden. "They're in families, they're children, they're single adults who don't have a disability, but who have been disrupted by the economy."

The crisis weighs on the minds of many, including the congregation at Centerville Presbyterian Church, which has helped provide resources to the homeless community for years.

"We have a group of volunteer chaplains that sit with people and just listen to their story," said Gregory Roth, Centerville's senior pastor. "The whole idea is just to embrace their journey right now, and help us to understand what it is."

Fremont is an affluent suburb where the average home sells for a million dollars. But there's still space to build here, and the city has been aggressive with planning for a future that includes more transit-oriented housing, such as the many units currently under construction close to the Warm Springs BART station.

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley has also been working with the city on projects like Central Commons, which will eventually be home to more than 30 families, who've all had a hand in helping to build it through sweat equity.
RELATED: Building A Better Bay Area: Focus On Fremont

"I was overwhelmed and I thought to myself, there's no way I'm going to be able to do this as a single mom working full time," said Julieta Aquino, who recently moved into the Fremont development.

Aquino, a native of San Jose, thought about moving to Texas to save money, but can now stay in the Bay Area to raise her daughter closer to family.

"Just realizing that I'm walking up the stairs to my room, and saying goodnight to my daughter in her room, that's just, every single day I'm amazed at how far I've come," said Aquino.

California, as a whole, has a long way to go in terms of making a dent in the issues of homelessness and housing affordability.

"I think we need to do a better job of meeting each other, talking to each other, hearing from each other, and when we do that, I think some of this fear will go away," said Chicoine.

As the city deals with growing pains, you can't say the folks in Fremont aren't committed to Building A Better Bay Area.
Go here for the latest stories from ABC7's Building a Better Bay Area.
"Let's bring everyone together and recognize how can we address these solutions, rather than just complain or worry, but to actually take thoughtful action," said Mei.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building A Better Bay Area: Fremont's housing solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FREMONT, Calif. (KGO) -- For the past month, ABC7 News has been embedded in the City of Fremont and this week we'll bring you stories about their solutions to problems we're all facing. One of the most universal challenges for the Bay Area is housing - how to have enough, how to make it affordable, and how to get it for those who don't have it.

# data[].attributes.body
California Courts will implement a pilot project to allow remote appearances by parties, counsel, and witnesses for most noncriminal court proceedings, a pilot project using voice-to-text language interpretation services at court filing and service counters and in self-help centers, and a pilot project using intelligent chat technology to provide information and self-help services.

This recommendation has been assigned to a Judicial Council advisory committee who must report back at the end of the third quarter of 2017.

https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/releases-20170518

# data[].attributes.body
Court: 2015 Kraft-Heinz Merger Not Grounds for Last-Minute Transfer of Egg Antitrust Claims

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. tech firms defend themselves in responses to congressional antitrust queries

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. tech firms defend themselves in responses to congressional antitrust queries

# data[].attributes.body
1. The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee sent queries as part of its probe of the four giants, which face a long list of other antitrust probes. Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple responded to questions from a congressional committee with a mixture of defending their practices and declining to give answers.

2. I don't think that these actions are good or bad. The Judicial Branch is simply checking on these companies to make sure they are not breaking antitrust laws. If they do find something, it could negatively damage not only this industry and the US economy, given the influence these companies have, but the area of Silicon Valley, where we live.

3. Compared to the actions of the Executive and legislative branch, the Judicial Branch has to power to determine the constitutionality of laws, or in this case, antitrust probes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Reuters) - Two groups of U.S. state attorneys general on Friday announced separate antitrust probes of large tech companies such as Alphabet's Google () and Facebook ().

The first probe, led by New York and including seven other states and the District of Columbia, focuses on Facebook. The second, announced by Texas and likely to include up to 40 other states, did not specify the targets among large tech companies but was expected to center on Google.

Once lauded as engines of economic growth, the companies in social media, Internet search, e-commerce and other digital technologies have increasingly been on the defensive over lapses such as privacy breaches and their outsized market influence.

Politicians including President Donald Trump, consumers, other firms and regulators have criticized that power.

"I'm launching an investigation into Facebook to determine whether their actions endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers' choices or increased the price of advertising," New York Attorney General Letitia James tweeted.

"The largest social media platform in the world must follow the law," she said.

The Facebook probe will include New York, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and the District of Columbia, ( on.ny.gov/2lG1unu).

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office said it was leading an investigation of large tech companies but did not name them.

That probe, likely to include more than 40 state attorneys general, is expected to focus on Google, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. A second source previously said that the Google investigation would look at the intersection of privacy and antitrust.

Google's parent Alphabet said on Friday the Department of Justice in late August requested information and documents related to prior antitrust probes of the company. The company added in a securities filing that it expects similar investigative demands from state attorneys general, and that it is cooperating with regulators.

On the federal level, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission are probing Facebook, Google, Apple () and Amazon (), also for potential violations of antitrust law.

Trump has called for closer scrutiny of social media firms and Google, accusing them of suppressing conservative voices online without presenting any evidence.

Facebook's shares were down nearly 2% in afternoon trading. Google, Apple and Amazon stocks were virtually unchanged.

Will Castleberry, Facebook's vice president for state and local policy, said after the New York announcement that the company would work constructively with state attorneys general.

"People have multiple choices for every one of the services we provide. We understand that if we stop innovating, people can easily leave our platform. This underscores the competition we face, not only in the United States but around the globe," Castleberry said.

CRITICISMS OVER PRIVACY, MARKET CONTROL

The tech companies have come under fire repeatedly in recent years. Facebook, for example, has been slow to clamp down on hate speech, and it recently paid a $5 billion settlement for sharing 87 million users' data with the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The consultancy's clients included Trump's 2016 election campaign.

The social media platform, which owns one-time rivals Instagram and WhatsApp and has more than 1.5 billion daily users, has been criticized for allowing misleading posts and so-called "fake news" on its service.

Google has faced accusations that its web search service, which has become so dominant that it is now a verb, leads consumers to its own products at the cost of competitors.

"We look forward to working with the attorneys general to answer questions about our business and the dynamic technology sector," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in an email.

Amazon, the world's biggest online retailer, has been accused of unfair tactics with third-party sellers on its website, who must pay for advertising to compete against first-party and private label sales by Amazon itself.

Apple has come under fire from app developers over practices like making only iPhone apps available through its official App Store. The music-streaming app Spotify () has alleged that App Store policies make it difficult to compete against Apple Music for paid subscribers.

Amazon and Apple had no immediate comment.

State attorneys general often act jointly to influence policy, including when the federal government lacks the resources or is disinclined to act.

The attorneys general of 20 states and the District of Columbia teamed up with the U.S. Department of Justice in 1998 to sue Microsoft Corp () for trying to extend its monopoly in personal computer operating systems to internet browsing software. That case later settled.

More recently, 43 states and Puerto Rico sued Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd TEVA.O and 19 other drugmakers in May, accusing them of scheming to inflate prices and reduce competition for more than 100 generic drugs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
judicial process / court cases / court decisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. states launch antitrust probes of tech companies, focus on Facebook, Google

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Reuters) - Two groups of U.S. state attorneys general on Friday announced separate antitrust probes of large tech companies such as Alphabet's Google () and Facebook (). The first probe, led by New York and including seven other states and the District of Columbia, focuses on Facebook.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. tech firms defend themselves in responses to congressional antitrust queries

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. tech firms defend themselves in responses to congressional antitrust queries

# data[].attributes.body
1. To start a initiative in Florida to focus on awareness and effective ways to address opioid use disorder.
2.These actions are good because it's trying to inform people about the dangers about opioid abuse
3.The other branches started programs to fight opioids but the Judicial Branch starts a information program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Florida Courts Opioid Initiative is a statewide judicial branch response to Florida's opioid crisis, involving both statewide and circuit-specific efforts. The initiative focuses on awareness and effective ways to address opioid use disorder in problem-solving and family courts. It is guided by circuit teams comprised of judges and court staff who champion the initiative by developing specialized knowledge regarding opioids and medication-assisted treatment.

The six-prong initiative includes the following:

1. Circuit Champions Identification. Chief judges throughout the state have identified circuit judges and court staff "champions" who have agreed to become local subject matter experts regarding opioids and medication-assisted treatment. Florida has 71 circuit champions from all 20 circuits.

2. Circuit Champions Self-Study. Each circuit champion has embarked on a self-study, reading selected articles, listening to opioid podcasts, watching documentaries, and seeking knowledge from local experts. They are also participating in a series of facilitated statewide conference calls, creating a community of shared learning.

3. Florida Courts Opioid Awareness Month. Chief Justice Charles T. Canady issued a proclamation on April 24, 2019, proclaiming July 2019 to be known within the State Courts System as a month of awareness regarding opioids and the treatment for opioid use disorder. Florida courts will launch an awareness campaign during July, including the distribution of weekly learning resources throughout the branch and circuitwide awareness events.

4. Training Needs Assessment. The circuit champions will encourage all judges and court staff in problem-solving courts and dependency courts to complete a survey regarding intention, attitudes, and norms toward medication-assisted treatment. Information from the survey responses will help inform curriculum for future training events.

5. National Conference Attendance. The circuit champions will attend the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependency conference in Orlando in October 2019. They will also attend a Florida-specific pre-conference seminar.

6. Regional Trainings. Using the responses from the training needs assessment and the developed expertise of the circuit champions, the Office of the State Courts Administrator will coordinate five regional trainings to be offered in 2020.

OSCA is partnering in the Opioid Initiative with a research team at the University of Central Florida (UCF), led by Basia Andraka-Christou, J.D., Ph.D. This team also includes Danielle Atkins, Ph.D., M.P.A., Yara Asi, Ph.D., Rachel Totaram, M.H.A., and Fatema Ahmed, M.H.A. The UCF team is evaluating effectiveness of the Opioid Initiative, collaborating in the design of educational programming for court staff, and evaluating evidence-based practices in courts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Florida Courts Opioid Initiative is a statewide judicial branch response to Florida's opioid crisis, involving both statewide and circuit-specific efforts. The initiative focuses on awareness and effective ways to address opioid use disorder in problem-solving and family courts.

# data[].attributes.body
The article talks about how people living in California don't feel like the governor Gavin Newsom isn't putting in any effort into fixing the housing crisis and homelessness. Governor Newsom  states that he would pass a bill that would help both problems, but activists say other wise "Local governments raised concerns that the bill could change the character of neighborhoods while some housing activists argued it would accelerate gentrification."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Crisis. Emergency. California lawmakers are describing the state's housing crunch in dire terms.

But few seem to agree on what to do about it.

The political wrangling over the last few weeks around bills to cap rent increases, set new rules for evictions and cut red tape to build more housing reveals big splits in the Legislature when it comes to one of the most pressing issues of the session.

All of it comes even after Democrats expanded their majorities in the Senate and Assembly during the 2018 election while also watching a new governor from their own party ride to office pledging that California would build millions of new housing units.

Randy Shaw, a longtime housing activist in San Francisco, is among those who believe Gov. Gavin Newsom must get more involved to follow through on his pledges of building new housing and curbing homelessness.

Shaw was particularly upset the Assembly didn't even vote on a bill to make it harder for landlords to evict tenants.

"A supermajority of Democrats in the bluest of states completely abandoned the state's tenants," said Shaw, author of "Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America."

Newsom came to office in January urging lawmakers to pass legislation protecting tenants but has stayed out of public debates on it. His budget includes more funding to prevent homelessness as well as develop affordable housing.

Assembly Bill 1481 would require landlords have a valid reason for evicting tenants, known as just cause. Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, sponsored it and said it's up to the Legislature to come together and get it to Newsom.

"We have a governor who said, 'put tenant protection bills on my desk and I'll sign them,'" said Bonta, pointing to Newsom's call to action in his State of the State address.

A spokesman for Newsom said the governor was pleased work continues on advancing legislation like the rent cap bill. Newsom is focused on getting more funding and incentives for housing in the budget, which must be passed in the Legislature by June 15.

Another closely watched housing bill hit a wall when Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Cañada Flintridge and chairman of a powerful committee, said it would not get a vote this year. The measure, Senate Bill 50, would have overridden local zoning rules to allow for the construction of more housing in some areas, such as around transit.

Local governments raised concerns that the bill could change the character of neighborhoods while some housing activists argued it would accelerate gentrification.

One major housing bill that eked out of the Assembly last week came with some big concessions to allay the opposition of a prominent critic: the California Association of Realtors. The bill now goes to the state Senate for consideration.

While Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, had proposed capping rent increases at 5 percent a year plus inflation, he agreed to raise the cap to 7%. And he agreed to let the cap expire in 2023 while also exempting landlords owning fewer than 10 single-family homes. The bill would also exempt housing built within the last several years.

A legislative analysis suggested that a cap of 5% would have remained well above the median rent increase.

The vote on Assembly Bill 1482 still came down to a dramatic last push, with several Democrats opposing the bill over concerns it would not exempt mom-and-pop landlords or go far enough to protect renters.

The battles over the three bills point to the lack of any political consensus on the issue and tangle of overlapping interest groups involved.

Proponents of building more housing blame in large part a "not in my backyard" attitude and the political clout of suburbia for stymieing their favored legislation.

But some of the same groups pushing to cut red tape around the construction of new homes are also fighting caps on rent increases or limits on eviction.

Apartment owners and Realtors have argued those measures will not address a lack of housing.

"There's nothing in this bill that encourages one new rental unit in the state of California," Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, said of Chiu's bill to cap rent increases.

Opponents also note that Californians voted down a ballot measure last year that would have allowed cities to expand rent control.

Advocates of building denser housing have had some victories. Lawmakers are advancing legislation that would make it easier to build "accessory dwelling units," such as bungalows or casitas in the backyards of existing homes. Some local governments are looking to such housing as a means of creating more housing in neighborhoods without building big condominiums or rows of townhouses. It could turn out to be an understated solution to a dearth of rental homes.

And as more Californians become renters, some activists and consultants argue that the politics around housing might change. California YIMBY Victory Fund, a political action committee, has emerged to back candidates specifically on housing issues. And technology companies in pricey areas like Silicon Valley and San Francisco are jumping into the issue, too.
© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Worsening California Housing Crisis Stymies State Lawmakers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Crisis. Emergency. California lawmakers are describing the state's housing crunch in dire terms. But few seem to agree on what to do about it. The political wrangling over the last few weeks around bills to cap rent increases, set new rules for evictions and cut red tape to build more housing reveals big splits in the Legislature when it comes to one of the most pressing issues of the session.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global Trade is Stalling as Trump Tariff fights drag on (WBO)

# data[].attributes.subject
Global Trade is Stalling as Trump Tariff fights drag on (WBO)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Currently, the judicial branch is not exclusively a part of this matter. It is mainly focused in the executive and legislative branch of Congress, as it is under the matters of foreign affairs.
2.  Nothing much has really changed, the conflict is just dragging on as both sides are experiencing that their financial conditions are tightened.
3. There is growing uncertainty in China concerning their trade policies, evident as "Trade War" increases in search volume.
- Expected to keep dragging on throughout next decade... Executive branch is likely going to push for US "victory" in trade conflict while Trump remains in office. Judicial branch will likely only step in to monitor the extent of the power of tariffs the President can control before there is interference from Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The trade war is taking a massive toll on the global economy.

The bank expects an "extended truce," and sees the drag on growth waning next year, "assuming that tariffs stay at current levels through 2020."

Below are four charts showing the damage of the trade war on both sides.

View Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The trade war is taking a massive toll - earlier this week, the World Trade Organization warned that global trade was stalling because of it.

Goldman Sachs economists said that the trade war is hitting China the hardest - mainly due to the drop in net trade.

The bank expects an "extended truce," and sees the drag on growth waning next year, "assuming that tariffs stay at current levels through 2020."

Still, the impact has been clear. Below are four charts showing the extent of the damage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These 4 Goldman Sachs charts show how hard Trump's trade war is hitting the US and China | Markets Insider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US-China trade war is taking a massive toll on the global economy. Goldman Sachs expects an "extended truce" and sees the drag on growth waning next year, "assuming that tariffs stay at current levels through 2020." Still, the impact has been clear. Below are four charts showing the damage of the trade war on both sides.

# data[].attributes.body
1) There needs to be more action in the Judicial Branch.
2) They're not enough.
3) More action needs to happen in all 3 branches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 100 days have passed since mass shootings at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and a nightlife area in Dayton, Ohio, left 31 dead over a span of hours on a weekend. Amid the shock and horror that followed, President Donald Trump started out saying all the right things.

He promised meaningful proposals like extending background checks and promoting "red flag" laws that allow judges to temporarily take guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others. " Politically," he said, "good, bad, or indifferent. I don't care."

Spoiler alert: He does care about the politics.

Latest death toll in shootings

After pushback from gun rights supporters, Trump put the issue on ice. Meanwhile, the killings continue unabated. Five students were shot, two of them killed, at a high school in Santa Clarita, California, last Thursday. Ten people were shot, four of them fatally, at a football-viewing party in Fresno on Sunday. And three were shot and killed Monday at a Walmart in Duncan, Oklahoma.
OPPOSING VIEW: More 'gun safety' laws aren't the answer to 'gun violence'
For a while after Dayton and El Paso, it looked like this time might be different. At the urging of Trump's daughter Ivanka, the White House began assembling the promised proposals and opened negotiations on Capitol Hill for new legislation.

Expanding background checks was overwhelmingly popular. As if to tragically underscore the need for reform, a gunman who failed a background check at a firearm store bypassed the system by buying an AR-style rifle through a private sale. He opened fire with the weapon on Aug. 31 while driving through West Texas, killing seven people before being shot to death by police.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had refused to hold a vote on a House bill providing universal background checks passed in February. But a weaker, bipartisan alternative in the Senate would extend background checks to all commercial sales, including those on the internet and at gun shows. " If the president took a position on a bill ... I'd be happy to put it on the floor," McConnell said.

Then came the inevitable pushback from the National Rifle Association, which had pumped $30 million into Trump's 2016 election campaign. NRA chief Wayne LaPierre lobbied Trump six times against proposing new gun control measures, according to The Washington Post.

By late September, Trump had gone silent on the issue, and The Post reported that the president was abandoning plans to fight gun violence because he was worried it might cost him votes within his base.

Same on Ukraine, vaping

Trump isn't the first politician to sacrifice principle for the sake of holding onto power. But the chasm between what Trump says he cares about and his lack of follow-through grows more vast - and deadly - with each passing week.

He claimed Ukraine mattered, that he was concerned about the nation's endemic corruption. In reality, he worried more about Joe Biden's presidential candidacy and held up nearly $400 million in military aid to get political dirt on the Democrat. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor, is said to have put it plainly: Trump doesn't " give a s--- about Ukraine."

The same might be said about Trump's view of the teenage vaping epidemic. " People are dying with vaping," he said this fall, citing the first lady's urgent advocacy. The president was poised to ban the flavored electronic cigarettes that fuel teen usage. But once again, worried more about losing votes, Trump postponed plans for a policy rollout.

The dying doesn't stop just because Trump decides it's inconvenient to act. Ukrainian soldiers were killed in combat as he withheld military aid. Dozens of vaping-related deaths occurred as he was debating whether to curb the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. And then there's the never ending string of mass shootings.
If you can't see this reader poll, please refresh your page.
Federal action wouldn't prevent all such tragedies, but it would stop some of them. To not even try is disgraceful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump on gun laws is all talk, no action and more deaths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 100 days have passed since mass shootings at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and a nightlife area in Dayton, Ohio, left 31 dead over a span of hours on a weekend. Amid the shock and horror that followed, President Donald Trump started out saying all the right things.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Evolving Judicial Response to the War on Terrorism

# data[].attributes.subject
The Evolving Judicial Response to the War on Terrorism

# data[].attributes.body
1)US Justice department is trying to remove the Judicial Branch activity from anything regarding war on terrorism.
2) I believe this action could hurt the US because the Judicial Branch reviews laws and the Constitution, by removing their ability to participate in the war on Terrorism, we are taking away rational thoughts regarding the Constitution.
3) The Executive and Legislative Branches are trying to get more involved an have more power in the war on terrorism, while the Judicial Branch is being forced to step back because of the Justice Department.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 75, No. 12, December 2002

The Evolving Judicial Response to the War on Terrorism

Following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, does the United States need to relinquish some civil liberties to remain safe? If so, which liberties and who decides? Does the judicial branch take a back seat to the executive and legislative branches and their determinations on how the nation should fight terrorism? Or is this the time that the courts' scrutiny is most essential?

by Kendall W. Harrison

The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

* * *

eptember 11, 2001, changed the face of America. The horrific events of that tragic day have challenged the country's sense of security, its trust of those unlike us, and its faith in the future. But the long shadows of Sept. 11 stretch beyond any individual's sense of personal well-being. They have placed America's constitutional legacy under great strain as well.

The United States is waging an unprecedented and undefined "war" on terrorism. Congress has contributed to the war effort with its passage of the USA Patriot Act but otherwise has largely ceded control of the battle against terrorism to President George W. Bush. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, Congress granted President Bush authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" or "harbored such organizations or persons." More recently, Congress gave President Bush authorization "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to - (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The U.S. Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft, has largely tried to eliminate any judicial involvement in the war on terrorism, taking the position that federal judges have no jurisdiction to review executive branch decisions on national security measures. But the courts are not sitting idle while the Justice Department independently draws the line between national security and individual liberty. Instead, federal judges are taking an increasingly active role in resolving questions of individual constitutional rights, rights that come under immense pressure during times of war. Decisions such as Korematsu v. United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans, are reminders that the nation's sense of what national security requires during the heat of battle can look exaggerated through the lens of time. In making national security decisions, however, the executive branch must act without the benefit of hindsight.

No post-Sept. 11 terrorism cases have yet reached the U.S. Supreme Court. When they do, perhaps as early as the end of this current term, the difficulty of reconciling individual liberties with national security during times of war will not be lost on Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who, in 1998, wrote a book on the subject, All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime. He has stated:

"While we would not want to subscribe to the full sweep of the Latin maxum inter arma silent leges - in time of war the laws are silent - perhaps we can accept the proposition that though the laws are not silent in wartime, they speak with a muted voice."

Does the country need to relinquish some civil liberties to remain safe? If so, which liberties? The question of where to draw the appropriate line between national security and individual liberty is exceptionally difficult. Yet perhaps an even more complicated question is who should draw that line. Does the judicial branch necessarily take a back seat to Congress and President Bush and their determinations regarding how the nation should fight terrorism? Or is this the time when the courts' scrutiny is most essential?

This article briefly examines some of these questions in light of three specific areas in which the federal courts have faced the individual liberty/national security tension in the post-Sept. 11 world: closed immigration proceedings; secret detentions; and the definition of enemy combatants. (A fourth area, involving the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's rejection of some of the attorney general's new guidelines for terrorism searches and wiretaps, is fascinating, but beyond the scope of this article.)

These cases cut to the core of American constitutional democracy. With a remarkable 88 percent of Wisconsin residents approving President Bush's performance in the war on terrorism, Wisconsin attorneys should keep a careful eye on the consequences of that war effort. The decisions made now about the appropriate division of power between the political and judicial branches of government regarding terrorism will remain long after al-Qaida is vanquished.

Closed Immigration Proceedings

On Sept. 21, 2001, less than two weeks after the terrorist attacks, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a directive to all U.S. immigration judges and court administrators, informing them that the attorney general had "implemented additional security procedures for certain cases in the Immigration Court." Under the "Creppy Directive," as it has become known, the attorney general has the authority to designate an immigration case as one of "special interest." Once the attorney general makes that designation, all proceedings in the case become closed to the news media and the public (including the deportee's family members). Courts are forbidden from even "confirming or denying whether (a special interest case) is on the docket or scheduled for a hearing." The Creppy Directive does not require particularized reasons for closing a given deportation proceeding.

In the year that followed the Creppy Directive, the attorney general designated approximately 600 immigration matters as special interest cases. It did not take long for special interest designations to be challenged. Two of these challenges have already reached the federal courts of appeals. On Aug. 26, 2002, in Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the blanket closing of deportation proceedings pursuant to the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional. Six weeks later, in Ashcroft v. North Jersey Media Group Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion.

The Sixth Circuit opinion is replete with eloquent rhetoric, extolling the importance of open government:

"A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution."

"Democracies die behind closed doors."

"By the simple assertion of 'national security,' the Government seeks a process where it may, without review, designate certain classes of cases as 'special interest cases' and, behind closed doors, adjudicate the merits of these cases to deprive noncitizens of their fundamental liberty interests."

Openness is especially critical in deportation proceedings, explained the court, because the political branches of government can deport noncitizens based on reasons as simple as their race or beliefs. The Bill of Rights, which protects American citizens from such treatment, does not apply to noncitizens. Thus, "[t]he only safeguard on this extraordinary governmental power [of deportation] is the public, deputizing the press as the guardians of their liberty."

The court readily acknowledged the government's compelling interest in preventing terrorism and agreed that the executive branch was much better positioned than the judicial branch to understand how to accomplish that goal. Nonetheless, the court found that the Justice Department had not sufficiently explained why national security concerns could not be addressed case by case. The Sixth Circuit saw no reason that the Justice Department could not seek to keep sensitive intelligence information confidential, as the need arose, in individual cases.

The Third Circuit ruled otherwise, in a decision far more circumspect about the role of openness in deportation proceedings. The court found that the principle of Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, a case relied upon by the Sixth Circuit in Detroit Free Press that firmly established the public's right to attend criminal proceedings, did not extend to deportation proceedings. The history of deportation proceedings, said the Third Circuit in North Jersey Media Group, contained no long tradition of openness. Moreover, any positive role that public access might play in these proceedings did not outweigh the critical national security interests at stake. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Anthony J. Scirica agreed with his colleagues that the judiciary should give the executive branch considerable deference in these matters but sided with the Sixth Circuit in finding that national security interests could be protected case by case.

With this clear circuit split on the first major post-Sept. 11 terrorism issue, U.S. Supreme Court review is highly likely. If the Court accepts review of one or both of these cases, its ultimate ruling will depend, in large part, on whether it views the "war" on terror as equivalent to more traditional wars during which it has accorded the political branches considerable leeway to take whatever measures they deem appropriate. If another large-scale terrorist attack occurs on American soil, or United States military forces become bogged down in prolonged conflict in Iraq, the Court will be hesitant to rule against the president. The fact that Congress has explicitly authorized President Bush to fight the war on terror also makes substantial judicial deference likely. Nonetheless, some justices may not want to simply rubber-stamp the president's and the attorney general's decisions about the constitutional sacrifices necessary to maintain national security.

Secret Detentions

One of the hallmarks of American democracy has long been its prohibition on secret arrests and detentions. The United States has avoided the midnight "disappearances" that have plagued Latin American and other countries. Generally, when the government arrests someone in this country, it enters his or her name in an arrest log open to the public and provides him or her an initial appearance or arraignment before a judge, which also is open to the public. People do not languish in prison without being charged and without their families knowing of their plight. Sept. 11 has raised questions about this simple, yet bedrock, concept.

Within six weeks of that fateful day, the Justice Department had "detained" many more than 1,000 people in connection with terrorism-related investigations - without making public the precise number of people arrested, their names, their attorneys' names, the reasons for their detention, or their location. Despite demands from some members of Congress, and civil liberties and media organizations, the Justice Department refused and still refuses to release all this information.

Accordingly, on Oct. 29, 2001, the Center for National Security Studies and other groups and individuals filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the FBI, the INS, and the Office of Information Privacy, asking for certain categories of information:

the identities of each detainee, the circumstances of the detention or arrest, and the charges brought against the detainee;

the identities of the detainees' attorneys; and

the identities of the courts involved and any orders issued, along with the government's rationale for holding each individual.

In response to these requests, the Justice Department eventually acknowledged that it had detained 751 individuals on immigration violations and 129 people on federal criminal charges. Only one individual had been charged specifically in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.

For most of the individuals detained on immigration violations, the government disclosed their places of birth, their citizenship status, and the nature of the immigration charges. The government refused, however, to disclose their names, the dates and locations of their arrests and detentions, the names of their attorneys, and the dates of release for those released.

With respect to the individuals charged criminally, the Department of Justice released their names, as well as the dates charges were filed, the nature of the charges filed, the dates any of them were released, and their lawyers' identities. It refused to disclose, however, the dates and locations of their arrests and subsequent detentions. The Department of Justice released no information regarding individuals held on material witness warrants.

Not satisfied, several public interest groups brought a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in the District Court of the District of Columbia seeking the rest of the information they had requested. The Justice Department asserted that any further disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and endanger national security. The court accepted that argument but only in part:

"The Court fully understands and appreciates that the first priority of the executive branch in a time of crisis is to ensure the physical security of its citizens. By the same token, the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our Government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship."

Expressing considerable skepticism in response to the government's asserted need for blanket secrecy, the court ordered the disclosure of the identities of the immigration and criminal detainees and their attorneys. Nonetheless, it refused to force the Justice Department to provide the dates or locations of arrest or the locations of detention or release, accepting the government's contention that, with this information, terrorist organizations might be able to piece together a pattern of the government's investigation. This theory, known as the "mosaic theory," posits that terrorists might use seemingly innocuous, disparate pieces of information to build a picture of what the United States is doing to combat terrorism and thereby expose governmental weaknesses and possibly render detention facilities vulnerable to attack.

The district court has stayed its order pending appeal, recognizing that disclosure of the names would effectively moot any appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on Nov. 18, 2002. The court's acceptance or rejection of the mosaic theory will directly affect other terrorism-related cases and will signal just how much secrecy the war on terror demands.

Enemy Combatants

Two American citizens, Yaser Hamdi and José Padilla, are presently being held, indefinitely and incommunicado, in United States military facilities. The government maintains that the men are "enemy combatants," and that despite their status as American citizens, they are entitled to none of the constitutional protections available to criminal defendants. Instead, they are subject to the laws of war and military detention. Accordingly, the government contends that there is no need to file charges against Hamdi or Padilla or to provide them the right to counsel.

Hamdi, who, like John Walker Lindh, apparently had "affiliated" himself with the Taliban, surrendered to Northern Alliance Forces in Afghanistan in late 2001 and eventually was transferred to the Norfolk Naval Station Brig in Virginia in April 2002. Padilla was arrested by FBI agents in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and transferred to New York. The government maintains that Padilla was in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, and that he met with senior al-Qaida operatives to discuss plans to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States. On or about June 9, 2002, President Bush signed an order directing that Padilla be detained indefinitely for interrogation. Padilla then was transferred to the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.

Both men have filed habeas corpus petitions through counsel with whom they are not permitted to communicate. When Hamdi's habeas action was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, the judge issued an order providing Hamdi's appointed attorney unmonitored access to him. The court stayed its decision while the Justice Department appealed. In its appellate brief, the Justice Department argued that the federal judiciary could not even review the executive branch's designation of an American citizen as an enemy combatant: "[G]iven the constitutionally limited role of the courts in reviewing military decisions, courts may not second-guess the military's determination that an individual is an enemy combatant and should be detained as such."

The Fourth Circuit agreed in large part, but it refused to grant the executive branch blanket authority on enemy combatant designations. The court explained that although courts need to extend considerable deference to the executive branch on such designations, they do not have to cede all oversight. The court nevertheless reversed the district court's decision to allow Hamdi access to counsel and instructed it to give appropriate deference to the executive branch. The habeas petition remains pending, with the district court having ruled on remand, even after the Fourth Circuit's decision, that the sole authority the government has tendered to support Hamdi's continued detention - a two-page, nine-paragraph affidavit - is insufficient. The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on the Justice Depart-ment's appeal of that decision on Oct. 28, 2002. Hamdi is supported by a coalition of 18 civil liberties groups and 139 law professors, as well as an American Bar Association task force.

Padilla's habeas petition, filed in the Southern District of New York, has not yet been the subject of any rulings. Nonetheless, the Justice Department and Padilla's counsel and amici have engaged in a heated brief-writing battle. The Justice Department has raised several procedural concerns - whether Padilla has named the proper respondents, for example, and whether the Southern District of New York has jurisdiction over Padilla, who now is held in South Carolina. In addition, the government has backed off slightly on its argument, articulated in Hamdi, that the courts have no role in reviewing enemy combatant designations. Now, the government maintains that the judicial branch owes "great deference in matters of national security and military affairs, and deference is particularly warranted in respect to the exceptionally sensitive and important determination at issue here."

The U.S. Supreme Court will, in all likelihood, review one or both of these cases. The separation of power stakes are simply too high to allow lower courts to have the final word. As with the closed immigration proceedings cases, moreover, the Court will almost certainly speak with multiple voices when it issues its final ruling.

Conclusion

The executive branch is engaged in a jurisdictional struggle with the judicial branch over the war on terrorism. Attorney General Ashcroft and other administration officials do not want the courts second-guessing their decisions about how best to preserve national security. Interestingly, the attorney general has expressed the belief that keeping the courts out of the terrorism battle will ultimately preserve civil liberties rather than endanger them: "The fight against terrorism is a fight to secure civil liberties. Security secures something and what we're securing is freedom .... Our effort is not to impair civil liberties but to save them."

The attorney general's comments echo those of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, set forth at the outset of this article. Are Ashcroft and Jackson correct? Do Americans risk the loss of all civil liberties if a few constitutional corners are not cut in this time of terror? Although there is no clear answer, Americans should at least acknowledge the gravity of this question, the resolution of which will leave an indelible mark on the nation's constitutional history.

Kendall W. Harrison, U.W. 1995, is an attorney with LaFollette Godfrey & Kahn, Madison, concentrating in commercial, insurance, constitutional, and appellate litigation, as well as media law. He is also a lecturer in constitutional law at the U.W. Law School. He can be reached at com kharrison gklaw gklaw kharrison com. This article grew out of a presentation the author gave to the James E. Doyle Chapter of the American Inns of Court on Sept. 18, 2002.

Endnotes

Retired New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis reminded the Wisconsin legal community of that precise obligation in a Sept. 30, 2002, speech at the U.W. Law School. Aaron Nathans, Rights Being Trampled, Writer Says, Cap. Times, Oct. 1, 2002, at 3A.

10 Tamara Audi, U.S. Held 600 for Secret Rulings, Detroit Free Press, July 18, 2001, at www.freep.com/news/mich/secret18_20020718.htm.

43 These documents, and many others pertaining to the cases discussed in this article, can be found at the terrorism section of www.findlaw.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Evolving Judicial Response to the War on Terrorism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, does the United States need to relinquish some civil liberties to remain safe? If so, which liberties and who decides? Does the judicial branch take a back seat to the executive and legislative branches

# data[].attributes.body
This article explores the topic of the law in relation to a health care professional's religion and argues that "federal laws should protect religious conscience rights of heath care workers".

1) In November, a federal judge in New York denied new federal regulation protecting the rights of doctors, nurses and other health care workers to decline to participate in medical procedures that violate their "conscientious objections" (such as abortions due to religious reasons). The rule was intended to ensure that medical professionals would not have sacrifice their jobs in order to follow their religious beliefs.

2) The rule was struck down on purely technical grounds. However, some groups celebrated such as Planned Parenthood. Some argue that if this rule passed, it could harm women, LGBTQ members and other minorities. In the past, there have been several laws passed to accommodate " the rights and needs of individuals with conflicting interests".  However, in certain situations — such as regarding women’s reproductive rights (abortion and birth control) and euthanasia (assisted suicide) — it may be difficult to seek a balanced approach.

3) This was a court case, so the legislative branch and executive branch have little power over this situation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this month, a federal judge in New York struck down a new federal regulation protecting the rights of doctors, nurses and other health care workers to decline to participate in medical procedures that violate their conscientious objections. The rule was intended to ensure that medical professionals would not be compelled to sacrifice their profession and livelihood in order to adhere to their religious beliefs and practices.

Though the regulation was struck down on purely technical grounds, its dismissal was celebrated by the plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood and others as a victory for those minorities they claimed would have been harmed by the conscience rule, including women, LGBT persons and other minorities. In reality, however, the only minority groups truly harmed by the court's ruling are those Americans who choose to adhere to their religious principles and conscience.

American law, both legislative and judicial, has a magnificent tradition of accommodating the rights and needs of individuals with conflicting interests. Surely, such mutual accommodations should be the aspiration of regulations regarding health and medical care. Sadly, in certain contexts - such as regarding women's reproductive rights and euthanasia - achieving a balanced approach to competing rights is not the goal of some judges and legislators who instead seek to diminish and dismiss the rights of those Americans committed to abide by their religious tenets.

This attitude is inconsistent with the fundamentals of American civil rights, including the demands of the First Amendment and the principle of "equal treatment under the law."

Even in controversial contexts, legislators have successfully found a middle ground to provide rights to services to some individuals while simultaneously ensuring protections for those unable to provide those services on religious grounds. For example, Oregon, the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, codified this balance in its "Death with Dignity Act" with a provision stating that "no health care provider shall be under any duty ... to participate in the provision ... of medication to end [a person's] life ..." Each of the other nine states in which assisted suicide is legal have similarly provided hospitals and their medical staff the right to decline participation.

Unfortunately, despite Oregon and other states effectively employing such balance, respect for the conscience rights of heath care providers (and other Americans of faith) has been persistently attacked. The denigration and dismissal of religious belief is frequently advanced in association with both abortion and LGBT rights. Rather than seeking to ensure that these legal rights are balanced with the competing, authentic religious rights of others, many abortion and LGBT advocates frame values borne of religion as illegitimate and undeserving of respect, let alone entitled to legal protection. They assert that any accommodation of religious belief is tantamount to using religion as "a sword" to harm others.

Experience has now shown that the preservation of religious conscience protections need not impose significant burdens on others. This has not only been true in the context of assisted suicide, but a similar balance is employed in many states with regard to ensuring access to various forms of women's health care. The laws of numerous states, from New York to Nevada, allow pharmacists, nurses and other health care providers to have their conscience objections respected while balancing these provisions with others that ensure patients have access to all the treatment or medication to which they are legally entitled. Admittedly, the laws of certain states favor exclusively the rights of only the provider or the patient. The states that have a balanced approach, however, have proven that protecting competing legal rights need not be a zero-sum game.

Our courts and our culture must be reminded that America was founded by those who were seeking religious freedom; that is why they enshrined its protection in the First Amendment. A devout Jewish doctor who declines to issue an assisted-suicide prescription shouldn't be forced to choose between her career and conscience any more than a faithful Catholic attorney who doesn't want to work on a death penalty case, or a committed feminist web designer who doesn't want to build a pornographic website.

Mutual respect is the cornerstone of civil society. It is imperative that as Americans we recognize that a profound respect for religious conscience is essential to such civility.
* Moishe Bane is president, and Nathan Diament is executive director of public policy, of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal laws should protect religious conscience rights of heath care workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this month, a federal judge in New York struck down a new federal regulation protecting the rights of doctors, nurses and other health care workers to decline to participate in medical procedures that violate their conscientious objections.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court steps into Google-Oracle copyright fight

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court steps into Google-Oracle copyright fight

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the actions currently taking place in the Judicial Branch in relation to your topic?
The supreme court will hear a copyright case in which Oracle is suing Google for using Java's programing language without paying for it. Both the federal appeals court and the second appellate ruling was in Oracle's favor.
2. What do you think about these actions?
I think they are justified, the only reason it got so big was because the stakes were 9 billion dollars and both sides are huge tech companies.
3. How do the actions of the Executive and Legislative branch compare to what is happening in the Judicial branch?
The actions here are less political in nature, and more in the form of settling disputes where a lot of money is at risk. For this case in particular, it doesn't seem like the Judges' decision will change much in terms of the interpretation of the constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Friday it will referee a high-profile copyright dispute between technology giants Oracle and Google. Oracle says it wants nearly $9 billion from Google.

The case stems from Google's development of its hugely popular Android operating system by using Oracle's Java programming language.

A federal appeals court found that Google unfairly used Java without paying for it, the second appellate ruling in Oracle's favor. A trial court has yet to assess damages.

The justices agreed to review the appeals court ruling, and arguments are expected early next year.

The first Android phone went on sale in 2008 and Google says more than 2 billion mobile devices now use Android.

The dispute stretches back to 2010, when Oracle filed suit over Google's use of 11,500 lines of Java code. In the first of two trials, a federal judge ruled that so-called "application programming interfaces" (APIs) weren't protected by copyright.

After the appeals court overturned that ruling, a jury found in a second trial that Google had made "fair use" of the programming code.

"There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform," Judge Kathleen O'Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wrote in a decision siding with Oracle.

Microsoft was among many parties that urged the Supreme Court to upend the appeals court ruling. The Trump administration, responding to a request from the court for its views, said the justices should stay out of the case.

Google senior vice president Kent Walker said the company is pleased the court will hear the case. "Developers should be able to create applications across platforms and not be locked into one company's software," Walker said.

Associated Press writer Rachel Lerman contributed to this report from San Francisco.

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court steps into Google-Oracle copyright fight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Friday it will referee a high-profile copyright dispute between technology giants Oracle and Google. Oracle says it wants nearly $9 billion from Google. The case stems from Google's development of its hugely popular Android operating system by using Oracle's Java programming language.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Supreme Court’s Groundbreaking Privacy Victory for the Digital Age

# data[].attributes.subject
The Supreme Court’s Groundbreaking Privacy Victory for the Digital Age

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor that the government cannot take our phones tracking data without a warrant. They court said that the government must get a warrant to get the data, even if they ask the company for it. Even though the company may store it, we are still entitled to the privacy of it not be disclosed without our consent.
2. I think these are actions are really good, and I think they are using this to affect other areas. They are hopping the supreme court on privacy will pave the way for other cases and bring the privacy laws up-to the modern society.
3. The actions are similar to what is happening the in the legislative branch but no in the executive branch. The legislative branch is fighting back against companies selling our data without our permission for profit, but the executive branch is sinking more money into developing and using surveillance technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down what is arguably the most consequential privacy decision of the digital age, ruling that police need a warrant before they can seize people's sensitive location information stored by cellphone companies.

The case specifically concerns the privacy of cellphone location data, but the ruling has broad implications for government access to all manner of information collected about people and stored by the purveyors of popular technologies. In its decision, the court rejects the government's expansive argument that people lose their privacy rights merely by using those technologies.

Carpenter v. U.S., which was argued by the ACLU, involves Timothy Carpenter, who was convicted in 2013 of a string of burglaries in Detroit. To tie Carpenter to the burglaries, FBI agents obtained - without seeking a warrant - months' worth of his location information from Carpenter's cellphone company. They got almost 13,000 data points tracking Carpenter's whereabouts during that period, revealing where he slept, when he attended church, and much more. Indeed, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in Friday's decision, "when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user.".

The ACLU argued the agents had violated Carpenter's Fourth Amendment rights when they obtained such detailed records without a warrant based on probable cause. In a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court agreed, recognizing that the Fourth Amendment must apply to records of such unprecedented breadth and sensitivity:

Mapping a cell phone's location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder's whereabouts. As with GPS information, the timestamped data provides an intimate window into a person's life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his 'familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.'

The government's argument that it needed no warrant for these records extends far beyond cellphone location information, to any data generated by modern technologies and held by private companies rather than in our own homes or pockets. To make their case, government lawyers relied on an outdated, 1970s-era legal doctrine that says that once someone shares information with a "third party" - in Carpenter's case, a cellphone company - that data is no longer protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court made abundantly clear that this doctrine has its limits and cannot serve as a carte blanche for the government seizure of any data of its choosing without judicial oversight.

"There is a world of difference between the limited types of personal information addressed" by the 1970s doctrine, "and the exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers today," the decision reads. Back then, "few could have imagined a society in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, conveying to the wireless carrier not just dialed digits, but a detailed and comprehensive record of the person's movements."

If the government had its way, virtually none of our sensitive information held by tech companies would enjoy the privacy rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Consider the consequences of that argument: Google and Facebook store of our photographs and messages; many of us own smart devices like Amazon's Echo, which know our musical tastes, shopping history, and even the contents of intimate conversations; and our health and fitness apps know about our physical activity and sleep patterns. These examples barely scratch the surface when it comes to the information amassed by the websites, apps, and other internet-connected devices we rely on for convenience. The government wants easy access to all of it.

While the decision extends in the immediate term only to historical cellphone location data, the Supreme Court's reasoning opens the door to the protection of the many other kinds of data generated by popular technologies.

Today's decision provides a groundbreaking update to privacy rights that the digital age has rendered vulnerable to abuse by the government's appetite for surveillance. It recognizes that "cell phones and the services they provide are 'such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life' that carrying one is indispensable to participation in modern society." And it helps ensure that we don't have to give up those rights if we want to participate in modern life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court's Groundbreaking Privacy Victory for the Digital Age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down what is arguably the most consequential privacy decision of the digital age, ruling that police need a warrant before they can seize people's sensitive location information stored by cellphone companies.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Judicial Branch and The Affordable Care Act Implementation Process

# data[].attributes.subject
The Judicial Branch and The Affordable Care Act Implementation Process

# data[].attributes.body
This article is talking about how the Judicial Branch and the ACT is going to be put together. This article is talking about how Health Care is going to be more affordable. I like these actions because I feel like we should lower the price for Health Care so that more people can afford it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the Court settled the constitutionality of the ACA, the legal and political fight over implementation has been ongoing. This is evidenced by the recent Court opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, as well as the over 50 different court challenges making their way through the judicial process.

First, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires specified employer-sponsored group health plans to provide preventive care and screenings for women without any cost sharing requirements. However, Congress delegated to the Executive Branch the responsibility for promulgating regulations implementing this provision of the ACA. The case arose after the Department of Health and Human Services, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), proposed regulations which exempted religious organizations but not for-profit businesses. Hobby Lobby, organized under Oklahoma state law, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, organized under Pennsylvania state law, are for-profit corporations. The owners alleged that the regulations violated their religious beliefs.

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled HHS cannot, through regulations, require closely held corporations to provide contraceptive services against their religious beliefs. A majority of the Court said the regulations violate the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" (RFRA).

RFRA states the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." It provided an exception if two conditions are both met. The government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person-"(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The Court ruled the Federal government failed to meet this test.

It is important to note the decision did not affect the ACA statute. Rather it was directed at the regulations issued by HHS, concluding they violate the RFRA. The RFRA was enacted to prevent laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of his/her religion. It was introduced in 1993, by Representatives Howard McKeon [R-CA] and Dean Gallo [R-NJ]. It passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote and the Senate by a vote of 97-3. The legislation was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993.

The decision is narrowly written to apply only to closely held corporations. What is a closely held corporation? According to the Internal Revenue Service, a closely held corporation is one that:

Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and

Is not a personal service corporation.

The definitions for the terms "directly or indirectly" and "individual" are in IRS Publication 542, Corporations. A closely held corporation is subject to additional limitations in the tax treatment of items such as passive activity losses, at-risk rules, and compensation paid to corporate officers.

Justice Alito delivered the opinion for the Court with Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which she was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Beyer and Kagan. Justices Beyer and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Just a few days after issuing the Hobby Lobby opinion, a majority of the Court, in an unsigned opinion, granted an injunction requested by Wheaton College. The college objected to a two-page form which was the means by which nonprofit entities could opt out of providing contraceptive coverage. Wheaton objected saying the form, itself, violated its religious beliefs. The Court granted an injunction temporarily absolving the college from completing the form. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, wrote a biting dissenting opinion.

Another case to watch is Halbig v. Sebelius. This case involves a challenge to the ability of Federally-sponsored health exchanges to provide subsidies to individuals who purchase health insurance policies. Plaintiffs lost in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in March and an opinion is expected shortly. Two of the three judges hearing the case are Republican appointees and some believe they will rule against the Federal government.

There are several points which require mentioning. First, Hobby Lobby continues a trend by the Roberts Court in delineating the rights of corporations. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court, overturned the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibition on corporations using general treasury funds for political advertisements saying corporations have First Amendment rights (speech). While the Hobby Lobby decision is not directly based on the First Amendment, it is clearly falls within the same area. In the political arena, both Democrats and Republicans immediately made fundraising pitches based on their respective opinions as to the outcome of the case. Democrats emphasized the "negative" impact on women emphasizing the dissenting opinions of the female justices. Meanwhile, Republicans stressed "religious freedom" aspects of the decision. Only the November 2014 and 2016 elections will determine which party will ultimately prevail.

Second, as noted Hobby Lobby is certainly not the end of legal challenges to ACA implementation. The Halbig and other cases are slowly making their way through the judicial system. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will make the final judgments concerning ACA implementation.
Julius W. Hobson, Jr. is Senior Policy Advisor at Polsinelli P.C. and Adjunct Professor of Political Management, Graduate School of Political Management, George Washington University, where he teaches courses on Lobbying, Electoral and Legislative Processes, and Legislative Writing and Research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Judicial Branch and The Affordable Care Act Implementation Process - Morning Consult

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the Court settled the constitutionality of the ACA, the legal and political fight over implementation has been ongoing. This is evidenced by the recent Court opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, as well as the ...

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about one of the first supreme court cases on gun control in 10 years: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York. This case is about a New York law on gun control laws that allows people to obtain a handgun license but they are only allowed to have it in their possession at their home and in certain circumstances like going to the shooting range. In the special circumstances they are specific rules they have to follow when transporting the gun. No matter what they are not allowed to transport outside of New York City and that is what this case is about. They are scheduled to hear the oral arguments on December 2nd. This case is important because it may set the standards for how future 2nd amendment cases will be decided, especially because recently the 2nd amendment has had lots of restrictions put on it in the past from other states.
1. currently in relation to my topic the judicial branch is trying to figure out how to approach cases regarding the 2nd amendment. Due to the controversy with trying to not restrict the right too much the judicial branch is in the middle of a case that may set the standards for how future cases regarding the 2nd amendment will be approached and decided.
2. i think this case is very crucial because there hasn't been much done about the 2nd amendment or many laws to control gun violence and this might be the start of it. The judicial branch is helping make and impact on gun control.
3. the actions of the legislature compares to judicial because the legislature is starting to make laws but they haven't made any quite yet meanwhile the judicial branch is in the middle of a court case in the supreme court that 3will make a difference. Same thing with the executive branch they don't have many laws to enforce.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New York City's bizarre ordinance bans pistol permit holders from transporting their firearms outside of the city. (The irony seems to be lost on the eminently anti-gun municipality, which one would think wants as many guns to leave as possible). A group of residents who own handguns and want to transport them outside the city for a variety of reasons-to take them at another residence upstate, to compete and shoot out-of-state, and any other manner of otherwise lawful activities-brought a lawsuit. They lost in the district court, and again in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which claimed to apply some level of heightened scrutiny, but in actuality just rubber-stamped the city's invocation of "public safety."

Because Cato is concerned with the slipshod way in which Second Amendment claims have been handled in the various courts of appeal throughout the country since Heller, we have filed an amicus brief supporting these plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.

The lack of a clear standard of review in the Second Amendment context has encouraged the development of an unintelligible and wildly divergent body of law. The Supreme Court must establish clear ground rules for evaluating right-to-arms claims and enable the lower courts to develop a coherent, consistent approach to resolving the array of issues that will continue to arise: carry rules, new firearms technology, ammunition/magazine restrictions, licensing schemes, and the like.

Lower courts should engage in an informed analysis based on constitutional text, history, and tradition. Not buzzwords, not a thumb on the scale for states and municipalities. One of the greatest aspects of the American system of government is that the scope of our rights do not change over time (unless the Constitution is amended). They were quite deliberately fixed at the time of the Founding, and then again after a bitter Civil War. Using modern developments and evidence-free security claims as a reason to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to armed self-defense is inconsistent with our Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New York City's bizarre ordinance bans pistol permit holders from transporting their firearms outside of the city. (The irony seems to be lost on the eminently anti-gun municipality, which one would think wants as many guns to leave as possible).

# data[].attributes.headline
Governor Gavin Newsom today signed 25 bills aimed at setting a path to reform California's criminal justice system

# data[].attributes.subject
Governor Gavin Newsom today signed 25 bills aimed at setting a path to reform California's criminal justice system

# data[].attributes.body
“I am signing more than two dozen bills that give hope to those that have earned a second chance in our communities, and also support victims of crime,“
i think this is a good thing because their are many people who have things on their criminal record and this gives this a 2nd chance because they were wrongly accused

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration on Monday extended Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Salvadorans in the United States, granting them reprieve from removal to El Salvador.

Administration officials had insisted for weeks that the continuance of TPS was not on the table in exchange for the resumption of aid to the small Central American country, or the signing of a recent agreement on asylum seekers. An estimated 200,000 Salvadorans in the U.S. have TPS, making them the largest single group under the program. Many live in Los Angeles.

El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele, a millionaire millennial who has had warm words for President Trump and his officials, touted the move in a Twitter announcement on Monday morning as a victory for his newly elected administration.

"They said it was impossible," Bukele said. "That the Salvadoran government couldn't do anything. ... But we knew that our allies would not abandon us."

A U.S. District Court in Northern California last October blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating TPS for El Salvador and a handful of other countries. Administration officials have sought to dismantle the program as part of their wider efforts to reduce immigration. TPS offers recipients protection from removal and the right to work legally in the U.S.

The announcement also puts the U.S. in the difficult position of extending a program intended for people fleeing natural disasters or civil unrest, while at the same time effectively designating El Salvador a safe country for asylum seekers. The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Officials have offered little detail of the U.S. asylum agreement with El Salvador, which has yet to take effect. The deal was among several extensively negotiated with so-called Northern Triangle countries by outgoing acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who is due to step down this week.

Central America's Northern Triangle is an impoverished and violence-ridden region that accounts for the majority of migrants now fleeing to the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump administration extends protections for Salvadorans, allowing thousands to stay in U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration on Monday extended Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Salvadorans in the United States, granting them reprieve from removal to El Salvador. Administration officials had insisted for weeks that the continuance of TPS was not on the table in exchange for the resumption of aid to the small Central American country, or the signing of a recent agreement on asylum seekers.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Fronts and New Alliances in the war over fuel economy standards 

# data[].attributes.subject
New Fronts and New Alliances in the war over fuel economy standards 

# data[].attributes.body
1) Trump adminsitrations revoked California's authority and wanted to comproimise fture fuel economic ruels that benefit the economy

2) I think that these actions are good because its hekping the nevironment as well as helping the economy
3)I think this action is better than the legislative action because it is benefiting 2 things in one.

)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

FUEL ECONOMY'S DIVIDED HIGHWAY: General Motors was one of three automakers that filed Monday night to support the Trump administration's effort to rein in California clean vehicle rules - but it was the one facing the brunt of Democrats' criticism Tuesday.

That's because California courted General Motors, hoping to get it to support a deal the state struck with four other automakers, including Ford, to follow fuel economy and greenhouse gas limits stronger than what the Trump administration is proposing.

Instead, General Motors - along with Fiat Chrysler, Toyota, and the Association of Global Automakers - are siding squarely with President Trump in a move that is sure to escalate the fuel economy fight.

The group of automakers is intervening in litigation challenging the Trump administration's move to eliminate California's power to set its own greenhouse gas limits for passenger cars stronger than federal standards.

California has had that authority since the Clean Air Act was crafted in the 1970s. But now the Golden State's waiver is a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over climate policy, as the Trump administration tries to clamp down on California's aggressive climate regulations that in many cases set the tone for the rest of the country.

Since the Trump administration revoked California's authority, the Justice Department has also sued the Golden State over a portion of its centerpiece climate regulation, its cap-and-trade program.

Do actions speak louder than words? The lawsuit over California's authority is likely to be a lengthy and hard-fought legal battle, a scenario all automakers have said they wanted to avoid.

Even the automakers that are supporting the Trump administration in court say they still want a compromise on future fuel economy rules.

"We can still reach an agreement that is supported by all the parties," John Bozella, chief executive of Global Automakers, told reporters Monday night, according to the New York Times.

He added, though, that automakers have "historically taken the position that fuel economy is the sole purview of the federal government."

Nonetheless, Monday's legal filing may only drive California and the Trump administration farther apart: Former California Governor Jerry Brown had some choice words for the Trump administration and General Motors on Tuesday, during a hearing in a House Oversight subcommittee.

General Motors has tried to "torpedo" California's air pollution regulations in the past, Brown said. "Now they've come for a third round," he added, calling the automakers' intervention a "shameless effort" to protect profits.

Brown said General Motors would do well to remember what happened when other countries like Japan began building smaller, more efficient cars. Neither China nor Europe are cutting back on their vehicle standards, Brown said, noting they're actually doubling down.

"California is the way of the future," Brown said. "The combustion car is going away to the dodo bird. You've got to get with it or get out of the way."

Chaos on the Hill: Brown's remarks in Tuesday's hearing came after Republicans on the committee tried, ultimately unsuccessfully, to adjourn the hearing, citing impeachment hearings.

The motion to adjourn from Congressman Paul Gosar of Arizona drove the committee into an all-out fight that lasted more than a half hour, as subcommittee Chairman Harley Rouda of California stalled a vote on the motion.

"We're here to talk about the very pressing issue of cutting our carbon emissions and saving our planet, and we have an entire political party that's trying to get out of their job," New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an exchange with Republicans on the panel.

"I just want to know what the reason is for such a disrespect of this process," she added.

Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe) and Abby Smith (@AbbySmithDC). Email jsiegel@washingtonexaminer.com or asmith@washingtonexaminer.com for tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you'd like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn't work, shoot us an email, and we'll add you to our list.

REPUBLICANS LOSE ANOTHER CLIMATE LEADER: Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden 's retirement leaves another void for Republicans looking to address climate change.

Walden's surprise announcement Monday that he won't seek re-election follows the planned retirements of John Shimkus, R-Ill., his second-in-command on the energy committee, and Francis Rooney of Florida, the Republican co-leader of the Climate Solutions Caucus.

Walden could have continued as the top Republican on Energy and Commerce for another term until the end of 2022. He has held Oregon's 2nd District seat since 1999.

In his position, Walden, with Shimkus and Fred Upton of Michigan, has pushed the GOP to shift from skepticism of climate science to promoting private sector innovation as an alternative to regulation, taxes, or mandates.

"I got tired of having the Democrats try to define what the Republicans were for or not for," Walden told Josh in an interview for a this year. "We wanted to define it."

The horse race begins: Walden's departure will prompt a competition among committee Republicans to win the top GOP spot.

The next most senior Republican on the committee is Upton, who has already served as chairman and is reportedly also considering retirement.

Former GOP Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington plans to run for ranking member.

Sources tell Josh that other likely candidates include Michael Burgess of Texas, Bob Latta of Ohio, and Brett Guthrie of Kentucky.

Burgess said in a statement that he "intends to be the next Republican leader" of the committee, noting he has been chairman or leader for three of six subcommittees.

Guthrie, a member of the Climate Solutions Caucus, has "been receiving encouragement to run for the next leader of the committee," his office said.

SPREADING THE BOUNTY OF OIL IN SYRIA: Defense Secretary Mark Esper says by keeping several hundred American troops in Syria to prevent oil fields from falling into Syrian, Russian, or terrorist hands, the U.S. will be able to remain engaged with the Kurdish allies who helped liberate Syria from ISIS.

The U.S. is continuing to reinforce the defenses of the oil facilities in the vicinity of Deir ez-Zor in the eastern part of Syria, the Washington Examiner's Jamie McIntyre reports.

"The United States will retain control of oil fields," Esper said Monday during a press briefing at the Pentagon, noting during the brutal reign of ISIS the oil was the prime source of revenue for the terrorist group. Now he says the oil will be used to benefit the Kurds. "We want to make sure that SDF does have access to the resources in order to guard the prisons, in order to arm their own troops, in order to assist us with the Defeat ISIS mission," he said.

But that's not how Trump characterized it in a speech to a gathering of police chiefs at a conference in Chicago yesterday. "We're keeping the oil," the president said. "Remember that. I've always said that, 'Keep the oil.' We want to keep the oil."

IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK FOR CARBON CAPTURE: Democratic Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois wants to break down barriers to moving captured carbon dioxide around the country.

Her new bill, introduced today, would set up a number of financing tools for construction of carbon dioxide pipelines, including an authorization of $500 million for loans to trunk and feeder lines that would carry CO2 from power plants and other industrial facilities

The legislation - the Investing in Energy Systems for the Transport of CO2, or INVEST, Act - is part of Bustos' Rural Climate Partnership, which she earlier this year.

"It's a jobs, an economy plan, and also an environment plan," Bustos said of the bill at a briefing Tuesday.

The bill could be a critical step to building out carbon capture in the U.S.: Brad Crabtree, who co-directs the Carbon Capture Coalition, said at the briefing Bustos' bill is the first-ever legislative effort to finance carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure.

There are about 5,000 miles of carbon dioxide pipelines in the U.S. currently, but advocates for the technology say more is needed to help accelerate carbon capture buildout.

Bustos, for example, said carbon dioxide infrastructure is critical for her state and others in the Midwest, where there's significant potential both to attach carbon capture systems to ethanol plants and to store carbon underground. Illinois alone could store 27 billion to 109 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, Bustos said.

LESSONS ON BUILDING TRANSMISSION, FROM MICHAEL SKELLY: To succeed in overhauling the nation's transmission lines, Democrats running for president would have to go further down the path forged by Houston-based entrepreneur Michael Skelly.

According to Wall Street Journal reporter Russell Gold, Skelly was "tantalizingly" close to building what would have been an "electricity expressway" delivering renewable energy across the country.

Gold profiled Skelly and his company's nearly decadelong effort to fix the nation's Balkanized power grid in a book this year titled, Superpower: One's Man's Quest to Transform American Energy.

An important case study: The book, and Skelly's story, function as both a warning of and a guide to the challenges of building transmission lines, which Democratic presidential candidates such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have made a focus of their aggressive climate plans.

Skelly folded his company, Clean Line Energy Partners, in 2017, after local organizing, political agitating, federal government delay, and utility disinterest killed his plan.

His 720-mile proposed line, called Plains & Eastern, would have moved power from Oklahoma to Memphis, Tennessee, with the capacity to carry 4,000 megawatts of wind and solar, enough to power 1.5 million homes.

"Skelly will play a role in getting this across the finish line," Gold told Josh in a recent interview. "He may not get the glory of being there for the ribbon-cutting, but he is certainly one of the fathers of the idea."

Read more of Josh's story in this week's Washington Examiner .

CONGRESS TAKES ON TRUMP'S 'BACK ROOM' RFS POLICY: House Democrats agitated Tuesday for the Trump administration to provide more transparency regarding its generous granting of exemptions to small oil refiners from having to blend biofuels into their supply.

"There is simply no transparency in this process, and these decisions are far too consequential to be made in a dark, back room without any sunlight," Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone of New Jersey said at a hearing on the exemptions.

Pallone criticized EPA's latest proposal to reform the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is aimed at appeasing farmers and ethanol backers who claim the waivers for refineries have hurt demand for biofuels.

"President Trump is pitting farmers and refiners against each other to the detriment of all stakeholders and consumers," Pallone said. "As a result, the RFS does not appear to be working the way it should for anyone involved."

Pallone and other Democrats pushed for passage of bipartisan legislation, the Renewable Fuel Standard Integrity Act, which would require public disclosure of information related to petitions for small refinery exemptions. Applications are currently confidential.

Chet Thompson, the CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, warned the bill would "eliminate" the waiver process by exposing "critical confidential business information protections."

While the ethanol industry has blamed idled plants and loss of jobs on the refinery exemptions, Thompson said, "all available data shows that there has been no decline in domestic biofuels consumption as a result of small refinery waivers."

SOLAR TAX CREDIT FIGHT GOES LOCAL: More than 70 business and environmental groups representing all 50 states sent a letter to Congress Tuesday calling for lawmakers to pass legislation extending the solar investment tax credit for five years.

"The federal ITC has been a critical innovation policy creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, lowering electricity prices for families and businesses, reducing carbon emissions, and maintaining America's competitive edge in emerging energy technologies," the groups said in the letter, which was organized by the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Signatories to the include the Alliance for Clean Energy New York; American Farm Bureau Federation; The Maryland, DC, and Virginia Solar Energy Industries Association; and more.

The solar investment tax credit is scheduled to start phasing down at the end of this year.

PG&E IS FEELING THE HEAT: Wildfires blazing in northern California could be linked again to Pacific Gas & Electric equipment failures.

California's largest investor-owned utility filed two incident reports with state utility regulators Sunday acknowledging broken electrical wires and a downed pole and transformer near where fires were started in Lafayette, California. The reports to the California Public Utility Commission, made public Monday, said workers were looking into the incidents as "a potential ignition source."

PG&E's filings come as the utility is preparing to again shut off power in as many as 32 California counties, amid severe wind conditions in the state and increased risk of wildfires. The outage, which the utility warns could last more than 2 days for some customers, is the third planned blackout in recent weeks.

The utility's handling of the blackouts has drawn sharp criticism from California officials - including Governor Gavin Newsom, who has accused PG&E of mismanagement to the detriment of the California public.

NEW NO. 2 IN EPA'S AIR OFFICE: Kelley Raymond - currently director of government affairs for the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute - is expected to start in the role next month.

Raymond, who also previously worked at the National Association of Manufacturers, is taking over for Clint Woods, who left the post earlier this month. Woods, who ran the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies before joining the EPA, joined the Ohio State University as director of strategic partnerships in the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.

STATES FIGHT FOR CLEAN ENERGY RIGHTS: A coalition of 11 Democratic attorneys general sent a to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday calling on it to recognize the rights of states like theirs to set clean energy policy.

"Now, more than ever, it is essential for the states and the Commission to work together to ensure that the Commission's actions advance, not impede, state policies and prerogatives," wrote attorneys general Maura Healey of Massachusetts, Xavier Becerra of California, William Tong of Connecticut, and others.

The letter comes as FERC is reviewing a new rule proposed by PJM, the country's largest grid operator, that could undermine Democratic state policies designed to subsidize clean energy.

The Rundown

Murray Energy files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

Wall Street Journal How PG&E's aging equipment puts California at risk

New York Times Aramco IPO will be less gigantic than promised

Iran's thirsty energy industry runs up against water shortage

Calendar
TUESDAY | OCTOBER 29
2:30 p.m. Senate Visitors Center, Room 200/201.Senate Democrats Special Committee on the Climate Crisis holds a hearing entitled, "Dark Money and Barriers to Climate Action."
WEDNESDAY | OCTOBER 30
10:00 a.m. 406 Dirksen. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee a hearing on the nomination of Sean O'Donnell to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency.

10:30 a.m. 2322 Rayburn. The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy Subcommittee holds a entitled, "Building a 100 Percent Clean Economy: Solutions for the U.S. Power Sector."

2:30 p.m. 210 Cannon. The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis will hold a hearing on "Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture"
THURSDAY | OCTOBER 31
10:00 a.m. 1225 Eye Street NW. The Bipartisan Policy Centerhosts an entitled "Scaling Carbon Removal: From Public Innovation to Commercial Opportunity." Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz delivers a keynote address.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Daily on Energy: New fronts and new alliances in the war over fuel economy standards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past two years, President Donald Trump has tested the limits of his executive authority - and infuriated his opponents in the process. | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Time and time again as President Donald Trump has sought to make monumental changes to U.S. policy, he's relied on the same justification: national security.

When he restricted travel from several majority-Muslim countries days after his inauguration in January 2017, his administration argued that the ban was necessary to protect Americans from terrorists. When he launched a global trade crackdown, his advisers insisted that steel imports from longtime American allies like Canada and the European Union threatened the United States. When his team proposed a now-defunct plan to boost the ailing coal industry, it asserted that America's growing dependence on natural-gas-fired electricity was making it too vulnerable to pipeline attacks.

Story Continued Below

Now, Trump and his senior aides are arguing that there's a security crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border as they weigh whether to move forward with an unprecedented national emergency declaration that could grant the president the authority to unilaterally build a wall.

Before he became president, Trump repeatedly his predecessor, President Barack Obama, for embracing the powers of the executive branch in the face of an obstinate Congress. But like many presidents before him, Trump has learned that governing is a whole lot easier when you can do it on your own.

Trump and his advisers now see raising the specter of a national security threat as one of the most powerful tools in their arsenal, allowing them to make decisions carrying massive consequences with little oversight from Congress. Over the past two years, Trump has tested the limits of his executive authority - and infuriated his opponents in the process.

"It's his universal solvent," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law expert at the University of Texas at Austin, referring to the administration's inclination to cite national security to justify major policy moves.

But by relying on the rationale so often, Trump risks endangering the long-term credibility of the executive branch, some experts warn. Judges weighing the merits of inevitable court challenges to his moves might not believe the White House's national security justifications, and lawmakers might take steps to limit the power of the presidency, as they did in response to frustrations with President Richard M. Nixon.

"The long-term impact is an erosion of trust in the executive branch, which may come back to bite," Chesney said.

The origins of Trump's national-security-focused strategy date back to the months after he won the election, when his top aides were scrambling to come up with a plan to make good on his campaign promises without running afoul of the law, according to people familiar with the matter.

Steve Bannon, then a top presidential adviser, instructed Trump's team - including policy aides like Stephen Miller, who focused on immigration, and trade adviser Peter Navarro - to come up with ways to stretch the president's executive power, aware that Trump's agenda would face resistance from Congress.

By the time Trump took office, it became clear that justifying key policies on national security grounds could lend the president the expanded authority he sought.

"The president is at the apex of his authority when operating in the context of national security and in times of a national emergency," a former White House official said. "It's the best legal argument."

Bannon, in an interview, said the national security rationale helped pave the way for the central policy successes of Trump's presidency so far.

"Trump won the presidency on two issues - immigration and trade, especially trade with China," he said. "You have to find a forcing function for both of these, and that was national security. Solutions to both issues are undergirded by national security concerns - whether that's steel production, technology theft or the wall."

Bannon and other hard-line backers of the president are among the leading public advocates for declaring a national emergency at the border, arguing that it's the only way to overcome the stalemate in Congress. But some in the White House and in Congress are urging caution, warning that the move might not survive court challenges.

"It's more than just optics, it's more than just an exit ramp," Bannon said. "This is the way you actually get your wall built."

For decades, lawmakers have included provisions in statutes that allow the executive branch to waive parts or all of certain laws on national security grounds. And courts, generally speaking, are reluctant to second-guess a president's national security rationales.

"This administration, perhaps more than prior administrations, doesn't feel bound by the political risks" of making frequent national security determinations, said Scott Anderson, a legal expert with the Brookings Institution.

The president's opponents accuse him of exaggerating national security threats in order to push through his agenda without the input of Congress, a co-equal branch of government.

Critics of the travel ban, for example, said the administration was using national security to justify a discriminatory act aimed simply at keeping Trump's campaign pledge to bar Muslims from entering the United States.

"This administration uses national security as a foil so that it can pass draconian policies that the American people don't agree with and go against our values," said Sirine Shebaya, a senior staff attorney at Muslim Advocates, a legal group.

Several court challenges to the initial travel ban forced the administration to adjust it multiple times; ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed a version to stand.

Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports infuriated longtime allies, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada last year calling the idea that Ottawa posed a national security threat to the United States "insulting" to U.S. and Canadian soldiers "who had fought and died together on the beaches of World War II, on the mountains of Afghanistan and have stood shoulder to shoulder in some of the most difficult places in the world."

In imposing the tariffs, the White House dusted off Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to unilaterally impose trade barriers if the Commerce Department finds that imports threaten national security. The administration argued that unfair trade imports were threatening to wipe out the U.S. steel and aluminum industries, which are important to the country's military industrial base.

The national security trade law has been invoked 30 times between 1962 and 2018, but there have been no previous cases that resulted in tariffs.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry took a similar approach in pushing a plan to protect money-losing coal and nuclear power plants out of a concern that the nation's growing dependence on natural gas created an increased threat of physical and cyber attacks on pipeline infrastructure.

A leaked draft proposal pitched to the National Security Council last year laid out how the White House might invoke national security to prop up power plants for as long as two years, a rationale that many congressional Republicans balked at. However, POLITICO that the scope of the Energy Department's proposal proved too broad for some in the White House, which put the plan on ice last fall.

While Trump has regularly used national security as a justification for major policy moves, he has occasionally declined to employ it when some hoped he would.

For instance, Obama used his waiver authority to lift sanctions on Iran as part of an international nuclear deal, arguing that adhering to the deal was critical for U.S. national security. Trump ultimately refused to waive the sanctions as a result of his desire to exit the nuclear deal.

While Trump has not yet decided whether to declare a national emergency to build his wall, administration officials spent the week making the case to the public that the situation at the border amounted to a crisis - a contention that many experts dispute, noting that apprehensions of people trying to cross the southern border are much lower than in past years.

During a prime-time address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, Trump made no mention of declaring a national emergency. But he called the situation at the border a "growing humanitarian and security crisis."

Arguing that some illegal immigrants are a threat to the public, Trump asked, "How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?"
Adam Behsudi and Darius Dixon contributed to this report.
This article tagged under:

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning - in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'It's his universal solvent': How Trump sidelines Congress by invoking national security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Time and time again as President Donald Trump has sought to make monumental changes to U.S. policy, he's relied on the same justification: national security. When he restricted travel from several majority-Muslim countries days after his inauguration in January 2017, his administration argued that the ban was necessary to protect Americans from terrorists.

# data[].attributes.headline
California Governor Signed More Than 2 Dozen Criminal Justice Laws

# data[].attributes.subject
California Governor Signed More Than 2 Dozen Criminal Justice Laws

# data[].attributes.body
The California Governor signed 25 criminal justice bills that will soon go into effect. Notable ones include the delay of facial recognition technology being included on police body cameras, and speeding up the process of expunging previous records. I think that the majority of these Executive actions are good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) - California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a flurry of criminal justice reforms Tuesday evening, including measures that bar law enforcement from using facial recognition software in body cameras, speed up the expungement process and end certain sentencing enhancements.

"I am signing more than two dozen bills that give hope to those that have earned a second chance in our communities, and also support victims of crime," Newsom said in a statement. "These bills show a new path to ensure our state moves closer toward a more equitable criminal justice system."

Under Assembly Bill 1215, law enforcement agencies will have to wait at least three years before they can equip officers with body cameras installed with biometric surveillance technology that can systematically take and store photos of Californians.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics of facial recognition technology want to keep law enforcement agencies from installing the software on officer body cameras until developers such as Amazon and Microsoft can work out the kinks. The group claims the budding technology is prone to misidentifying minorities and is unfit for deployment on California streets.

"Rather than facilitating the expansion of a discriminatory surveillance state, California must invest its precious resources to foster free, healthy communities where everyone can feel safe - regardless of what they look like, where they're from, how they worship or where they live," said ACLU of Northern California attorney Matt Cagle in a statement.

Though the measure was widely opposed by law enforcement groups who painted the ban as "heavy-handed," the measure both chambers with bipartisan votes.

Supporters backed their arguments with a series of ACLU studies that used Amazon's facial recognition software, called Rekognition, to cross-check 120 California legislators against a database of 25,000 publicly available mugshots. The algorithm falsely identified 26 of the lawmakers - including AB 1215 author Assemblyman Phil Ting.

Another test found Amazon's product incorrectly matched 28 members of Congress to the mugshots of other people.

In light of the studies, Amazon defended its software and accused the ACLU of rigging the test to create mismatches.

Ting, D-San Francisco, says his bill will help keep cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles from becoming "police states" and give technology companies time to develop more reliable software. The measure goes into effect in January and sunsets in 2023.

"The public wanted their officers and deputies to use body cameras to provide accountability and transparency for the community. The addition of facial recognition technology essentially turns them into 24-hour surveillance tools, giving law enforcement the ability to track our every move. We cannot become a police state," Ting said in a statement.

City councils in San Francisco, Oakland and Somerville, Massachusetts, have voted to ban government use of facial surveillance, and the Massachusetts Legislature is considering a similar moratorium.

Also included in the 25 criminal justice reform bills signed by Newsom Tuesday is a measure that tasks the state with implementing a system that will automatically expunge certain arrest records.

Ting's bill excludes registered sex offenders or individuals with pending criminal cases and will apply to people arrested after Jan. 1, 2021. Republican lawmakers largely voted against the bill, but it passed due to Democratic majorities in both chambers.

The Department of Justice calculated that the bill will cost more than $13 million from fiscal years 2019-2024 to implement, and the Judicial Council estimated it would cost the courts between $460,000 and $880,000 annually.

Supporters say the process will reduce recidivism rates and make it easier for people to apply for jobs and public housing.

"Many Californians living with past criminal records have completed their sentences and paid their debts, yet still face thousands of legal prohibitions preventing eligibility for jobs, housing and many other keys to family stability and economic mobility," Lenore Anderson, president of Californians for Safety and Justice, said in a statement. "It's time for meaningful rehabilitation."
Other notable criminal justice measures signed Tuesday:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Governor Signs Bevy of Criminal Justice Bills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) - California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a flurry of criminal justice reforms Tuesday evening, including measures that bar law enforcement from using facial recognition software in body cameras, speed up the expungement process and end certain sentencing enhancements.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The president is creating a council to fight against housing crisis and members from eight different federal agencies are also taking actions.
2. I think that these are good actions because this will help people out a lot, especially in the bay area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that establishes a White House Council tasked with identifying and removing barriers hindering the development of affordable housing.

In effect, he is "tearing down red tape in order to build more affordable housing," a White House release said.

The council will comprise members of eight federal agencies and be chaired by Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson. Its creation will "streamline interagency processes and deliver results even faster," the White House said.

This will require the council to meet with state and local leaders to identify issues impeding the development of affordable housing, and to assess the impact of state, federal and local regulations on the cost of such development.

Among the specific issues the council will aim to tackle include ways to cut excessive costs in order to spur construction.

According to the White House, many of the markets that suffer the most from a lack of affordable housing have the most restrictive state and local regulations. More than a quarter of the cost of building a new home is a direct result of regulation, the White House said, and this is has slowed the pace of single-family and multifamily construction so that it cannot keep up with new household formations.

According to the Census Bureau, only seven homes were built for every 10 households formed from 2010 to 2016.

To address the problem, the council will make regulatory recommendations designed to spur the development of more affordable housing.

"With the signing of today's Executive Order, President Trump is prescribing a powerful treatment that correctly diagnoses the source of America's affordable housing condition: this is a matter of supply and demand, and we have to increase the supply of affordable homes by changing the cost side of the equation," said Carson. "Increasing the supply of housing by removing overly burdensome rules and regulations will reduce housing costs, boost economic growth, and provide more Americans with opportunities for economic mobility."

The National Association of Home Builders applauded President Trump for making housing a top national priority.

"With housing affordability near a 10-year low, the president's executive order on this critical issue underscores that the White House is ready to take a leading role to help resolve the nation's affordability crisis," said NAHB Chairman Greg Ugalde. "Given that homeownership historically has been part of the American dream and a primary source of wealth for most American households, the need to tackle ongoing affordability concerns is especially urgent...NAHB will continue to work with the White House and Secretary Carson to find innovative solutions to increase the production of sorely needed quality, affordable housing."

The National Association of Realtors concurred.

"Four nearly four decades, U.S. household incomes have increased at a slower rate than home prices, a problem that was only made worse by the Great Recession," said NAR President John Smaby. "Today, despite historic economic growth and recovery, misguided regulations and gaps in new home constructions have stopped far too many Americans from purchasing a home."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump signs executive order to tackle lack of affordable housing - HousingWire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that establishes a White House Council tasked with identifying and removing barriers hindering the development of affordable housing. In effect, he is "tearing down red tape in order to build more affordable housing," a White House release said.

# data[].attributes.body
1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump's first State of the Union address offers the president an opportunity to list his achievements over the past year and outline his policy agenda for the year to come. In the realm of technology policy, the past year has seen an emptying out of key science advisory positions, the repeal of existing net neutrality regulations, and discussions of a major infrastructure plan among other developments. Brookings experts Alaina Harkness, Chris Meserole, Nicol Turner-Lee, Tom Wheeler, and Niam Yaraghi weigh in on the first year of technology policy in the Trump administration, and what steps to take moving forward.

Executive Branch Expertise

Alaina Harkness, Fellow, Project on 21st Century City Governance

One of the most alarming features of the Trump Administration one year in is its lack of expert advisers on critical science and technology issues. Congress created the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 1976 to ensure that the Executive Branch had access to high-level expertise on technology's impact on the economy, environment, and society. Under Trump, OSTP still has no appointed director (a first), and is operating with a third of 2016 staffing levels. Despite repeated calls by members of Congress and the science community to fill the top post as required by law, there are few signs that capacity inside OSTP - or the agencies it is supposed to coordinate with - is going to ramp up any time soon.

This is particularly distressing because technology is such a cross-cutting issue: it undergirds major threats to U.S. security and stability, from foreign policy to the integrity of elections, and it provides some of the most promising pathways to employment, education, health, and economic opportunity. The Obama Administration's OSTP launched initiatives to strengthen STEM education, improve veterans' access to healthcare, streamline commercialization of federal R&D, and accelerate the development of robotics and advanced manufacturing. These efforts attracted billions in additional private sector investment, spurred activity in high-growth sectors, and made the economy more productive. President Trump should up the ante: appoint an OSTP director with a mandate to use the post to find every available avenue to strengthen American excellence in science and technology, and use it to power an innovation-based economy.

COuntering terrorist recruitment ONLINE

Chris Meserole, Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy

Last September, after a bombing on the London Underground, President Trump tweeted:

Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner.The internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off & use better!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2017

The President's message perfectly encapsulated his approach to counterterrorism overall: tough talk, but little in the way of actual policy guidance. In this case, the trouble with cutting off internet recruitment is that social media platforms are a dual-use technology: the Islamic State uses the same apps to attract new recruits that human rights activists rely on to find new supporters. Blindly cut off the social web for terrorists, and you will find yourself crippling pro-democracy movements the world over.

Finding the right regulatory balance is easier said than done. In lieu of constructive guidance from President Trump, technology companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter are now taking the lead in building out the governance layer of the social web, mostly notably by forming the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) last summer. The big tech and terrorism question for 2018 is thus whether President Trump will continue to call for "cutting off" the internet - or instead work with the GIFCT to find innovative policy solutions.

Net Neutrality

Nicol Turner-Lee, Fellow, Center for Technology Innovation

One year into his presidency, President Trump is planning to release the details of his $1.7 trillion infrastructure plan during the State of the Union. While the plan will fund the nation's public works projects, the jury is still out on whether or not broadband infrastructure will be sufficiently covered, especially as it has become the nation's next critical asset. Last week, the bipartisan House Rural Broadband Caucus encouraged the president to include funding for rural broadband access, citing its deployment as a pathway to job creation, economic development, and improved service delivery for remote populations. However, net neutrality remains a highly unsettled concern in tech policy that can have implications for the growth of the broadband sector.

A leaked White House memo suggests that the president wants to allocate nearly half of the federal spending toward private sector incentives for planned infrastructure projects. Despite the recent repeal of the net neutrality rules by the Federal Communications Commission, this issue remains uncertain. In recent weeks, several state attorney generals filed a lawsuit to block the repeal of net neutrality rules and compliance. Democrats are heavily weighing the possibility of a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to reverse the Commission's actions, creating additional uneasiness for the private sector. Whereas the private sector was vocal about the impact of reclassification on their business models (especially their future capital investments), the looming uncertainty of this issue may affect and possibly spoil the aspirations of the president and Congress when it comes to broadband deployment.

Tom Wheeler, Visiting Fellow, Center for Technology Innovation

To paraphrase Proverbs 29:18, the last twelve months of the Trump Federal Communications Commission warns us that "Where there is no vision, policy perishes." The agency has spent twelve months looking backwards at the previous administration's policies and dismantling what they dislike, rather than developing a vision for the protection of consumers and a competitive market in a time of rapid technological change. At its height came the decision to not only reverse the law of the land with regard to an open internet, but the even more shocking surrender of authority to the Federal Trade Commission. For the agency charged by Congress with responsibility over electronic communications to walk away from the most important network of the 21st century is the epitome of lack of vision. You cannot walk away from responsibility and call it progress.

Sharing Medical data

Niam Yaraghi, Nonresident Fellow, Center for Technology Innovation

An integrated digital network that enables medical providers to access their patients' data in a timely manner would revolutionize the fragmented health care system of the United States. It will not only curb costs, but will also foster groundbreaking medical and pharmaceutical innovations.

The Office of National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) was established in 2004 to ensure that "appropriate information to guide medical decisions is available at the time and place of care". Despite trying for fourteen years, and spending nearly $35 billion dollars, we have not yet achieved a nationwide interoperable network for sharing medical data.

In spite of the failures in the past, changes in the market economy promise a brighter future for health IT. With the technology of interoperability already in place, the entrance of information technology companies into the health IT domain will bring demand for interoperability. As I have discussed before, interoperability will not be achieved unless there is a clear financial incentive for it.

The lack of business incentives will no longer be a problem in the health IT domain. In the very near future, we can finally share our medical data as easily as our financial data. It has always been very difficult to define and measure information exchange in a meaningful way. Rather than focusing resources on defining measures of information exchange and creating incentives to comply with them, ONC is shifting toward an advisory role to guide governmental and private efforts toward interoperability. The approach of the current administration in deregulating the market could be beneficial in the health IT domain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The state of tech policy, one year into the Trump administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump's first State of the Union address offers the president an opportunity to list his achievements over the past year and outline his policy agenda for the year to come. In the realm of technology policy, the past year has seen an emptying out of key science advisory positions, the repeal of existing net neutrality regulations, and discussions of a major infrastructure plan among other developments.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Governor is confronting Trump in how he is not doing his job
2. I think the Governor is doing a good job addressing the President the way he did because this is a big issue in society today.
3. I feel like this one is one is way better compared to last week because last week it didn't seem like it was a help or stop at all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gov. Gavin Newsom sharply criticized President Trump in front of foreign leaders Monday, using his first appearance on the international environmental stage to highlight how California is addressing climate change, in contrast to the federal government.

"I don't know what the hell happened to this country that we have a president that we do today on this issue," Newsom said to applause at the opening ceremony for Climate Week in New York. "Because it's a damn shame. It really is. I'm not a little embarrassed about it - I'm absolutely humiliated by what's going on."

Those who are attending the United Nations Climate Action Summit and surrounding events in New York City said the proceedings would give many international leaders their first exposure to Newsom while allowing the governor to signal where he plans to take California's pioneering initiatives to address climate change. Other countries are watching closely to see how he carries a torch of activism lit by his predecessors.

"The new governor is not a known commodity," said Robert C. Orr, special advisor on climate change to the U.N. secretary-general and dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.

California is recognized as a world leader on climate policy, garnering continued interest from other nations for its work on emissions reduction, electric vehicles and renewable energy - an agenda that former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger championed.

Brown's shadow, in particular, looms large. A longtime climate activist, Brown quickly embraced the role of being the American antidote to Trump when the president announced the nation would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, a 2015 pact among nations worldwide to keep global warming below catastrophic levels.

On Monday, Brown launched the California-China Climate Institute at UC Berkeley, a partnership with China's top climate change official, Xie Zhenhua, and the Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development at Tsinghua University.

Newsom praised the former governor in comments to fellow dignitaries and said he intends to continue the state's tradition as a climate leader.

"I'm here [in] a long line of Democrats and Republicans in the United States that come from the state of California, that get it and want to get it done," Newsom said. "I'm very proud to be a new governor, replacing now, following Gov. Jerry Brown, who demonstrably has been leading in international efforts."

But to some, Newsom needs to do much more than Brown when it comes to fossil fuels.

Nearly two dozen protesters stood outside the Monday morning event and demanded the governor ban fracking and oil drilling in the state. Newsom said his legal advisors believe he cannot ban fracking solely through executive order and that the California Legislature would have to approve such an action.

"As Californians, in order for anybody, even Gov. Newsom, to claim he's a climate hero he needs to start at the heart of it, which is stopping oil extraction," said Jean Su with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Su held up one end of a California state flag decorated with hand-drawn oil wells, which she said she carried in similar protests against Brown during a U.N. conference on climate change in Bonn, Germany, in 2017.

Less than an hour after speaking at the Climate Week opening ceremony, Newsom addressed the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, an international organization that seeks to build public-private partnerships to address global challenges. Then Newsom traveled to the U.N. headquarters, arriving shortly before Trump, and mingled with foreign dignitaries who had gathered there for the climate summit.

Thanks to Trump, the timing of the Newsom's debut in New York couldn't be better, said Ann Carlson, co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the UCLA School of Law.

The governor and the California Air Resources Board, in perhaps his administration's most significant action to address climate change to date, struck a voluntary agreement with four automakers in late July to strengthen fuel efficiency standards. The deal would result in about one-third of new cars and SUVs sold in the U.S. to reach a minimum of 50 mpg by 2026.

Trump countered last week and said he would rescind California's waiver to set its own rigorous vehicle emission standards, which gave Newsom a spotlight to push back on the president and take the fight to court.

"As a way to bolster Gavin Newsom as a climate leader, it's hard to imagine a better opportunity for him than having the great climate denier in the White House going after him and the state of California," Carlson said. "Newsom is standing up to that and it's giving him a real opportunity to do so right before Climate Week."

The governor's international spotlight may overshadow the fact that he's been "embroiled in a controversy" back home over his decision to veto the Legislature's marquee environmental policy of the year, Carlson said.

Senate Bill 1, authored by California Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), would have allowed the state to keep Obama-era endangered species protections and water pumping restrictions for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom sided with water agencies that said the bill would have locked in outdated science on species protections and, as a result, threatened their water supply from the delta.

The governor sought to boost his environmental record ahead of the summit by signing an executive order that would encourage California's public employee pension funds to focus on technologies and companies that mitigate climate change.

Newsom is scheduled to join governors from at least a half-dozen other states in the U.S. Climate Alliance at a news conference on Tuesday, before returning to the state on Wednesday.

"I want to take the baton and continue to move California's leadership forward in the absence of national leadership on climate change and continue to express our desire to see more emulate the good work of California," Newsom said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gov. Gavin Newsom blasts Trump at climate event: 'I'm absolutely humiliated'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gov. Gavin Newsom sharply criticized President Trump in front of foreign leaders Monday, using his first appearance on the international environmental stage to highlight how California is addressing climate change, in contrast to the federal government.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Several governors have called for gun reform.
2) I think a desire for change is  inadequate unless it is acted upon.
3) There is no evidence to suggest that significant action is occurring at the present time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MADISON, Wis. - Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers on Monday called the Legislature into a special session next month to take up a pair of gun control measures that its Republican leaders have been unwilling to debate, accusing them of telling those who support the measures to "go to hell."

The move won't force Republicans to debate or vote on the bills, but it will force them to at least convene the special session. That gives Evers and Democrats a chance to put a spotlight on the gun control measures that a Marquette University Law School poll last month said had over 80% support.

Republican leaders said they would not pass the bills, calling them an attack on Second Amendment rights.

Evers, at a news conference in Milwaukee surrounded by anti-gun violence advocates, Mayor Tom Barrett, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and Democratic lawmakers, said Republicans unwilling to take up the bills were choosing "weakness over common sense."

"How many times can you go against 80% of the people of the state of Wisconsin and essentially tell them to go to hell and expect to be re-elected?" Evers said of Republicans. "It doesn't make sense to me."

Both Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, who is also running for Congress, said Republicans would not take up bills they saw as an infringement on constitutional rights to own guns.

"We will not entertain proposals that infringe on our constitutional rights," Vos said.

Evers wants the Legislature to take up a bill that would require universal background checks for most handgun purchases. He's also calling on them to vote on a "red flag" bill that would give judges the power to take weapons away from people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.

The special session, which is scheduled to convene Nov. 7, is the first Evers has called as governor. Special sessions have become increasingly common in Wisconsin, with 74 called since 1961. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker called nine of them over his eight years in office, most recently in March of 2018 to take up school safety bills.

Unlike Evers, Walker had a Legislature controlled by his own party, which made it easier to get his proposals enacted into law. Walker primarily used special sessions to highlight policy proposals and propose his own solutions. Fifty laws were enacted through special sessions called by Walker.

The dynamic is different for Evers because he must contend with a Republican-controlled Legislature that has shown little appetite for enacting his agenda. Still, by calling the special session, Evers can use power as governor to draw more attention to the bills.

Evers threatened to call multiple special sessions on gun control if Republicans don't act.

"We need an up or down vote," he said. "We have to get this done, folks."

Evers had threatened to call the special session for months, as Republican legislative leaders showed no interest in taking up the bills during their regular session that runs through next spring. He and other Democrats say the gun restrictions are needed in light of the many mass shootings in the U.S.

Under the red flag bill, a judge could seize people's firearms for up to a year if they pose a threat to themselves or others. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have passed similar red flag laws.

Under the universal background check bill, the Wisconsin Department of Justice would conduct the checks on purchases made at gun shows, online, auctions and other sales that aren't covered by the federal law requiring background checks on guns sold through federally licensed dealers.

Like Republicans across the country, the Wisconsin GOP has long insisted that restricting access to guns wouldn't stop mass shootings and could infringe on Second Amendment rights. They maintain that the answer is to focus on mental health.

A Marquette University Law School poll in September showed that 80% of respondents support a universal background check proposal and 81% of people who said they have a gun in their home back a red flag law while 86% of people who said they didn't have a gun in their house back it.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg faced tough questioning from senators on Tuesday about two crashes of 737 Max jets and whether the company concealed information about...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wisconsin governor calls special session on gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers on Monday called the Legislature into a special session next month to take up a pair of gun control measures that its Republican leaders have been unwilling to debate, accusing them of telling those who support the measures to "go to hell."

# data[].attributes.body
The White House recently issued a presidential proclamation stating that Immigrant-Visa applicants will be required to show they can afford health care before being issued a visa. This will make it harder for poor migrants to enter the U.S.

The new requirement requires anyone wanting to move to the US to enroll in private insurance or possess the financial means to cover significant medical costs. According to the proclamation, the White House said that this would benefit American citizens by "preventing immigrants from enrolling in Medicaid or going to emergency rooms with no insurance, requiring hospitals or taxpayers to cover the cost".

The proclamation does not apply to noncitizen children of U.S. citizens, refugees and immigrants who won asylum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The White House issued a presidential proclamation on Friday night requiring many future immigrant visa applicants to show they can afford health care, a move that could make it harder for poor migrants to enter the U.S.

The action, which is set to take effect in 30 days, would require applicants, including people with ties to family members in the U.S., to show they have health insurance or prove their financial ability to pay for medical care before being issued a visa that could lead to a green card.

The proclamation wouldn't apply to noncitizen children of U.S. citizens. Refugees and immigrants who won asylum are also excluded from the new requirement.

The new requirement requires anyone looking to move to the U.S. to enroll in private insurance-including as a dependent on a family member's health plan-or possess the financial means to cover significant medical costs.

The proclamation also allows entry into the U.S. for migrants who have the "financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs," but it doesn't define the threshold for meeting that standard.

Subsidized plans purchased on the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges wouldn't count as an eligible form of insurance under the White House's new definition.

Low-income immigrants living in the country legally can't use Medicaid for their first five years, but they can receive premium subsidies if their incomes are low enough. Under the new White House policy, purchasing health insurance using subsidies would disqualify people from living in the country legally.

"It's classic Catch-22 for low-income immigrants," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "They're eligible for subsidized health coverage through the ACA, but applying for that subsidized coverage means they can't legally be in the country."

The administration, in its 2017 tax overhaul, moved to relieve American citizens from an ACA mandate requiring them to have health coverage or pay a penalty.

In its proclamation, the White House said it was taking the additional step to safeguard the health-care system for American citizens by preventing immigrants from enrolling in Medicaid or going to emergency rooms with no insurance, requiring hospitals or taxpayers to cover the cost.

"President Trump has taken action to promote immigrant self-sufficiency, which has long been a fundamental aspect of our immigration system," the proclamation said.

The new requirement will apply to potentially hundreds of thousands of people moving to the U.S. each year on immigrant visas, which allow people to become permanent residents. In the 2018 fiscal year, the U.S. issued a total of roughly 534,000 visas, a 4.6% decline from the previous year's total, according to State Department data.

Some of those visas, like those granted to noncitizen children of U.S. citizens, won't need to comply with the new requirement.

The U.S. issues about 1.1 million green cards a year, but people issued immigrant visas often wait years in backlogs before they are granted permanent resident status.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Immigrant-Visa applicants will be required to show they can afford health care before being issued a visa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigrant-Visa applicants will be required to show they can afford health care before being issued a visa by Sean Walton for The Daily Sheeple The White House issued a presidential proclamation on Friday night requiring many future immigrant visa applicants to show...

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump Details Secret Mission that Killed ISIS Leader

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump Details Secret Mission that Killed ISIS Leader

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/trump-statement-on-isis-baghdadi-raid.html
According to the article Trump announced the death of ISIS leader as he was chased down a tunnel by US military dogs and the ignited his suicide vest killing him and three children. Mentions that troops were also taken out of Syria after ISIS defeated.

# data[].attributes.headline
President Trump has declared he will begin the process of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement November 4th, which will go into effect 365 days from the petition to withdraw. 

# data[].attributes.subject
President Trump has declared he will begin the process of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement November 4th, which will go into effect 365 days from the petition to withdraw. 

# data[].attributes.body
2. I disagree with the decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement as it is one more step away from reduced emissions and a cleaner globe. Climate change is particularly important right now, as hotter summers have led to drier vegetation which ignites more easily, leading to increased frequency and severity of wildfires in California. Thus, it is important that the executive branch start to change their stance on climate change in order to protect out citizens.
3. The executive actions are very anti-climate change, whereas in the Legislative branch, there is a sentiment for emission restrictions in the house but nothing is being done due to the republican majority in the senate.

# data[].attributes.body
Congress isn't exactly doing much to help housing in the country, forget about the Bay. The acts that have been passed or bills that have gone through the house are really not doing much justice for us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking for housing relief? Don't count on Congress.

The 115th Congress introduced just 115 housing-related bills in the last two years - and none passed, according to a new study by Apartment List.

"The 115th Congress is roughly batting zero for 115," said Apartment List chief economist Igor Popov.

Nor has California's growing affordability crisis motivated its delegation to lead the charge. Just one local representative - Oakland Democrat Barbara Lee - ranked among the top 25 members sponsoring housing bills. The state's Democratic Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, also proposed reform measures.

Housing has taken center stage in the state capital and in city halls throughout the Bay Area as officials grapple with a shortage of affordable homes, skyrocketing prices, growing traffic and a myriad of proposed solutions. In November, California voters will consider ballot measures to loosen restrictions on city's ability to impose rent control, and on a $4 billion bond package aimed at creating housing for military veterans and low-income residents. Not to mention dozens of local measures.

New state laws already have given developers more leverage over local officials to build affordable housing. Cupertino residents are facing the issue with the redevelopment of Vallco Mall.

Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, didn't fault the local delegation on housing. He noted that the gridlock in Congress did not thwart other key regional issues in the past two years, including funds for expanding BART to San Jose and electrifying CalTrain.

"It's incredibly difficult to move any issue in Washington, D.C.," said Guardino, whose group typically brings tech CEOs to the U.S. Capitol at least twice a year. "It's the Founding Fathers intentional checks and balances on steroids."

The Bay Area congressional delegation has worked with business and local elected leaders to address the housing shortage - largely through supporting state and local initiatives, he said. "Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was our housing challenge," Guardino said.

Although state and local laws dictate most development and rental policies, there are plenty of housing-focused issues for Congress. Federal agencies regulate mortgages, subsidize low income housing, provide targeted development funds, and enforce fair housing laws, among other responsibilities.

Apartment List reviewed 10,200 bills submitted by congress members since January 2017. The proposals included policies covering apartments, home financing and ownership. The study did not consider revenue bills, such as tax reforms that passed last year, Popov said.

Those tax cuts changed the equation for homeowners in high cost, high tax states, like California and New York. Mortgage interest rate deductions on new loans were capped at $750,000, and state and local property tax deductions were cut to $10,000. Taxpayers got a boost in the standard deduction, with married couples receiving a $24,000 exemption.

The Apartment List study considered sponsored and co-sponsored bills, mentions of housing policy made by congress members during floor speeches, and the amount of material on congressional websites.

About 70 percent of housing bills came from members of three congressional groups - the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and the Asian Pacific American Caucus. The study found housing affordability in a district did not always correlate with a member's interest in the issue.

Oakland's Lee led the local delegation on housing issues, sponsoring two housing related bills and co-sponsoring four others. Lee gave 11 speeches addressing affordable housing on the floor of the House, according to Apartment List. Democrat Maxine Waters of Los Angles was the most active member, sponsoring six bills, co-sponsoring another three and delivering a dozen speeches on housing.

Local representatives, including Ro Khanna, D-Santa Clara, and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, recently have addressed the housing crisis in district meetings with advocates and industry insiders.

"I don't want to live in the Silicon Valley that only has Facebook or Google engineers able to live here," Khanna said in a March speech to housing advocates, policy experts and politicians in Santa Clara. He called for HUD and other agencies to support development around rail and bus lines.

And last week, Lofgren told members of the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors that housing and traffic were among the top concerns of her constituents. The federal government, which supports financing of mortgages and affordable housing, has "dropped the ball" on promoting housing development. she said.

"We have a big problem. It's not entirely a federal problem, obviously," Lofgren said. "State and localities, as well as the private sector, have a role to play. We are way behind on what we need to build."

Lofgren opposed the Republican tax bill, saying it hurt coastal states with high costs of living. The issues need to be addressed for younger generations, she said. "Where are our sons and daughters going to live?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congressional response to housing issues? Not much, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking for housing relief? Don't count on Congress. The 115th Congress introduced just 115 housing-related bills in the last two years - and none passed, according to a new study by Apartment List. "The 115th Congress is roughly batting zero for 115," said Apartment List chief economist Igor Popov.

# data[].attributes.body
Well it seems that there are actions like reports being done about the knowledge of human and animal cloning. With not being here yesterday and without power I was able to pull a 272 page article created by the executive branch. In the summary it talks about reseach dating back to 1997 and goes through the different ideals throughout the panel. Another thing the article goes over are the pros and the cons of not only animal cloning but human cloning as well. Currently there doesnt seem to be action but more reports building to some sort of action. Since the article is fairly recent. So far with the steps it seems to be making twords actually having actions, it is a good thing because it shows improvement twords addressing the positive and mainly negatives of this topic. The article that I found is comparable to be much more helpful in the factors of being informative of actions that are being planned out but is dated back to 2002 which is earlier than the articles that I was able to discover last week which were dated from 2006 to 2008. Hopefully overall there is a more updated report on this subject but it also overall just comes to show that this topic has been going on for years and only now has been openly popularized.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the actions currently taking place in the Executive branch in relation to your topic?
The White House was looking into drafting an executive order to address the alleged anti conservative bias of social media companies.
2. What do you think about these Executive actions? Are they good/bad? What types of actions would you like to see the Executive branch take at the state or Federal level?
I think the executive actions are bad because there hasn't been any solid evidence on the biases by the companies and seems to only reflect the personal interests of the president, instead of a need from the public or a general problem than affects most citizens.
3. How do the actions of the Executive compare to the actions of the Legislature you looked at last week?
The executive actions seem to apply less to the general public and have to go through less barriers/steps in the process to get passed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social media companies, including Twitter, have denied the allegations of bias, though they say they have blocked or removed users who violate community standardspolicies. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The White House is circulating drafts of a proposed executive order that would address allegations of anti-conservative bias by social media companies, according to a White House official and two other people familiar with the matter - a month after President Donald Trump pledged to explore "all regulatory and legislative solutions" on the issue.

None of the three would describe the contents of the order, which one person cautioned has already taken many different forms and remains in flux. But its existence, and the deliberations surrounding it, are evidence that the administration is taking a serious look at wielding the federal government's power against Silicon Valley.

Story Continued Below

"If the internet is going to be presented as this egalitarian platform and most of Twitter is liberal cesspools of venom, then at least the president wants some fairness in the system," the White House official said. "But look, we also think that social media plays a vital role. They have a vital role and an increasing responsibility to the culture that has helped make them so profitable and so prominent."

Two other people knowledgeable about the discussions also confirmed the existence of the draft order.

None of the three people could say what penalties, if any, the order would envision for companies deemed to be censoring political viewpoints. The order, which deals with other topics besides tech bias, is still in the early drafting stages and is not expected to be issued imminently.

"The President announced at this month's social media summit that we were going to address this and the administration is exploring all policy solutions," a second White House official said Wednesday when asked about the draft order.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Accusations of anti-conservative bias have become a frequent rallying cry for Trump and his supporters, seizing on incidents in which tech platformslike Facebook, Twitter and Google-owned YouTube have banned people likeInfoWars founderand conspiracy theorist Alex Jonesor faced accusations of squelching posts by pro-Trump social media personalities Diamond and Silk.

The companies have denied the allegations of bias, though they say they have blocked or removed users who violate community standardspolicies. They have also faced complaints from liberal activists that they're too slow to remove hate speech, a category that some say includes Trump's own tweets.

The issue took center stage during a White House gathering in July in which Trump railed against censorshipin front of a roomful of online conservative activists, and directed his administration to explore all "regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free-speech rights of all Americans." Just this week, Trump warned that he is "watching Google very closely," citing the case of an engineer who has claimed the company fired him for his conservative views.

But the White House effort may be complicated by skepticism in some agencies involved in the discussions about tech policy. The Republicans at the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission have said publicly that they don't see a role for their agencies in policing companies' online content. The FCC and FTC have joined the Justice and Commerce departments in discussions about the potential bias crackdown.

"There's very little in terms of direct regulation the federal government can do without congressional action, and frankly I think that's a positive thing," said John Morris, who handled internet policy issues at the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration before leaving in May.

He added: "Although the government may be able to support and assist online platforms' efforts to reduce hate and violence online, the government should not try to impose speech regulations on private platforms. As politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have historically urged, the government should not be in the business of regulating speech."

One potential approach could involve using the government's leverage over federal contractors, a tactic the Obama administration used to advance LGBT rights. A 2014 executive order prohibited federal contractors from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Trump earlier this year signed an executive order meant to promote free speech on college campuses by requiring schools to agree to promote free inquiry in order to receive federal research funding - something the schools were already supposed to do.

Concerns about harmful content online following last weekend's mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, could become part of the discussion around the draft order on tech bias. The suspected gunman has been linked to a racist manifesto that, shortly before the shooting, appeared on 8chan, a fringe website known as a hotbed of white supremacy. Online screeds tied to two other gunmen in mass shootings in California and New Zealand have also appeared on 8chan.

Trump said Monday that he wants the government to work with social media "to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike," and the White House has invited internet and technology companies for a discussion on violent online extremism with senior administration officials Friday.

The first White House official said the administration sees no conflict between demanding that online companies allow free speech while expecting them to scrutinize people for signs of violence.

"They have a role, if not a responsibility, to monitor the content on their sites to ensure that people aren't threatened with violence or worse, and at the same time to provide a platform that protects and cherishes freedom and free speech, but at the same time does not allow it to descend into a platform for hate," the first White House official said when asked about the draft executive order.

But the federal government's options on combating online bias are limited by the First Amendment.Another obstacle is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which both protects online platforms from liability for content their users post and empowers the companies to remove content without fear of liability. That provision, Section 230, has increasingly come under fire from lawmakers of both parties frustrated with tech companies' content moderation practices.

The administration could look to NTIA, the branch of the Commerce Department that handles communications policy, but that agency lacks regulatory authority and could simply convene interested parties to explore the issues.

And while the Justice Department has announced a sweeping antitrust review of whether tech giants are harming competition or stifling innovation,antitrust cases have not traditionally been used as tools to address complaints about online speech.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The prospects are also bleak at the independent agencies, the FCC and the FTC.

Section 230 doesn't give the FCC a regulatory hook to act on, and the Republican commissioners who lead the agency have already taken a hard line against one major government effort to regulate broadband providers' conduct - the commission's Obama-era net neutrality rules. And when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote an op-ed proposing the creation of "third-party bodies to set standards governing the distribution of harmful content," Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr derided it as a plea for the government to police speech.

"Outsourcing censorship to the government is not just a bad idea, it would violate the First Amendment," tweeted Carr, who is a Trump appointee."I'm a no."

Conservatives have also spent decades opposing any attempt to revive the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to be balanced in their programming on controversial issues. "FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is 'fair' nor enforce it," the Heritage Foundation said in 1993.

Republicans at the FTC, which punishes companies for unfair or deceptive acts, also have said they don't see a role for the agency in policing allegations of social media bias.

During an FTC oversight hearing in the Senate last year, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argued that a tech company could be considered"actively deceptive" if it appears to be a neutral public platform and then engages in censorship. But Republican Commissioner Noah Phillips said the FTC's antitrust and consumer protection authorities are "not authorities to police the First Amendment itself."

This article tagged under:

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning - in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
White House drafting executive order to tackle Silicon Valley's alleged anti-conservative bias

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The White House is circulating drafts of a proposed executive order that would address allegations of anti-conservative bias by social media companies, according to a White House official and two other people familiar with the matter - a month after President Donald Trump pledged to explore "all regulatory and legislative solutions" on the issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
President Trump's Massive Spending on Ads for Re-Election Campaign on Facebook

# data[].attributes.subject
President Trump's Massive Spending on Ads for Re-Election Campaign on Facebook

# data[].attributes.body
1. President Trump, forefront of the Executive Branch, has been spending over 1.4 million dollars on ads on Facebook to promote his re-election campaign.
2. I'd consider Trump's actions to be relatively both good and bad in certain aspects.  They are good in the sense that he is trying to promote his re-election, but rather bad considering how much money he is spending to achieve this; he has spent over a million dollars to roll out re-election ads to every state.
3. I feel like there is a similar amount of activity when comparing Executive actions to Legislative actions in regards to technology; both branches seem to be involved quite heavily in "technology."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump during a news conference on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

President Trump's reelection campaign responded to the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry in Congress by launching a massive Facebook ad blitz, spending as much as $1.4 million on thousands of ads designed to reach voters in every state.

The online battery included misleading messages about the "socialist squad," Trump's epithet for the four congresswomen of color whom he previously directed to "go back" to their home countries, even though they are all American citizens.

Some of the ads accused the freshman lawmakers of making "pro-terrorist remarks," which they have not done, and pressed supporters to join Trump's "official impeachment defense fund," which he has also promoted in fundraising appeals sent by email and text message. The "squad" refers to Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), none of whom was mentioned by name.

In total, the Trump campaign and its backers spent between $346,700 and $1,430,182 on more than 2,000 ads for its Facebook page from Monday to midday Friday, according to data analyzed by Laura Edelson, a researcher at New York University's Tandon School of Engineering. She obtained the data through Facebook's public ad archive, which reports all of its data in ranges, not precise figures. Those ads had been viewed between 13.3 million and 25.3 million times, the NYU analysis found.

On Tuesday and Wednesday alone, the campaign shelled out about $500,000 on Facebook ads, according to figures tallied by ACRONYM, a digital outfit focused on liberal causes. On Wednesday alone it spent about $350,000, an amount it typically spends in a week.

The online offensive offered a window into Trump's bare-knuckle approach to the coming impeachment battles, as he took the showdown to his favored terrain: the Internet. Already, campaign officials say they have filled their coffers with contributions: Eric Trump, the president's second son and the executive vice president of the Trump Organization, said Thursday that the campaign had raised $8.5 million in the previous 24 hours.

What you need to know about the impeachment inquiry into Trump

The Facebook ads, which traffic in claims found to be false by The Washington Post Fact Checker, also provided a new test for the technology giant after it reaffirmed this week it would exempt speech by politicians from fact checking. That exemption, company executives said, also applies to ads, though sponsored posts are required to meet community standards that proscribe threats as well as "content aimed at deliberately deceiving people to gain an unfair advantage or deprive another of money, property, or legal right."

On Friday, Facebook said none of the ads violated its policies, including those that prohibit dehumanizing speech, though the company did not detail its reasoning. A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

As Trump flooded social media with impeachment-related advertising, would-be challengers competing for the Democratic nomination moved gingerly on the platforms. While it appeared that every one of the hundreds of ads placed by Trump's campaign since Tuesday used the word "impeachment," not a single ad placed by Joe Biden, the former vice president, used the word. Biden said this week he would favor impeachment proceedings if the White House tried to thwart congressional oversight activities.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala D. Harris of California, both of whom had previously called for the president's impeachment, each ran ads on the topic but far fewer than the general fundraising appeals they released that made no mention of the president.

In ads targeting mainly women, Warren asked users to sign a petition calling for impeachment proceedings to begin. Harris asked users, mainly in California, to sign a card thanking Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the speaker of the House, "for showing the leadership the White House lacks by beginning an impeachment inquiry."

Biden, who became the subject of a July conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine, placed new ads condemning the president for soliciting help from a foreign leader to smear him. But Biden stopped short of mentioning impeachment.

In addition to the individual candidates, the national party committees produced dueling advertising on the topic, with the Democratic National Committee asking users to donate to show their support for an impeachment inquiry and the Republican National Committee asking users to "stand against impeachment." The GOP's ads appeared to target in particular a swath of states in the Midwest, as well as New York, Pennsylvania and Maine.

The RNC said Friday it would join the Trump campaign in spending a total of $10 million across television and digital platforms assailing Democrats for beginning an impeachment inquiry. The campaign will spend $8 million, while the party will kick in another $2 million.

For months, Facebook spending on impeachment has been dominated by Tom Steyer, the investor turned impeachment activist, and his super PAC, Need to Impeach. Warren has been next in line, spending about $34,000 on the issue between Aug. 31 and Sept. 21, according to data compiled by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic communications agency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump campaign launches anti-impeachment blitz on Facebook, targeting four minority congresswomen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump's reelection campaign responded to the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry in Congress by launching a massive Facebook ad blitz, spending as much as $1.4 million on thousands of ads designed to reach voters in nearly every state.

# data[].attributes.body
1. For immigration, there a button of action being make in the Executive branch. In terms of the article, the Trump administration extend protection to many Salvadoreans to be able to stay in the U.S. temporerly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration on Monday extended Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Salvadorans in the United States, granting them reprieve from removal to El Salvador.

Administration officials had insisted for weeks that the continuance of TPS was not on the table in exchange for the resumption of aid to the small Central American country, or the signing of a recent agreement on asylum seekers. An estimated 200,000 Salvadorans in the U.S. have TPS, making them the largest single group under the program. Many live in Los Angeles.

El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele, a millionaire millennial who has had warm words for President Trump and his officials, touted the move in a Twitter announcement on Monday morning as a victory for his newly elected administration.

"They said it was impossible," Bukele said. "That the Salvadoran government couldn't do anything. ... But we knew that our allies would not abandon us."

A U.S. District Court in Northern California last October blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating TPS for El Salvador and a handful of other countries. Administration officials have sought to dismantle the program as part of their wider efforts to reduce immigration. TPS offers recipients protection from removal and the right to work legally in the U.S.

The announcement also puts the U.S. in the difficult position of extending a program intended for people fleeing natural disasters or civil unrest, while at the same time effectively designating El Salvador a safe country for asylum seekers. The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Officials have offered little detail of the U.S. asylum agreement with El Salvador, which has yet to take effect. The deal was among several extensively negotiated with so-called Northern Triangle countries by outgoing acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who is due to step down this week.

Central America's Northern Triangle is an impoverished and violence-ridden region that accounts for the majority of migrants now fleeing to the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump administration extends protections for Salvadorans, allowing thousands to stay in U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration on Monday extended Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Salvadorans in the United States, granting them reprieve from removal to El Salvador. Administration officials had insisted for weeks that the continuance of TPS was not on the table in exchange for the resumption of aid to the small Central American country, or the signing of a recent agreement on asylum seekers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump set to meet with President Xi to discuss Trade War Deal

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump set to meet with President Xi to discuss Trade War Deal

# data[].attributes.body
1. Going to sign interim trade deal; . "In particular, China would lift the current ban on US poultry imports and recognise the American public health certification system for meat product imports"
2. These actions benefit American farmers and consumers of poultry. The Executive Branch should continue to make compromises with CHN in order to get closer to a finalized trade deal that will benefit both economies while still retaining certain restrictions that do not jeopardize the US goal of bringing more manufacturing to domestic territory in order to decrease dependence on foreign imports.
3. These actions are a continuation of the previous legislative actions observed last week. The Executive branch seems to have played a larger role in the Trade War than the Legislative Branch thus far.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump, Xi to sign trade war deal in November if all goes 'smoothly': source

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump are expected to sign an interim trade deal in Chile next month, according to a source.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The president has provided increased grants of money (1. billions) for states to help prevent the opioid crisis. Furthermore Trump initiated a movement against drug use within the country.  There was a push for federal law enforcement against opioids.
2. I think that these executive actions are helping. They are all good things, which allow for the betterment of civilian health. I would like to see more healthcare oriented actions made.
3. Both actions made by the executive and legislate branch intend to prevent the worsening of the opioid crisis. Both aim to provide either citizen welfare or money for programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is time to liberate our communities from this scourge of drug addiction. Never been this way. We can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic.
DEDICATED TO ENDING THE OPIOID CRISIS: President Donald J. Trump has mobilized Federal resources to combat the opioid crisis that has devastated so many of our communities.

The President announced $1.8 billion in new grants to help States fight the opioid crisis and to help prevent more American lives from being lost to overdose.

These grants include more than $900 million in grants for States and territories to address the opioid crisis in their communities.

An additional $900 million will be awarded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for research into overdose treatment and improving overdose data.

These grants will further President Trump's government-wide efforts to fight back against the opioid crisis.
This follows nearly $400 million awarded last month to help community health centers, rural organizations, and academic institutions expand access to substance use disorder and mental health services.

President Trump launched his Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse and Reduce Drug Supply and Demand, a first-of-its-kind effort to address the underlying factors driving the opioid crisis.
Since announcing this initiative, the President has led efforts to reduce opioid supplies, prevent opioid abuse, and increase treatment and recovery services.

President Trump has worked to secure new funding and mobilize Federal resources to combat this crisis.

President Trump secured $6 billion in new, additional funding in fiscal years (FY) 2018 and 2019 to fight opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose.

Last year, the President signed into law the overwhelmingly bipartisan SUPPORT Act.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grant funding to combat this crisis increased nearly 4-fold from FY 2016 to FY 2018, and is increasing again this FY.

STOPPING SUPPLIES FROM REACHING OUR COMMUNITIES: President Trump is targeting illicit suppliers to ensure that deadly drugs are stopped before they reach our communities.

For the past two years, our Nation's law enforcement officers have taken the fight to suppliers of illicit drugs.

Last year, we seized almost 5,000 pounds of fentanyl at the border-totaling 1.2 billion lethal doses, or enough to kill every American four times.

In 2018, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas disrupted or dismantled nearly 3,000 drug trafficking or money laundering organizations.

President Trump is working with allies and global partners to crack down on international suppliers of deadly, illicit drugs like fentanyl.

The President has repeatedly called on China to do more to stem the illicit flow of synthetic opioids exported from China.

The Administration has brought kingpin designations against fentanyl traffickers operating in China, India, Mexico, and other countries.

The Administration has cracked down on the distribution of deadly drugs over the internet, including shutting down the country's biggest Darknet distributor of drugs.
During that operation, DOJ seized enough fentanyl to kill 105,000 Americans.

PREVENTING OPIOID ABUSE: The Trump Administration is working to prevent opioid abuse by raising awareness and cracking down on over-prescription.

President Trump has launched efforts to educate Americans about the dangers of opioid misuse.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) partnered with the Truth Initiative and Ad Council to educate youth about opioid misuse.
This campaign has already reached 58 percent of young adults and generated 1.4 billion total views.

The President's efforts to curb opioid overprescribing has resulted in a 31 percent decrease in the total amount of opioids prescribed throughout our country since January 2017.

The Administration is targeting opioid distribution fraud to make sure that pill mills are no longer able to fuel the epidemic and harm our communities.

The Department of Veterans Affairs' Opioid Safety Initiative has reduced the number of veterans on opioids by more than 130,000, or 28 percent, in President Trump's first two years.

HELPING AMERICANS STRUGGLING WITH ADDICTION: The Administration is working to support Americans struggling with addiction.

President Trump's Administration is expanding access to treatment for Americans struggling with addiction.

Administration estimates suggest approximately 347,000 more Americans are receiving medication-assisted treatment in 2019 than in 2016.

The number of patients receiving medication-assisted treatment at federally funded community health centers increased by 142 percent from 2016 to 2018.

The Administration has launched efforts to expand the supply of naloxone and prevent more American lives from being lost to overdoses.
There has been a 378 percent increase in naloxone dispensed monthly since President Trump took office.

The National Institutes of Health has launched a multi-year $350 million study to reduce opioid overdose deaths by 40 percent across 4 States.

The Administration has approved more than $93 million in grants to help people affected by opioid addiction rejoin the workforce.

TAKING THE FIGHT TO THE OPIOID CRISIS: President Trump is making real progress in the fight against the crisis next door.

According to initial data, the overdose death toll fell in 2018 for the first time in two decades.
Nationwide, there was a 5 percent decrease in drug overdose deaths from 2017 to 2018.

Drug overdose deaths are declining in many of the States hit hardest by this crisis, including New Hampshire, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and more.
Drug overdose deaths have fallen from their peak levels by 10 percent in New Hampshire, 8 percent in West Virginia, 20 percent in Iowa, 24 percent in Pennsylvania, 16 percent in Kentucky, and 24 percent in Ohio.

The number of Americans who misused opioids decreased from 11.4 million in 2017 to 10.3 million in 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Donald J. Trump Has Dedicated His Administration to Fighting Back Against the Opioid Crisis | The White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is time to liberate our communities from this scourge of drug addiction. Never been this way. We can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic. DEDICATED TO ENDING THE OPIOID CRISIS: President Donald J. Trump has mobilized Federal resources to combat the opioid crisis that has devastated so many of our communities.

# data[].attributes.headline
the president basically has much more influence in the decisions about immigration then other people in the government 

# data[].attributes.subject
the president basically has much more influence in the decisions about immigration then other people in the government 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
News Analysis

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey spoke against President Trump's immigration order last Monday at the Supreme Court. Credit... Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

WASHINGTON - President Trump's executive order on immigration has prompted a constitutional showdown that could leave a mark on the law for generations and seems likely to end in a landmark Supreme Court decision.

A ruling by the court on Mr. Trump's travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries could help answer some crucial legal questions: How much independent constitutional authority does the president have over immigration, and how much power has Congress given him?

The likely answer to both questions: a lot. But other parts of the Constitution may temper or defeat that power. Among them are the due process and equal protection clauses and the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion.

Here is a look at the leading arguments in the case.

Many trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump's executive order. But none have issued an order as broad as the one by Judge James Robart, a federal judge in Seattle, who blocked the key parts of the executive order, which had suspended travel from the seven countries and limited the nation's refugee program.

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. That court on Saturday declined to issue an immediate stay of Judge Robart's order, but it indicated that it would weigh in soon after additional briefs were filed, with the last one due Monday afternoon. After it rules, an appeal to the Supreme Court seems likely.

Judge Robart's brisk ruling contained almost no reasoning. By contrast, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, of the Federal District Court in Boston, issued a 21-page decision on Friday refusing to block the program and discussing the legal arguments in detail.

Judge Gorton also sketched out the broader picture.

"The rich immigrant history of the United States has long been a source of strength and pride in this country," Judge Gorton wrote. "Conversely, the public interest in safety and security in this ever-more dangerous world is strong as well." The balance, he wrote, tipped in favor of Mr. Trump.

Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.

In their brief to Judge Robart, lawyers for Washington State, one of the two plaintiffs, along with the State of Minnesota, said there were constitutional checks on these powers. "While courts generally give more latitude to the political branches in the immigration context, this does not mean that the political branches can act with impunity," the brief said.

"Federal courts," the brief said, "have no more sacred role than protecting marginalized groups against irrational, discriminatory conduct."

In the Ninth Circuit, the Trump administration said judges were ill-equipped to decide cases involving national security. "Unlike the president," the administration's brief said, "courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process."

Noah G. Purcell, the solicitor general of Washington State, appeared to concede in court that there were areas in which Mr. Trump was entitled to act. But he asked the court to protect people whose lives had been changed by Mr. Trump's order in a flash.

"The focus of our claim," he said, "is on people who have been here and have, overnight, lost the right to travel, lost the right to visit their families, lost the right to go perform research, lost the right to go speak at conferences around the world. And also people who had lived here for a long time and happened to be overseas at the time of this order, which came with no warning whatsoever, and suddenly lost the right to return to the United States."

On Friday, defending Mr. Trump's executive order in a Seattle courtroom, Michelle Bennett, a Justice Department lawyer, cited Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected President Harry S. Truman's assertion that he had the authority to seize steel mills during the Korean War.

The most famous part of the decision is a concurrence from Justice Robert H. Jackson, which set out a framework for considering clashes between presidential power and congressional authority. The president has the most power when he acts with congressional authorization, Justice Jackson said, and an intermediate amount when Congress is silent. The president's power is at its "lowest ebb," Justice Jackson wrote, when Congress has forbidden a particular action.

Truman's actions fell into the third category, Justice Jackson wrote. Ms. Bennett, by contrast, said Mr. Trump's order was in the first category.

"Here we have the president acting pursuant to power that Congress gave him, which means, under the Youngstown steel seizure case, he's acting at the apex of his power," she said.

A key part of immigration law does give the president broad power. It says, "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

But another part of the law forbids discrimination "because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence," but only "in the issuance of an immigrant visa." The Trump administration argues that the power to bar entry, the subject of the first law, is broader than the limits on issuing visas.

Lawyers for Washington State have said that the executive order violates the First Amendment's prohibition against government establishment of religion because its provisions on the refugee program favor minority religions. "President Trump and his advisers have made clear that the very purpose of this order is to tilt the scales in favor of Christian refugees at the expense of Muslims," they wrote in their brief to Judge Robart.

The Trump administration urged the Ninth Circuit to reject arguments based on religious discrimination, even though Mr. Trump has said he meant to favor Christian refugees. Judicial consideration of the president's motives, the brief said, would violate the separation of powers.

"The more searching inquiry envisioned by the states would create substantial separation-of-powers problems, by permitting probing of the president's subjective motive in issuing the order," the brief said.

The states challenging the order face the initial hurdle of demonstrating that they have suffered the sort of direct and concrete harm that gives them standing to sue. Judge Robart ruled that they did, relying on a decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans, which said Texas could sue to challenge President Barack Obama's plan to defer the deportation of millions of unauthorized immigrants and allow them to work.

"The executive order adversely affects the states' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel," Judge Robart wrote. He said the states had been hurt because the order affected their public universities and their tax bases.

In its Ninth Circuit brief, the Trump administration called the states' asserted injuries "attenuated and speculative" and did not address the Texas decision. In court in Seattle on Friday, Ms. Bennett said the government disagreed with the Texas ruling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The President Has Much Power Over Immigration, but How Much?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News Analysis WASHINGTON - President Trump's executive order on immigration has prompted a constitutional showdown that could leave a mark on the law for generations and seems likely to end in a landmark Supreme Court decision.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump and Xi plan to sign a treaty or deal on November 17

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump and Xi plan to sign a treaty or deal on November 17

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will meet in Chile on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit on Nov. 17 to sign the "phase one" trade deal that the two sides hammered out earlier this month.

The South China Morning Post first reported the date of the signing.

China on Tuesday appeared eager to meet U.S. demands in the trade negotiations, particularly on the thorny issue of intellectual property theft - a key irritant in its tariff war with Washington.

Zhang Zhicheng, director of the Intellectual Property Protection Department of the Intellectual Property Office, promised "strict protection, protection, protection, and protection" of the innovations U.S. companies bring when they do business in China. Zhang's office will enforce penalties against companies found to have lifted U.S. intellectual property, he said.

The announcement adds to a drumbeat of market-opening promises by the communist government, which is trying to make China's cooling, state-dominated economy more productive.

Beijing also will ease restrictions on foreign competitors in some newly opened finance businesses, the Commerce Ministry said.

Complaints about Beijing's technology ambitions helped to spark its tariff war with President Donald Trump.
TRUMP: US-CHINA TRADE DEAL'S PHASE ONE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE
Trade negotiators are working out details of an Oct. 11 agreement under which President Donald Trump delayed a planned tariff hike on Chinese imports. Trump said Beijing agreed to buy more American farm goods in exchange, though China has yet to confirm details of its commitment.

Business groups welcomed the agreement as a possible step to breaking a deadlock in the 15-month-old conflict, though the two sides have yet to report progress on their core disputes over Beijing's trade surplus and technology policies.

Those include complaints from Washington, Europe and other trading partners that Chinese development plans are based in part on stealing or pressuring companies to hand over technology.

Authorities will be banned from "explicitly or implicitly" pressuring companies to give up technology, said a ministry official, Ye Wei.
CHINA SAYS PART OF PHASE ONE TRADE DEAL WITH US 'BASICALLY COMPLETED'
That pledge, if carried out, builds on a law enacted in March that prohibits use of "administrative tools" to force companies to give up industrial secrets. Business groups said that might leave officials free to use other leverage.

"Administrative organs may not implicitly or explicitly force the transfer of technology by foreign investors or foreign-invested enterprises," Ye said.

That still leaves open the question of foreign companies that are required to work through joint ventures with Chinese partners. For such ventures to function, the foreign partner often must hand over technology or teach a potential competitor how to develop its own.

China is trying to appeal to foreign companies, some of which have postponed or shifted investments to other countries out of concern about the impact of U.S. and Chinese tariff hikes.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
A ministry statement also promised to "eliminate all restrictions on the scope of business" of foreign banks, securities companies and fund managers. It pledged to "remove the requirement on total assets" for establishing a foreign-owned bank."We will move faster to open finance industries," said a deputy commerce minister, Wang Shouwen.

Wang gave no details, but business groups say high requirements for capital might keep foreign investors out of Chinese financial industries. They say restrictions on licensing and operations also might discourage potential competitors.

Beijing has issued a series of market-opening promises over the past two years including abolishing limits on foreign ownership of companies in auto manufacturing, securities, banking, insurance and futures trading.

Full foreign ownership of futures traders will be allowed as of Jan. 1, followed by mutual fund companies on April 1 and securities firms on Dec. 1. Until now, foreign investors have been limited to owning 51% of such businesses.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China, US to sign trade deal on Nov. 17 in win for Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will meet in Chile on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit on Nov. 17 to sign the "phase one" trade deal that the two sides hammered out earlier this month. The South China Morning Post first reported the date of the signing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Executive Order on President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Executive Order on President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-council-advisors-science-technology/
1. The Executive Branch is forming a  council of officials from a wide array of subject knowledge to advise the president on science, technology, education, and innovation policy.
2. I think this is an okay idea because technology is evolving quickly and the President needs to stay updated in order to make well-informed decisions regarding technology and science.
3. This differs from the Legislative Branch because it did not undergo such a lengthy process to be passed, it was directly signed into action by the president.

# data[].attributes.headline
President has authority over military actions Regarding Terrorism

# data[].attributes.subject
President has authority over military actions Regarding Terrorism

# data[].attributes.body
1) The Executive Branch allows for the President to make decisions in regards to what military actions should be taken and in what situation to use them.
2) I think in some cases it's good, because the President should be able to make serious and quick decisions and should also be held accountable. The government should have a plan for each situation and should be ready for any form of terrorism.
3) Executive Branch is more of the Presidents choice and actually taking action, while the Legislative branch is more about proposing bills and finding solutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

Our analysis falls into four parts. First, we examine the Constitution's text and structure. We conclude that the Constitution vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad - especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States. Second, we confirm that conclusion by reviewing the executive and judicial statements and decisions interpreting the Constitution and the President's powers under it. Third, we analyze the relevant practice of the United States, including recent history, that supports the view that the President has the authority to deploy military force in response to emergency conditions such as those created by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Finally, we discuss congressional enactments that, in our view, acknowledge the President's plenary authority to use force to respond to the terrorist attack on the United States.

Our review establishes that all three branches of the Federal Government - Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary - agree that the President has broad authority to use military force abroad, including the ability to deter future attacks.

I.

The President's constitutional power to defend the United States and the lives of its people must be understood in light of the Founders' express intention to create a federal government "cloathed with all the powers requisite to [the] complete execution of its trust." The Federalist No. 23, at 122 (Alexander Hamilton) (Charles R. Kesler ed., 1999). Foremost among the objectives committed to that trust by the Constitution is the security of the Nation. As Hamilton explained in arguing for the Constitution's adoption, because "the circumstances which may affect the public safety are [not] reducible within certain determinate limits, . . . it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficiency." Id.

"It is 'obvious and unarguable' that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation." Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (citation omitted). Within the limits that the Constitution itself imposes, the scope and distribution of the powers to protect national security must be construed to authorize the most efficacious defense of the Nation and its interests in accordance "with the realistic purposes of the entire instrument." Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 782 (1948). Nor is the authority to protect national security limited to actions necessary for "victories in the field." Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 12 (1946). The authority over national security "carries with it the inherent power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict." Id.

We now turn to the more precise question of the President's inherent constitutional powers to use military force.

Constitutional Text. The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch.

By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. It has long been the view of this Office that the Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and that the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad. See, e.g., Memorandum for Honorable Charles W. Colson, Special Counsel to the President, from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President and the War Power: South Vietnam and the Cambodian Sanctuaries (May 22, 1970) (the "Rehnquist Memo"). The President's complete discretion in exercising the Commander-in-Chief power has also been recognized by the courts. In the Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862), for example, the Court explained that, whether the President "in fulfilling his duties as Commander in Chief" had met with a situation justifying treating the southern States as belligerents and instituting a blockade, was a question "to be decided by him" and which the Court could not question, but must leave to "the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted."

Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from "make" to "declare." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1911). A supporter of the change argued that it would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318. Further, other elements of the Constitution describe "engaging" in war, which demonstrates that the Framers understood making and engaging in war to be broader than simply "declaring" war. See U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."). A State constitution at the time of the ratification included provisions that prohibited the governor from "making" war without legislative approval, S.C. Const. art. XXVI (1776), reprinted in 6 The Federal and State Constitutions 3247 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909). If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of military hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions.

Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, "the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse." The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law. A declaration served to fully transform the international legal relationship between two states from one of peace to one of war. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *249-50. Given this context, it is clear that Congress's power to declare war does not constrain the President's independent and plenary constitutional authority over the use of military force.

Constitutional Structure. Our reading of the text is reinforced by analysis of the constitutional structure. First, it is clear that the Constitution secures all federal executive power in the President to ensure a unity in purpose and energy in action. "Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number." The Federalist No. 70, at 392 (Alexander Hamilton). The centralization of authority in the President alone is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and energy that is far superior to any other branch. As Hamilton noted, "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks." Id. at 391. This is no less true in war. "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." Id. No. 74, at 415 (Alexander Hamilton).

Second, the Constitution makes clear that the process used for conducting military hostilities is different from other government decisionmaking. In the area of domestic legislation, the Constitution creates a detailed, finely wrought procedure in which Congress plays the central role. In foreign affairs, however, the Constitution does not establish a mandatory, detailed, Congress-driven procedure for taking action. Rather, the Constitution vests the two branches with different powers - the President as Commander in Chief, Congress with control over funding and declaring war - without requiring that they follow a specific process in making war. By establishing this framework, the Framers expected that the process for warmaking would be far more flexible, and capable of quicker, more decisive action, than the legislative process. Thus, the President may use his Commander-in-Chief and executive powers to use military force to protect the Nation, subject to congressional appropriations and control over domestic legislation.

Third, the constitutional structure requires that any ambiguities in the allocation of a power that is executive in nature - such as the power to conduct military hostilities - must be resolved in favor of the executive branch. Article II, section 1 provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, 1. By contrast, Article I's Vesting Clause gives Congress only the powers "herein granted." Id. art. I, 1. This difference in language indicates that Congress's legislative powers are limited to the list enumerated in Article I, section 8, while the President's powers include inherent executive powers that are unenumerated in the Constitution. To be sure, Article II lists specifically enumerated powers in addition to the Vesting Clause, and some have argued that this limits the "executive Power" granted in the Vesting Clause to the powers on that list. But the purpose of the enumeration of executive powers in Article II was not to define and cabin the grant in the Vesting Clause. Rather, the Framers unbundled some plenary powers that had traditionally been regarded as "executive," assigning elements of those powers to Congress in Article I, while expressly reserving other elements as enumerated executive powers in Article II. So, for example, the King's traditional power to declare war was given to Congress under Article I, while the Commander-in-Chief authority was expressly reserved to the President in Article II. Further, the Framers altered other plenary powers of the King, such as treaties and appointments, assigning the Senate a share in them in Article II itself. Thus, the enumeration in Article II marks the points at which several traditional executive powers were diluted or reallocated. Any other, unenumerated executive powers, however, were conveyed to the President by the Vesting Clause.

There can be little doubt that the decision to deploy military force is "executive" in nature, and was traditionally so regarded. It calls for action and energy in execution, rather than the deliberate formulation of rules to govern the conduct of private individuals. Moreover, the Framers understood it to be an attribute of the executive. "The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength," wrote Alexander Hamilton, "and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority." The Federalist No. 74, at 415 (Alexander Hamilton). As a result, to the extent that the constitutional text does not explicitly allocate the power to initiate military hostilities to a particular branch, the Vesting Clause provides that it remain among the President's unenumerated powers.

Fourth, depriving the President of the power to decide when to use military force would disrupt the basic constitutional framework of foreign relations. From the very beginnings of the Republic, the vesting of the executive, Commander-in-Chief, and treaty powers in the executive branch has been understood to grant the President plenary control over the conduct of foreign relations. As Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson observed during the first Washington Administration: "the constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches [and] has declared that the executive powers shall be vested in the president, submitting only special articles of it to a negative by the senate." Due to this structure, Jefferson continued, "the transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether; it belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly." Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Powers of the Senate (1790), reprinted in 5 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, at 161 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1895). In defending President Washington's authority to issue the Neutrality Proclamation, Alexander Hamilton came to the same interpretation of the President's foreign affairs powers. According to Hamilton, Article II "ought . . . to be considered as intended . . . to specify and regulate the principal articles implied in the definition of Executive Power; leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that power." Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus No. 1 (1793), reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, at 33, 39 (Harold C. Syrett et al. eds., 1969). As future Chief Justice John Marshall famously declared a few years later, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. . . . The [executive] department . . . is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation . . . ." 10 Annals of Cong.613-14 (1800). Given the agreement of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Marshall, it has not been difficult for the executive branch consistently to assert the President's plenary authority in foreign affairs ever since.

In the relatively few occasions where it has addressed foreign affairs, the Supreme Court has agreed with the executive branch's consistent interpretation. Conducting foreign affairs and protecting the national security are, as the Supreme Court has observed, "'central' Presidential domains." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 n.19 (1982). The President's constitutional primacy flows from both his unique position in the constitutional structure, and from the specific grants of authority in Article II that make the President both the Chief Executive of the Nation and the Commander in Chief. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749-50 (1982). Due to the President's constitutionally superior position, the Supreme Court has consistently "recognized 'the generally accepted view that foreign policy [is] the province and responsibility of the Executive.'" Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988) (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. at 293-94). "The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs," possessing "vast powers in relation to the outside world." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (1948). This foreign affairs power is exclusive: it is "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).

Conducting military hostilities is a central tool for the exercise of the President's plenary control over the conduct of foreign policy. There can be no doubt that the use of force protects the Nation's security and helps it achieve its foreign policy goals. Construing the Constitution to grant such power to another branch could prevent the President from exercising his core constitutional responsibilities in foreign affairs. Even in the cases in which the Supreme Court has limited executive authority, it has also emphasized that we should not construe legislative prerogatives to prevent the executive branch "from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977).

II.

Executive Branch Construction and Practice. The position we take here has long represented the view of the executive branch and of the Department of Justice. Attorney General (later Justice) Robert Jackson formulated the classic statement of the executive branch's understanding of the President's military powers in 1941:

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." By virtue of this constitutional office he has supreme command over the land and naval forces of the country and may order them to perform such military duties as, in his opinion, are necessary or appropriate for the defense of the United States. These powers exist in time of peace as well as in time of war.

. . . .

Thus the President's responsibility as Commander in Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States. . . . [T]his authority undoubtedly includes the power to dispose of troops and equipment in such manner and on such duties as best to promote the safety of the country.

Training of British Flying Students in the United States, 40 Op. Att'y Gen. 58, 61-62 (1941). Other Attorneys General have defended similar accounts of the President constitutional powers and duties, particularly in times of unforeseen emergencies.

Attorney General William P. Barr, quoting the opinion of Attorney General Jackson just cited, advised the President in 1992 that "[y]ou have authority to commit troops overseas without specific prior Congressional approval 'on missions of good will or rescue, or for the purpose of protecting American lives or property or American interests.'" Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. at 6 (citation omitted).

Attorney General (later Justice) Frank Murphy, though declining to define precisely the scope of the President's independent authority to act in emergencies or states of war, stated that:

the Executive has powers not enumerated in the statutes - powers derived not from statutory grants but from the Constitution. It is universally recognized that the constitutional duties of the Executive carry with them the constitutional powers necessary for their proper performance. These constitutional powers have never been specifically defined, and in fact cannot be, since their extent and limitations are largely dependent upon conditions and circumstances. . . . The right to take specific action might not exist under one state of facts, while under another it might be the absolute duty of the Executive to take such action.

Request of the Senate for an Opinion as to the Powers of the President "In Emergency or State of War," 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 343, 347-48 (1939).

Attorney General Thomas Gregory opined in 1914 that "[i]n the preservation of the safety and integrity of the United States and the protection of its responsibilities and obligations as a sovereignty, [the President's] powers are broad." Censorship of Radio Stations, 30 Op. Att'y Gen. 291, 292 (1914).

Finally, in 1898, Acting Attorney General John K. Richards wrote:

The preservation of our territorial integrity and the protection of our foreign interests is intrusted, in the first instance, to the President. . . . In the protection of these fundamental rights, which are based upon the Constitution and grow out of the jurisdiction of this nation over its own territory and its international rights and obligations as a distinct sovereignty, the President is not limited to the enforcement of specific acts of Congress. [The President] must preserve, protect, and defend those fundamental rights which flow from the Constitution itself and belong to the sovereignty it created.

Foreign Cables, 22 Op. Att'y Gen. 13, 25-26 (1898). Acting Attorney General Richards cited, among other judicial decisions, Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 64 (1890), in which the Supreme Court stated that the President's power to enforce the laws of the United States "include[s] the rights, duties and obligations growing out of the constitution itself, our international relations, and all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the constitution."

Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel. Our Office has taken the position in recent Administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon, that the President may unilaterally deploy military force in order to protect the national security and interests of the United States.

In 1995, we opined that the President "acting without specific statutory authorization, lawfully may introduce United States ground troops into Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . to help the North Atlantic Treaty Organization . . . ensure compliance with the recently negotiated peace agreement." Proposed Deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19 Op. O.L.C. 327, 327 (1995) (the "Bosnia Opinion"). We interpreted the WPR to "lend[] support to the . . . conclusion that the President has authority, without specific statutory authorization, to introduce troops into hostilities in a substantial range of circumstances." Id. at 335.

In Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. 173 (1994), we advised that the President had the authority unilaterally to deploy some 20,000 troops into Haiti. We relied in part on the structure of the WPR, which we argued "makes sense only if the President may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress." Id. at 175-76. We further argued that "in establishing and funding a military force that is capable of being projected anywhere around the globe, Congress has given the President, as Commander in Chief, considerable discretion in deciding how that force is to be deployed." Id. at 177. We also cited and relied upon the past practice of the executive branch in undertaking unilateral military interventions:

In 1940, after the fall of Denmark to Germany, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered United States troops to occupy Greenland, a Danish possession in the North Atlantic of vital strategic interest to the United States. . . . Congress was not consulted or even directly informed. . . . Later, in 1941, the President ordered United States troops to occupy Iceland, an independent nation, pursuant to an agreement between himself and the Prime Minister of Iceland. The President relied upon his authority as Commander in Chief, and notified Congress only after the event. . . . More recently, in 1989, at the request of President Corazon Aquino, President Bush authorized military assistance to the Philippine government to suppress a coup attempt.

In Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. at 8, our Office advised that the President had the constitutional authority to deploy United States Armed Forces into Somalia in order to assist the United Nations in ensuring the safe delivery of relief to distressed areas of that country. We stated that "the President's role under our Constitution as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive vests him with the constitutional authority to order United States troops abroad to further national interests such as protecting the lives of Americans overseas." Id. at 8. Citing past practice (further discussed below), we pointed out that

[f]rom the instructions of President Jefferson's Administration to Commodore Richard Dale in 1801 to 'chastise' Algiers and Tripoli if they continued to attack American shipping, to the present, Presidents have taken military initiatives abroad on the basis of their constitutional authority. . . . Against the background of this repeated past practice under many Presidents, this Department and this Office have concluded that the President has the power to commit United States troops abroad for the purpose of protecting important national interests.

Id. at 9 (citations omitted).

In Overview of the War Powers Resolution, 8 Op. O.L.C. 271, 275 (1984), we noted that "[t]he President's authority to deploy armed forces has been exercised in a broad range of circumstances [in] our history."

In Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad Without Statutory Authorization, 4A Op. O.L.C. 185, 187 (1980), we stated that

[o]ur history is replete with instances of presidential uses of military force abroad in the absence of prior congressional approval. This pattern of presidential initiative and congressional acquiescence may be said to reflect the implicit advantage held by the executive over the legislature under our constitutional scheme in situations calling for immediate action. Thus, constitutional practice over two centuries, supported by the nature of the functions exercised and by the few legal benchmarks that exist, evidences the existence of broad constitutional power.

In light of that understanding, we advised that the President had independent constitutional authority unilaterally to order "(1) deployment abroad at some risk of engagement - for example, the current presence of the fleet in the Persian Gulf region; (2) a military expedition to rescue the hostages or to retaliate against Iran if the hostages are harmed; (3) an attempt to repel an assault that threatens our vital interests in that region." Id. at 185-86. See also Presidential Powers Relating to the Situation in Iran, 4A Op. O.L.C. 115, 121 (1979) ("It is well established that the President has the constitutional power as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief to protect the lives and property of Americans abroad. This understanding is reflected in judicial decisions
. . . and recurring historic practice which goes back to the time of Jefferson.").

Finally, in the Rehnquist Memo at 8, we concluded that the President as Commander in Chief had the authority "to commit military forces of the United States to armed conflict . . . to protect the lives of American troops in the field."

Judicial Construction. Judicial decisions since the beginning of the Republic confirm the President's constitutional power and duty to repel military action against the United States through the use of force, and to take measures to deter the recurrence of an attack. As Justice Joseph Story said long ago, "[i]t may be fit and proper for the government, in the exercise of the high discretion confided to the executive, for great public purposes, to act on a sudden emergency, or to prevent an irreparable mischief, by summary measures, which are not found in the text of the laws." The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362, 366-67 (1824). The Constitution entrusts the "power [to] the executive branch of the government to preserve order and insure the public safety in times of emergency, when other branches of the government are unable to function, or their functioning would itself threaten the public safety." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 335 (1946) (Stone, C.J., concurring).

If the President is confronted with an unforeseen attack on the territory and people of the United States, or other immediate, dangerous threat to American interests and security, the courts have affirmed that it is his constitutional responsibility to respond to that threat with whatever means are necessary, including the use of military force abroad. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 635 ("If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority."); Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. at 336 (Stone, C.J., concurring) ("Executive has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity" for emergency measures); United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, 1230 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806) (No. 16,342) (Paterson, Circuit Justice) (regardless of statutory authorization, it is "the duty . . . of the executive magistrate . . . to repel an invading foe"); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611, 613 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ("there are some types of war which without Congressional approval, the President may begin to wage: for example, he may respond immediately without such approval to a belligerent attack"); see also Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir.) (Silberman, J. concurring) ("[T]he President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific statutory authorization."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 815 (2000); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring) ("[T]he President,as Commander in Chief, possesses emergency authority to use military force to defend the nation from attack without obtaining prior congressional approval."); Story, supra note 9, 1485 ("[t]he command and application of the public force . . . to maintain peace, and to resist foreign invasion" are executive powers).

III.

The historical practice of all three branches confirms the lessons of the constitutional text and structure. The normative role of historical practice in constitutional law, and especially with regard to separation of powers, is well settled. Both the Supreme Court and the political branches have often recognized that governmental practice plays a highly significant role in establishing the contours of the constitutional separation of powers: "a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned . . . may be treated as a gloss on 'executive Power' vested in the President by 1 of Art. II." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 610-11 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Indeed, as the Court has observed, the role of practice in fixing the meaning of the separation of powers is implicit in the Constitution itself: "'the Constitution . . . contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government.'" Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381 (1989) (citation omitted). In addition, governmental practice enjoys significant weight in constitutional analysis for practical reasons, on "the basis of a wise and quieting rule that, in determining . . . the existence of a power, weight shall be given to the usage itself - even when the validity of the practice is the subject of investigation." United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459, 473 (1915).

The role of practice is heightened in dealing with issues affecting foreign affairs and national security, where "the Court has been particularly willing to rely on the practical statesmanship of the political branches when considering constitutional questions." Whether Uruguay Round Agreements Required Ratification as a Treaty, 18 Op. O.L.C. 232, 234(1994). "The persistence of these controversies (which trace back to the eighteenth century), and the nearly complete absence of judicial decisions resolving them, underscore the necessity of relying on congressional precedent to interpret the relevant constitutional provisions." Id. at 236. Accordingly, we give considerable weight to the practice of the political branches in trying to determine the constitutional allocation of warmaking powers between them.

The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994) ("[B]oth Secretary [of War] Knox and [President] Washington himself seemed to think that this [Commander in Chief] authority extended to offensive operations taken in retaliation for Indian atrocities.") (quoted in Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331 n.4. Perhaps the most significant deployment without specific statutory authorization took place at the time of the Korean War, when President Truman, without prior authorization from Congress, deployed United States troops in a war that lasted for over three years and caused over 142,000 American casualties. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331-32 n.5.

Recent deployments ordered solely on the basis of the President's constitutional authority have also been extremely large, representing a substantial commitment of the Nation's military personnel, diplomatic prestige, and financial resources. On at least one occasion, such a unilateral deployment has constituted full-scale war. On March 24, 1999, without any prior statutory authorization and in the absence of an attack on the United States, President Clinton ordered hostilities to be initiated against the Republic of Yugoslavia. The President informed Congress that, in the initial wave of air strikes, "United States and NATO forces have targeted the [Yugoslavian] government's integrated air defense system, military and security police command and control elements, and military and security police facilities and infrastructure. . . . I have taken these actions pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive." Letter to Congressional leaders reporting on airstrikes against Serbian targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), 1 Pub. Papers of William Jefferson Clinton 459, 459 (1999). Bombing attacks against targets in both Kosovo and Serbia ended on June 10, 1999, seventy-nine days after the war began. More than 30,000 United States military personnel participated in the operations; some 800 U.S. aircraft flew more than 20,000 sorties; more than 23,000 bombs and missiles were used. As part of the peace settlement, NATO deployed some 50,000 troops into Kosovo, 7,000 of them American. In a News Briefing on June 10, 1999, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen summarized the effects of the campaign by saying,

[t]hree months ago Yugoslavia was a heavily armed country with a significant air defense system. We reduced that defense system threat by destroying over 80 percent of Yugoslavia's modern aircraft fighters and strategic suface-to-air missiles. NATO destroyed a significant share of the infrastructure Yugoslavia used to support[] its military with, we reduced his capacity to make ammunition by two-thirds, and we eliminated all of its oil refining capacity and more than 40 percent of its military fuel supplies, Most important, we severely crippled the military forces in Kosovo by destroying more than 50 percent of the artillery and more than one-third of the armored vehicles.

General Shelton of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that "about half of [Yugoslavia's] defense industry has either been damaged or destroyed. . . . [A]viation, 70 percent; armored vehicle production, 40 [percent]; petroleum refineries, 100 percent down; explosive production, about 50 percent; and 65 percent of his ammunition. . . . For the most part Belgrade is a city that's got about probably 70 percent without [electrical] power." A report by General Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff, on June 8, 1999, stated that

Serbia's air force is essentially useless and its air defenses are dangerous but ineffective. Military armament production is destroyed. Military supply areas are under siege. Oil refinement has ceased and petroleum storage is systematically being destroyed. Electricity is sporadic, at best. Major transportation routes are cut. NATO aircraft are attacking with impunity throughout the country.

Estimates near the time placed the number of Yugoslav military casualties at between five and ten thousand. In recent decades, no President has unilaterally deployed so much force abroad.

Other recent unilateral deployments have also been significant in military, foreign policy, and financial terms. Several such deployments occurred in the Balkans in the mid-1990s. In December 1995, President Clinton ordered the deployment of 20,000 United States troops to Bosnia to implement a peace settlement. In February 1994, sixty United States warplanes conducted airstrikes against Yugoslav targets. In 1993, United States warplanes were sent to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia; in the same year, the President despatched United States troops to Macedonia as part of a United Nations peacekeeping operation.

Major recent deployments have also taken place in Central America and in the Persian Gulf. In 1994, President Clinton ordered some 20,000 United States troops to be deployed into Haiti, again without prior statutory authorization from Congress, in reliance solely upon his Article II authority. See Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, supra. On August 8, 1990, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the consequent threat to Saudi Arabia, President Bush ordered the deployment of substantial forces into Saudi Arabia in Operation Desert Shield. The forces were equipped for combat and included two squadrons of F-15 aircraft and a brigade of the 82d Airborne Division; the deployment eventually grew to several hundred thousand. The President informed Congress that he had taken these actions "pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct our foreign relations and as Commander in Chief." Letter to Congressional Leaders, 2 Pub. Papers of George Bush 1116 (1990). President Bush also deployed some 15,000 troops into Panama in December, 1990, for the purpose (among others) of protecting Americans living in Panama. See 2 Pub. Papers of George Bush 1722 (1989); see generally Abraham D. Sofaer, The Legality of the United States Action in Panama, 29 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 281 (1991).

Further, when Congress has in fact authorized deployments of troops in hostilities, past Presidents have taken the position that such legislation, although welcome, was not constitutionally necessary. For example, in signing Pub. L. No. 102-01, 105 Stat. 3 (1991), authorizing the use of military force in Operation Desert Storm against Iraq, President Bush stated that "my request for congressional support did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the longstanding positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use the Armed Forces to defend vital U.S. interests or the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution." Statement on Signing the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, 1 Pub. Papers of George Bush 40 (1991).Similarly, President John F. Kennedy stated on September 13, 1962, that congressional authorization for a naval blockade of Cuba was unnecessary, maintaining that "I have full authority now to take such action." Pub. Papers of John F. Kennedy 674 (1962). And in a Report to the American People on October 22, 1962, President Kennedy asserted that he had ordered the blockade "under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of the Congress." Id. at 807 (emphasis added). Thus, there is abundant precedent, much of it from recent Administrations, for the deployment of military force abroad, including the waging of war, on the basis of the President's sole constitutional authority.

Several recent precedents stand out as particularly relevant to the situation at hand, where the conflict is with terrorists. The first and most relevant precedent is also the most recent: the military actions that President William J. Clinton ordered on August 20, 1998, against terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. The second is the strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters that President Clinton ordered on June 26, 1993. The third is President Ronald Reagan's action on April 14, 1986, ordering United States armed forces to attack selected targets at Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya.

(A) On August 20, 1998, President Clinton ordered the Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan "because of the threat they present to our national security." Remarks in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, on Military Action Against Terrorist Sites in Afghanistan and Sudan, 2 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 1460 (1998). The President stated that the purpose of the operation was "to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Usama bin Ladin, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today." Address to the Nation on Military Action Against Terrorist Sites in Afghanistan and Sudan, 2 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 1460 (1998). The strike was ordered in retaliation for the bombings of United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which bin Laden's organization and groups affiliated with it were believed to have played a key role and which had caused the deaths of some 12 Americans and nearly 300 Kenyans and Tanzanians, and in order to deter later terrorist attacks of a similar kind against United States nationals and others. In his remarks at Martha's Vineyard, President Clinton justified the operation as follows:

I ordered this action for four reasons: first, because we have convincing evidence these groups played the key role in the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; second, because these groups have executed terrorist attacks against Americans in the past; third, because we have compelling information that they were planning additional terrorist attacks against our citizens and others with the inevitable collateral casualties we saw so tragically in Africa; and fourth, because they are seeking to acquire chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons.

Id. In his Address to the Nation on the same day, the President made clear that the strikes were aimed, not only at bin Laden's organization, but at other terrorist groups thought to be affiliated with it, and that the strikes were intended as retribution for other incidents caused by these groups, and not merely the then-recent bombings of the two United States embassies. Referring to the past acts of the interlinked terrorist groups, he stated:

Their mission is murder and their history is bloody. In recent years, they killed American, Belgian, and Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia. They plotted to assassinate the President of Egypt and the Pope. They planned to bomb six United States 747's over the Pacific. They bombed the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan. They gunned down German tourists in Egypt.

Id. at 1460-61.Furthermore, in explaining why military action was necessary, the President noted that "law enforcement and diplomatic tools" to combat terrorism had proved insufficient, and that "when our very national security is challenged . . . we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens." Id. at 1461. Finally, the President made plain that the action of the two targeted countries in harboring terrorists justified the use of military force on their territory: "The United States does not take this action lightly. Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups. But countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safe havens." Id.

The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks on our embassies (however appalling those events were). The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader. Nonetheless, President Clinton's action in 1998 illustrates some of the breadth of the President's power to act in the present circumstances.

First, President Clinton justified the targeting of particular groups on the basis of what he characterized as "convincing" evidence of their involvement in the embassy attacks. While that is not a standard of proof appropriate for a criminal trial, it is entirely appropriate for military and political decisionmaking. Second, the President targeted not merely one particular group or leader, but a network of affiliated groups. Moreover, he ordered the action, not only because of particular attacks on United States embassies, but because of a pattern of terrorist activity, aimed at both Americans and non-Americans, that had unfolded over several years. Third, the President explained that the military action was designed to deter future terrorist incidents, not only to punish past ones. Fourth, the President specifically justified military action on the territory of two foreign states because their governments had "harbor[ed]" and "support[ed]" terrorist groups for years, despite warnings from the United States.

(B) On June 26, 1993, President Clinton ordered a Tomahawk cruise missile strike on Iraqi Intelligence Service (the "IIS") headquarters in Baghdad. The IIS had planned an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait in April, 1993. Two United States Navy surface ships launched a total of 23 missiles against the IIS center.

In a Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters,1 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 940 (1993), the President referred to the failed assassination attempt and stated that "[t]he evidence of the Government of Iraq's violence and terrorism demonstrates that Iraq poses a continuing threat to United States nationals." He based his authority to order a strike against the Iraqi government's intelligence command center on "my constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and as Commander in Chief," as well as on the Nation's inherent right of self-defense. Id.

President Clinton's order was designed in part to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States - and most particularly future assassination attempts on former President Bush. Although the assassination attempt had been frustrated by the arrest of sixteen suspects before any harm was done, "nothing prevented Iraq from directing a second - possibly successful - attempt on Bush's life. Thus, the possibility of another assassination plot was 'hanging threateningly over [Bush's] head' and was therefore imminent. By attacking the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the United States hoped to prevent and deter future attempts to kill Bush."

(C) On April 14, 1986, President Ronald Reagan, acting on his independent authority, ordered United States armed forces to engage in military action against the government of Colonel Gadhafi of Libya. Thirty-two American aircraft attacked selected targets at Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya. Libyan officials reported thirty-seven people killed and an undetermined number injured. More than sixty tons of ordnance were used during the attack.

For some time Libya had supported terrorist groups and organizations and indeed had itself ordered direct terrorist attacks on the United States.

Under Gaddafi, Libya has declared its support of 'national liberation movements' and has allegedly financed and trained numerous terrorist groups and organizations, including Palestinian radicals, Lebanese leftists, Columbia's M-19 guerrillas, the Irish Republican Army, anti-Turkish Armenians, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Muslim rebels in the Philippines, and left-wing extremists in Europe and Japan.

It had harbored a variety of terrorists, including Abu Nidal and the three surviving members of the Black September group that had killed eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. Libya's attacks on the United States included the murder of two United States diplomats in Khartoum (1973), the attempted assassination of Secretary of State Kissinger (1973), the burning of the United States Embassy in Tripoli (1979), the planned assassination of President Reagan, Secretary of State Haig, Secretary of Defense Weinberger, and Ambassador to Italy Robb (1981), and the hijacking of T.W.A. flight 847 (1985). Libya had also been linked to terrorist events close to the time of the April, 1986, airstrike in which Americans and other had lost their lives. In January, 1986, American intelligence tied Libya to the December 27, 1985, bombings at the Rome and Vienna airports in which nineteen people, including 5 Americans, had died, and one hundred and twelve persons had been injured.

The particular event that triggered the President's military action had occurred on April 5, 1986, when a bomb exploded in the "Labelle," a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. military personnel. The blast killed three people (two Americans) and injured two hundred and thirty others (including seventy-nine Americans). Intelligence reports indicated that the bombing was planned and executed under the direct orders of the Government of Libya. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations stated that there was "direct, precise, and irrefutable evidence that Libya bears responsibility" for the bombing of the discotheque; that the "Labelle" incident was "only the latest in an ongoing pattern of attacks" by Libya against the United States and its allies; and that the United States had made "repeated and protracted efforts to deter Libya from its ongoing attacks," including "quiet diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions, and demonstrations of military force." U.N. SCOR, 2674th mtg. at 16-17, U.N. Doc. S/PV.2674 (prov. ed. 1986).

Like the two unilateral Presidential actions discussed above, President Reagan's decision to use armed force in response to a terrorist attack on United States military personnel illustrates that the President has independent constitutional authority to use such force in the present circumstances.

IV.

Our analysis to this point has surveyed the views and practice of the executive and judicial branches. In two enactments, the War Powers Resolution and the recent Joint Resolution, Congress has also addressed the scope of the President's independent constitutional authority. We think these two statutes demonstrate Congress's acceptance of the President's unilateral war powers in an emergency situation like that created by the September 11 incidents.

Furthermore, the President can be said to be acting at the apogee of his powers if he deploys military force in the present situation, for he is operating both under his own Article II authority and with the legislative support of Congress. Under the analysis outlined by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., supra (and later followed and interpreted by the Court in Dames & Moore, supra), the President's power in this case would be "at its maximum," 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring), because the President would be acting pursuant to an express congressional authorization. He would thus be clothed with "all [authority] that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate," id., in addition to his own broad powers in foreign affairs under Article II of the Constitution.

The War Powers Resolution. Section 2(c) of the WPR, reads as follows:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

50 U.S.C. 1541(c) (emphasis added).

The executive branch consistently "has taken the position from the very beginning that section 2(c) of the WPR does not constitute a legally binding definition of Presidential authority to deploy our armed forces." Overview of the War Powers Resolution, 8 Op. O.L.C. at 274. Moreover, as our Office has noted, "even the defenders of the WPR concede that this declaration [in section 2(c)] - found in the 'Purpose and Policy' section of the WPR - either is incomplete or is not meant to be binding." Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. at 176; accord Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 335 ("The executive branch has traditionally taken the position that the President's power to deploy armed forces into situations of actual or indicated hostilities is not restricted to the three categories specifically marked out by the Resolution."); Presidential Powers Relating to the Situation in Iran, 4A Op. O.L.C. at 121 ("[T]he Resolution's policy statement is not a comprehensive or binding formulation of the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief."). Nonetheless, section 2(c)(3) correctly identifies one, but by no means the only, Presidential authority to deploy military forces into hostilities. In the present circumstances, the statute signifies Congress's recognition that the President's constitutional authority alone would enable him to take military measures to combat the organizations or groups responsible for the September 11 incidents, together with any governments that may have harbored or supported them.

Further, Congress's support for the President's power suggests no limits on the Executive's judgment whether to use military force in response to the national emergency created by those incidents. Section 2(c)(3) leaves undisturbed the President's constitutional authority to determine both when a "national emergency" arising out of an "attack against the United States" exists, and what types and levels of force are necessary or appropriate to respond to that emergency. Because the statute itself supplies no definition of these terms, their interpretation must depend on longstanding constitutional practices and understandings. As we have shown in Parts I-III of this memorandum, constitutional text, structure and practice demonstrate that the President is vested with the plenary power to use military force, especially in the case of a direct attack on the United States. Section 2(c)(3) recognizes the President's broad authority and discretion in this area.

Given the President's constitutional powers to respond to national emergencies caused by attacks on the United States, and given also that section 2(c)(3) of the WPR does not attempt to define those powers, we think that that provision must be construed simply as a recognition of, and support for, the President's pre-existing constitutional authority. Moreover, as we read the WPR, action taken by the President pursuant to the constitutional authority recognized in section 2(c)(3) cannot be subject to the substantive requirements of the WPR, particularly the interrelated reporting requirements in section 4 and the "cut off" provisions of section 5, 50 U.S.C. 1543-1544. Insofar as the Constitution vests the power in the President to take military action in the emergency circumstances described by section 2(c)(3), we do not think it can be restricted by Congress through, e.g., a requirement that the President either obtain congressional authorization for the action within a specific time frame, or else discontinue the action. Were this not so, the President could find himself unable to respond to an emergency that outlasted a statutory cut-off, merely because Congress had failed, for whatever reason, to enact authorizing legislation within that period.

To be sure, some interpreters of the WPR take a broader view of its scope. But on any reasonable interpretation of that statute, it must reflect an explicit understanding, shared by both the Executive and Congress, that the President may take some military actions - including involvement in hostilities - in response to emergencies caused by attacks on the United States. Thus, while there might be room for disagreement about the scope and duration of the President's emergency powers, there can be no reasonable doubt as to their existence.

The Joint Resolution of September 14, 2001. Whatever view one may take of the meaning of section 2(c)(3) of the WPR, we think it clear that Congress, in enacting the "Joint Resolution [t]o authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States," Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), has confirmed that the President has broad constitutional authority to respond, by military means or otherwise, to the incidents of September 11.

First, the findings in the Joint Resolution include an express statement that "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." Id. This authority is in addition to the President's authority to respond to past acts of terrorism. In including this statement, Congress has provided its explicit agreement with the executive branch's consistent position, as articulated in Parts I-III of this memorandum, that the President has the plenary power to use force even before an attack upon the United States actually occurs, against targets and using methods of his own choosing.

Second, Congress also found that there is a "threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the[] grave acts of violence" on September 11, and that "such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy" of this country. Insofar as "the President's independent power to act depends upon the gravity of the situation confronting the nation," Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 662 (Clark, J., concurring in judgment), these findings would support any presidential determination that the September 11 attacks justified the use of military force in response. Further, they would buttress any Presidential determination that the nation is in a state of emergency caused by those attacks. The Constitution confides in the President the authority, independent of any statute, to determine when a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the United States exists. Nonetheless, congressional concurrence is welcome in making clear that the branches agree on seriousness of the terrorist threat currently facing the Nation and on the justifiability of a military response.

Third, it should be noted here that the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority. The Joint Resolution's authorization to use force is limited only to those individuals, groups, or states that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks, and those nations that harbored them. It does not, therefore, reach other terrorist individuals, groups, or states, which cannot be determined to have links to the September 11 attacks. Nonetheless, the President's broad constitutional power to use military force to defend the Nation, recognized by the Joint Resolution itself, would allow the President to take whatever actions he deems appropriate to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters.
Conclusion
In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

2. See also The Federalist No. 34, at 175 (Alexander Hamilton) (Federal government is to possess "an indefinite power of providing for emergencies as they might arise"); id. No. 41, at 224 (James Madison) ("Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. . . . The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the foederal councils."). Many Supreme Court opinions echo Hamilton's argument that the Constitution presupposes the indefinite and unpredictable nature of the "the circumstances which may affect the public safety," and that the federal government's powers are correspondingly broad. See, e.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 662 (1981) (noting that the President "exercis[es] the executive authority in a world that presents each day some new challenge with which he must deal"); Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 264 (1934) (federal government's war powers are "well-nigh limitless" in extent); Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. (11Wall.) 493, 506 (1870) ("The measures to be taken in carrying on war . . . are not defined [in the Constitution]. The decision of all such questions rests wholly in the discretion of those to whom the substantial powers involved are confided by the Constitution."); Miller v. United States, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 268, 305 (1870) ("The Constitution confers upon Congress expressly power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules respecting captures on land and water. Upon the exercise of these powers no restrictions areimposed. Of course the power to declare war involves the power to prosecute it by all means and in any manner in which war may be legitimately prosecuted.").

3. See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950) (President has authority to deploy United States armed forces "abroad or to any particular region"); Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850) ("As commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual"); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (The "inherent powers" of the Commander in Chief "are clearly extensive."); Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501, 515-16 (1927) (Brandeis & Holmes, JJ., concurring) (President "may direct any revenue cutter to cruise in any waters in order to perform any duty of the service"); Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 1971) (the President has "power as Commander-in-Chief to station forces abroad"); Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. 6 (1992).

5. See id. ("He must determine what degree of force the crisis demands."); see also Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 789 ("Certainly it is not the function of the Judiciary to entertain private litigation - even by a citizen - which challenges the legality, the wisdom, or the propriety of the Commander-in-Chief in sending our armed forces abroad or to any particular region."); Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948) ("The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret."); Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 1500, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Scalia, J., dissenting), vacated by 471 U.S. 1113 (1985); Ex parte Vallandigham, 28 F.Cas. 874, 922 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1863) (No. 16,816) (in acting "under this power where there is no express legislative declaration, the president is guided solely by his own judgment and discretion"); Hefleblower v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 228, 238 (Ct. Cl. 1886) ("The responsibility of declaring what portions of the country were in insurrection and of declaring when the insurrection came to an end was accorded to the President; when he declared a portion of the country to be in insurrection the judiciary cannot try the issue and find the territory national; conversely, when the President declared the insurrection at an end in any portion of the country, the judiciary cannot try the issue and find the territory hostile."); cf. United States v. Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 12 (1926) ("It was peculiarly within the province of the Commander-in-Chief to know the facts and to determine what disposition should be made of enemy properties in order effectively to carry on the war.")

6. See, e.g., Louis Fisher, Presidential War Power 185-206 (1995); John Hart Ely, War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath 3-5 (1993); Michael J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy 80-84 (1990); Louis Henkin, Constitutionalism, Democracy, and Foreign Affairs 109 (1990); Harold Hongju Koh, The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power After the Iran-Contra Affair 158-61 (1990); Francis D. Wormuth & Edwin B. Firmage, To Chain the Dog of War: The War Power of Congress in History and Law (2d ed. 1989).

Other scholars, however, have argued that the President has the constitutional authority to initiate military hostilities without prior congressional authorization. See, e.g., Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers 1787-1984 (5th ed. 1984); Philip Bobbitt, War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely's "War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath," 92 Mich. L. Rev. 1364 (1994); Robert H. Bork, Erosion of the President's Power in Foreign Affairs, 68 Wash. U. L. Q. 693 (1990); Henry P. Monaghan, Presidential War-Making, 50 B.U.L. Rev. 19 (1970); W. Michael Reisman, Some Lessons from Iraq: International Law and Democratic Politics, 16 Yale J. Int'l L. 203 (1991); Eugene V. Rostow,"Once More unto the Breach:" The War Powers Resolution Revisited, 21 Val. U.L. Rev. 1 (1986); John C. Yoo, Kosovo, War Powers, and the Multilateral Future, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1673 (2000); Yoo, supra n.4.

8. Of the eight major wars fought by Great Britain prior to the ratification of the Constitution, war was declared only once before the start of hostilities. See Yoo, supra note 4, at 214-15. See also W. Taylor Reveley, III, War Powers of the President and Congress: Who Holds the Arrows and Olive Branch? 55 (1981) ("[U]ndeclared war was the norm in eighteenth-century European practice, a reality brought home to Americans when Britain's Seven Years' War with France began on this continent." ); William Michael Treanor, Fame, The Founding, and The Power to Declare War, 82 Cornell L. Rev. 695, 709 (1997).

9. James Iredell (later an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) argued in the North Carolina Ratifying Convention that "[f]rom the nature of the thing, the command of armies ought to be delegated to one person only. The secrecy, despatch, and decision, which are necessary in military operations, can only be expected from one person." Debate in the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, in 4 Jonathan Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, at 107 (2d ed. 1987). See also 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1485 (1833) (in military matters, "[u]nity of plan, promptitude, activity, and decision, are indispensable to success; and these can scarcely exist, except when single magistrate is entrusted exclusively with the power").

11. At the time Attorney General Jackson delivered his opinion, the United States was a neutral, and thus his conclusions about the President's powers did not rest on any special considerations that might apply in time of war. Although he stated that he was "inclined to the opinion"that a statute (the Lend-Lease Act) authorized the decision under review, Jackson expressly based his conclusion on the President's constitutional authority. Id. at 61.

19. See Nick Cook, War of Extremes, in Jane's Defence Weekly (July 7, 1999), available at http://www.janes.com/defense/news/kosovo/jdw990707__01__n.shtml.

24. See generally Wallace F. Warriner, U.S.M.C., The Unilateral Use of Coercion Under International Law: A Legal Analysis of the United States Raid on Libya on April 14, 1986, 37 Naval L. Rev. 49 (1988); Teplitz, supra n.23, at 583-86.

30. True, the reporting requirement in section 4(a)(1) purports to apply to any case in which U.S. armed forces are introduced into hostilities "[i]n the absence of a declaration of war." 50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(1). Further, the "cut off" provisions of section 5 are triggered by the report required by section 4(a)(1). Thus, the language of the WPR indicates an intent to reach action taken by the President pursuant to the authority recognized in section 2(c)(3), if no declaration of war has been issued. We think, however, that it would be beyond Congress's power to regulate the President's emergency authority in the manner prescribed by sections 4(a)(1) and 5.

31. See Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 670 (whether a state of belligerency justifying a blockade exists is to be decided by the President); see also Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 399 (1932) ("By virtue of his duty to 'cause the laws to be faithfully executed', the Executive is appropriately vested with the discretion to determine whether an exigency requiring military aid for that purpose has arisen."); Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 83 (1909) ("[T]he governor's declaration that a state of insurrection existed is conclusive of that fact."); Campbell, 203 F.3d at 26-27 (Silberman, J., concurring) (The Court in the Prize Cases "made clear that it would not dispute the President on measures necessary to repel foreign aggression"); cf. Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19, 30 (1827) (President had unreviewable discretion to determine when "emergency" existed under statute enabling him to call up militia).

32. We of course understand that terrorist organizations and their state sponsors operate by secrecy and concealment, and that it is correspondingly difficult to establish, by the standards of criminal law or even lower legal standards, that particular individuals or groups have been or may be implicated in attacks on the United States. Moreover, even when evidence sufficient to establish involvement is available to the President, it may be impossible for him to disclose that evidence without compromising classified methods and sources, and so damaging the security of the United States. See, e.g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc, 333 U.S. at 111 ("The President . . . has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world."); see also Ruth Wedgwood, Responding to Terrorism: The Strikes Against Bin Laden, 24 Yale J. Int'l L. 559, 568-74 (1999) (analyzing difficulties of establishing and publicizing evidence of causation of terrorist incidents). But we do not think that the difficulty or impossibility of establishing proof to a criminal law standard (or of making evidence public) bars the President from taking such military measures as, in his best judgment, he thinks necessary or appropriate to defend the United States from terrorist attacks. In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the President's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Opioid Crisis Was Declared a National Emergency: Here’s How Local Governments Can Help

# data[].attributes.subject
The Opioid Crisis Was Declared a National Emergency: Here’s How Local Governments Can Help

# data[].attributes.body
The Trump administration informed the executive branch to "use all appropriate emergency and other authorities to respond to the crisis caused by the opioid epidemic." Two options are waiting to be deployed:
Emergency declaration through the Stafford Act: Where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides financial and technical assistance to states and cities through this act. This option is typically used for natural disaster relief.
Emergency declaration through the Public Health Service Act: Where medical professionals to the areas affected by the epidemic. This option is normally used in times of extreme public health crises.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two weeks ago, the Trump Administration issued a statement that directed the executive branch to "use all appropriate emergency and other authorities to respond to the crisis caused by the opioid epidemic." This declaration couldn't have come any sooner. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that in the third quarter of 2016, overdose deaths reached a record-breaking 19.9 people per 100,000. If this trend continues, our localities will need all the help the federal government can offer to battle this growing epidemic.

How bad is the opioid epidemic?

While education on the opioid crisis is getting better in the U.S., the crisis itself is still quite severe and doesn't show significant signs of slowing. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data shows a sharp increase in overdose deaths in the first nine months of 2016. In 2015, the last full year of data available, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 33,091 American deaths were caused by prescription and illicit opioids. Ninety-one people die from an opioid-related overdose every day. As many people are dying from opioid-related overdoses in one year than those that died during combat throughout the entire Korean War (1950-1953).

The U.S. is responsible for the majority of opioid consumption in the world - Cigna reports that Americans disproportionately take 80% of the world's supply. An encouraging statistic from CDC is that the number of opioids prescribed in the U.S has decreased overall. However, the same report showed that three times as many opioids are being prescribed today than in 1999. There is also a lot of variation between counties. The CDC report showed that 22.6% of counties were still reporting opioid prescription rates higher than the national average, and that number is still rising.

Who does the opioid epidemic affect?

Chronic pain sufferers and veterans are two populations that are at high-risk for developing opioid abuse disorders. According to Congressman Tim Murphy, for the 50 million people in America that have chronic back pain, half are prescribed opioids for treatment. The National Institute of Drug Abuse reports that nearly 80% of heroin users have reported using prescription opioids prior to heroin, putting millions at risk unnecessarily. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) reported that 13 percent of U.S. veterans currently take opioids, and this population is twice as likely to die from an accidental opioid overdose.

What is perhaps the most difficult aspect of battling this epidemic? Opioid abuse disorders know no boundaries. It does not favor any demographic - age, educational level, socioeconomic status, or occupation. And it can develop in just about anyone, anywhere, at any time.

What does this national emergency declaration mean?

While the president has issued a statement declaring a national emergency for the opioid epidemic, a formal declaration has not yet been made. First, the Trump Administration must decide under which legislation they will declare the crisis. According to Governing magazine, this leaves the administration with two options they can employ individually or together:

1. Emergency declaration through the Stafford Act. This option allows the president to declare the emergency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides financial and technical assistance to states and cities through this act. This option is typically used for natural disaster relief.

2. Emergency declaration through the Public Health Service Act. This option allows the secretary of health and human services to declare the emergency. This would deploy medical professionals to the areas affected by the epidemic. This option is normally used in times of extreme public health crises.

Formally declaring a national emergency would have other positive implications for states and local governments. NPR pointed to four additional benefits under the national emergency declaration:

1. Increased access to medication-assisted treatment. Federal rules could be waived on medications used to help treat opioid-related abuse and overdoses. The drug naloxone, used to treat opioid overdoses immediately, could be provided without a prescription. Restrictions on doctors to prescribe medication used to treat opioid addiction without a special certification could also be waived.

2. More help to those on Medicaid. Regulation barriers could be removed to help Medicare patients. Under a national emergency, more Medicare patients may be able to get inpatient drug treatment. Medicare funding would also be provided to more treatment centers instead of limiting reimbursement to those with less than 16 beds.

3. More money from Congress. The legislative branch may face increased pressure to provide money to help combat the opioid crisis after seeing executive action.

4. States can request federal aid. Six states have already declared state emergencies in the face of the opioid epidemic. These states would be able to request federal funding for specific activities related to the opioid crisis.

What can local governments do to help combat the opioid epidemic?

A few weeks ago, NARC attended an event hosted by CQ Roll Call: Roll Call Live: Fighting the Opioid Crisis. Members of Congress, health care practitioners, insurance providers, nonprofit organizations, and local government representatives attended this discussion. Panels discussed what real-world solutions are available to fight this pressing issue.

These stakeholders proposed a very different solution to the crisis than the president. Trump supports a law-and-order approach that would crack down on federal drug prosecutions, sentence lengths, and illegal drugs entering the country (watch full comments here).

The local representatives and other stakeholders at the Roll Call Live event called for a much more holistic approach. You, our local government leaders, should tackle the crisis at all sides to help bring the opioid epidemic to an end. Law enforcement should only be an aspect of this fight. Focus on the following recommendations offered by the Roll Call Live stakeholders to address the opioid crisis:

We must do all we can to fight the stigma of opioid abuse. Local outreach is necessary to start the conversation of how common an opioid abuse disorder is, and that it is not a moral failing to develop an addiction. Communities should be educated on the process of opioid-related treatment and on how they can help.

Combine the efforts of patients, health care providers, governments, the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and veterans to fight this epidemic. We all must work together and be on the same page.

Local governments are the closest in proximity to the epidemic and know the needs of their constituency. You should take the lead on this national issue and recommend to the federal government not to micromanage local efforts.

Ask your representatives and senators to dedicate federal funds towards opioid addiction treatment, outreach, and prevention. For every $1 that is spent on opioid addiction treatment, society saves $12.

Be aware of this evidence-based fact: to treat someone that has already developed an opioid addiction, a combination of medication-assisted therapy, mental health treatment, counseling, and maintaining relationships with the patient is the best way to battle the addiction.

Recommend to your local healthcare facilities to treat the individual - not the addiction. Treatments that focus on understanding a patient's complex injury, creating an individual health care plan, monitoring a patient's opioid use, and tailoring a treatment to help the patient achieve their personal life goals are most effective.

Counties, cities, and regions must develop better drug monitoring programs so doctors can monitor patient trends and know when to make an intervention. And records for this should be available across state lines.

Regions should work with medical professionals to focus on alternative methods of treatment and educate prescribers of the options. This should help with the issue of overprescribing opioids. Alternatives could include yoga, meditation, acupuncture, and mental therapy.

Communities must be unified against this crisis. Education against drug abuse disorders must start as early as elementary school. Your constituents should also be open to having treatment centers in their communities throughout your region.

Local leaders should help change the attitude of "quick fix" treatments in their communities.

The opioid epidemic is not going to end any time soon. It can take years for a patient to be completely weaned from opioids. The effects of the rise in addictions and overdoses are also going to have a ripple effect on families and communities in the middle of the crisis. Looking at evidence-based, long term strategies for these communities is the only way we're going to be able to bring this crisis to an end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Opioid Crisis Was Declared a National Emergency: Here's How Local Governments Can Help | Regions Lead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two weeks ago, the Trump Administration issued a statement that directed the executive branch to "use all appropriate emergency and other authorities to respond to the crisis caused by the opioid epidemic." This declaration couldn't have come any sooner.

# data[].attributes.headline
GM, Toyota and Chrysler side with White House in fight over California fuel standards, exposing auto industry split

# data[].attributes.subject
GM, Toyota and Chrysler side with White House in fight over California fuel standards, exposing auto industry split

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2019/10/28/gm-toyota-chrysler-side-with-white-house-fight-over-california-fuel-standards-exposing-auto-industry-split/

1. The Executive Branch is currently challenging California’s authority to set tailpipe emissions under the Clean Air Act.
2. I have conflicting views on this topic, as vehicle standards are usually set by the states, but environmental and emission standards are usually set by the government. Both sides have credibility in their claims. I would like to see the Executive Branch pass a law allowing states minor control over emissions standards, so California could make the move that it wants to, but not have total control.
3. The actions of the Executive Branch are more confrontational/effective than the Legislative, as they are directly blocking California's request instead of negotiating it, like we often see in the Legislative Branch, and as with the majority of the issues last week.

# data[].attributes.body
- Ralph Northam directed his Cabinet and state agencies to craft a package of initiatives to help Virginians find health care coverage that is “meaningful and affordable.”
- Access to health insurance coverage has been a major issue raised by Democrats in campaigns for the Senate and House of Delegates, but the governor’s office said the timing of the executive directive is related more to the budget he will propose on Dec. 17 than legislative elections on Nov. 5.
1) The  Executive Branch in Virgina is trying to come together and figure out more information on Health Care and what they should do. They are also trying to bring down the prices of Health Care.
2) I feel like these executive Branch dessions are good and I feel like they should also try and get some help from the federal part as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three weeks before elections that will decide control of the General Assembly, Gov. Ralph Northam directed his Cabinet and state agencies to craft a package of initiatives to help Virginians find health care coverage that is "meaningful and affordable."

Northam signed an executive directive on Tuesday - two days after previewing his action in an opinion column in the Richmond Times-Dispatch - that directs Secretary of Health and Human Resources Dan Carey to lead an administration push to address a wide range of concerns about health care accessibility and affordability.

Access to health insurance coverage has been a major issue raised by Democrats in campaigns for the Senate and House of Delegates, but the governor's office said the timing of the executive directive is related more to the budget he will propose on Dec. 17 than legislative elections on Nov. 5.

"It's the budget timeline that's driving the announcement, not the election timeline," Carey said in an interview Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment, R-James City, scoffed, "Just three weeks before Virginians vote, Governor Northam suddenly discovers health care affordability and options are a problem."

"We'd have made real progress on this issue if he hadn't been vetoing bills that ensured protections for pre-existing conditions and addressed the problem," Norment said in a text statement.

Political analyst Larry Sabato said the timing of the governor's column and directive is not coincidental.

"Nothing that happens in the month before an election is an accident," said Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "Nothing that happens in the month before an election is not political."

In his opinion column Sunday, Northam ripped President Donald Trump and "legislators here in Richmond" for undermining health coverage protections under the Affordable Care Act. He promised a sweeping initiative to reduce health insurance premiums, improve health care for vulnerable populations and position the state "to make the decisions of how to best meet the needs of Virginians."

The governor reminded readers that this year he had vetoed bills - proposed by Republican legislators who are now defending their seats - that would have offered options such as short-term health plans, coverage for catastrophic medical needs or insurance for associations that he said were "passed under the guise of 'consumer choice.' "

"These efforts deliberately undermine ACA protections and incentivize health insurance companies to provide less meaningful coverage, which will lead to more struggling families and wider insurance coverage gaps," he said.

Democratic candidates have accused their Republican opponents - including Sens. Siobhan Dunnavant, R-Henrico; Glen Sturtevant, R-Chesterfield; and Bryce Reeves, R-Spotsylvania - of sponsoring legislation that would allow insurers to exclude people with pre-existing health conditions from coverage under short-term plans that the Trump administration has promoted.

A PolitiFact Virginia review of the claim, made by Dunnavant's opponent, Del. Debra Rodman, D-Henrico, ruled it false because insurers already were able to exclude people with pre-existing conditions under short-duration policies that would have been extended in Virginia without the legislation.

Republicans hold a 20-19 edge in the Senate, with one seat vacant, heading into the election. Norment, who is trying to defend the slim Republican majority, said the governor's vetoes of the senators' bills "have kept low-cost options and choices from Virginians, raising the expense of insurance for everyone."

Northam had vetoed similar proposals in 2018, but convened a work group under Carey to look for ways to stabilize the health insurance market. The work group made major recommendations in December, a week before the governor proposed his budget. The recommendations included the creation of a state-based health insurance exchange and a federal waiver to allow the state to create a reinsurance program to lower premiums by paying for the most costly care in a separate risk pool.

The governor raised those ideas again in his column, but his administration did not propose legislation or budget amendments in the General Assembly this year to carry them out. The lack of legislative action disappointed health care advocates, who hope the administration will follow up on recommendations in the new initiative when a newly elected General Assembly convenes in January.

"I do hope this results in a package of initiatives from the governor's office to address some of the needs of Virginians," said Jill Hanken, senior attorney at the Virginia Poverty Law Center.

Carey said the administration didn't have the "capacity and time" to produce budget or legislative proposals for the assembly early this year.

"We own what we did and we own what we didn't do," he said.

Sabato said the delay also could reflect the challenge of getting major health care initiatives through the Republican-controlled legislature in a critical election year.

"If you win the General Assembly, you can probably get what you want," he said.

Political analyst Bob Holsworth, a public policy consultant and former dean at Virginia Commonwealth University, said Democrats believe health care issues benefit them more than Republicans in political campaigns.

"The Democrats want to run the campaigns on their turf," Holsworth said.

The executive directive is a way for Northam to send a clear message to his Cabinet and executive branch agencies "that this is a priority for the governor," Carey said.

The three-page directive is more wide-ranging but less specific than the recommendations of the work group last year.

It focuses on ways to streamline eligibility and enrollment to improve access to health and social services; reach Virginians who are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid or other health coverage; reduce health care costs as a way to lower insurance premiums; and help vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, youths in foster care and people who don't speak English.

It also directs the administration to help consumers navigate their health care options.

"It looks like he's casting a very broad net," Hanken said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Northam makes pre-election pitch with new health care initiative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three weeks before elections that will decide control of the General Assembly, Gov. Ralph Northam directed his Cabinet and state agencies to craft a package of initiatives to help Virginians find health care coverage that is "meaningful and affordable."

# data[].attributes.body
1. The actions currently taking place in the Executive Branch are the Governor of California is signing and enforcing laws to strengthen the previous gun laws.
2. I think these actions actions are good because, it has been crucial for all gun laws to be strengthened and reenforced and for new ones to be made. This is a step in the right direction. Some actions I would like see the Executive Branch take at the Federal level would be to follow in Californias footsteps and strengthen their laws so every state has strengthened gun laws and for every state and the federal government to strongly enforce gun laws.
3. The actions of the Executive compare to the actions of the Legislature because the Legislature make the laws, meanwhile the Executive branch enforces them and chooses who enforces them and how to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AB 339 requires law enforcement agencies to develop and adopt policies and standards regarding the use of gun violence restraining orders AB 879 requires firearm precursor parts, used to assemble untraceable "ghost guns," to be sold by licensed vendors and requires background eligibility checks for these transactions SB 61 prohibits the sale of a semiautomatic centerfire rifle to any person under 21 years of age
SACRAMENTO - Building on budget investments in gun violence prevention, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed a package of 15 bills aimed at strengthening gun violence protections. The bills strengthen gun violence restraining orders, regulate ghost guns to mitigate the use of untraceable firearms by criminals, and will prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunitions at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in the County of San Diego, the City of Del Mar and the City of San Diego starting next year.

"Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, one that's been enflamed by the inaction of politicians in Washington," said Governor Newsom. "While Washington has refused to act on even the most basic gun safety reforms, California is once again leading the nation in passing meaningful gun safety reforms."

"California continues to be a leader in fighting the threat of gun violence," said former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, co-founder of Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. "The legislative package Governor Newsom signed today will help make California safer for all who call it home, and it shows the nation what committed, active, and thoughtful leadership on gun safety looks like. Giffords is proud to have played a strong role in helping craft this package and to have partnered with Governor Newsom, the legislature's gun violence working group, and so many other courageous leaders in California to push these bills to become law."

The bills signed today by Governor Newsom include the following:

Strengthening gun violence restraining orders

AB 12 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) extends the duration of a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) to a maximum of five years.

AB 61 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) allows an employer, coworker, or an employee or teacher to file a petition requesting a gun violence restraining order.

AB 164 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) holds any person subject to a valid restraining order, injunction, or protective order issued out of state to the same restrictions on buying or possessing firearms in California as they are under in the state where the order or injunction is operative.

AB 339 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) requires law enforcement agencies to develop and adopt written policies and standards regarding the use of gun violence restraining orders.

AB 1493 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) authorizes a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order to petition to submit a form to the court voluntarily relinquishing their firearm rights.

Regulating firearms sales

SB 61 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) prohibits the sale of a semiautomatic centerfire rifle to any person under 21 years of age, and applications to purchase more than one semiautomatic centerfire rifle in any 30-day period, with a few exceptions.

SB 376 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) prevents individuals from selling large numbers of firearms without a license by capping the number of annual sales at five transactions or 50 firearms.

AB 645 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) requires packaging for firearms to contain a warning statement on suicide prevention.

AB 879 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) requires, starting in 2024, that the sale of firearms precursor parts be conducted through a licensed firearms precursor part vendor.

AB 1669 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) updates existing law by applying the same gun show regulations that already apply to firearms dealers to ammunition vendors, and ensures that sufficient funding is available for firearm regulatory efforts.

AB 1297 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) requires any local authority issuing concealed firearm licenses to charge an applicant a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of processing, issuing and enforcement of the license, and eliminates the existing $100 limit on processing fees for concealed firearm licenses.

AB 893 by Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunitions at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in the County of San Diego, the City of Del Mar, the City of San Diego.

Additional legislation

AB 1548 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) codifies the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program to improve the physical security of nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of violent attacks or hate crimes due to ideology, beliefs, or mission.

AB 1603 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) codifies the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program to help reduce violence in communities that are disproportionately impacted by violence.

AB 521 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) requires, with the adoption of a resolution by the University of California, the UC Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of California, Davis to develop multifaceted education and training programs for medical and mental health providers on the prevention of firearm-related injury and death.

In the 2019-20 state budget, Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature made significant investments in gun violence prevention, security for hate-crime targets, and gun safety measures. The budget triples funding for the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Program, which funds support services such as community education, diversion programs, outreach to at-risk transitional age youth and violence reduction models. The budget also secures long-term funding for the Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of California, Davis to circumvent NRA-backed federal limits on research. Previously, the Governor signed AB 1292 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) which specifies circumstances following the death of a firearm owner, and circumstances in which a person takes a gun from someone committing a crime against them, which allow a firearm to be transferred from one person to another by operation of law without the need to go through a firearms dealer.

In total, the Governor signed the following gun-related bills:

AB 12 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) - Firearms: gun violence restraining orders.

AB 61 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) - Gun violence restraining orders.

AB 164 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) - Firearms: prohibited persons.

AB 339 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) - Gun violence restraining orders: law enforcement procedures.

AB 521 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) - Physicians and surgeons: firearms: training.

AB 645 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) - Firearms: warning statements.

AB 879 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) - Firearms.

AB 893 by Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) - 22nd District Agricultural Association: firearm and ammunition sales at the Del Mar Fairgrounds.

AB 1297 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) - Firearms: concealed carry license.

AB 1493 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) - Gun violence restraining order: petition.

AB 1548 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) - California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program.

AB 1603 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) - California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program.

AB 1669 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) - Firearms: gun shows and events.

SB 61 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) - Firearms: transfers.

SB 376 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) - Firearms: transfers.

The Legislature also passed the following resolution, not requiring the Governor's signature:

AJR 4 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) - Firearms.

###

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Governor Gavin Newsom Signs Gun Violence Prevention Legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AB 339 requires law enforcement agencies to develop and adopt policies and standards regarding the use of gun violence restraining orders AB 879 requires firearm precursor parts, used to assemble untraceable "ghost guns," to be sold by licensed vendors and requires background eligibility checks for

# data[].attributes.body
To sum up this article it talks about how Governor Gavin Newsom is trying to fix the housing crisis, but his administration as not shown any improvement. In the article it states that "increase private funding for affordable housing have stalled or failed". This shows how he is trying to fix the problem, but it isn't enough to fully get it where he wants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On the campaign trail and during his first months in office, Gov. Gavin Newsom called for an unprecedented response to California's housing crisis.

He pledged that his administration would help spur the biggest wave of homebuilding in modern history. And he promised to launch a statewide affordable housing program on par with the nation's effort to rebuild Europe after World War II.

"Our solutions must be as bold as the problem is big," Newsom wrote two years ago in a Medium post unveiling his housing plan.

But now at the end of the first legislative year of his term, many of Newsom's highest-profile initiatives to speed housing production, boost the state's authority over development decisions and increase private funding for affordable housing have stalled or failed.

While Newsom can point to some successes - notably a new statewide cap preventing large rent increases - there are few signs the state is making the kind of progress Newsom had hoped for in addressing its housing issues, and homelessness is now an even more pressing problem than when he took office.

"It seems like a pretty meaningful failure," said Michael Lens, an associate professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA. "Either a failure of commitment or a failure of effort."

Newsom, however, contends that this year's work will not only put a dent in the state's housing problems, but also set up more consequential action going forward. For example, he said new laws that permit more affordable housing to be developed near transit, and prevent cities and counties from passing growth moratoriums lay the groundwork for further state legislation.

The budget also adds nearly $3 billion for housing and homelessness initiatives, and his administration has begun trying to turn underused state properties into low-income housing developments.

Still, the governor's accomplishments this year don't match his original agenda. On the campaign trail, Newsom called for the construction of 3.5 million new homes by 2025 - or 500,000 a year - a rate that requires building at a level unseen since the construction industry began keeping statistics in the 1950s.

"It's a stubborn issue," Newsom said in an interview with The Times. "You can't snap your fingers and build hundreds of thousands, millions of housing units overnight."

The state faces a shortage of 1.7 million affordable rental homes, which in turn has spawned a rapidly worsening homelessness crisis. Funding to build them still lags far behind what's needed, according to the nonprofit California Housing Partnership.

The governor hasn't gotten buy-in on his plans to boost housing production from local governments, which may end up signing off on as few as 109,000 new home permits statewide in 2019 - a 6% decrease from last year.

In his inauguration speech in January, Newsom said he would implement "a Marshall Plan for affordable housing," evoking the billions of dollars in economic assistance after World War II. But while the state significantly increased spending on financing new low- and middle-income housing, much of the money is guaranteed for only one year.

Citing its cost and the impact to the state budget, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have added over time another $2 billion annually for subsidized housing construction.

Newsom never introduced his own plan to substantially boost overall housing production and didn't throw his political weight behind Senate Bill 50, a measure vehemently opposed by Los Angeles officials that would have allowed the construction of fourplexes in neighborhoods of single-family homes and mid-rise apartments near transit stops and job centers. A legislative committee tabled the bill in the spring.

Other big ideas have also fallen far short of what the governor wanted. When he unveiled his budget proposal in January, Newsom threatened to withhold state transportation dollars from cities that didn't approve enough housing. That plan failed when fellow Democrats in the Legislature believed the punishment was too strong. Instead, lawmakers added fines for local governments that defy state mandates to plan for, rather than approve, sufficient housing - and even then, that penalty wouldn't kick in for years.

Newsom also called on tech companies, one of the state's biggest economic engines, to contribute $500 million to the state treasury to help build new housing for their employees, who frequently have been blamed for displacing residents at the lower end of the wage scale. The money he asked for has not materialized, though in The Times interview Newsom hinted that something could be coming.

"We hope to be making - and I don't want to get ahead of myself - in the very near term some not so insignificant announcements," he said.

Newsom also initially threw his support behind negotiations between the state construction worker unions and developers with the goal of adding wage guarantees for workers in exchange for labor's support to reduce regulations on homebuilding. But the two sides didn't reach a deal.

Even arguably the governor's biggest success, the statewide cap on annual rent increases of 5% plus inflation, didn't go far enough to convince some tenant advocates to withdraw a potential 2020 ballot initiative that would create even stricter rent control regulations.

"The governor has made a lot of promises and has set very high expectations for action in the area of housing," said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted a recent poll showing Californians believe homelessness and housing affordability are the state's biggest problems. "He hasn't really given people a sense of how long this is going to take."

Throughout the spring, major housing bills struggled to gain traction in the Legislature and Newsom was largely absent from the debate. But once his administration became more engaged later in the year, the governor was able to bend policies in his direction. Most significantly, the governor brokered the deal to cap rents even though lawmakers had already rejected a similar version of the same proposal.

Ben Metcalf, who served as director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development under Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown until he resigned last month to start a consulting business, said that Newsom's soaring ambitions on housing were, in part, hemmed in by his equally soaring ambitions to address healthcare, criminal justice reform and other big systemic issues.

"The challenge there - and what he has admitted to - is just when he campaigned on as many things as he did, and he wanted to make progress on all of them in his first year, it's hard to go deeply on any one of them," Metcalf said. "That was always one of Brown's strengths. I think Newsom will probably get there."

Told of Metcalf's comments, Newsom strongly rejected the suggestion that his housing agenda lacked focus, saying he achieved largely what he set out to do.

"To set the tone and tenor in the inaugural. To transition to the pragmatic in the budget and in the legislative session. I'm very pleased," the governor said. "We went deep."

Still, Newsom conceded that some of his lofty early rhetoric - the 3.5-million home-building number and the reference to the Marshall Plan - requires more specifics. The governor considers the number "a stretch goal."

In the coming months, he expects the state housing department to release what he calls a more "pragmatic" estimate of the housing needs by region. The process has already involved telling local governments across Southern California that they'll need to plan for 1.3 million new homes in the next decade.

And the governor said he won't have followed through on his pledge for a "Marshall Plan" until the state substantively takes on opposition to growth from local governments and neighborhood groups, especially when it comes to building near transit stops.

"You're going to see a lot more pressure put on cities next year," Newsom said. "I can assure you, you haven't seen anything yet. There's going to be a hell of a lot more pressure coming in the new year."

That focus on local governments is likely to face strong opposition. Cities and counties, for example, were at the forefront of the pushback to SB 50 as an incursion on their power over housing decisions. Newsom's more direct efforts to target specific communities are taking a long time to resolve.

At the governor's urging in January, the state sued the Orange County city of Huntington Beach alleging that it was failing to comply with laws to plan for sufficient housing. A trial date in the case still hasn't been set. And Huntington Beach has filed its own separate legal action against the state, contending that certain housing laws impinge on the city's authority to control development decisions. A trial in that case is scheduled for February, but is likely to be delayed so the city can challenge more state housing laws, said Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates.

Gates said his city will continue to fight back and expects whatever side loses in the cases will file appeals. If Newsom wanted to solve the state's housing problems, Gates said, the governor should push for low-income housing in undeveloped areas instead of already built communities.

"The governor is trying to target these already developed cities, these nice beach cities like Huntington Beach, and say we're going to force their wholesale redevelopment to create just another welfare program," Gates said.

Newsom pledged that he remains just as committed to fixing California's housing problems as he was before taking office.

"This is not an issue that we're going to get distracted on," he said. "I am all in on the issue of affordability. We have many, many next acts."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsom says he's done a good job fixing California's housing crisis. Facts say otherwise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the campaign trail and during his first months in office, Gov. Gavin Newsom called for an unprecedented response to California's housing crisis. He pledged that his administration would help spur the biggest wave of homebuilding in modern history.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legislative Action in New York for Criminal Justice

# data[].attributes.subject
Legislative Action in New York for Criminal Justice

# data[].attributes.body
Laws that were passed in April in New York will be taking effect soon, including the elimination of bail for the majority of misdemeanors. I see the positives of this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A sea change is coming for the city's police and prosecutors that will force them to adjust a range of current practices in the face of a series of criminal justice reforms kicking in on Jan. 1.

The state laws dealing with bail reform are aimed at reducing both the number of people held in jail and the amount of time they are held, following many years of cases in which people languished on Rikers Island and elsewhere for years waiting for their day in court.

A second set of laws involves changes to discovery rules, which address a series of long-held concerns that law enforcement had an unfair advantage in prosecutions, is also slated to go into effect at the start of 2020.

Under the bail reform laws passed in Albany in April, bail for misdemeanors is eliminated, except for sex crimes and violating orders of protection. Remands for misdemeanors are barred.

Bail and pretrial detention is also eliminated for most non-violent felonies, with the exception of witness tampering, murder conspiracy, domestic violence cases, crimes against kids, sex crimes and terror cases.

Bail and detention is allowed pretrial in violent felonies, expect for certain burglary and robbery charges. It is eliminated for all class A drug felonies, except for major drug trafficking.

The Center for Court Innovation estimates that just 10% of the 205,000 criminal cases in the city in 2018 would be eligible for bail and detention under the new law.

The discovery reform law will have a similar, far-reaching effect. Grand jury proceedings will no longer be secret. Prosecutors must turn over their evidence to defense counsel within 15 days after arraignment. There are exceptions and a provision that grants a 30-day extension.

The defense will also get names and contact information from anyone who has relevant information about a case, names and assignment of all police officers involved, and every witness statement, even those the prosecutor does not plan to call to the stand. Criminal lawyers are also entitled to all electronic recordings.

Prosecutors have three days before a plea deal expires to reveal what evidence they have against someone.

Police evidence delays are no longer an excuse for prosecutors to hand over matters to the defense.

If prosecutors want to introduce evidence of over crimes, they to turn it over 15 days before a trial starts.

Meanwhile, the defense has 30 days to turn over its case to the state.

In sensitive cases, the prosecution can ask a judge for a protective order but they have to show a good reason. The court has to hold a hearing within three days of the request and rule.

The law also allows defendants to visit crime scenes to build their defense. For that reason, the court can also order the crime scene to remain unchanged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to know about sweeping criminal justice reforms kicking in come January

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The state laws dealing with bail reform are aimed at reducing both the number of people held in jail and the amount of time they are held, following many years of cases in which people languished on Rikers Island and elsewhere for years waiting for their day in court.

# data[].attributes.body
the idea of going organic to people seems to a good idea but in this article it talks about how it does cut down of greenhouse-gas emissions but it also takes up much more land which is less benificial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Organic practices can reduce climate pollution produced directly from farming. Which would be fantastic if they didn't also require more land to produce the same amount of food.

But clearing additional carbon-storing grasslands or forests to make up for that shortfall would release considerably more greenhouse gas than the practices otherwise reduce, a new study in Nature Communications finds.

Other recent research has also concluded that organic farming produces more climate pollution than conventional practices when land-use changes are taken into account. In the new paper, researchers at the UK's Cranfield University took a broad look at the question by analyzing what would happen if all of England and Wales shifted entirely to these practices.

The good news is it would cut the direct greenhouse-gas emissions from livestock by 5% and from growing crops by 20% per unit of production. The bad news: it would slash yields by around 40%, forcing hungry Britons to import more food from overseas. If half the land used to meet that spike in demand was converted from grasslands, which store carbon in plant tissues, roots, and soil, it would boost overall greenhouse-gas emissions by 21%.

Among other things, organic farming avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms, all of which can boost the amount of crops produced per acre. Instead, organic farmers rely on things like animal manure and compost, and practices such as crop rotation, which involves growing different plants throughout the year to improve soil health.

The study notes that these biological inputs produce fewer emissions than nitrogen-based synthetic fertilizers, notably including the highly potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Separately, the use of manure and longer crop rotations can increase the amount of carbon stored in soil. (See " Carbon farming is the hot (and overhyped) tool to fight climate change.")

The emissions impact of the meat, milk, and eggs produced from organically raised livestock is more complicated. On the one hand, emissions can increase because animals don't plump up as fast without hormones, supplements, and conventional feed. That might give cattle longer lives in which to belch out methane, another especially powerful greenhouse gas (see " Seaweed could make cows burp less methane and cut their carbon hoofprint"). On the other, allowing animals to spend more of their lives grazing on open grasslands may stimulate additional plant growth that captures more carbon dioxide, while cutting emissions associated with standard feeds.

But the bigger problem, for both crops and livestock, is that these practices end up requiring a lot more land to produce the same amount of food.

After all, the whole point of synthetic fertilizer is it boosts crop yields per acre, by providing a "fixed" form of nitrogen that promotes plant growth. The legumes that organic farmers have to rotate in to help convert nitrogen into more reactive compounds in the soil end up cutting deeply into other food crops they could otherwise grow, the study notes.

Specifically, the switch to 100% organic practices would require 1.5 times more land to make up for the declines, which would add up to nearly five times more land overseas than England and Wales currently rely on for food. That difference is amplified by the fact the UK's agricultural system produces particularly high yields compared with other parts of the world.

Sign up for The Download - your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology

The study found larger effects than some earlier papers. Notably, a 2012 meta-analysis in Nature determined that organic farming yields are between 5% and 34% lower than those from conventional agriculture, depending on the specific crops and practices. In addition, a 2017 Nature Communications study estimated that switching to organic farming would increase land use by only 16% to 33%.

By evaluating the entire farming system of England and Wales, the new study helps to address some of the criticisms of earlier organic emissions assessments, which were often limited to specific farms or crops, says Dan Blaustein-Rejto, associate director of food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank that promotes technology solutions to environmental challenges.

"Looking at the farm scale doesn't really tell you what a large-scale transition to organic would look like," he says. "Only a study like this, that takes a system-wide perspective, really does."

The world does need to find ways to cut the emissions and environmental pollution from synthetic fertilizers. But the trick is to clean up these practices in ways that don't require converting more land to agriculture, or forcing large parts of the world to go hungry.

Among other paths, a number of researchers and startups are trying to develop novel agricultural inputs that could cut emissions without reducing yields, crops that take up more of the nitrogen in soil, and various meat and milk alternatives (see " The race to make a lab-grown steak ").

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sorry-organic farming is actually worse for climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organic practices can reduce climate pollution produced directly from farming. Which would be fantastic if they didn't also require more land to produce the same amount of food. But clearing additional carbon-storing grasslands or forests to make up for that shortfall would release considerably more greenhouse gas than the practices otherwise reduce, a new study in Nature Communications finds.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It seems that base from the article that legislation action is not being put to fix or attempt to fix this issue. It's only creating a longer wait time for immigrates who want to come here .
2.  Again, legislation seems to not putting any action on this issue. Also the Trump administration is trying to created a short cut to lower " the Line" , but its not really help the immigrates. I would prefer to have a federal or nation action on the immigration policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Discourse around the issue of immigration often shows how little Americans know about the immigration system. For example, many Americans (including President Trump) strongly believe that undocumented immigrants have no right to be in the United States because they did not "wait in line." However, this view does not take into account that for most prospective immigrants there is no line to join, and the existing lines have waiting times that range from a few months to decades. Instead of telling the rest of the world to wait in line, Americans should tell Congress to pass legislation to overhaul the immigration system.

Even though the United States grants green cards to around 1 million people each year, it is far from having an efficient immigration system. This is mainly due to the limits that Congress places on how many people can receive a green card under certain categories and understaffed immigration courts. In any given year, there are more applicants than there are green cards available or staff to process their applications, which leads to backlogs. Moreover, this system of processing immigrants has been unable to handle its growing backlog of cases in the past decade due to government shutdowns and an increase in immigrants from Central America at the southern border. According to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), the immigration backlog has now surpassed 1 million cases.

Consider a Honduran immigrant fleeing gang violence who decides to migrate to the United States. There are only four options: apply for asylum, apply for refugee status, marry an American citizen, or get sponsored by a family member who is an American citizen. There is no category in the current system to provide a legal pathway for immigrants fleeing gang violence in Central America, which has forced hundreds of thousands of them to migrate illegally.

Those who do try to obtain asylum or refugee status are increasingly facing restrictive asylum policies under the Trump administration that seek to reduce the number of green cards granted to asylum-seekers.

This is contradictory to what the United States needs to do in order to mitigate its case backlog and shorten wait times. Rather than creating more lines so prospective migrants have options to come to the United States legally and in a timely manner, the Trump administration is attempting to reduce the number of lines, which will only increase wait times and illegal immigration.

Given that the immigration system is not in favor of an immigrant who would like to apply for a green card to relocate to the United States, the attitude that immigrants should wait in line is out of touch with reality. It is therefore not surprising that people have so little faith in the immigration system that they are willing to pay smugglers thousands of dollars and risk their lives to come here. This exemplifies a lack of trust in the government's ability to regulate immigration. Specifically, the lack of trust in Congress to mitigate the perennial backlogs of the immigration system through legislation.

The Trump administration will continue to make wait lines for immigration cases longer if it continues enacting restrictive immigration policies. Ironically, these efforts will not mitigate the issues that the immigration system faces, but rather exacerbate them. It is therefore Congress' responsibility to pass legislation to fix the immigration system, because it is the only entity that has the power to modify the system. When Americans tell immigrants to wait in line, they are shifting Congress' responsibility to fix immigration on an entity that has no power on this issue. It is time that Americans stop telling immigrants to wait in line and start telling Congress to fix the immigration system by passing legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stop telling immigrants to wait in line and tell Congress to fix immigration - The Daily Campus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discourse around the issue of immigration often shows how little Americans know about the immigration system. For example, many Americans (including President Trump) strongly believe that undocumented immigrants have no right to be in the United States because they did not "wait in line."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given the far-reaching nature of the climate challenge, effective federal policy is needed to achieve deep, long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and to help strengthen climate resilience across the U.S. economy. Even in the absence of a comprehensive federal approach, the federal government can help accelerate progress being made by cities, states, and companies. Federal policymakers have a number of policy tools at their disposal:

Government research and development programs, such as the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy, can drive progress in clean energy technologies and bring them to commercial use.

Voluntary programs, like the Natural Gas STAR program, work with businesses to reduce emissions, often with public recognition.

Traditional regulations, such as fuel efficiency and emissions standards for cars and trucks, require companies to increase energy efficiency or reduce emissions in their own operations or in the goods they produce.

Market-based programs that put a price on carbon emissions, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, require emission reductions but let the private sector determine the most cost-effective way to achieve them.

Effective federal policy is needed to achieve deep, long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and to help strengthen climate resilience.

While all these policies and programs can help reduce emissions and drive technological change, economists across the political spectrum agree that a flexible, market-based approach is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, and should be a centerpiece of a comprehensive climate strategy.

The legislative, executive, and judicial branches all have a role to play in reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and building resilient communities.

Congress is responsible for authorizing laws to address the climate challenge and appropriating funding for relevant programs. The Clean Air Act, for instance, provides the foundation for many existing climate policies. An economy-wide, market-based approach to climate change would require Congress to enact new legislation. Congress also has an important role in oversight of the executive branch and ensuring the administration is implementing existing law.

The executive branch implements existing law through regulation and programs. These laws touch the work of nearly every federal agency. For example:

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to work with states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane.

Energy policy laws require the Department of Energy to partner with the private sector to research, develop, and deploy clean energy technologies, and to set energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment.

The Department of Transportation is required to set standards that improve the fuel economy of motor vehicles.

The Department of Defense is required to plan for the global security consequences of climate change.

Many of the climate measures adopted by the Obama Administration are under review, and may be reversed, by the Trump Administration.

Federal courts interpret existing laws and provide a venue for states, industry and citizens to seek or challenge climate measures. A growing number of citizens and communities are bringing lawsuits seeking relief from the detrimental effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions. How the courts handle these cases will affect industry, government, law, policy, and the environment.

C2ES works with federal policymakers to foster understanding of climate impacts and build support for practical solutions that benefit the environment and the economy. Learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Action on Climate - Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Given the far-reaching nature of the climate challenge, effective federal policy is needed to achieve deep, long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and to help strengthen climate resilience across the U.S. economy. Even in the absence of a comprehensive federal approach, the federal government can help accelerate progress being made by cities, states, and companies.

# data[].attributes.headline
the houses pass the law where they are giving paper to thousand of immigrants who were brought to the U.S as children

# data[].attributes.subject
the houses pass the law where they are giving paper to thousand of immigrants who were brought to the U.S as children

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump reaches temporary deal meant to delay further tariffs against China

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump reaches temporary deal meant to delay further tariffs against China

# data[].attributes.body
The trade war is not an entirely legaslative issue, mostly executive. On Oct.11 Trump reached a deal with China that would delay and stall tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. This was the 13th round of negotiations. It was a surprising turn of events considering the President's previous sentiments towards the trade war, urging businesses to stop working with China and angered by the retaliatory tariffs.
Businesses are relieved and the stocks rose, but economic experts warn that it is still just a temporary plan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China's top trade envoy, Liu He, met with President Trump on Friday afternoon where the two sides announced an interim agreement that will help defuse trade tensions between the world's largest economies. Credit Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

WASHINGTON - President Trump said Friday that the United States had reached an interim deal with China that would forestall a tariff increase slated for next week, providing a temporary détente in a prolonged and economically painful trade war.

Mr. Trump, speaking from the Oval Office, said negotiators had reached a "Phase 1" agreement that would take several weeks to write and that both sides could officially sign by November.

If completed, the agreement would provide relief to American farmers and businesses that have been battered by the trade war. Mr. Trump said the "substantial" agreement would involve China buying $40 billion to $50 billion worth of American agricultural products annually, along with guidelines on how it manages its currency, the renminbi.

It would also strengthen Chinese protections for American intellectual property and give financial services companies more access to China's market, the president said.

In exchange, the United States will not move ahead next week with plans to raise tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods to 30 percent. The president has not made a final decision on whether to impose an additional round of tariffs on Dec. 15, as he has threatened.

The announcement is a sharp turn from Mr. Trump's posture several weeks ago, when the president - angry over China's retaliatory tariffs - demanded that American companies stop doing business with China and threatened to tax every toy, shoe and computer from Beijing before the year's end. The escalation has rattled investors, lawmakers and businesses, which have begun delaying investment and hiring amid continuing uncertainty about the trade war's trajectory.

The economic pain appears to have softened Mr. Trump's appetite for a fight. On Friday, the president said the two sides would now work on a deal in phases, a reversal from his previous position that he was looking for a "complete" China deal, not an interim agreement.

"It's such a big deal that doing it in sections, in phases, is really better," Mr. Trump said during a White House meeting with Liu He, China's vice premier. "So you'll either have two phases or three phases."

The first phase could be signed when Mr. Trump appears alongside Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, at a meeting of global leaders in Santiago, Chile, in November. The next phase would begin soon after, Mr. Trump said.

Despite the announcement, the deal has not been completed, and Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said that more work remained, including on the agreements related to currency and access for American financial companies.

"We have a fundamental agreement on the key issues," he said. "But there is a significant amount of work to do."

The deal is far from the type of comprehensive agreement Mr. Trump has been pushing for, and it leaves some of the administration's biggest concerns about China's economic practices unresolved. Although exact terms are still under discussion, the details the president announced include some of the concessions that China has previously floated, including purchases of agricultural products and limits on Beijing devaluing its currency to gain a competitive advantage.

Still, the agreement, which came during the 13th round of negotiations, will help to defuse trade tensions that have begun inflicting pain on the global economy and bolster business across the Pacific. In his quest to force China to acquiesce to America's terms, Mr. Trump has already taxed $360 billion worth of Chinese products and had penciled in another round of tariffs on Dec. 15.

Stock and commodity prices climbed on Friday as investors anticipated a resolution to the trade spat.

The S&P 500 rose 1.1 percent. The technology-heavy Nasdaq composite index rose 1.3 percent. The Russell 2000 index of small capitalization stocks, typically viewed as closely tied to the health of the American domestic economy, rose 1.8 percent.

Crude oil prices rose, as did prices for key industrial metals such as copper and iron ore, often looked to as a barometer of the outlook for China's large industrial economy.

Stocks of companies with heavy exposure to China soared. Shares of Deere & Company rose 1.9 percent, while Apple gained 2.7 percent and Wynn Resorts, which generates the bulk of its revenue from casinos in China, surged 6.3 percent. An index of semiconductor companies, which depend on Asian supply chains, gained 2.3 percent.

Business groups expressed relief that the negotiations between the United States and China appeared to be making progress after more than a year of sputtering, yet they acknowledged that the agreement fell short of the sweeping deal that Mr. Trump had promised.

John Neuffer, the president of the Semiconductor Industry Association, said the deal was "welcome news" for his industry that would give "both sides a chance to get back to the negotiating table to strike a more comprehensive deal."

The initial reaction among Republican lawmakers was cautiously optimistic. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, said that any progress was good news, but that Mr. Trump must reach a more substantial deal for the pain of the trade war to have been worthwhile.

"After so much has been sacrificed, Americans will settle for nothing less than a full, enforceable and fair deal with China," Mr. Grassley said. "I look forward to learning more details in the coming days."

Trade experts in China were quick to welcome the deal as a breakthrough.

"It the first time since the start of the trade war that negotiators have reached some solid result," said Cui Fan, a prominent professor of trade policy at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.

Mr. Trump's defenders say China's concessions will generate positive momentum for future talks and result in more business for farmers and manufacturers as they continue to press Beijing for a broader pact to correct longstanding economic abuses. Critics say that the move will go only part way toward resolving a crisis of the president's own making, and that the trade war will continue to slow the global economy.

"Behind the hype, this is nothing more than a partial and ostensibly unsustainable deal lacking in real enforcement mechanism," said Gregory Daco, the chief United States economist at Oxford Economics. "For businesses, this will mean less damage, not greater certainty."

The interim agreement also does not resolve some of the thorniest issues between the two countries, including whether the United States will continue to label China a currency manipulator and whether it will keep Huawei, the Chinese telecom giant, on a government blacklist.

In August, the Treasury Department formally designated China a currency manipulator for the first time since 1994, at the direction of Mr. Trump. The largely symbolic move came amid frustration among American officials that China was counteracting the president's tariffs by devaluing the renminbi.

Mr. Mnuchin said that the United States would decide whether to rescind the designation in a future phase of negotiations.

And Robert Lighthizer, Mr. Trump's top trade negotiator, said the deal did not resolve the fate of Huawei, which is banned from buying American products - much to China's dismay.

"In this agreement we're not dealing specifically with Huawei," he said. "It's not part of this agreement. That's a separate process."

Mr. Trump and his advisers also did not mention any progress in areas that the American business community has identified as critical to its ability to compete with Chinese companies - including China's subsidization of industries, the role of the government in the economy and the country's restrictions on transfers of data across its borders.

"Our hope and our aspiration is that they get to those harder issues," said Myron Brilliant, the head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Still, he added that the steps taken this week might create positive momentum toward addressing those issues.

"We've had nothing but bad news since May in the U.S.-China relationship," Mr. Brilliant said. "And now we seemed to have put a halt to a further escalation of tensions, and that's a step in the right direction."

Mr. Lighthizer said that the deal would require China to make structural changes to how it screened food imports and approved new genetically modified products that would allow more American farm goods to flow there.

"It will be much easier now for American farmers to be able to ship to China," he said. "And we've made some changes on our side too that will help the Chinese."

The agreement came after Chinese officials shifted their position on the trade talks over the past month, moving from an insistence on a complete removal of American tariffs to a willingness to accept a partial deal that would leave many of those tariffs in place.

One important factor in China's shifting stance involved a severe yet unexpected problem: a genuine need for food imports from the United States. African swine fever has killed an estimated two fifths of China's pig herd over the past year, producing a sharp increase in pork prices.

The need for increased food imports from the United States persuaded the Chinese that both sides could benefit from a partial deal even if it did not involve complete elimination of Mr. Trump's new tariffs, a person familiar with the talks said.

Mr. Trump acknowledged that tensions with China had spiraled as a result of the trade war but said that relations between the two countries were now "a love fest."

"Talk was getting tough," the president said, adding that both sides had "planes" and "ships" and that "stupid things can happen."

Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, Keith Bradsher from Beijing, Matt Phillips and Patricia D. Cohen from New York and Kate Conger from San Francisco.

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: 'Phase 1' Accord To Freeze Tariffs Against Chinese. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Reaches 'Phase 1' Deal With China and Delays Planned Tariffs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - President Trump said Friday that the United States had reached an interim deal with China that would forestall a tariff increase slated for next week, providing a temporary détente in a prolonged and economically painful trade war.

# data[].attributes.body
The federal reserve bank of San Francisco recently put out warnings in regard to the financial risk of climate change. The federal banks have been slow to talk about issue regarding the environment as it is so politically polarizing and the fed is supposed to be politically independent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

A neighborhood in New Bern, N.C., flooded by Hurricane Florence last year. Real estate markets are already feeling the effects of climate change, researchers say. Credit Credit Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via Shutter Stock

WASHINGTON - Home values could fall significantly.

Banks could stop lending to flood-prone communities.

Towns could lose the tax money they need to build sea walls and other protections.

These are a few of the warnings published on Thursday by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco regarding the financial risks of climate change. The collection of 18 papers by outside experts amounts to one of the most specific and dire accountings of the dangers posed to businesses and communities in the United States - a threat so significant that the nation's central bank seems increasingly compelled to address it.

The Federal Reserve has been slow to talk about climate risks compared with central banks in other countries. That could be partly because the topic is more politically polarized in the United States than many other places, so talking about it exposes the Fed - which is meant to be politically independent - to accusations that it is straying into partisan territory. Already, the central bank is a frequent target of President Trump, who has criticized its interest-rate decisions for hindering economic growth.

Yet the Fed has recently started speaking up on global warming and the dangers it poses to the financial system.

In a letter to Senator Brian Schatz this year, Chair Jerome H. Powell wrote that the Fed takes "severe weather events" into account in its role as a financial supervisor. Meanwhile, the San Francisco branch of the Federal Reserve - responsible for banking oversight across a major swath of the American West - has been more blunt, writing this past March that volatility related to climate change has become "increasingly relevant" as a consideration for the central bank.

With Thursday's actions, the San Francisco Fed has taken a further step. The research, conducted by 38 academics and practitioners from around the country and published with the knowledge of the Fed's board of governors, presents in precise language a dire picture of the risks of a changing climate, and warns that local governments don't have the means to deal with them.

"The associated risks and effects of climate change are relevant considerations for the Federal Reserve," Ian Galloway, director of the San Francisco Fed's Center for Community Development Investments, said by email.

The new research calls on lenders and other businesses involved in community development "to take a leadership role in preparing vulnerable regions most at risk for a 'new abnormal,'" Mr. Galloway wrote in a foreword to the papers, which appeared in the journal Community Development Innovation Review.

As the research makes clear, that new abnormal is already here.
Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.

Climate change has begun to affect the real estate market, according to a paper by Asaf Bernstein, an economist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and two co-authors. His research shows that properties likely to be under water if seas rise one foot now sell for 15 percent less than comparable properties with no flood threat.

That decline in property values is likely to ripple through the financial system, scaring banks and other lenders away from those areas, according to a paper by Michael Berman, a former chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, which represents lenders.

It could also lead to a practice Mr. Berman described as "blue-lining," where banks would avoid lending to flood-prone areas - a reference to the practice known as redlining, in which banks discriminate against African-American neighborhoods by not lending there.

"At some point in the next 20 to 30 years, absent substantial new approaches to reducing and managing flood risk, there may be a threat to the availability of the 30-year mortgage in various vulnerable and highly exposed areas," wrote Mr. Berman, who is president and chief executive of M & T Realty Capital Corporation, a major mortgage lender.

The result, Mr. Berman said, would be to further imperil the financial health of places, particularly poorer ones, already struggling with flooding. "There is a real possibility that real estate values in communities will be decreasing due to increased flood risk just as the real estate tax base is being relied on for funding of new flood mitigation infrastructure," he wrote.

Coastal cities are already unable to pay for the types of projects that could protect them from the growing effects of climate change, the authors of another paper wrote.

"Even large, affluent cities do not currently have the financial capacity in place to fund all of their plans," wrote John Cleveland, executive director of the Boston Green Ribbon Commission, a group working to shield that city from climate change.

The papers propose a series of changes that could alter the behavior of financial institutions and local governments, pushing them to better prepare for climate change. Many of the steps would impose new restrictions or incentives on banks.

One recommendation is for regulators to penalize banks that lend money in areas that have been hit by disasters, yet have not taken steps to protect themselves against similar future disasters. Banks could also be rewarded by regulators for financing projects that leave communities less vulnerable to flooding or other hazards.

Another proposal is for lenders to create a common standard for measuring flood risk, and use it to set mortgage rates.

A spokesman for the San Francisco Fed, Tom Flannigan, said the Fed "does not advocate on any policy positions," but instead seeks to "share expert opinions and research while supporting the thoughtful exchange of ideas on subjects like climate change that we recognize to be important in our district."

Still, change is necessary, according to Jesse M. Keenan, the editor of the papers. He argued that the private sector must assume a greater role in preparing for the effects of climate change.

"The private sector has always adapted," Mr. Keenan, a faculty member at Harvard University, wrote in the introduction to the research. "One either adapts to new markets, products or services, or they go out of business."

For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.

Jeanna Smialek contributed reporting.

Christopher Flavelle covers climate adaptation, focusing on how people, governments and businesses respond to the effects of global warming. @cflav

A version of this article appears in print on , Section B, Page 4 of the New York edition with the headline: The 'New Abnormal': A Fed Branch Warns Of Warming's Risks. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bank Regulators Present a Dire Warning of Financial Risks From Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Home values could fall significantly. Banks could stop lending to flood-prone communities. Towns could lose the tax money they need to build sea walls and other protections. These are a few of the warnings published on Thursday by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco regarding the financial risks of climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
House of Representatives recently pass bills in support of the Hong Kong protesters

# data[].attributes.subject
House of Representatives recently pass bills in support of the Hong Kong protesters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the spirit of something is better than nothing, optimism that the U.S. and China can sign a partial trade deal by mid-November is rising, even amid growing acknowledgment that the relationship between the two economic powerhouses has changed and friction is likely to persist.

Comments from both sides are contributing to the hope. Over the weekend, Liu He, China's vice premier and lead trade negotiator, noted substantial progress in the latest negotiations and vowed to keep dialogue going. And White House officials offered similarly upbeat comments about the prospect that President Donald Trump and China's Xi Jinping could sign something when they meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in mid-November.

A signed, formal agreement would build on the rough outline of a pact that Trump and Liu announced earlier this month, when the U.S. agreed not to impose a round of tariffs that had been due to take effect Oct. 15, and China promised to buy more U.S. farm goods.

"When there is a will, there is a deal," said IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva at a press briefing last week, reflecting the glass- half-full view voiced by central bankers and finance ministers at last week's annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Part of the optimism comes from the view that the alternative is scary. Central bankers and finance ministers at the meetings repeatedly identified trade uncertainty as the biggest risk looming over the global economy-saying it is unlikely to abate unless the U.S. and China reach a comprehensive and enforceable deal. If the tariffs that the U.S. suspended this month, and those it has threatened to impose in December, are implemented, the IMF estimates, the levies in total could shave 0.8% from global economic growth by the end of 2020. That would mean $700 billion less economic output.

The path to the type of deal that would lift the uncertainty isn't an easy one. "If we sign a deal, the U.S. should lift all tariffs imposed on China since March 2018," said Zhu Min, director of the National Institute of Financial Research at Tsinghua University and a former vice president of the IMF, on a panel at the meetings last week. "The second issue is that the U.S. named China a currency manipulator, which was unfounded. IMF has said China isn't an exchange-rate manipulator so the U.S. [has] to change its tone. These are very fundamental issues for us to move to the table to sign the deal."

Others worry that the phased deal on the table doesn't address some of the core issues at the heart of the trade war, such as China's subsidies to its companies and intellectual-property protection for the digital age.

But markets could still find temporary relief in any sort of deal. "Those looking at the deal and saying it didn't address some of the core issues outlined by the Trump administration are setting too high a bar," Andy Rothman, investment strategist at Matthews Asia, told Barron's. "I'll be ecstatic just to get back to where we were two years ago, so companies can get back to business and families don't have to pay higher taxes" in the form of tariffs.

Rothman expects some sort of a deal will be signed in November.

What is being discussed in this phase of talks are relatively easy concessions for the Chinese. Moves to protect intellectual property around trademarks and increased market access, for example, are in the interest of its own economy as it tries to rely more on innovation, Rothman added.

Indeed, some of the reforms the U.S. is asking for are needed for China to achieve long-term sustainable growth-Beijing's primary focus, even in light of the trade war, Min said. China's economy is growing at its slowest pace in decades, though data out in September showed some signs of stabilization.

The challenge for China-one that other emerging markets have faced in the past-is to not get stuck in the so-called middle-income trap, unable to transition from a phase where it averages $10,000 per capita in income to one with an average of $15,000 or more. "If China wants to get into the high-income category, it has to do lot of reform, open up and digitization," Min said. Improving productivity is key and opening markets to competition is a way to achieve it, he said.

China recently set a timetable to open up its financial services sector . It is likely to keep dialogue open to increase its presence on the global stage-even as friction on other matters intensifies.

And frictions are likely to intensify. The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved bills in support of the Hong Kong protesters -a move that Charlene Barshefsky, a partner at WilmerHale and former U.S. trade representative, said on a panel Friday at the Council on Foreign Relations would likely be viewed by the Chinese as a provocation "of serious sort." The move complicates China's relationship with the U.S. and the political situation for Xi internally, she said.

But the legislation is unlikely to derail a trade truce-and could even help. "Trade is the easiest [issue for Xi] to fix at this juncture, especially with a phase one agreement," Barshevsky said.

Lifting tariffs and signing a partial deal could improve sentiment toward Chinese stocks, according to Matthews Asia's Rothman. "Valuations are inexpensive and a lot of people are on the sidelines waiting to get into China," he said. "Then, in the months after the deal, the question will be if the administration continues to pursue a strategy of decoupling and containment, or if the president instead refocuses on engagement. I put the chances there at 50/50."

The iShares MSCI China ETF (ticker: MCHI) is up 10% so far this year but has fallen 3% in the last three months.

One bump in the road could come this week when Vice President Mike Pence is expected to deliver a speech on China. In a talk last year, Pence warned of a new approach, making it clear message that "This president won't back down."

That speech, along with steps to restrict exports to Chinese companies such as Huawei Technologies, and increased scrutiny on investments, fed the longer-term view that the U.S.-China strategic competition is going to persist. That is a key concern among longer-term asset allocators.

Pascal Blanqué, global chief investment officer of Amundi, which oversees nearly €1.5 trillion ($1.67 trillion) in assets, said in an interview he is still cautious about emerging markets broadly. He sees the potential for a new phase of globalization where global growth isn't synonymous with global trade and companies retreat from the world stage to their homes or their regions.

The takeaway is that volatility is likely to ensue. A partial deal, signed in November, could lift the market, but longer-term investors may still need to rethink their portfolios for a world where U.S.-China frictions become the new normal.

Write to Reshma Kapadia at reshma.kapadia@barrons.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Partial U.S.-China Trade Deal Could Happen Soon. This Is Why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the spirit of something is better than nothing, optimism that the U.S. and China can sign a partial trade deal by mid-November is rising, even amid growing acknowledgment that the relationship between the two economic powerhouses has changed and friction is likely to persist. Comments from both sides are contributing to the hope.

# data[].attributes.body
Authorizes domestic terrorism offices within the department of homeland security, Justice, and Federal Bureau of Investigation to require federal government to take steps towards stopping terrorism. Aimed towards white supremacist organizations.

I think this is good, but I don know how much of a national threat white supremacy groups pose nationally, therefore, I think this should be handled at the state level.

I like to see actions related to foreign threats of terror at the national level-which I know there has been, but in relating to helping other countries mainly-Israel.

# data[].attributes.headline
The United States Pushing Technological Blockades to China 

# data[].attributes.subject
The United States Pushing Technological Blockades to China 

# data[].attributes.body
1.) The United States has increasingly been pushing out "technological blockades" to various major Chinese tech corporations by banning the "sale of US technology" to these companies; this is the Legislative Action which is currently taking place, the United States creating federal legislature to ban the sales of US technology to foreign countries.
2.) These Legislative Actions are somewhat neutral, posing a potential threat to perhaps both the US and China.  I'd like to see more American action regarding the US-China technology war; as in the United States pushing out more of these types of legislative action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China says US tech ban is a barrier but will not halt scientific advance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MIIT says US sanctions on China's biggest tech firms will not hurt the country's long term science and technology development

# data[].attributes.headline
US States' Cybersecurity Legislation in 2019

# data[].attributes.subject
US States' Cybersecurity Legislation in 2019

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/cybersecurity-legislation-2019.aspx

This page shows laws passed by states to about cybersecurity. This ranges from requiring government agencies or businesses to implement training or specific types of security policies, to simply studying the use of blockchain for cybersecurity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legislation Introduced To Block G-7 Summit At President Trump’s Doral Property

# data[].attributes.subject
Legislation Introduced To Block G-7 Summit At President Trump’s Doral Property

# data[].attributes.body
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/10/18/legislation-introduced-to-block-president-trumps-g-7-meeting-in-doral/

1. The Legislative Actions currently taking place are
writing up a composition bill to introduce to the House.

2. I am neutral towards these legislative actions--the bill is an attempt to block the G-7 Summit from being held at one of Trump's resorts and I honestly do not care where it is held--it is what is addressed that is more important. I think the Legislature would take action on state level because it involves private property.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Legislative Response to the Nation's Opioid Crisis

# data[].attributes.subject
The Legislative Response to the Nation's Opioid Crisis

# data[].attributes.body
Congress passed two pieces of legislation in 2016 to help in the fight against the opioid crisis: The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) and the 21st Century Cures Act. The House of Representatives also helped by passing over 50 bills as well as SUPPORT (Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Research

Tara O'Neill Hayes
Introduction
Substance use disorder (SUD) rates and deaths from opioid overdoses have reached epidemic levels. For the past two years, policymakers, first responders, health care providers, and state and local officials have struggled to stop this crisis. Progress thus far has been slow and ineffective, largely because of legislative barriers to access to treatment or the lack of legislative authority to provide needed assistance, monitoring, and collaboration among care providers and government agencies.

Congress has recently put together a comprehensive package of legislative proposals aimed at solving or mitigating a broad range of known challenges and impediments to addressing the crisis. These solutions offer promising steps for stemming the crisis while providing much-needed support to the individuals, families, and communities suffering.
Background
Previous work by the American Action Forum (AAF) details the extent of the crisis, how it started and how it has evolved, initial response efforts, and the barriers to more effective solutions. Opioids accounted for more than 42,000 deaths in the United States in 2016, and that figure has only increased since.[1] In 2017, drug overdoses became the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 50 years old,[2] and the opioid epidemic, yet to reach its apex, has already claimed more lives than the AIDS epidemic did at its peak in the 1990s.[3] Researchers attribute the opioid crisis with the first decrease in life expectancy in the United States since 1993.[4] In addition to the tragic number of deaths, there are estimated to be more than 30 times as many nonfatal overdoses; that's roughly 3,000 people every day who overdose, are fortunate enough to survive, but need significant follow-up care in order to recover well.

Beyond the catastrophic loss of life, the crisis has also generated significant economic losses. AAF research found that in 2015, 919,400 prime-age individuals were not in the labor force due to opioids. Between 1999 and 2015, the cumulative decline in labor force participation cost the economy 12.1 billion work hours and $702.1 billion in real economic output.
Legislative Efforts
Congress is taking a multi-pronged approach to address this crisis and has been considering ways to fight the epidemic for several years. Congress passed two pieces of legislation in 2016 that provided some assistance for fighting the opioid crisis: the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) and the 21 st Century Cures Act. While those laws provided some funding for grants, increased access to treatment options, and funding for drug abuse education and provider training, the epidemic has continued to worsen. Over the past several months, Congress has focused more attention on the crisis. In June, the House of Representatives passed more than 50 bills that have since been combined into one large piece of legislation, H.R. 6, the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act. (This report will refer to most legislation with its original bill number and title and not in its consolidated form.)

The Senate Finance Committee has also passed a comprehensive piece of legislation: S. 3120, the Helping to End Addiction and Lessen (HEAL) Substance Use Disorders Act. The full Senate is expected to consider this legislation later this year. The House and Senate bills do not directly overlap much, however, so it is likely the two chambers will need to reconcile the differences in a conference committee; the end product may be less comprehensive than the various measures described here. The biggest hurdle to making into law many of the House-passed provisions will likely be finding ways to pay for them[5]; most of the Senate provisions have little to no cost.[6]

The following outlines the most recent proposals that Congress is considering and not the bills that Congress passed in 2016.
Treatment and Recovery
An important step for solving this crisis is to help those already suffering. Congress is considering several proposals that either provide new treatment opportunities or increase access to existing treatment options, helping people find a path to long-term recovery through a combination of various support services.

One of the more wholistic efforts aimed at increasing access to treatment and recovery services is H.R. 5327, the Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act. It would provide competitive grants for the establishment of at least 10 recovery centers across the country that provide access to the full range of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and evidence-based treatments, as well as counseling services, community-based supports, recovery housing, and workforce re-entry support. These recovery centers would be required to submit annual reports on the outcomes and effectiveness of their interventions. Other bills that aim to expand access to treatment services include H.R. 5776, the MOST Act, which would provide Medicare beneficiaries with coverage of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and other opioid use disorder treatment services. Another provision of H.R. 6 would expand access to addiction treatment for Medicare beneficiaries at federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. H.R. 3692 would enable clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists to prescribe buprenorphine, which is one type of MAT used to treat opioid dependence; existing federal law limits the types of providers who may prescribe it.[7]

Another bill would roll back a decades-old policy that, while well-intentioned, has long been considered to be doing more harm than good. H.R. 5797, the IMD Care Act, would allow states to loosen temporarily the Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion that prohibits federal funding for care provided to Medicaid beneficiaries aged 21-64 in an IMD facility with more than 16 beds. This exclusion, intended to stop the mass institutionalization of people with mental disorders, makes it more difficult to provide behavioral health services to Medicaid beneficiaries. The IMD Care Act would allow states to receive federal funding from FY2019 through FY2023 for care provided to Medicaid beneficiaries with an opioid use disorder at an IMD facility with more than 16 beds for up to 30 days within a 12-month period. The HEAL Act authorizes federal funding for services provided outside IMDs to Medicaid beneficiaries who are pregnant or postpartum and receiving substance use disorder services at an IMD. The HEAL Act also codifies an existing rule that allows Medicaid to pay for managed care capitation payments that cover IMD services for beneficiaries up to 15 days per month.

Other pieces of legislation seek to improve patient care by reforming existing privacy laws and updating best practice guidelines. H.R. 5009, known as Jessie's Law, would require a patient's history of substance use disorder to be prominently displayed in a patient's medical records so that all of a patient's providers are aware and can make the most appropriate clinical decisions.

H.R. 5483 would require the administration to issue long-overdue federal regulations permitting the prescription of controlled substances via telemedicine; while Congress previously passed a law authorizing such waivers, no final rule was ever published. This permission would give patients who lack access to in-person specialists, particularly those in rural areas, the ability to receive medication-assisted therapy. S. 3120 would also require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to publish guidance regarding state options for providing Medicaid beneficiaries telehealth services for substance use disorder.[8] H.R. 5789 would require HHS to issue guidance to improve care for both infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome and their mothers when Medicaid covers them.
Prevention
Another invaluable step alongside treatment is preventing addiction in the first place. Prevention efforts are largely focused on three angles: monitoring the prescribing of opioids, identifying at-risk individuals, and informing both providers and patients of the risks of opioid dependence along with alternative options for pain-management treatment.

One of the primary ways policymakers are working to prevent substance abuse is by requiring providers to use tools that monitor both prescriber behavior and patient use of controlled substances. Such tools include electronic prescribing and prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). H.R. 3528 would require e-prescribing for controlled substances to be covered under the Medicare Part D program. E-prescribing makes it easier to track the use of controlled substances in a patient's medical history, and presumably makes doctor-shopping more difficult. H.R. 5801 would require each state to establish a PDMP and require providers to check the PDMP for a Medicaid patient's prescription drug history before prescribing a controlled substance for that individual. The Senate HEAL Act would also require states to assist providers and insurers in accessing PDMPs.[9] CMS has notified states of how PDMPs, especially when fully integrated with electronic health record systems and health information exchanges, can help improve appropriate prescribing. CMS has also notified states that enhanced federal matching funds are available to assist states in developing and implementing such systems.[10] H.R. 5799, the Medicaid DRUG Improvement Act, would require states to have protocols in place to monitor concurrent prescribing of opioids and certain other drugs along with the prescription of antipsychotic drugs to children. H.R. 5808 would require Medicaid beneficiaries identified as "at-risk" for substance use disorder to be assigned to a pharmaceutical home program, which would limit the number of prescribers and pharmacies the beneficiary may use.

Other efforts focus on educating providers and patients about the potential to become addicted to opioids, warning signs of addiction, best practices for treating pain and using opioids, and alternative non-opioid treatment options. H.R. 5716, the COMPASS Act, would require the CMS to identify outlier prescribers in Medicare and provide such individuals with information regarding proper prescribing methods. CMS has already begun gathering such data and has made a publicly available map showing opioid prescribing rates by state, county, and ZIP code.[11] The Department of Justice recently used such data to identify fraudulent activity and arrested 162 individuals involved in fraudulently prescribing or billing for more than $2 billion worth of opioids and narcotics.[12] H.R. 4275 would require the Drug Enforcement Administration to develop and disseminate training programs and materials on the circumstances under which a pharmacist may refuse to fill a controlled substance prescription; such circumstances currently permitted by law include suspicions that a prescription is fraudulent, forged, or indicative of abuse or diversion (being given to someone other than the patient for whom it is prescribed). A recent congressional report detailed significant opioid-prescription fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program, and the same types of behavior are likely prevalent outside of the program as well.[13] H.R. 5261 would improve how health professionals are taught about substance use disorders and how to treat pain by supporting higher-learning institutions. H.R. 5176, the POWER Act, would help hospitals develop protocols on discharging patients who experienced an opioid overdose; such protocols would address the provision of naloxone upon discharge, connecting patients to peer-support specialists, and referral to treatment providers and other services that the patient may need. H.R. 5685 would require CMS to provide beneficiaries with educational resources regarding opioid use, pain management, and alternative pain treatment options, while H.R. 5686, the Medicare CHOICE Act, would require Part D plans to provide beneficiaries information on the adverse effects of opioid overuse and what other non-opioid pain management treatment options their plan covers. H.R. 5684 would expand Medicare coverage of medication therapy management to Part D beneficiaries at risk for prescription drug abuse. H.R. 5809, H.R. 5804, and H.R. 6110 would alter Medicare payments to encourage the development and use of non-opioid pain treatments.

Several pieces of legislation aim to prevent drugs from reaching individuals in the first place, whether by making it easier to dispose of unused prescription opioids safely, or by stopping the delivery of illicit synthetic opioids sent from other countries. H.R. 5041, the Safe Disposal of Unused Medication Act, would allow hospice workers to dispose of controlled substances found in the home of a deceased hospice patient, an effort to limit access to easily-acquired supply by family, friends, or others who might be prone to addiction. H.R. 5228, the SCREEN Act, and H.R. 5752, the Stop Illicit Drug Importation Act, would provide the FDA greater authority to seize counterfeit and illicit drugs that enter the United States through international mail facilities.

Longer-term prevention efforts under consideration include researching new treatment options. H.R. 5002, the ACE Research Act, would provide the National Institutes of Health with new authority to conduct research on the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of diseases and disorders, or to respond quickly to a public health threat, such as the opioid epidemic. The SCREEN Act, previously mentioned, would also provide funding to the FDA to support the development of non-opioid, non-addictive options for pain treatment.
Conclusion
The number and breadth of the pieces of legislation considered above indicate that Congress is serious about stopping this epidemic. Expanding access to and coverage of existing and new treatment and recovery options, increasing educational materials to better inform patients and providers of the risk of dependence, and providing new authority to prevent illicit drugs from reaching individuals in the first place should all help to provide relief for those already suffering and prevent others from falling victim to this epidemic. Congressional action alone, however, will not solve the problem. Individuals, their families and communities, state and local government officials, first responders, and other health care providers must all work together to change behavior and currently accepted practices, provide support to individuals in need, and intervene when warning signs are present.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/overdoses-are-leading-cause-of-death-americans-under-50/

[3] https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21730690-when-will-it-peak-and-how-many-will-it-kill-forecasting-opioid-epidemic

[4] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2654372

[5] https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr6amendedby11578.pdf
[6]https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SFC%20Opioid%20Legislation%20preliminary%20estimate,%20June%2012,%202018.pdf
[7] https://www.samhsa.gov/programs-campaigns/medication-assisted-treatment/training-materials-resources/buprenorphine-waiver

[8] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/federal-legislative-proposals-related-to-medicaid-and-opioids-what-to-watch/

[9] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/federal-legislative-proposals-related-to-medicaid-and-opioids-what-to-watch/

[10] https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/smd18006.pdf

[11] https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/Downloads/Opioid_Methodology.pdf

[12] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/justice-department-announces-crackdown-on-fraudulent-opioid-prescriptions

[13] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/chairman-johnson-releases-report-on-how-medicaid-has-helped-to-fuel-the-opioid-epidemic-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Legislative Response to the Nation's Opioid Crisis - AAF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress recently put together a comprehensive package of bills aimed at solving or mitigating a broad range of known challenges to addressing the opioid crisis. These solutions offer promising steps for stemming the crisis while providing much-needed support to the individuals, families, and communities suffering.

# data[].attributes.body
1992: Senate approves U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change."The process of designing a global agreement to tackle climate change began in the early 1990s."
2012: Shoring up flood protection.In many places floods get really bad so they have to store.
2016: Formation of the Climate Solutions Caucus. "The caucus has been adding dozens of members in Republican-Democratic pairs."
I feel like these actions are good but yet still not everyone is following.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congress has debated climate change for nearly 30 years with varying results. Laws and congressionally approved funding have led to new programs to reduce emissions and incentives to speed the deployment of clean energy. Other efforts to address climate change more holistically, including by using market-based approaches, have not advanced.

Some major milestones on climate in Congress include:

1992: Senate approves U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The process of designing a global agreement to tackle climate change began in the early 1990s. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which committed all nations to take action and laid the foundation for future agreements. At the time, President Bush declared, "The United States fully intends to be the world's pre-eminent leader in protecting the global environment." The U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to the treaty in October 1992.

1992: Renewable energy gets a boost. To help support the fledgling wind industry, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added the renewable energy production tax credit to the 1992 Energy Policy Act, which has been critical in the rapid expansion of the wind energy industry. The tax credit has been extended in short stints - with occasional lapses - since then. An investment tax credit for solar energy installations was later added to the tax code through the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

1997: Senate pre-empts Kyoto Protocol. In June 1997, six months ahead of a U.N. climate conference in Kyoto, Japan, the Senate adopted a nonbinding resolution introduced by Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and 44 other cosponsors, stating that the United States should not enter into any international climate agreement that did not include comparable emissions commitments by developing countries or that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States..." The Clinton Administration proceeded to negotiate and sign the Kyoto Protocol, which set emission targets for developed countries only. But the agreement was never submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, and in 2001, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would not join it.

2003-2007: Bipartisan bills in the Senate. By the 108 th Congress (2003-2004) significant bipartisan efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions started to gain traction. Among other bills in 2003, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) offered The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 to institute a cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions from electricity, manufacturing, commercial, and transportation sectors of the economy (representing 85 percent of U.S. emissions). The bill had a House companion and was reintroduced in the 109 th and 110 th Congresses.

2007: Congress mandates emissions reporting. As part of the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law in 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was ordered to publish a rule requiring public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from large sources. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program database provides comprehensive nationwide greenhouse gas emissions data (electric power companies were already reporting their carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990). Over 40 source categories are now covered by the reporting program.

2008-2010: Cap-and-trade legislation passes the House. Shortly after being elected, President-elect Barack Obama declared a comprehensive climate and energy bill among his top legislative priorities. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a vote of 219 to 212 in June 2009. The legislation, written by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), would have established an economy-wide greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system and critical complementary measures. The Senate failed to pass its own comprehensive climate and energy bill, and the measure died.

Other major climate legislation was proposed during this period:

The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 would have established a renewable energy standard and addressed several other energy-related issues.

John Kerry (D-MA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) worked outside of the committee process in an attempt to broaden the base of support for climate legislation within the Senate. Kerry and Lieberman released a draft discussion of their American Power Act in May 2010 that would have established a cap-and-trade system for utilities and industry, and a fee for transportation fuels.

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced a Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act, which would have capped carbon dioxide emissions while allowing very limited emissions trading, and rebating the revenue from this system directly back to the public on a per capita basis.

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act to enact a tradeable energy standard to reduce emissions in the power sector.

Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced the Practical Energy and Climate Plan, intended to reduce oil imports, improve and create new efficiency standards, and establish a clean energy standard.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was expected to combine elements of the climate and energy legislative proposals into a comprehensive climate bill. Citing a lack of bipartisan support in the Senate, however, Reid announced in July 2010 that upcoming energy legislation would not include a cap on greenhouse emissions. This effectively ended action on climate legislation for the 111 th Congress.

2012: Shoring up flood protection. Funding the National Flood Insurance Program, established in 1968, is important for the many communities likely to face increased flooding from sea level-rise and more frequent and extreme downpours. In May 2012, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act reauthorizing the program for five years, ending a series of short-term extensions. The bill was a major step toward actuarial pricing and full accounting of climate risk, ensuring that climate impact projections are factored into future calculations of flood risk. Although the word "climate" does not appear in the text, the bill directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to use "the best available science regarding future changes in sea levels, precipitation, and intensity of hurricanes" - likely projected impacts of climate change - as it updates flood maps and sets insurance premiums.

2015: Extension/phasedown of renewable energy tax credits. After more than 20 years of regular extensions of the production tax credit for wind power and investment tax credit for solar power, Congress agreed in late 2015 on a multi-year extension and ultimate phase-out of the incentives. The tax credits have been critical in making renewable energy cost-competitive and continue to help reduce carbon emissions from power sector in the absence of federal regulations. The production tax credit will phase out through 2019. The investment tax credit for solar will end in 2021.

2016: Formation of the Climate Solutions Caucus. In February 2016, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) launched the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House of Representatives. The caucus describes its mission as educating members on "economically-viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation's economy, security, infrastructure, agriculture, water supply and public safety." The caucus has been adding dozens of members in Republican-Democratic pairs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress Climate History | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress has debated climate change for nearly 30 years with varying results. Laws and congressionally approved funding have led to new programs to reduce emissions and incentives to speed the deployment of clean energy. Other efforts to address climate change more holistically, including by using market-based approaches, have not advanced.

# data[].attributes.headline
LABI president says economic issues will reach top agenda

# data[].attributes.subject
LABI president says economic issues will reach top agenda

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/business/article_784841ae-4c36-11e9-9cf0-cbf10e80888d.html

1) What are the Legislative Actions currently taking place in relation to your TOPIC?
Hold programs to improve economic balances. Such as the Industrial Tax Exemption Program which will help enduring economic challenges in this case more jobs and more security in Louisiana

2)What do you think about these Legislative Actions? Are they good/bad? What types of actions would you like to see the Legislature take at the state or Federal level?
I think this actions are pretty well especially increasing security and jobs which most people are worrying about. So listening to the people is good. Some actions I would like to see at the federal level is having the bill be passed.

# data[].attributes.body
Occurring in California, a hearing about weather it should be allowed or okay for people to consume products derived from cloned animals. thought this topic doesn't seem to be recent where most of the acts that were taken are from around 10 or more years ago. I think these actions need to be updated considering all the talk about cloning and shaming but it doesn't seem as if anything is going to happen legally with animal cloning. Most of the acts and hearings that occurred were due to the thoughts of human consumption of the cloned animals as well as weather the produce from them is safe or not. Considering the article mentioning that two thirds of Americans who are against cloning would be unknowingly buying food and produce and products used by cloned animals. There were multiple events within the legislative across the states such as Iowa, Washington, Massachusetts and Kentucky.

# data[].attributes.body
Congress is about to listen to the testimony of Frankie Meyers, Yurok Tribal Council vice-chairman, as well as other pioneering doctors about nature-based solutions for climate change, including how forests, grasslands, and wetlands can increase carbon storage potential. The most recent legislation introduced was by two senators from Florida and South Carolina, who have introduced a bill which would help protect local fisheries against the effects of climate change. I'm glad that both of these things are occurring as they demonstrate that congress is at least listening to voices of reason in the climate community, despite current legislation being relatively small scale and focused on the effects (fishing problems) rather than causes (increased carbon emissions).

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/newswire/2019/10/16/legislation-moves-protect-fisheries-climate-change/3995212002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis will hold a hearing on "Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution and Building Resilience" on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 2 p.m. in Room 1302 of the Longworth House Office Building.

The hearing will focus on the ways natural systems, such as forests, grasslands and wetlands, can increase carbon storage across the United States, helping in the fight against the climate crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution and Building Resilience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis will hold a hearing on "Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution and Building Resilience" on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 2 p.m. in Room 1302 of the Longworth House Office Building.

# data[].attributes.headline
New York City eyes regulation of facial recognition technology

# data[].attributes.subject
New York City eyes regulation of facial recognition technology

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the Legislative Actions currently taking place in relation to your topic?
Many states are passing regulations on the use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement through legislation.
2. What do you think about these legislative actions? Are they good/bad? What type of actions would you like the Legislature take at the state or Federal level?
I agree with the legislative actions because there has not been much regulation on how police departments use the huge database of private information and its limits. Many of the regulations make logical sense, like requiring businesses who use facial recognition to be transparent about whether their information is being sold to third parties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW YORK - Legislation that would begin to regulate the use of facial recognition technology in the country's most populous city could soon be made into law.

While cities around the country move to ban facial recognition and other types of biometric surveillance outright, the City Council here is taking a piecemeal approach, considering bills that would require businesses and landlords to disclose their use of the technology.

Meanwhile, privacy advocates are pushing for oversight of how facial surveillance is used by the city's police department, which has been resistant to more transparency despite revelations that it maintains a facial database that includes thousands of children, some as young as 11.

The situation in New York mirrors the national debate over technology that supporters say is a key crime-fighting tool but that critics have dubbed Orwellian by its very nature. Caught in the middle are local governments, which must work out whether to ban the tools entirely, as San Francisco has done, or take a more restrained approach.

"I would caution legislators to tread carefully rather than going too far," City Councilman Ritchie Torres, who has introduced a bill that would require business owners to notify customers if facial recognition tools are in use, told CQ Roll Call. "There are legitimate concerns but we should not allow those concerns to become a massive failure of legislative overreaction."

Torres, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and is running for the congressional seat currently held by the retiring Rep. José E. Serrano, says "it could be the case that facial recognition technology has real utility," but not without standards for privacy and transparency.

To that end, Torres' bill would require businesses using facial recognition to make clear how long they are storing the information they gather and whether it's being sold to any third parties.

A second bill under consideration by the council would force property owners to register use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance tools with the city, and require the city to maintain a database of all the buildings using it - something it currently lacks.

"A lot of these biometric surveillance systems can be added to the back end of existing camera systems, making it impossible for a customer, a tenant or a passerby to know that their biometric information is being captured without some sort of disclosure," says Albert Fox Cahn, who runs the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project at the Urban Justice Center, which fights for privacy rights in New York.

The council's move toward greater regulation is encouraging, Cahn says, because "the sad truth is that New York City's leaders have been incredibly slow to recognize the fundamental threat posed by biometric surveillance," especially to people of color. Cahn remains most concerned about use of the technology by the New York Police Department. Legislation introduced in 2017 that would require police to disclose information about its use of surveillance tools and privacy policies has stalled, partially because of confusion surrounding the department's charter and whether the city council can lawfully require police to be transparent about their practices.

Torres, who supports that bill but acknowledges it faces "a more complicated path" than his legislation, believes it's "fair game" for the council to require disclosures about facial recognition technology from the NYPD that would not necessarily govern how the department uses it.

"We have a right to know the nature and extent of the NYPD's surveillance of the general public," he says.

For its part, the NYPD has pushed back on efforts to oversee its surveillance programs, arguing the legislation would serve to help criminals and terrorists. The department's database only includes arrest photos, according to a June op-ed in the New York Times by James O'Neill, the police commissioner, and led to 998 arrests in 1,851 cases in 2018.

"It would be an injustice to the people we serve if we policed our 21st century city without using 21st century technology," O'Neill wrote.

Landlords and building owners cautious

The bills requiring disclosure by business owners and landlords are encountering resistance, too. The administration of Mayor Bill De Blasio, a Democrat, has not committed to supporting either piece of legislation and the city's real estate lobby is opposing the residential measure.

"While certain disclosures ... may be warranted, it is important to balance that priority with the legitimate security benefits provided by these systems," the Real Estate Board of New York City said in a statement. "As drafted, the proposed legislation asks both commercial and residential buildings to reveal and publicize potentially sensitive security information that may put tenants' safety at risk."

The board added that including such information in a single database would make it "a virtual honeypot for hackers and other wrongdoers, potentially placing the property and tenant security at risk."

Madison Square Garden, whose use of facial recognition on concert and sporting event attendees inspired Torres to introduce his bill, declined to take a position on the legislation.

"In order to ensure the safety of everyone in our venue, we employ a variety of security measures, including facial recognition," an arena spokesman said in an email to CQ Roll Call. "We are happy to work with the City Council when and where appropriate."

The use of facial recognition technology in New York City has already resulted in activity on Capitol Hill.

Amid tenant concerns over the installation of facial recognition systems at an apartment complex in Brooklyn, Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, a Democrat who represents that borough, in August introduced legislation (HR 4008) to ban facial recognition technology in public housing and assisted housing units funded by the federal government.

The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Ayanna S. Pressley, the Massachusetts Democrat whose district includes Cambridge, one of several cities to ban facial recognition in the last year.

In general, biometric surveillance has generated concern from both parties in Congress.

At a June hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Democrats and Republicans voiced support for a moratorium on awarding federal grant dollars that could be spent on facial recognition tools.

The status of potential legislation accomplishing that is unclear, however, because of the death last week of Democratic Oversight Chairman Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who had been championing the idea.
Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New York City eyes regulation of facial recognition technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW YORK - Legislation that would begin to regulate the use of facial recognition technology in the country's most populous city could soon be made into law. While cities around the country move to ban facial recognition and other types of biometric surveillance outright, the City Council here is taking a piecemeal approach, considering bills that would require businesses and landlords to disclose their use of the technology.

# data[].attributes.body
1) No concrete plan is currently being proposed.
2) Championing something isn't enough if we don't act on it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poll: Number Of Americans Who Favor Stricter Gun Laws Continues To Grow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The overall percentage of Americans who support tougher gun laws is on the rise, even as the partisan divide remains stark, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

# data[].attributes.body
A study done at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine estimates that about a quarter of US health care spending is going to waste. This roughly translates to $760 billion to $935 billion going to waste annually.

The main causes of this include "comes from unnecessary hospital visits, fraud, hospital-related complications, poor outpatient treatment, brand-name medications, and overly aggressive care", and so on. Additionally, the highest amount of waste came from administrative costs. The article states that ironically,  these costs may be resulting from insurance companies’ attempts to cut down on waste.

While the companies intentions may be good, there needs to be a change in their plan of action as it is wasting excessive amounts of money. Dr. William Shrank speculates that " if we take a more active role to eliminate waste, address affordability, and improve care, we don’t need to fundamentally disrupt the health care system".

I believe that these legislative actions have the potential to work if the insurance companies successfully cut down on waste. This funding then can be used to decrease prices for minorities and further fix the system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that U.S. health care spending hit $3.5 trillion in 2017, a 3.9% increase from 2016.

But those increases in spending don't necessarily translate to better care, because there is a tremendous amount of waste, and a majority of the spending may be tied up in trying to make health care more affordable to the patients, according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study, by Dr. Natasha Perekh from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and representatives of Humana Health Care, estimates that the annual costs of waste in the health care system ranges from $760 billion to $935 billion.

They claim waste accounts for a quarter of all health care spending.

This waste comes from unnecessary hospital visits, fraud, hospital-related complications, poor outpatient treatment, brand-name medications, and overly aggressive care, to name a few things, the study says.

The highest burden of waste came from administrative costs. Researchers speculated that, ironically, these costs might be resulting from insurance companies' attempts to lower waste. Does such high waste mean our health care system broken? Can we fix it? And most of all, have our attempts at fixing it made things worse?

STOCK PHOTO/Getty Images

Administrative complexities wasted $265 billion annually, the report said. Administrative complexities refer to behind-the-scenes administrative tasks, such as billing, completed by physicians and insurance companies. Government agencies and insurance companies mandate many of these tasks.

"In payers' [ insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid] attempts to lower costs with measures like requiring prior authorizations for certain medications or procedures, there has actually been an increase in costs on the providers' [physicians, nurse practitioners] side," Dr. William Shrank, Chief Medical Officer at Humana and lead author of the study, told ABC News.

Thus there has been a mismatch between insurance companies and health care providers on what will actually decrease costs. This discrepancy has increased waste.

The second-highest category of waste was the high prices of medications, lab tests, imaging, and office visits, which led to $240 billion in waste. Study authors commented that prices are much higher than they need to be due to a lack of transparency and competitive markets in US health care. To this, Shrank states, "No single policy change will address this. We need a thoughtful policy approach to allow the market to function competitively."

While the results may seem dismal, the study offers an optimistic outlook. In addition to the loss of money, researchers found potential opportunities for saving.

Interventions to decrease hospital-acquired infections and ensure that people have outpatient treatment set up before they leave the hospital already occur. They can be further optimized to reduce waste. Integration of behavioral and physical health, disease prevention initiatives, and expansion of hospice access can also help. The study estimated $191 to $282 billion in potential savings.

Shrank is hopeful about the state of the health care system. "Considering that we have so many good things in our health care system, if we take a more active role to eliminate waste, address affordability, and improve care, we don't need to fundamentally disrupt the health care system," he said.

Dr. Saumya Bhutani is a resident in psychiatry in New York working with the ABC News Medical Unit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
u.s. department of health and human services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A quarter of US health care spending is waste, report says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that U.S. health care spending hit $3.5 trillion in 2017, a 3.9% increase from 2016.

# data[].attributes.headline
Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019

# data[].attributes.subject
Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019

# data[].attributes.body
1)The Legislative Branch is proposing bills in an attempt to lower the terrorism rates. Legislation proposed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019. This act provides offices that regulate homeland security, Department of Justice, and Federal Bureau of Investigation. These offices would regulate these departments to make sure that there is nothing happening that would allow for terrorists/terrorism in the US.
2)  I believe the legislative actions are helpful, because this Act is ensuring regulation of terrorism. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019 makes sure that there are domestic terrorism offices in the Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Federal Bureau of investigation. I would like to see the Legislative branch propose more bill ideas regarding regulation of terrorism and acts that can help strengthen the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. By strengthening this Act, the US can have more security and hopefully reduce the terrorism rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.

To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the "Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019".

Congress finds the following:

(1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States.

(2) On February 22, 2019, a Trump Administration United States Department of Justice official wrote in a New York Times op-ed that "white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States. Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement, at both the Federal and State levels, has been slow to respond. ... Killings committed by individuals and groups associated with far-right extremist groups have risen significantly.".

(3) An April 2017 Government Accountability Office report on the significant, lethal threat posed by domestic violent extremists explained that "[s]ince September 12, 2001, the number of fatalities caused by domestic violent extremists has ranged from 1 to 49 in a given year." The report noted: "[F]atalities resulting from attacks by far right wing violent extremists have exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists in 10 of the 15 years, and were the same in 3 of the years since September 12, 2001. Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).".

(4) An unclassified May 2017 joint intelligence bulletin from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security found that "white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent threat of lethal violence," and that White supremacists "were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 ... more than any other domestic extremist movement".

(5) Fatal terrorist attacks by far-right-wing extremists include-

(A) the August 5, 2012, mass shooting at a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, in which a White supremacist shot and killed 6 members of the gurdwara;

(B) the April 13, 2014, mass shooting at a Jewish community center and a Jewish assisted living facility in Overland Park, Kansas, in which a neo-Nazi shot and killed 3 civilians, including a 14-year-old teenager;

(C) the June 8, 2014, ambush in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which 2 supporters of the far-right-wing "patriot" movement shot and killed 2 police officers and a civilian;

(D) the June 17, 2015, mass shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in which a White supremacist shot and killed 9 members of the church;

(E) the November 27, 2015, mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in which an anti-abortion extremist shot and killed a police officer and 2 civilians;

(F) the March 20, 2017, murder of an African-American man in New York City, allegedly committed by a White supremacist who reportedly traveled to New York "for the purpose of killing black men";

(G) the May 26, 2017, attack in Portland, Oregon, in which a White supremacist allegedly murdered 2 men and injured a third after the men defended 2 young women whom the individual had targeted with anti-Muslim hate speech;

(H) the August 12, 2017, attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a White supremacist killed one and injured nineteen after driving his car through a crowd of individuals protesting a neo-Nazi rally, and of which former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, "It does meet the definition of domestic terrorism in our statute.";

(I) the July 2018 murder of an African-American woman from Kansas City, Missouri, allegedly committed by a White supremacist who reportedly bragged about being a member of the Ku Klux Klan;

(J) the October 24, 2018, shooting in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, in which a White man allegedly murdered 2 African Americans at a grocery store after first attempting to enter a church with a predominantly African-American congregation during a service; and

(K) the October 27, 2018, mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in which a White nationalist allegedly shot and killed 11 members of the congregation.

(6) In November 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released its annual hate crime incident report, which found that in 2017, hate crimes increased by approximately 17 percent, including a 23-percent increase in religion-based hate crimes, an 18-percent increase in race-based crimes, and a 5-percent increase in crimes directed against LGBT individuals. The total number of reported hate crimes rose for the third consecutive year. The previous year's report found that in 2016, hate crimes increased by almost 5 percent, including a 19-percent rise in hate crimes against American Muslims; additionally, of the hate crimes motivated by religious bias in 2016, 53 percent were anti-Semitic. Similarly, the report analyzing 2015 data found that hate crimes increased by 6 percent that year. Much of the 2015 increase came from a 66-percent rise in attacks on American Muslims and a 9-percent rise in attacks on American Jews. In all three reports, race-based crimes were most numerous, and those crimes most often targeted African Americans.

(7) On March 15, 2019, a White nationalist was arrested and charged with murder after allegedly killing 50 Muslim worshippers and injuring more than 40 in a massacre at the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. The alleged shooter posted a hate-filled, xenophobic manifesto that detailed his White nationalist ideology before the massacre. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern labeled the massacre a terrorist attack.

(8) In January 2017, a right-wing extremist who had expressed anti-Muslim views was charged with murder for allegedly killing 6 people and injuring 19 in a shooting rampage at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. It was the first-ever mass shooting at a mosque in North America, and Prime Minister Trudeau labeled it a terrorist attack.

(9) On February 15, 2019, Federal authorities arrested U.S. Coast Guard Lieutenant Christopher Paul Hasson, who was allegedly planning to kill a number of prominent journalists, professors, judges, and "leftists in general". In court filings, prosecutors described Lieutenant Hasson as a "domestic terrorist" who in an email "identified himself as a White Nationalist for over 30 years and advocated for 'focused violence' in order to establish a white homeland.".

(1) the term "Director" means the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(2) the term "domestic terrorism" has the meaning given the term in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, except that it does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by-

(A) a foreign person or organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1189);

(B) an individual or organization designated under Executive Order 13224 ( 50 U.S.C. 1701 note); or

(C) a state sponsor of terrorism as determined by the Secretary of State under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 ( 50 U.S.C. 4605), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act ( 22 U.S.C. 2780), or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 ( 22 U.S.C. 2371);

(3) the term "Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee" means the committee within the Department of Justice tasked with assessing and sharing information about ongoing domestic terrorism threats;

(4) the term "hate crime incident" means an act described in section 245, 247, or 249 of title 18, United States Code, or in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 ( 42 U.S.C. 3631);

(5) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Homeland Security; and

(6) the term "uniformed services" has the meaning given the term in section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.

(a) Authorization of offices To monitor, analyze, investigate, and prosecute domestic terrorism.-

(1) D OMESTIC TERRORISM UNIT.-There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Unit in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security, which shall be responsible for monitoring and analyzing domestic terrorism activity.

(2) D OMESTIC TERRORISM OFFICE.-There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Office in the Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice-

(A) which shall be responsible for investigating and prosecuting incidents of domestic terrorism; and

(B) which shall be headed by the Domestic Terrorism Counsel.

(3) D OMESTIC TERRORISM SECTION OF THE FBI.-There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Section within the Counterterrorism Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which shall be responsible for investigating domestic terrorism activity.

(4) S TAFFING.-The Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Director shall each ensure that the offices authorized under this section in their respective agencies shall have adequate staff to perform the required duties.

(b) Joint report on domestic terrorism.-

(1) A NNUAL REPORT REQUIRED.-Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit a joint report authored by the domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) to-

(A) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

(2) C ONTENTS.-Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include-

(A) an assessment of the domestic terrorism threat posed by White supremacists and neo-Nazis, including White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the uniformed services; and

(B)(i) in the first report, an analysis of incidents or attempted incidents of domestic terrorism that have occurred in the United States since April 19, 1995; and

(ii) in each subsequent report, an analysis of incidents or attempted incidents of domestic terrorism that occurred in the United States during the preceding year; and

(C) a quantitative analysis of domestic terrorism for the preceding year, including the number of-

(i) domestic terrorism related assessments initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the number of assessments from each classification and subcategory;

(ii) domestic terrorism-related preliminary investigations initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the number of preliminary investigations from each classification and subcategory, and how many preliminary investigations resulted from assessments;

(iii) domestic terrorism-related full investigations initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the number of full investigations from each classification and subcategory, and how many full investigations resulted from preliminary investigations and assessments;

(iv) domestic terrorism-related incidents, including the number of incidents from each classification and subcategory, the number of deaths and injuries resulting from each incident, and a detailed explanation of each incident;

(v) Federal domestic terrorism-related arrests, including the number of arrests from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each arrest;

(vi) Federal domestic terrorism-related indictments, including the number of indictments from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each indictment;

(vii) Federal domestic terrorism-related prosecutions, including the number of incidents from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each prosecution;

(viii) Federal domestic terrorism-related convictions, including the number of convictions from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each conviction; and

(ix) Federal domestic terrorism-related weapons recoveries, including the number of each type of weapon and the number of weapons from each classification and subcategory.

(3) H ATE CRIMES.-In compiling a joint report under this subsection, the domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall, in consultation with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, review each hate crime incident reported during the preceding year to determine whether the incident also constitutes a domestic terrorism-related incident.

(4) C LASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE.-Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be-

(A) unclassified, to the greatest extent possible, with a classified annex only if necessary; and

(B) in the case of the unclassified portion of the report, posted on the public websites of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(c) Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee.-There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which shall-

(1) meet on a regular basis, and not less regularly than 4 times each year, to coordinate with United States Attorneys and other key public safety officials across the country to promote information sharing and ensure an effective, responsive, and organized joint effort to combat domestic terrorism; and

(2) be co-chaired by-

(A) the Domestic Terrorism Counsel authorized under subsection (a)(2)(B);

(B) a United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney;

(C) a member of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice; and

(D) a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(d) Focus on greatest threats.-The domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall focus their limited resources on the most significant domestic terrorism threats, as determined by the number of domestic terrorism-related incidents from each category and subclassification in the joint report for the preceding year required under subsection (b).

(a) Required training and resources.-The Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Director shall review the anti-terrorism training and resource programs of their respective agencies that are provided to Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, including the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Program that is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the Department of Justice, and ensure that such programs include training and resources to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of law enforcement agencies. The domestic-terrorism training shall focus on the most significant domestic terrorism threats, as determined by the quantitative analysis in the joint report required under section 4(b).

(b) Requirement.-Any individual who provides domestic terrorism training required under this section shall have-

(1) expertise in domestic terrorism; and

(2) relevant academic, law enforcement, or other experience in matters related to domestic terrorism.

(1) I N GENERAL.-Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and once each year thereafter, the Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Director shall each submit an annual report to the committees of Congress described in section 4(b)(1) on the domestic terrorism training implemented by their respective agencies under this section, which shall include copies of all training materials used and the names and qualifications of the individuals who provide the training.

(2) C LASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE.-Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be-

(A) unclassified, to the greatest extent possible, with a classified annex only if necessary; and

(B) in the case of the unclassified portion of each report, posted on the public website of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(a) In general.-The joint terrorism task forces of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and State, local, and regional fusion centers, as established under section 210A of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( 6 U.S.C. 124h), shall each, in coordination with the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee and the domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 4(a) of this Act-

(1) share intelligence to address domestic terrorism activities;

(2) conduct an annual, intelligence-based assessment of domestic terrorism activities in their jurisdictions; and

(3) formulate and execute a plan to address and combat domestic terrorism activities in their jurisdictions.

(b) Requirement.-The activities required under subsection (a) shall focus on the most significant domestic terrorism threats, as determined by the number of domestic terrorism-related incidents from each category and subclassification in the joint report for the preceding year required under section 4(b).

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, the Director, the Secretary, and the Secretary of Defense shall establish an interagency task force to combat White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Text - S.894 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.

# data[].attributes.body
The senate created a bill which allows for people who qualify for medicare to have easier access to drug rehabilitation resources.
Furthermore the Department of Health and Human services has increased their reach to solve opioid related issues. Actions were also maid to better regulate the FDA and Border control.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the Legislative Actions currently taking place in relations to your topic?
- Although no new laws have been passed, the US is postponing a tariff increase on CHN goods (25%-30% on US$250billion).
- Unlikely to reach a real deal anytime soon, only likely to have claims/etc.
- Trump administration blocked nominations to WTO's dispute settlement mechanism...
2. What do you think about these actions? Good/bad? What types of actions would you like to see the Legislature take at the state or Federal level?
- I believe that CHN going for a dispute settlement of $2.4billion when US tariffs are imposed around $560billion on CHN goods are a result of the US violating WTO terms. (Removal of anti-subsidy tariffs have not occurred since 2012)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China to use US$2.4 billion WTO tariffs as 'bargaining chips' in talks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China's World Trade Organisation-backed retaliatory tariffs will be minuscule compared to trade war duties, but could provide China with 'leverage' in ongoing talks.

# data[].attributes.headline
California lawmakers ban facial-recognition software from police body cams

# data[].attributes.subject
California lawmakers ban facial-recognition software from police body cams

# data[].attributes.body
1. The bill, AB 1215, marks the latest legislative effort to limit adoption of facial-recognition technology. The bill prohibits the use of biometric surveillance technology, which includes facial-recognition software, in police body cameras. It also prohibits police from taking body-camera footage and running it through facial-recognition software at a later time. It does not prevent state and local police from using facial-recognition technology in other ways, such as in stationary cameras, and it does not apply to federal agencies such as the FBI.

2. I think that these legislative action are good and they are helping protect our 9th amendment. I would like to this to be taken to a federal level because it would prevent the police from roaming the streets and scanning every person they see. Also, it would prevent people from being scanned without their consent. Also, they bill will only last for three year, so if something arises in the future the bill can be re-written or changed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
california lawmakers ban facial-recognition software from police body cams - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California lawmakers ban facial-recognition software from police body cams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California lawmakers on Thursday temporarily banned state and local law enforcement from using facial-recognition software in body cameras, as the most populous US state takes action against the technology.

# data[].attributes.body
1) What are the Legislative Actions currently taking place in relation to your TOPIC?
The Legislative Actions that are currently taking place in relation to my topic is that there are many things that have to get passed in order for Health Care to be upgraded.
2) What do you think about these legislative actions? Are the good/bad? What types of actions would you like to see the Legislature take at the state or Federal level?
I think its bad because people today need the health care to live and get the supplies they need and if these legislative actions take for ever then people wont be . able to get the benifits and actions they need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Findings:

In the lead up to the fourth round of Democratic primary debates, majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say Democratic candidates for president are spending too little time talking about women's health care and surprise medical bills, while most feel they are spending the right amount or too much time talking about coverage expansions and Medicare-for-all.

Support for Medicare-for-all has narrowed in recent months, with 51% now saying they favor a national health plan and 47% opposed. At the same time, support for a public option has inched up since July, with 73% now saying they favor a government plan that would compete with private health care plans and 24% opposed.

Fewer than four in ten adults (37%) are aware that President Trump has promised to release a health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, while most say the president has not promised such a plan or are unsure. Most (62%) are not too confident or not at all confident that the president will be able to deliver on his promise that Americans will get better health care at a lower cost under his plan.

Following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's announcement of a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, the public is divided on whether an impeachment investigation will keep Congress from addressing key health care issues (47%) or whether Congress can work on impeachment and pass legislation to address issues such as prescription drug costs and surprise medical bills at the same time (45%). Partisans diverge, but among independents, more think that working on impeachment will keep Congress from passing legislation than say Congress can work on both at the same time (53% vs. 40%).

Large majorities of the public favor various policy options aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs, including over eight in ten who favor allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price on medications for people with Medicare and allowing negotiations that would apply to both Medicare and private insurance. However, support can shift with arguments for and against government negotiation of drug prices.

Health Care And The 2020 Election

Democratic Presidential Primary Debates

In recent KFF Health Tracking Polls health care has consistently emerged as a top issue that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want to hear the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates address. This month's tracking poll, conducted in the week prior to the fourth round of Democratic presidential debates, finds a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the Democratic candidates for president are spending too little time talking about women's health care (58%) and surprise medical bills (52%) and half say the candidates are spending too little time discussing ways to lower health care costs (50%). Nearly half say candidates are spending too little time discussing the cost of prescription drugs (47%), the opioid epidemic (46%), and the future of the ACA (46%). The upcoming debates present an opportunity for Democratic candidates to address other health care issues that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want to hear more about as most say the candidates have spent the right amount of time or too much time talking about Medicare-for-all and ways to provide health insurance coverage to all Americans-two topics which have dominated health care discussions in the past three rounds of Democratic debates.

Support For Medicare-for-all Narrows, While Support For Public Option Grows

Support for a national health plan, or Medicare-for-all, appears to have narrowed somewhat in recent months. This month's poll finds about half the public (51%) favors a national Medicare-for-all plan while 47% are opposed. This is the narrowest gap between those who favor and oppose such a plan measured in KFF polls since 2017, and represents a 5-percentage point drop in the share in favor and an 8-percentage point increase in the share opposed since April.

By contrast, support for a so-called "public option" plan in which a government-administered plan would compete with private health insurance appears to be inching up. Since July, there has been an 8-percentage point increase in the share in favor of such a plan, from 65% to 73%.

Large majorities of Democrats continue to favor both Medicare-for-all (71%) and a public option (85%). While a Medicare-for-all proposal is less popular among independents (50%) and Republicans (28%), majorities in both groups favor a public option that would compete with private health insurance plans (73% of independents and 58% of Republicans).

President Trump's Health Care Plan

In March, President Trump stated that the Republican Party will become "the party of health care." In April, he indicated that a Republican health care plan was forthcoming and that a vote would be planned following the 2020 election. Fewer than four in ten adults (37%) are aware that President Trump has promised to release a health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, while most say he has not promised to release a plan (39%) or they are unsure (23%). Notably, Republicans are more likely than Democrats and independents to know that President Trump has promised to release a health care plan to replace the ACA.

About three in ten (29%) know that President Trump has promised to release a health care plan and that he has not yet released the details of his plan. Moreover, only 9% of adults think it is very or somewhat likely that Trump will release the details of his promised health care plan to replace the ACA by the end of the year.

President Trump has stated that under his health care plan, Americans will get better health care at a lower cost than they currently pay. About three in ten adults are very or somewhat confident the President will deliver on his promise while a majority (62%) say they are not too confident or not at all confident. While most Republicans are either very confident (48%) or somewhat confident (33%) that President Trump will be able to deliver on his promise, majorities of Democrats and independents say they are not confident that the President will be able to deliver on this.

Public More Likely To Trust Democratic Party On Health Care

When it comes to health care, the public continues to give the Democratic Party the edge over the Republican Party. Larger shares say they trust the Democrats than the Republicans when it comes to handling health care (44% vs. 29%), lowering the cost of prescription drugs (49% vs. 30%), determining the future of Medicare (47% vs. 35%), and making sure seniors on Medicare are able to get the health care they need (51% vs. 32%). Unsurprisingly, majorities of partisans trust their own party to do a better job on each of these issues. While independents are more likely to trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, nearly one third (32%) say they trust neither party when it comes to handling health care.

Despite President Trump's health care speech in Florida earlier this month telling older adults that Democrats would harm their health care, those ages 65 and older are more likely to trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party to do a better job handling health care (45% vs. 35%), making sure seniors are able to get the health care they need (49% vs. 33%), and lowering the cost of prescription drugs (46% vs. 34%).

Health Care And The Congress: Impeachment And Lowering Prescription Drug Prices

Public Divided On Whether Impeachment Will Prevent Congressional Action On Prescription Drugs, Surprise Bills

On September 24 th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House would begin a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump. The public is divided on whether the recently launched impeachment investigation will keep Congress from addressing key health care issues. Forty-five percent of adults say Congress can work on impeachment and pass legislation to address issues such as prescription drug costs and surprise medical bills at the same time, while a similar proportion (47%) say impeachment will keep Congress from passing legislation to address these issues.

There are stark partisan differences, with nearly eight in ten Republicans (78%) saying impeachment will keep Congress from addressing health care issues while a similar share of Democrats (79%) say Congress can both work on impeachment and pass legislation at the same time. Independents are more likely to say that impeachment will keep Congress from passing legislation than to say they can do both (53% vs. 40%).

Majorities Support Various Approaches To Lowering Drug Costs, But Support Is Malleable

KFF's September Health Tracking Poll found that lowering prescription drug costs remain a priority for the public, with majorities across parties saying this was an important issue for Congress to address. This issue has been a focus of lawmakers, with hearings held in both the House and Senate, proposals put forward by the Trump administration, and most recently a prescription drug policy proposal unveiled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. About eight in ten Americans (78%) say the cost of prescription drugs is unreasonable and majorities favor most of policy options aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs included in this month's survey.

Nearly nine in ten Americans favor allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price on medications for people on Medicare (88%). A similar proportion favor allowing the federal government to negotiate prices with drug companies that would apply to both Medicare and private insurance (85%). Both of these policy proposals are supported by large majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans. Moreover, seven in ten adults (72%) favor increasing taxes on drug companies that refuse to negotiate with the federal government, including majorities of Democrats (79%), independents (71%), and Republicans (69%).

While allowing the federal government to negotiate prices with prescription drug companies is a popular policy proposal, attitudes can shift after hearing potential arguments that have been made both in favor and against the proposal. Support for government negotiations is 89% after hearing the argument that this could help people save money on their prescription drugs. In contrast, opposition is as high as two-thirds after hearing the argument that allowing government negotiation could limit access to new prescription drugs. It is important to note that these arguments do not include specific details about different approaches and constraints that could be imposed on potential negotiations, details of which may influence the public's attitudes.

Other proposals aimed at lowering prescription drug costs are also popular among the public. At least three in four favor allowing Medicare to place limits on how much drug companies can increase the price of drugs every year based on annual inflation rates (76%), allowing Americans to buy drugs imported from licensed Canadian pharmacies (78%), and placing an annual limit on out-of-pocket costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare prescription drug coverage (81%). About six in ten (62%) favor lowering what Medicare pays based on amounts paid in other countries where governments more closely control prices. Notably, majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents favor each of these proposals.

The ACA And The Courts

In December 2018, a federal district court judge in Texas issued a ruling siding with Republican state attorneys general that declared the Affordable Care Act invalid since Congress zeroed out the penalty for not having health insurance. In March 2019, the Trump administration filed a brief stating that the administration supports the federal judge's ruling that all of the ACA is invalid. The Trump administration had previously stated that as part of the lawsuit known as Texas v. United States, it will no longer defend the ACA's protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Overall, 63% of the public do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the ACA's pre-existing condition protections; yet the public is more divided on whether they want the Court to overturn the entire law (43% would like to see it overturned and 48% would not). While about seven in ten Democrats and about half of independents do not want to see the 2010 health care law overturned, three in four Republicans say they would like to see the courts overturn the law. However, fewer than half of Republicans (47%) want to see the ACA's protections for people with pre-existing conditions overturned.

Overall opinions of the Affordable Care Act have remained relatively unchanged for the past two years since the Republican efforts to repeal the law. Half of the public (51%) this month hold favorable opinions of the ACA while four in ten hold a negative opinion of the law. The public still holds largely partisan views of the ACA as eight in ten Democrats (81%) have a favorable view of the ACA compared to half of independents (51%) and about one-sixth of Republicans (15%).

Methodology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
KFF Health Tracking Poll - October 2019: Health Care In The Democratic Debates, Congress, And The Courts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the lead up to the fourth round of Democratic primary debates, majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say Democratic candidates for president are spending too little time talking about women's health care and surprise medical bills, while most feel they are spending the right amount or too much time talking about coverage expansions and Medicare-for-all.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article that I found it states that there was an act related to the housing crisis and it was passed by the California Legislature, the act that they passed was Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This act limits jurisdiction's ability to change development standards, zoning and increasing extractions or fees during a project's application period.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A handful of important state laws related to housing have been passed by the California legislature, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), which provides a set of limited reforms to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Planning and Zoning Law, and Permit Streamlining Act. These new laws, most of which would take effect in January 2020 if signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are of interest to project proponents and local agencies:

SB 330 limits jurisdictions' abilities to move the goalposts for housing development projects during their application process and strengthens the protections of the HAA and the Permit Streamlining Act. It also bans jurisdictions from downzoning or otherwise adopting standards that would lessen housing intensity on sites zoned or planned for residential use - but it does not otherwise limit cities' ability to impose the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other discretionary review procedures on housing development applications. SB 330 sunsets on Jan. 1, 2025.

AB 1482, the statewide rent control bill described in an earlier Holland & Knight alert, passed the legislature on Sept. 11, 2019.

A series of other bills passed by the legislature (AB 101, AB 430, AB 1763, SB 18 and AB 1110) provide limited streamlining opportunities, density bonus reforms and new tenant protections.

As usual, most of the major housing bills ether will (or will not) be passed at or near the deadline for the legislature to act on by Sept. 13, 2019. Gov. Newsom must sign or veto the approved bills by Oct. 13, 2019, with some exceptions. Holland & Knight is monitoring this activity and will report on additional laws passed by the legislature once the legislative session concludes.

SB 330 - Housing Crisis Act of 2019

SB 330, passed by the legislature and awaiting the governor's signature, tightens the protections for development projects under the HAA by limiting a jurisdiction's ability to change development standards and zoning applicable to the project once a preliminary application is submitted. Prior law held that standards in place at the time an application was complete were applicable and thus jurisdictions could change applicable standards during the application process in order to preclude it from qualifying for HAA protection. The bill also prevents jurisdictions from increasing exactions or fees during a project's application period, but allows such increases if the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee calls for automatic increases in the fee over time. If the development project does not start construction within 2 ½ years of final approval or the project is modified to include 20 percent or more residential units or square footage, then a jurisdiction can subject a project to new standards.

The bill also modifies the Planning and Zoning Law to prohibit cities or counties from conducting more than five hearings if a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. This prevents jurisdictions from undertaking a protracted approval process in which projects can stall because of financing or other issues. The bill also requires jurisdictions to make a determination on the historic nature of a planned housing development site at the time the application is deemed complete. This determination remains valid for the pendency of the development process.

The bill also amends the Permit Streamlining Act to specify what constitutes a "preliminary application" and states that a jurisdiction has one chance to identify incomplete items in an initial application and after that may not request the submission of any new information that was not in the initial list of missing items. The bill also reduces the time in which a lead agency is required to approve or disapprove certain housing projects.

Finally, the bill prohibits a jurisdiction (with some exceptions) from enacting development policies, standards or conditions that would change current zoning and general plan designations of land where housing is an allowable use to "lessen the intensity of housing," such as reducing height, density or floor area ratio, requiring new or increased open space, lot size, setbacks or frontage, or limiting maximum lot coverage. It also bans jurisdictions from placing a moratorium or similar restrictions on housing development, from imposing subjective design standards established after Jan. 1, 2020, and limiting or capping the number of land use approvals or permits that will be issued in the jurisdiction, unless the jurisdiction is predominately agricultural.

Other Acts Provide Limited Streamlining Opportunities, Density Bonus Reforms and New Tenant Protections

Enacted: The following bills have been signed into law.

The Housing Development and Housing 2019-20 Budget Act - AB 101 requires local governments to provide "by right," CEQA-exempt approvals to certain qualifying navigation centers that move homeless Californians into permanent housing. Signed into law by Gov. Newsom on July 31, 2019 (and already in effect), the act also creates additional incentives for cities to comply with their mandates to plan for sufficient housing in their Housing Elements, and provides some modest additional remedies that the state can use in court when cities fail to comply with housing element law. These reforms fall well short of Gov. Newsom's proposal at the beginning of 2019 to withhold state money from cities that fail to plan for and approve sufficient housing.

The Keep Californians Housed Act - SB 18 (Sen. Nancy Skinner), removes the Dec. 31, 2019, sunset date on a state law which gives tenants at least 90 days' notice before their tenancy can be terminated if a landlord loses ownership of their rental property as a result of a foreclosure sale. Gov. Newsom signed SB 18 into law on July 30, 2019.

Adopted But Require Governor Approval: The following bills have been approved by the Senate and Assembly but require Gov. Newsom's signature.

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 - AB 1482 (Assembly Member David Chiu), the statewide rent control bill that Gov. Newsom has announced his intention to sign, was passed by the legislature on Sept. 11, 2019. (For a summary of AB 1482, see Holland & Knight alert, "Rent Control Bill Gets Gov. Newsom's Support as Clock Ticks on Deadline for New Laws," Sept. 9, 2019.)

The Camp Fire Housing Assistance Act of 2019 - AB 430 (Assembly Member James Gallagher), is intended to create housing relief in areas of Butte County where the housing stock was devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire. The bill, passed by the legislature on Sept. 6, 2019, and awaiting Gov. Newsom's signature, creates a streamlined ministerial, CEQA-exempt approval process in and adjacent to the cities of Biggs, Corning, Gridley, Live Oak, Orland, Oroville, Willows and Yuba City for qualifying housing developments that comply with those localities' objective zoning, subdivision and design review standards.

Planning and zoning: density bonuses: affordable housing - AB 1763 (Chiu), passed by the legislature on Sept. 3, 2019, and awaiting Gov. Newsom's signature, would create enhanced density bonus options, including a potential 80 percent increase in base density, under the State Density Bonus Law. However, this would only apply to projects that consist of 100 percent affordable housing (no more than 20 percent moderate-income, and the remainder for lower-income).

Rent increases: noticing - AB-1110 (Assembly Member Laura Friedman), passed by the legislature on Sept. 10, 2019, and awaiting Gov. Newsom's signature, would require 90-day notice, rather than 60-day notice, before a landlord may increase the rent of a month-to-month tenant by more than 10 percent.

Conclusion

In this year's package of housing laws, the legislature has continued emphasizing (as seen in AB 101 and AB 430) that it believes that the best way to ensure housing is built is to reform and streamline the local review process and move toward a "by right" model for housing that complies with local zoning and planning rules. However, the legislature continues to apply this principle on a very limited scale rather than to advance the construction of the 3.5 million homes that Gov. Newsom has said must be built by 2025 to stem the statewide housing crisis.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
california limited reforms housing accountability act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Legislature Passes Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and Rent Control Bill, Among Others | Insights | Holland & Knight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A handful of important state laws related to housing have been passed by the California legislature, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), which provides a set of limited reforms to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Planning and Zoning Law, and Permit Streamlining Act.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, the way our issue is been present on immigration is similarly to what many news resources post on immigration here in the us. It seems from what I read they have a similar think to many who identity as liberal or as Democrats, who have to do with freedom and liberty etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children sleeping on floors, changing other children's diapers. Families torn apart at the border. Migrants crammed into fetid detention centers. These have become familiar sights as people fleeing gang violence, domestic abuse and poverty arrive on the southern border of the United States. Many will join more than 52,000 immigrants confined in jails, prisons, tents and other forms of detention - most of them for profit.The United States' reliance on immigrant detention is not a new phenomenon, nor did it emerge with Donald Trump (though its growth under his administration is staggering). Over the last four decades, a series of emergency stopgaps and bipartisan deals has created a new multibillion-dollar industry built on the incarceration of immigrants.

marshall project copublishing

The people held in prison-like facilities across the country are not serving time for a crime. They're waiting for a hearing to determine whether they can legally remain in the country while being kept in what is considered "civil detention", intended to ensure that people show up for those hearings. Detention, once reserved only for those who threatened public safety or posed a flight risk, is now ubiquitous.

Immigrants, including asylum seekers and legal migrants, wait an average of more than four weeks to be released, though some have been held inside for years or even decades. Up to 2,500 are children and parents fleeing war and violence in their home countries. Thousands have alleged sexual and physical abuse inside the facilities.

Forty years ago, this system did not exist.

shifting tides video

Guard Tony video

A modest system holding fewer than 3,000 migrants a day at the end of the 1970s, detention has now morphed into a sprawling machinery ensnaring immigrants across the country. And facilities operated under both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) and the border patrol continue to come under fire for holding people in squalid conditions with minimal access to hygiene and medical care.

triptych graph

new machinery video

While the population of people in detention has grown, so has the government budget to fund the beds to hold them. Billions of American taxpayer dollars are now allocated to support a system where for-profit companies hold the vast majority of immigrants. In fiscal year 2018, private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group derived 25% and 20% of their profits respectively from Ice, which is now their biggest client. In the same year, Ice spent over $250m on contracts with GEO Group and another $60m with CoreCivic.

Ice also runs alternatives to detention programs, including electronic monitoring, phone check-ins and home visits. More than 98,373 people are currently on electronic monitoring, according to Ice. Where Ice pays several hundred dollars per person per day in detention, alternative programs cost an average of $4.42 a day.

fiscal year table

catch and detain video

With illegal immigration at the heart of the debate over US immigration policy, the number of undocumented immigrants has grown from less than 1 million in the 1970s to just under 11 million today, about 3% of the US population.

Although the number of undocumented immigrants has actually declined since 2007, the government is locked in a stalemate over how to deal with those still here and those who continue to arrive.

undocumented estimates graph

Even as the numbers held in detention have expanded, actual apprehensions at the US-Mexico border by the border patrol and in the interior by Ice have fluctuated, declining overall since 2000, and spiking again this year. Trump administration enforcement measures have not deterred the most recent surge, made up mostly of Central American families fleeing instability and violence.

apprehension graph

zero tolerance video

The number of detention facilities soared in the 1990s. Then, by 2017 the number declined as privately run facilities began to replace some of the smaller local jails.

Ten per cent of detainees are in Ice-run facilities, 20% are in county and local jails, and the rest are in facilities run by private corporations. Though unaccompanied children are placed in facilities operated by health and human services, more than 500 children and parents are currently detained by Ice. And the Trump administration has made new efforts to remove the 20-day time limit for detaining migrant children.

As the race for the 2020 presidential election heats up, Democratic candidates have clamored to decry Trump's immigration policies.

Nearly all candidates support an end to detention for asylum-seeking families. In Senator Elizabeth Warren's immigration plan, she promises to reserve detention for extreme cases of safety or flight risks. Senator Bernie Sanders told the Washington Post: "We must promote and implement these cheaper, more effective and more humane alternatives to keeping children and families detained in overcrowded, understaffed and ad-hoc facilities." The former vice-president Joe Biden also pledged to end the detention of children in a private meeting with Boldpac, a political action committee.

In the meantime Trump continues to redirect funding from the US Coast Guard and other agencies to a detention system whose daily population has grown by more than 40% since he took office. And it's only getting bigger.

detained number
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the US built the world's largest immigrant detention system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children sleeping on floors, changing other children's diapers. Families torn apart at the border. Migrants crammed into fetid detention centers. These have become familiar sights as people fleeing gang violence, domestic abuse and poverty arrive on the southern border of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Activist protesting in different countries are being arrested for participating in climate change protest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Police have arrested 280 people in London at the start of two weeks of protests by environmental campaigners.

Extinction Rebellion activists are protesting in cities around the world, including Berlin, Amsterdam and Sydney.

Organisers have blockaded key sites in central London, in addition to demonstrating outside government departments.

Some have glued and chained themselves to roads and vehicles, while others were planning to camp overnight.

Extinction Rebellion claims protests in the capital will be five times bigger than similar events in April.

The protests are calling for urgent action on global climate and wildlife emergencies.

Watch: The farmers joining Extinction Rebellion

In pictures: Global climate strike

Activists barricaded themselves to vehicles in Westminster early on Monday as the demonstrations got under way.

Meanwhile, hundreds of campaigners filled Trafalgar Square and blocked Lambeth and Westminster bridges.

A hearse containing a coffin with the plaque Our Future was parked in Trafalgar Square, with the driver attaching himself to the steering wheel with a bicycle lock.

Extinction Rebellion said a police officer later gave the hearse a parking ticket.

Earlier, church leaders helped to create a "faith bridge" on Lambeth Bridge, with services and prayer vigils planned.

Rev Jon Swales, 41, Mission Priest at the Church of England's Lighthouse Church in Leeds and Associate Faculty at St Hild Theological Centre, said: "The science is clear.

"Unless we radically change the way we live in the world we will face the full force of climate catastrophe."

Protesters dubbed the Red Rebels wore red robes and white face paint as they gathered outside the Cabinet Office in Whitehall.

The singer Declan McKenna performed an impromptu free gig on the Mall in the evening, as people gathered in the rain to listen.

The roads behind Downing Street were blocked throughout the day by protesters, some of whom had erected tents in the street and were sitting down and singing songs together.

Among the group were two girls, Esme, 11, and Rafi, nine, who had taken the day off school to attend the protests.

Their mother Laurie, 41, told PA: "They've already done a spelling test this morning, sat down in the street, so we're not wasting time.

"We've talked about the protests at home and the school knows where they are."

"We're here because we want the world to still be alive when we die," said Rafi.

Protesters who had glued and chained themselves outside Westminster Abbey were removed by police.

A staggered police cordon was later set up along Millbank, near Parliament, before officers attempted to move demonstrators from Lambeth Bridge.

Extinction Rebellion organisers told protesters to sit down and "be arrested" as police continued to try to remove them - and a police cordon later closed off the bridge.

Police were seen cutting two protesters from a car that had blocked Victoria Embankment, while campaigners also locked themselves to a mock Trident missile outside the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall.

Activists were also pictured on a barge on the Thames.

Two women were pictured getting married on Westminster Bridge, Extinction Rebellion said.

Police wearing abseiling gear and equipped with acetone syringes were seen removing protesters who had glued themselves to scaffolding in Trafalgar Square.

A string of celebrities including fashion model Daisy Lowe, actress Juliet Stevenson and comedian Ruby Wax joined campaigners in Trafalgar Square.

Stevenson said the protests were "a very wonderful action", revealing her son was attending them as a worker for Extinction Rebellion.

She told the Press Association: "We can't any longer allow governments to do this, so we have to make it clear that there is no more time."

On Saturday, Lowe, 30, hosted a dinner to "celebrate and be educated" by Extinction Rebellion activists, and encouraged followers to join the protests.

She wrote on Instagram: "It is a terrifying reality we live in, but we have the power to change the course of history and save our planet."

Image Copyright daisylowe daisyloweReport

Sir Mark Rylance, the Oscar-winning actor, joined a blockade on the Mall before addressing protesters at St James' Park.

He said: "People have been saying to me, it doesn't make a difference having a celebrity joining the protests.

"I am confident these protests are going to lead to a solid change. Extinction Rebellion isn't going to go away."

In June, Sir Mark resigned as an associate artist at the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) over its partnership with BP, which the theatre company has since vowed to end.

He told the crowds Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate change activist, had inspired his decision to quit the RSC when he did.

Meanwhile, activists from Animal Rebellion, a movement allied to Extinction Rebellion, marched from Russell Square to Smithfield Meat Market.

Organisers say they planned to remain overnight at the market to share their "vision of a future plant-based food system".

On arriving at the market, protesters said they held a minute's silence for "animals whose lives are lost" at Smithfield, and then went on to set up stalls selling plant-based products inside one of the world's most famous meat-trading spaces.

In an update posted shortly after 17:00 BST, organisers said 11 sites remained occupied across Westminster, as groups of protesters prepared to camp out for the night.

Emily, an activist from Wales, said on Twitter she planned to stay overnight.

Extinction Rebellion said many activists were preparing to go on hunger strike to illustrate "that our just-in-time food system is too fragile to repeatedly withstand the shocks of extreme weather".

There had been 280 arrests in connection with the protests as of 21.30 BST, according to the Metropolitan Police.

Extinction Rebellion said this included Sarah Lasenby, 81, a Quaker and retired social worker from Oxford.

Ms Lasenby, who the group says was part of efforts to block Embankment, said: "It is imperative that the government should take serious actions and put pressure on other states and global powers to radically reduce the use of fossil fuels."

What is Extinction Rebellion?

Extinction Rebellion (XR for short) wants governments to declare a "climate and ecological emergency" and take immediate action to address climate change.

It describes itself as an international "non-violent civil disobedience activist movement".

Extinction Rebellion was launched in 2018 and organisers say it now has groups willing to take action in dozens of countries.

In April, the group held a large demonstration in London that brought major routes in the city to a standstill.
Read more here.
Extinction Rebellion organisers say they are expecting up to 30,000 people to take part in the fortnight-long demonstrations in the capital, which form part of an "international rebellion".

Similar protests in the UK earlier this year brought major disruption to London and resulted in more than 1,100 arrests.

Up to 60 other cities around the world may also be disrupted in simultaneous events, according to a spokesperson for the group.

Activists will call on government departments to detail their plans to tackle the climate emergency.

Police in Australia and New Zealand have already arrested dozens of Extinction Rebellion activists on Monday.

Some 30 campaigners in Sydney were charged with committing offences after hundreds of protesters blocked a busy road.

More than 100 people were arrested in Amsterdam after they erected a tent camp on the main road outside the Rijksmuseum, the Dutch national museum

The latest arrests in London come after the Met police arrested 11 people during the weekend.

A spokesperson for the force said eight people were arrested on Saturday after previously reporting 10. They have all been released under investigation.

One woman and two men were arrested on Sunday on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. The men remain in custody while the woman has been released under investigation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arrests as Extinction Rebellion protests begin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Police have arrested 280 people in London at the start of two weeks of protests by environmental campaigners. Extinction Rebellion activists are protesting in cities around the world, including Berlin, Amsterdam and Sydney. Organisers have blockaded key sites in central London, in addition to demonstrating outside government departments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Brexit is being heavily affected  by the US-China trade war which is a similarity to both china and the US because it is effecting both economies and also England's because they trade with us and china the most.

# data[].attributes.subject
Brexit is being heavily affected  by the US-China trade war which is a similarity to both china and the US because it is effecting both economies and also England's because they trade with us and china the most.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two of Britain's biggest recruitment companies have warned that uncertainty created by Brexit, protests in Hong Kong and the US-China trade dispute will hit their profits this year.

PageGroup, the UK's second-largest recruiter, said rising fears about Brexit had made companies less willing to hire workers and potential candidates wary about moving jobs. It said uncertainty had affected the market for jobs at all levels.

The company was the biggest faller in the FTSE 250, with shares down 12% to a near three-year low of 367p, after it said annual operating profit would be between £140m and £150m compared with expectations for £156m. Its rival Robert Walters predicted no increase in profit this year.

Business also deteriorated in China, where both companies have expanded. They blamed uncertainty created by protests in Hong Kong and Donald Trump's trade war with Beijing. PageGroup's profits in China fell by 24% in the third quarter, while problems in China restricted Robert Walters' growth in the Asia Pacific region to 3%.

Both companies reported falling UK profits over the period. PageGroup's UK profit fell 4% to £33.8m in the three months to September and Robert Walters' dropped 11% to £24.3m.

Steve Ingham, PageGroup's chief executive, said: "In the UK, heightened Brexit-related uncertainty is expected to remain as we approach and go beyond 31 October ... In greater China, confidence in mainland China continues to be affected by trade tariff uncertainty and the social unrest in Hong Kong is increasing."

Ingham said trading was better in the US and elsewhere in Europe but that worsening economic conditions suggested business there could slow.

Robert Walters shares hit their lowest point for more than two years, falling 5% to 464p. Shares in Hays, Britain's biggest recruiter, fell 5% to 135p. Hays, which updates on trading next week, said in August that clients in the UK were putting off hiring workers because of Brexit.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recruitment firms warn Brexit and China trade war will hit profits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two of Britain's biggest recruitment companies have warned that uncertainty created by Brexit, protests in Hong Kong and the US-China trade dispute will hit their profits this year. PageGroup, the UK's second-largest recruiter, said rising fears about Brexit had made companies less willing to hire workers and potential candidates wary about moving jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israeli-watchdog-accuses-Facebook-of-promoting-Palestinian-terrorism-601241
WHat this article is saying is Facebbok refuses to shut down a anti-Israli facebook page that constantly promotes Palestanian terrorism Depsite multiple reports on the page by a media in Israel, they

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows a young women standing up for her world and she wants everyone to come together because we do have to deal with these problems as one whole group

# data[].attributes.headline
my article is presented how much effort Salvadorian families rick just to have better future . and Us is view in as bad because is sending people back to their counties when they are being threaten. this country is not sting for what if belief because it supports life but many lives have been taken from kid and parents and many others.

# data[].attributes.subject
my article is presented how much effort Salvadorian families rick just to have better future . and Us is view in as bad because is sending people back to their counties when they are being threaten. this country is not sting for what if belief because it supports life but many lives have been taken from kid and parents and many others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
por ILEANA CORADO / Resumen Latinoamericano/ 24 de agosto del 2016 .-
El 88.8% del total de migrantes salvadoreños están entre las edades de 18 y 65 años.
La búsqueda de mejores condiciones de vida e ingresos económicos son los principales motivos por los que salvadoreños deciden abandonar el país y emigrar hacia los Estados Unidos. Actualmente la migración es mayor que el crecimiento demográfico, es decir, que nacen menos salvadoreños de los que emigran.
Los datos fueron revelados este miércoles por René Maldonado, coordinador del Programa de Remesas e Inclusión Financiera del Centro de Estudios Monetarios Latinoamericanos (CEMLA).
Según muchos estudios el principal motivo de abandono del país era la falta de trabajo, sin embargo, en los casos de El Salvador y Costa Rica según una reciente encuesta, el 45% de la gente que emigró tenía trabajo y tomó la decisión buscando mejorar sus condiciones de vida e ingresos.
"Si pueden ganar allá $21 mil al año comparados con los $4,502 que se gana acá es un impulso grande para abandonar la familia. Las condiciones del trabajo son las principales determinantes", explica Maldonado.
En cuanto al comportamiento de los ingresos que aporta está población, nueve de cada diez remesas que recibe El Salvador vienen de Estados Unidos y desde 2010 -tras la crisis económica- el ritmo de crecimiento de las remesas alcanza el 4% anual.
"Los migrantes salvadoreños lograron sortear la crisis y mantenerse mientras se superaba el proceso. A nivel de Centroamérica y el Caribe, El salvador es el tercer país en importancia en torno a la recepción las remesas. Honduras y Haití llevan la delantera", indican los resultados.
Ingresos sobrepasan PIB nacional
Según una encuesta realizada por el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), el Fondo Multilateral de Inversiones (FOMIN) y el CEMLA, los ingresos económicos de los migrantes salvadoreños en Estados Unidos, superan el Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) de El Salvador.
El ingreso per cápita -remuneraciones promedio obtenidas- de migrantes en el país norteamericano es 4,8 veces mayor al ingreso per cápita promedio en El Salvador.

Por otro lado, el ingreso anual que perciben los salvadoreños está entre $23 y $36 mil al año y la mayoría se desempeña en la construcción, restaurantes y servicios de limpieza. El estudio también deja entrever las brechas de género, pues los hombres ganan 24% más que las mujeres, lo que podría radicar en que ellas laboran en rubros con paga más baja.
La población salvadoreña en Estados Unidos representa 34%y nueve de cada diez emigrantes salvadoreños residen en Estados Unidos y hombres son 51% y 48% mujeres.
¿La inseguridad no preocupa?
Aunque la encuesta no abordó el tema de inseguridad como motivación para desplazarse y la población entrevistada emigró hace 30 y 20 años, en 2014 se conoció un estudio del Diálogo Interamericano que revela que La violencia es el principal factor que contribuye a la migración irregular de ciudadanos de El Salvador, Honduras y Guatemala a Estados Unidos.
El informe fue realizado a partir de datos de 900 municipios de los tres países y entrevistas con personas y comunidades afectadas.
Según los resultados obtenidos por la organización, con sede en Washington D. C., la mayoría de los migrantes ilegales provienen de municipios con los más altos índices de violencia -medida a partir de número de homicidios- y con mayor cantidad de población.
La investigación determinó que aquellos municipios donde más emigración hay, basándose en la cantidad de remesas que reciben, son aquellos poblados con mayores niveles de homicidios.
"La violencia se está transformando en un instrumento de expulsión de población y está desplazando a factores tradicionales como la reunificación familiar", dijo el exviceministro de salvadoreños en el Exterior, Juan José García, en entrevista anterior al referirse al fenómeno de la migración que forma parte del día a día en El Salvador y Centroamérica.
Análisis recientes indican que las personas no se están yendo del país porque no tengan empleo, sino porque les están amenazando, extorsionando muchos incluso deciden irse al agotar el desplazamiento interno.
Según el economista René Maldonado, mejorando las condiciones del empleo y la productividad se podría reducir los niveles de desplazamiento hacía otros países que actualmente nos catapultan como uno de los países exportadores de migrante.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
El Salvador. Razón de la migración: ¿Economía o inseguridad?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
por ILEANA CORADO / Resumen Latinoamericano/ 24 de agosto del 2016 .- El 88.8% del total de migrantes salvadoreños están entre las edades de 18 y 65 años. La búsqueda de mejores condiciones de vida e ingresos económicos son los principales motivos por los que salvadoreños deciden abandonar el país y emigrar hacia los Estados Unidos.

# data[].attributes.body
They are similar because they talk about similar topics. however the news from the news source i read seems to be less for lack of a better word dramatic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reports of an apparently healthy-looking young humpback in the Thames suggests that it is not only humans who are intent on an environmental uprising. As the founding emblem of the modern green movements, it seems apt that this leviathan appears just in time to join this week's Extinction Rebellion demonstrations.

Not only that, but in what may be the biggest goodwill gesture yet from the largest animals on our benighted planet, the whales may be about to help us out. If we give them the chance. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released a report detailing how great whales could sequester billions of tonnes of climate-threatening carbon from the atmosphere.

It is an exquisite and painful irony. In the 20th century, humans removed 3 million great whales from the oceans - their sublime beauty hunted, slaughtered, and processed. It was a terrible loss twice over, since scientists believe that the subtraction of this vast marine biomass may have hastened climate breakdown, not least by removing billions of tonnes of whale faeces that would have fertilised phytoplankton, which in turn would capture carbon released by human activities.

Now the international (if voluntary) moratorium on the hunting of great whales, implemented in 1986, is finally bearing fruit and some populations are recovering. There are even humpbacks off the coast of New York.

So, being human - we bring in the accountants. In its cost-benefit analysis, the IMF reports that if whales are allowed to return to their pre-whaling population estimate of 4 million to 5 million - from slightly more than 1.3 million today - they would capture as much carbon annually as four Amazon forests. Not only that, they make money for us: whale watching, as a relatively benign alternative to whale hunting, is worth $2bn globally, a year. And if that weren't enough, even dead whales play their part. Each whale carcass, falling slowly to the ocean floor, will store the carbon captured in their carcasses for centuries.

Will these great grey giants be the saving of us? In 1976, as Save the Whales campaigning merchandise flooded popular consciousness, and not long after Greenpeace launched its first anti-whaling campaign by confronting whaling fleets in the north Pacific, the comedians Peter Cook and Dudley Moore asked, in one of the most obscene, and funniest recordings ever made, what have the whales ever done for us? "They've produced nothing in the way of literature," the pair quip. "All they eat is fucking plankton. Can you imagine drifting along in the sea with your mouth open with a lot of plankton going in?"

Well, between them and their plankton, the joke may be on us. Whales are ready to rescue the world. It is an extraordinary notion - given what we have done to them - but perhaps that Thames whale, as lost as it may be in our river, offers us a kind of hope - in the cloudy shape of her prodigious poo.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should we save the Thames whale - or has it come to save us?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reports of an apparently healthy-looking young humpback in the Thames suggests that it is not only humans who are intent on an environmental uprising. As the founding emblem of the modern green movements, it seems apt that this leviathan appears just in time to join this week's Extinction Rebellion demonstrations.

# data[].attributes.headline
A battle worth waging': family whose son died in opioids crisis celebrate Oklahoma judgement

# data[].attributes.subject
A battle worth waging': family whose son died in opioids crisis celebrate Oklahoma judgement

# data[].attributes.body
A boy named Austin Box died from a deadly mix that was suppose to be prescribed painkillers. The company who made it, "Johnson and Johnson", were sued by Oklahoma to pay $572m to increase treatment and research efficiency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eight years after her son, Austin Box, died at 22-years-old from a lethal mix of prescription painkillers, Gail Box finds comfort knowing his story is playing an important role in the battle against America's opioid crisis.

"In life, he was always a leader," Box said. "To think that his voice is speaking out once again and helping to lead the fight and speak for the ones who have been lost... it's comforting."
Johnson & Johnson to pay $572m for fueling Oklahoma opioid crisis, judge rules
Austin was a football superstar, serving as middle linebacker for the Sooners, the University of Oklahoma's football team. In May 2011, days after his college graduation, Austin was found unresponsive at a friend's house.

A report released after Austin's death revealed that he had five different types of painkillers in his system at the time of his death. Austin sustained multiple serious injuries throughout his football career, though his family did not know the extent he was using prescription drugs to treat his pain.

"When our son passed away, we had no idea it was in the throes of this epidemic," Box said. "We really didn't know anything about it."

In May 2019, Box's husband, Craig Box, gave an emotional testimony against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit filed by the state of Oklahoma for driving the opioid crisis. He said that he and his wife were just one pair of many parents who did not understand the ubiquity of opioids before it was too late.

"We heard from so many parents that have lost children in similar circumstances that had the same story as us that had no idea, no clue about the prevalence of these drugs," Craig Box said during the trial, often pausing to hold back tears.

On Monday, the family was in the courtroom in Norman, Oklahoma when a judge ruled that Johnson & Johnson was responsible for running a "false and dangerous" sales campaign that caused addiction and death for Oklahomans like Austin.

"We were happy in regards to the decision because drug companies need to be held accountable," Gail Box said. "We hold them responsible for the opioid epidemic ... It sets a precedent nationwide."

"They are the ones that profited. If you look at the numbers of some of the drug companies and how they profited ... that is where the money can come from and should come from to abate this problem."

Box said that she and her husband had hoped the monetary reward Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay was higher - the company was ordered to pay the state of Oklahoma $572m of the $17bn the state sought - because the state needs resources to bolster addiction treatment and research

"We do not have enough treatment beds to accommodate those who need treatment. The affordability is often difficult for families," Box said.

But Box said the judgement is still a positive first step in a long battle against the crisis that took her son.

Box said: "We hope the same thing happens in other states. We know we're not alone, and I know that other states have been ravaged (by the crisis) to a greater degree than the state of Oklahoma."

The Box's have spent the last few years educating other families about the dangers of the opioid crisis in Oklahoma. The family established the Austin Box 12 Foundation - the 12 being a nod to Austin's football jersey number - to help promote awareness of the crisis and fight the stigma of addiction.

Though the fight has been emotionally draining, Box said "it's a battle worth waging".

"I know if we could ask Austin if he would want us to do this or not, it would be a resounding 'yes'."

This article was amended on 30 August 2019 to correct that the Johnson & Johnson trial resulted in a judgement, not a settlement.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'A battle worth waging': family whose son died in opioids crisis celebrate Oklahoma judgement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eight years after her son, Austin Box, died at 22-years-old from a lethal mix of prescription painkillers, Gail Box finds comfort knowing his story is playing an important role in the battle against America's opioid crisis. "In life, he was always a leader," Box said.

# data[].attributes.body
When gun control is covered outside the U.S., journalists often express surprise and confusion because their countries do not have the culture of guns that Americans do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on Sunday offered Donald Trump a rare and highly symbolic bipartisan win - if he can somehow force Republicans in the Senate to enact gun control legislation containing background check measures passed by the House this year.

The House speaker and Senate minority leader said they would both join the president at the White House "for a historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden", if he can get the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, to act.

That remains highly unlikely: close ties between Republican leaders and the gun rights lobby have led to legislative stasis on gun control despite numerous mass shootings across America.

Pelosi and Schumer said in a statement they spoke to Trump on Sunday.

"We made it clear," they said, "that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn't have guns will still have access."

The House passed gun control legislation in February. The Senate has not taken it up.

In a statement, the White House said "the conversation was cordial" but added that "the president made no commitments" on the House bill.

Elsewhere, Beto O'Rourke continued to beat a louder drum.

I think what's truly awful is a 17-month-old baby shot in the face with an AR-15, as happened in Odessa

Beto O'Rourke

The former Texas congressman and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination has insisted he will lead a government buy back of assault-style weapons if he wins the White House.

That remains an outside prospect at best but O'Rourke's passionate rhetoric - and frequent resort to forceful obscenity - has struck a note on the campaign trail.

On Sunday he told NBC's Meet the Press criticism of his tactics "just shows you how screwed up the priorities in Washington DC are".

In early August, in O'Rourke's home town, El Paso, a gunman killed 22 people at a Walmart. Less than a day later, nine people were killed in Dayton, Ohio. On 31 August, seven people were killed in Odessa, Texas.

"I think what's truly awful is a 17-month-old baby shot in the face with an AR-15, as happened in Odessa," O'Rourke said.

"What's truly awful is 22 people killed in a Walmart the Saturday before school starts that next Monday, buying their school supplies, innocent of any crime or any threat to this country, in fact, living in one of the safest cities in America, El Paso, Texas, hunted down by their ethnicity with a weapon that was designed for use on a battlefield."

He continued: "I refuse to even acknowledge the politics or the polling or the fear or the NRA, that has purchased the complicity and silence of members of Congress. And this weak response to a real tragedy in America, 40,000 gun deaths a year, we've got to do something about it. And I'm proposing that we do something about it."

A buyback, he said, would not violate the second amendment and the right to bear arms, as it would be "something that we're able to do through the commerce clause ... this is constitutionally sound".

He went on, in familiar fashion, to cite support from Republican AR-15 owners he said he had spoken to out on the campaign trail.

It does alarm a lot of us when we hear Beto O'Rourke saying, yes, they're just going to come and take our guns

"I think there's support beyond the Democratic party," O'Rourke said, "to include Republicans and independents, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, to do the right thing".

There is not uniform support within the Democratic party. On CNN's State of the Union, presidential contender Pete Buttigieg was asked if O'Rourke was playing into the hands of the NRA.

"Yes," he said, adding that polling showed the US public wants universal background checks on gun sales, red flag laws designed to take guns from individuals deemed unfit to have them, and bans on the sale of high-capacity magazines and the sale of new assault weapons.

"This is a golden moment to finally do something," the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, insisted, "because we have been arguing about this for as long as I have been alive. When even this president and even Mitch McConnell are at least pretending to be open to reforms, we know that we have a moment on our hands. Let's make the most of it and get these things done."

Whether McConnell will really back legislative action is, of course, a doleful question indeed. On Sunday the Kentucky senator Rand Paul indicated the strength of the Republican roadblock.

"I think that part of the problem," he told CNN, "is cultural and losing a sense of right and wrong."
After its latest mass shootings, Texas leads the way - in loosening gun laws
He went on to say he advocated action, but with a focus on mental health.

"I think we should look at each of these killings and say, what went wrong? And I think the consistent theme here is, typically, not always, but white teenage boys in their middle teenage years to early 20s ... almost every one of them is sending off signals."

Asked if he would support a "red flag law" or background checks, Paul said: "We don't know yet what's coming forward. I can tell you that it'll have to be consistent with the constitution."

He added: "There has to be due process. You have to be allowed a lawyer, because the danger is, they could just say, 'Oh, anybody that takes antidepressants can't have a gun, or anybody who's ever been to a psychiatrist can't have a gun.' And so there is a danger of going too far, where we pre-emptively just are out there taking everyone's guns.

"And I am alarmed and it does alarm a lot of us when we hear Beto O'Rourke up saying, yes, they're just going to come and knock the door down and take our guns.

"That scares the heck out of a lot of Republicans and a lot of gun owners."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats try to tempt Trump on guns as Beto beats drum for AR-15 buyback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on Sunday offered Donald Trump a rare and highly symbolic bipartisan win - if he can somehow force Republicans in the Senate to enact gun control legislation containing background check measures passed by the House this year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Britain Making the Push for "Self-Driving Cars."

# data[].attributes.subject
Britain Making the Push for "Self-Driving Cars."

# data[].attributes.body
According to the British newspaper, The Guardian, Britain is establishing  self-driving car trials on the streets of London, essentially testing out the performance and impact that autonomous cars have in British cities.
The topic presented was discussed in a British newspaper, The Guardian; The Guardian presented this topic both fairly similarly and differently to US sources; similar in that the Guardian's article was accurate and professional like various US newspapers. The Guardian may differ to some US news sources in political terms, as the Guardian seems to edge more "left" politically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Work to bring driverless cars to Britain's streets has reached a milestone with the first demonstration of an autonomous fleet driving in a "complex urban environment" in London.

Ford Mondeos fitted with autonomous technology from the UK tech firm Oxbotica operated on public roads around the former Olympic Park in Stratford this week. Directors of the £13.6m Driven programme, a partially government-funded consortium, said it had "exceeded their initial plan" and was a significant step in confirming autonomous vehicles could operate in real-life situations in a large European city.

Oxbotica said first passenger trials of a separate venture, an autonomous ride-sharing taxi service planned with the cab firm Addison Lee in the capital, could now start in June 2020.

The Driven team - a combination of local authority planners, insurers, cyber-security and data experts, as well as Oxbotica - have been conducting trials in Oxford to examine what they called the "ecosystem" around autonomous vehicles, such as potential problems with hackers, communications technology and the legal framework.

For now, the cars are operated with a safety driver in the front seat ready to take control, and prompted by the technology to decide whether to intervene in difficult situations. On an otherwise autonomous spin around Stratford's East Village, through A-roads, traffic intersections and residential streets, the safety driver in the Guardian's car only once opted to grab the wheel as a precaution, when an oncoming minicab swerved around a parked lorry.

Dr Graeme Smith, Driven's programme director and Oxbotica's senior vice-president, said the project was making "autonomous vehicles a reality on our roads".

He said: "The car is a bauble on top of the iceberg: underpinning that is a host of other things that need to happen, from cybersecurity to ensure we have constant, secure communication; insurers for product liability and real-life risk assessment."

Smith added that while there would be "small pockets" of autonomous transport, the constraints meant the cars were "at least five years away from being a service for robotaxis, and 10 years for showrooms."

Prof Paul Newman, the founder and chief technical officer of Oxbotica, said the ambition for the British technology went well beyond driverless cars, with a system removed from GPS tracking and not reliant on maps. He said: "We're going to change the way people and goods move anywhere and everywhere."

Wider use of autonomy in the mining and construction sectors was likely before transport, he said.

If Mondeo Man was once emblematic of a certain type of Briton, some might worry to see the Ford car's driver supplanted by a computer in the boot and a set of sensors on the roof.

"There is no doubt we're not going to be sitting behind wheels in the future. But there will be different jobs around the technology," Newman said. "It is going to be a revolution but not a tragedy: more people will survive [on roads]; these vehicles will share their experiences and be even safer."

George Freeman, the transport minister, said the successful Driven trial "cements our position as a global leader in this space".

Meanwhile, the first public demonstrations of Britain's first full-size autonomous bus took place in Birmingham, on a test route on the National Exhibition Centre car park. The single-deckers will start trials carrying up to 42 passengers on a 15-mile route between Fife and Edinburgh next year.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'It's going to be a revolution': driverless cars in new London trial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Work to bring driverless cars to Britain's streets has reached a milestone with the first demonstration of an autonomous fleet driving in a "complex urban environment" in London. Ford Mondeos fitted with autonomous technology from the UK tech firm Oxbotica operated on public roads around the former Olympic Park in Stratford this week.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue of health care is presented differently when the topic of health care is discussed in a non-US source. In several Mexican articles, there seems to be a large focus on providing health care for all. They already have systems in place that are meant to provide health care for all, with a mix of "public health insurance programs, employer-provided health insurance and private out-of-pocket care. And a number of disconnected social security institutes that provide care". Costs are lower in Mexico and are accessible to the majority. US articles often focus on why the prices are so high in the US, but rarely offer solutions to fix it. In addition, there is a strong "every man for themselves" theme in more conservative health care articles, in comparison to other countries focus on providing affordable health care for all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As U.S. politicians continue to battle over healthcare plans, some medical tourism experts are predicting an increase in Americans traveling to Mexico in search of affordable medical and dental care.

Especially if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

This trend, though, is not new.

Even as more Americans gained health insurance under Obamacare, many people found that in some cases it was cheaper to pay out-of-pocket for care south of the border.

That says something about the Mexican healthcare system.

It also says a lot about the United States, which struggles with rising healthcare costs and a steadily shifting insurance marketplace.

But this is only part of the story.

Mexico has a mix of public health insurance programs, employer-provided health insurance and private out-of-pocket care. And a number of disconnected social security institutes that provide care.

That means Americans traveling to Mexico may only be experiencing one aspect of the country's healthcare system.

So how do Mexicans living in poverty or just above the poverty line fare under the country's relatively new universal health coverage?

Achieving universal health coverage

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines universal health coverage as a program that ensures all people in a country receive the high-quality health services they need - without suffering financially as a result.

This includes providing people with a full range of health services, including prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care.

However, it doesn't mean that every possible health service is free to everyone. That kind of system is unsustainable.

And a "universal" approach doesn't necessarily have to be a single-payer system like those found in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, or the kind proposed by some Democrats in the United States.

Part of Mexico's approach to universal health coverage was the introduction of the Seguro Popular (Popular Health Insurance) program more than 10 years ago.

This was meant to improve access for poor families to health services, and prevent them from suffering financially due to illness.

According to the World Bank, before this program only about half of Mexicans carried health insurance, mainly through their employers.

Low income families without insurance paid for much of their healthcare out-of-pocket. Public health programs existed, but there was no essential set of free health services for this segment of the population.

Seguro Popular provides unemployed and poor Mexicans with access to preventative healthcare services such as diabetes screening and vaccinations, as well as treatment for chronic and severe illnesses.

Enrollees don't have to pay a fee at the time of the doctor visit.

The program is supported by a mix of federal and state funds - similar to how the Medicaid program for low-income Americans is funded.

The poorest families pay nothing to join Seguro Popular. The rest pay a premium based on their income.

By 2013, the number of enrollees in Seguro Popular had grown to 55 million - helping the country achieve universal health coverage.

This is roughly the same number of Americans who were enrolled in Medicaid before states expanded the program under Obamacare. That number is currently 74 million.

Obamacare - including the Medicaid expansion - was supposed to reduce the number of uninsured in the United States.

It did, but last year's record low was still 28 million uninsured, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Health gains and struggles

Research shows that since the introduction of Seguro Popular in Mexico, some aspects of the country's health has improved.

A published this year in The Lancet found that Mexico's Healthcare Access and Quality Index rating rose from 49.2 in 1990 to 62.6 in 2015.

This 100-point scale is a measure of citizens' access to quality healthcare. It is based on the death rates for 32 diseases that can usually be treated easily, including heart disease, diabetes, maternal and infant diseases, as well as diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations.

Over the same period, the HAQ Index for the United States rose from 73.7 to 81.3.

The average for all countries was 53.7 in 2015. Andorra topped the list that year at 94.6, with Afghanistan and Papua New Guinea at the low end.

A report last year by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) highlighted some of the specific successes of the Mexican healthcare system and also areas that still need work.

In the past 10 years, the number of Mexicans who experienced "impoverishing" health care costs fell from 3.3 percent to 0.8 percent.

A similar rating isn't listed for the United States. But a found that in 2016, 16 percent of Americans under 65 years old were parts of families that had trouble paying their medical bills.

Between 2000 and 2013, infant mortality in Mexico also dropped, falling 38 percent to 13 deaths per 1,000 live births.

In 2015, the U.S. infant mortality rate was 5.9 deaths per live births, according to the .

Another OECD report found that deaths from heart disease and stroke in Mexico have declined, as well - now at 292 deaths per 100,000 people.

In 2014, 252 out of every 100,000 Americans died from cardiovascular diseases, according to a in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). This is a 50 percent decline since 1980, but these diseases are still the leading cause of death in the United States.

In spite of its gains in some areas, Mexico still struggles with other health-related issues.

The country has the second highest rate of adult obesity after the United States. And the situation is worsening.

In 2012, 71 percent of Mexicans were overweight or obese, according to the OECD report - up from 62 percent in 2000.

In the United States, more than 70 percent of Americans are overweight or obese.

Diabetes is also common among Mexicans - 16 percent of adults.

In the United States the lists the adult diabetes rate as 9 percent.

The persistence of these and other diseases has increased the life expectancy gap between Mexico and other OECD countries from four years to six years. Mexicans born in 2013 can expect to live to be 74 years old on average.

Life expectancy at birth in the United States is .

Improving Mexico's health system

In spite of Mexico's success in achieving universal health coverage, the OECD report outlines several areas that still need improvement.

One problem is that care is provided by a number of social security institutes that are not connected. If Mexicans lose their jobs, they may have to switch doctors, which disrupts the continuity of their care.

This also happens in the United States, where private health insurance - as well as Medicare and Medicaid - have preferred provider networks. If you switch insurance, you may either have to switch doctors or pay more to keep going to the one you've had for years.

Mexico's investment in its healthcare system is also on the low side, although it is increasing. In 2014 Mexico spent 3.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare, up from 2.4 percent in 2003.

In 2015, the United States spent 17 percent of its GDP on healthcare, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicaid accounted for 17 percent of this total.

More money, though, doesn't always mean better results.

The United States spends more per person on healthcare than every other country in the world, but it still has a lower life expectancy than some lower-spending countries.

Even with the introduction of Seguro Popular, the OECD reports that overall out-of-pocket spending on health services in Mexico remains high - 45 percent. For families, this translates to 4 percent of their household expenses.

CMS reports that overall, Americans pay only 11 percent out-of-pocket. But healthcare costs in the United States are higher than in Mexico, which is one reason Americans continue to cross the border for medical care.

Health disparities remain

In spite of the work that still needs to be done to improve the Mexican healthcare system, some recent research suggests that Seguro Popular is achieving some of its goals.

A study published in The Lancet earlier this year found that Seguro Popular reduced catastrophic spending on health services - more than 30 percent of household income - by 23 percent among enrollees. The effect was stronger for poorer households.

The program also reduced out-of-pocket spending for inpatient and outpatient medical care, both overall and for poor families.

However, there was no reduced out-of-pocket spending on medication or medical devices.

Almost 70 percent of enrollees rated the quality of the health services they received as "very good or good."

A recent in JAMA Internal Medicine found that 46 percent of Medicaid enrollees rated the program 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale. Overall they rated the program 7.9.

Many Americans traveling to Mexico for medical care are pleased with the care they receive - and the lower cost compared with care back home. But their experiences may not reflect the situation for all Mexicans.

There continues to be differences in the healthcare received by different groups in Mexico - such as for people in rural vs urban areas, or household income and wealth.

The United States, even with its high spending on healthcare, is not immune from these kinds of health disparities.

A 2017 study in Health Affairs found that 38 percent of the poorest third of Americans reported being in "fair or poor" health. For the richest third, it was 12 percent.

Chile and Portugal were the only two countries with a larger income-based gap in the health of their citizens.

Mexico was not included in this study. But the results show that spending more on healthcare is no guarantee that everyone in the country will fare equally well.

Still, even as debates over healthcare continue in the United States, Mexico is already into its second decade of universal healthcare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
mexico healthcare better than united states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Healthcare: Mexico vs. the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As U.S. politicians continue to battle over healthcare plans, some medical tourism experts are predicting an increase in Americans traveling to Mexico in search of affordable medical and dental care. Especially if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. This trend, though, is not new.

# data[].attributes.headline
A former police officer has been sentenced to prison after murdering an unarmed black man

# data[].attributes.subject
A former police officer has been sentenced to prison after murdering an unarmed black man

# data[].attributes.body
Police shooting citizens for seemingly no reason seems to be a a uniquely US problem. Foreign newspapers seem to be mostly confused as to why this is an issue. This case, in particular, appears extra bizarre. Certain details, for instance, the police officer recently taking a five-hour de-escelation course teaching officers to not immediately reach violence and the officer reporting in court that she had no idea what she took away from the course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
prosecutors won a rare murder conviction in a police-involved shooting. here's what made amber guyger's case different - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prosecutors won a rare murder conviction in a police-involved shooting. Here's what made Amber Guyger's case different

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When a police officer fatally shoots a black man, the legal system often sides with the cop. Some officers never get charged. It's even more rare for officers to get convicted.

# data[].attributes.headline
Similarly, wage growth stays strong as unemployment falls, a ongoing trend that is different from the past few years. (from BBC, a UK perspective newspaper)

# data[].attributes.subject
Similarly, wage growth stays strong as unemployment falls, a ongoing trend that is different from the past few years. (from BBC, a UK perspective newspaper)

# data[].attributes.body
Earnings excluding bonuses grew at an annual pace of 3.8% in the May to July period, down slightly from the previous reading. Including bonuses, wages rose at an annual pace of 4% - the highest rate since mid-2008. The unemployment rate dipped to 3.8%, while the estimated employment rate remained at a record 76.1%. Wages continue to outstrip inflation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49646201

Also noted that new US tariffs on the UK will cost jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
Talking about the history of animal cloning along with the different factors. What is similar is the factors of it being looked down upon and its looked to be as dangerous. Otherwise in places in Asia are the ones who are deciding to do the animal cloning and are opening their labs to conduct the animal cloning as I have recently mentioned. Which is a difference considered it is presented in a positive way instead of a negative image. Of course as previously mentioned the US are the ones that mainly focused on farm animals such as sheep, goats, horses, cows and pigs for the production of the agriculture differentiating china is more focused on cloning peoples pets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How are animals cloned?

The cloning process usually involves removing genetic information, known as DNA, from a cell taken from one animal and placing this into an unfertilised egg that has had its own DNA removed. This egg is then artificially stimulated to start developing into an embryo and placed into a surrogate mother. See our simple graphic: The cloning process (PDF 82.8KB)

Facts

The first cloned mammal successfully produced using a cell taken from another animal was 'Dolly the sheep' - born in 1996.

The growing list of species to have now been cloned includes mice, pigs, goats, dogs, cats, horses and mules.

Fewer than five per cent of cloned embryos usually survive to birth.

Where animals are born alive, they often have breathing problems, tumours, liver defects or other abnormalities, and have a reduced lifespan.

Why are animals cloned?

Cloning techniques are used to try and produce exact 'copies' of a particular animal. The use of cloning technology is often justified by statements that the research could lead to cheaper methods of producing medical treatments and food products.

Cloning techniques have also been, or are being used, to create 'copies' of:

Can there be any justification for cloning animals for such frivolous purposes?

What we think

Cloning is a serious concern. The process involves scientific procedures that can cause pain, suffering and distress. We believe that animals are often being cloned with little consideration for ethics or animal welfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cloned animals | The cloning process | Biotechnology & lab animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The cloning process usually involves removing genetic information, known as DNA, from a cell taken from one animal and placing this into an unfertilised egg that has had its own DNA removed. This egg is then artificially stimulated to start developing into an embryo and placed into a surrogate mother.

# data[].attributes.body
The source I read originates from the UK. In it they largely sympathies and emphasize the issue of the unfair treatment based on race surrounding the opium crisis. Rather than focusing on the crisis statistics or overarching issues like most US articles, this one highlights personal insight stories of people of color. The stories surround a persons' experience with 🤬, which is later contrasted with that of a white people.  Similarly, both US and Foreign articles reflect on the negative effects of the crisis and how they affect citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My cursor is hovering over the "unfriend" button, but I haven't clicked it.

Today, my relationship-severing finger is poised to get rid of Matt. Matt is a friend with whom I spent a lot of time about six years ago. We were close in rehab, but I haven't seen him since. I entered Greenbriar treatment center in Washington, Pennsylvania, just a few days after he'd arrived, and he showed me the ropes. For the next few weeks, we were virtually inseparable.

Rehab can be a frightening place when you first arrive. With any luck, you've already had some sort of "come to Jesus" moment with yourself and you've realized that you need to be there or else you're going to die. I had had no such moment and was fully convinced that this was all a big mistake. Once I got through the door into the facility, I heard it lock electronically with a loud buzz and a finality that shook my bones. I immediately regretted it. There is no lonelier feeling on this Earth than sitting there, abandoned and broken. You've burned all your bridges on the outside and your life feels as though it's half a world away. This is the moment when you really need a guy like Matt to walk up to you, thrust out his hand and say: "Hi! I'm Matt! What's your name?"

Over the next few weeks, he and I attended group therapy sessions together and stayed up late talking about our problems, our addictions and our families. We ugly-cried in front of each other as we shared our darkest secrets, what we had done for drugs and how deeply unhappy we were. Matt is a man who, in many ways, helped me to take my recovery seriously in rehab and, in the first few weeks after my release, he helped me to remain sober on the outside.

And, today, I sit in front of my monitor poised to cancel him forever because whiteness is apparently more addictive than any drug could ever be. We sobered up in the same facility, but he was a victim. I was an addict. Matt is a Christian. I am not. Matt is a Republican. I am not. And, most significantly, Matt is white. I am not. And these facts make all the difference in America.

These self-evident truths will wait patiently for you outside the walls of the rehab facility or any microcosm where black people might begin to feel the illusion of equality is real. Once you leave, these American realities attack you like a bully waiting in the bushes after school. They will, in one way or another, remind you that America's social hierarchies will rule everything you touch. Even your recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. And you don't have to dig very deep into the so-called "opioid epidemic" to find the hypocrisy and the insult to people of color. Matt is a victim. I am a drug addict.

The offices of Vision Towards Peace are behind a door so small in the borough of Wilkinsburg that, if you weren't looking for them, you'd never know they were there. I have come here to talk with Erica Upshaw-Givner, its founder, about her perspectives regarding African American drug addiction and other problems facing our community. She is running a bit late, so I take a seat in the waiting room. To the left of my chair sits a large box full of children's toys. I ask the receptionist if they're doing a toy drive, and she says no. They get a lot of mothers who are seeking help, and it's a good thing to have toys on hand. A woman waiting with me in the room is talkative. She reveals that she is a client and is struggling with addiction. Two members of her immediate family have been murdered, and living with the memory of their brutal deaths is making it difficult for her to maintain sobriety.

"It's hard out there," she says. "That's why I like coming in here."

After awhile, I figure out that she isn't waiting for an appointment. She's just hanging out, chatting with the receptionist. Wasting time because she doesn't want to leave. She tells me that addiction runs in her family and assumes that I'm there to get help, too.

"Don't be ashamed to get help. That's what they do here."

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Brian Broome: 'Matt is white. I am not. And these facts make all the difference in America.' Photograph: Ryan Loew/PublicSource

She tells me "God bless" when she finally decides to leave, and I am left to watch the waiting room TV. The reporter is telling me that the US Senate has just passed the Supporting Grandparents Raising Children Act for grandparents who are "increasingly coming to the rescue" of children whose parents have been victimized by drugs. I begin to count how many black people I've known throughout my life who have been raised by their grandparents for the same reason. I am still counting when Upshaw-Givner enters the room and tells me to come on back to her office to talk.

She is relaxed and comfortable in a way that makes me immediately want to tell her my darkest secrets. I ask her about the opioid epidemic.
"Before this opioid epidemic, or those words were used, I was already working with this population. But, it wasn't an 'opioid epidemic' then. It was just called a 'heroin addict'."
Upshaw-Givner is an African American woman and has been a licensed clinical social worker and working in addiction counseling for about 16 years. After her organization outgrew its space in the Hill District, another predominantly African American neighborhood in Pittsburgh, it moved to Wilkinsburg.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Erica Upshaw-Givner has been a licensed clinical social worker and working in addiction counseling for about 16 years. Photograph: Ryan Loew/PublicSource

Upshaw-Givner said everyone was welcome at Vision Towards Peace. Having dealt with addiction in her own family, Upshaw-Givner is enthusiastic about providing services to all who have been adversely affected by addiction. Though all are welcome, the clientele at Vision Towards Peace is roughly 83% African American, 5% biracial and the rest are white - people whom Upshaw-Givner diplomatically refers to as "our counterparts".

"The 'opioid epidemic', the crisis response, that is for 'our counterparts'," Upshaw-Givner says.

Back when Upshaw-Givner was working with African American veterans, pregnant women and youth on methadone, it was different than it is now. "A lot of times, when you look at our counterparts, they want to justify this addiction as: 'Well, it was just pills. I was in a car accident and one thing led to another.' But, when our people had those issues, they were still a dopehead or a dope addict and that was the label they had."

I remember the images that flashed across the TV earlier while listening to the newsman tell me about the Supporting Grandparents Raising Children Act. Compassionate emergency medical personnel were gingerly removing skinny, ghostly white bodies from messy homes. Had I not known what the story was about, I would have thought they were the victims of an earthquake or other natural disaster. Victims.
"Once our counterparts started dying, it became a public health crisis. But it wasn't a public health crisis 15 years ago when I was in the field and going to black people's homes, providing care for them."
Enduring pain: how a 1996 opioid policy change had long-lasting effects

I remember my own psychological self-abuse when I was using drugs. I was just an addict. It was my fault, and there was no way out. I remember knowing for certain that I was no victim of an epidemic. I was just garbage and knowing that made me want to use more. I wondered, if I had known that I was just the victim of an epidemic, whether I would have thought differently.

Vision Towards Peace is not a rehab facility. It's a smaller organization with four African American clinicians. The organization's focus is on mental health and, oftentimes, mental health issues come with an attendant diagnosis of substance abuse.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Erica Upshaw-Givner: 'It wasn't a public health crisis 15 years ago when I was in the field and going to black people's homes, providing care for them.' Photograph: Ryan Loew/PublicSource

"I think of hierarchies and how we are important in society. When our counterparts go outside, they know that a white man is important and then a white woman is important. Then a black woman is important and then a black man is beneath that. So, when they seek help at Vision Towards Peace, I don't look like them and they don't look like me and they can still maintain their hierarchical position of 'better than' even in this office. It makes me think sometimes about how they find me and why they stay."These offices are an intimate place where you divulge the most intimate details. So, why would they come here to a black woman? Even if they don't feel above me as their therapist, they don't feel beneath the therapist who looks like them. You see what I'm saying? Even here, where they're seeking help, the hierarchies play out."I don't judge anyone, but, even if I did, our counterparts don't care if I judge them because in society they are still more important than me. It doesn't matter how much education I have or what I've done. They want to still maintain their level of importance."
Mental health issues such as depression and anxiety have always been a staple of African American life. These ills just come with the territory of being black in America. In short, being subject to unchecked bigotry will make you depressed and anxious. Negative stereotypes, income inequality and daily casual and overt racism play a part in our everyday existences and, because we have learned to accept these conditions as an unpleasant fact of life, we often go undiagnosed or turn to drugs and alcohol to cope. Often we do not trust doctors due to historical prejudices and bias embedded in the American medical industry. Our addictions are believed to be because we are feckless, lazy and unwilling to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps in what most white Americans consider to be a meritocracy. And what they refuse to understand has been killing us both directly and indirectly for centuries.

I have had two white friends die of heroin overdoses in the past year. They were good people from middle class homes. I know that their families voted for Trump. I know that their families are also racists. It's been said that increasing economic hardship is what is driving so many white Americans to turn to the needle - hardships that black Americans have lived under since time immemorial. Yet white people keep voting in the same individuals responsible for that economic hardship because the explanation that someone brown is to blame for their troubles works every time. I ask Upshaw-Givner what she thinks of this.

I leave the Vision Towards Peace offices with a lot to think about. I remember that I was in rehab over Christmas time and how lonely and isolated I felt away from my family. I was at my lowest. I sat in the common room and cried. Matt came in and asked me to join a group of people he'd assembled for a small Christmas celebration. I told him I just wanted to be alone. He sat down anyway. He told me that God had given me many blessings and I should be grateful. He told me I was "smart" and "articulate" and that giving praise to God is nothing to be ashamed of. I was so low in myself that I took this as a compliment at the time. It made me feel better. I reluctantly followed him.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Brian Broome: 'Drug abuse is about pain and loneliness.' Photograph: Ryan Loew/PublicSource

I am remembering this moment now and the full weight of the racist condescension behind his comments hits me as I'm on the bus leaving Vision Towards Peace. I take out my phone and find his Facebook profile, his smiling face looking up at me. I go through his friends list and see that I am the only one without Trump support filling their walls. I am the only black one. I hover my thumb over the unfriend button. Then I think maybe I can talk to him. Maybe if I explain it better, he might really listen. I spare him for now and shove my phone back into my pocket.

When I left rehab five years ago, they gave me instructions on my last day to attend 90 meetings in 90 days. By this time, I had seen the light and was more than willing to comply. I didn't want to go back to my old life. It was a shambles. Many people who don't struggle with drug addiction tend to conflate drug and alcohol use with a "good time". The reality is quite different. Drug abuse is about pain and loneliness. But I've stopped going to meetings so much because I know who I'm sitting with when I go.

It happens outside during cigarette breaks when "our counterparts" reveal themselves. They blame drug trafficking for the fact that they've been ensnared into this life of ugliness. It's the Mexicans who bring it across our borders who are to blame. Dealing with the Mexicans is the only way to stop the problem. I find this kind of talk incomprehensible. The parents of white drug addicts are the most delusional. They are incredulous that their little angel may have, in fact, picked up the needle under her own power and sunk it into her own skin. So now we all have to build a giant wall to protect her. Because white America cannot believe that brown people aren't the basis of all their problems.

I meet Nique Craft for the first time at the library. We were introduced via social media. Over the phone I'd joked about being hungry for fried chicken, and she brings me some that she's made. Craft is an unemployed chef and is very open about her past and current struggles with drug abuse. " I feel like, with potential employers, if I don't talk about it and it comes up or they find out, they think I'm trying to hide it."

Facebook Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amid the opioid epidemic, white means victim, black means addict

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My cursor is hovering over the "unfriend" button, but I haven't clicked it. Today, my relationship-severing finger is poised to get rid of Matt. Matt is a friend with whom I spent a lot of time about six years ago. We were close in rehab, but I haven't seen him since.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue on gun control is presented differently because it is a non-biased opinion. Meaning taht it doesn't characterize the government as bad as an article from the US. Many people from the US believe the government is slacking when it comes to making laws and changes to gun control. This article is similar to a US source because it uses statistics and evidence. The article quotes lots of people also.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congress returns to Washington this week after a summer recess punctured by a string of mass shootings under pressure to confront a uniquely American problem: how to combat the scourge of gun violence?

Though it has been a quarter of a century since Congress passed significant gun control legislation, Democrats and advocacy groups are displaying a fresh sense of resolve as major American retailers heed public calls for action in response to the recent wave of mass shootings.
After its latest mass shootings, Texas leads the way - in loosening gun laws
After weeks of deliberation, Walmart announced it would stop selling ammunition for military-style assault rifles and no longer allow customers to openly carry firearms in their stores. In short order, Kroger, Walgreens, Wegmans and CVS said they too would discourage shoppers from openly carrying guns in their stores.

The response from corporate America followed back-to-back tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, that left 31 people dead last month and a shooting in Odessa, Texas, that left seven people dead.

Now, activists say, it's time for Washington to step up and stop politicians from lagging behind corporate America when it comes to gun reforms.

"When consumer-facing corporations make moves like this, there is no better statement of the shifting opinion of the American public," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. "Congress needs to pass a strong background check law and a strong red flag law. Anything less and the mood of the country will be 'See you at the polling booth in 2020.'"

Everytown released new data on Friday indicating overwhelming support for new stricter gun laws. The poll found that 95% of Americans nationwide backed universal background checks and 85% favored the passage of so-called "red flag" laws, which are designed to prohibit individuals from purchasing firearms if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. A 61% majority of Americans blamed gun violence on easy access to firearms.

"This broad public support shouldn't come as any surprise to lawmakers," Feinblatt said. "Just look back to November 2018 - if the midterms taught us anything, it's that suburban voters resoundingly chose pro-gun sense candidates.

"They're ready to vote out politicians who don't take action to keep them safe."

Congressional Democrats hope to create momentum by ramping up pressure on the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, to allow a vote on legislation passed by the House earlier this year that would strengthen and expand background checks.

"President Trump and Senate Republicans have failed to act on the issue of gun violence, bowing repeatedly to the NRA and the hard right by choosing inaction or half-measures over real, meaningful legislation," the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, wrote in a letter to members ahead of their return.

On Tuesday, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will join members of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force at a forum to discuss McConnell's "inaction on bipartisan House-passed bills to prevent gun violence". Later next week, the House judiciary committee will prepare a slate of gun control bills to be brought to the floor for a vote.

The committee will consider a suite of measures that would ban high-capacity magazines, establish a federal grant program for states that implement red flag laws, and prohibit firearm sales to people convicted of certain misdemeanor hate crimes.

Meanwhile, the White House is engaged in a conversation with Senators Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, and Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, about expanding background checks.

Senators Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat of Connecticut, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, are also working with the White House on legislation that would offer grants to states that pass "red flag" laws.

It is unclear whether Trump supports any of these efforts. The president has repeatedly shifted positions on the issue, at some points expressing support for tightening background checks only to later backtrack and insist current laws are sufficient.

Where Trump lands on the proposals under consideration will determine the success of the latest push for gun reform in Congress. McConnell told the Hugh Hewitt radio show earlier this week that he would only hold votes on measures Trump was prepared to support.

"If the president took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law and not just having serial votes," McConnell said, "I'd be happy to put it on the floor."

Yet at the congressional level, lawmakers remain intractably divided on how to respond, with Democrats advocating for gun control legislation and Republicans pointing to mental health and violent video games.

This is in stark contrast to the flurry of activity taking place in state legislatures to loosen or tighten gun regulations. In Texas, a day after the state was shaken by its second mass shooting in less than a month, a spate of new laws went into effect loosening restrictions on when and where firearms could be carried.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has said he will only bring gun control legislation to the vote if Donald Trump has indicated he backs it. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA

But there are signs the political battle lines are beginning to shift, even if it remains unlikely that the recent activism will produce a swift response from Congress.

"There is clearly a desire for Congress to do something - anything - to try to make the situation better," said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist. "Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle seem to agree that red flag laws and background checks are among the least difficult of the options on the table."

On the 2020 campaign trail, Democratic hopefuls are going much further.

They have almost uniformly embraced bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines while some candidates have introduced ambitious proposals such as licensing for gun owners, registration for all guns purchased and a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons.

"Democratic presidential candidates have gone from running away from guns to running on guns," said Kristin Goss, a Duke University political scientist who has studied gun control activism.

Goss said this reflects the party's changing electoral coalitions. In the 1990s, when working-class, rural voters were still a key constituency, the party was bitterly divided over the issue and preferred to downplay it.

But now Democrats believe guns could be a defining issue in 2020, as they make gains with suburban voters, especially college-educated women fearful for their children's safety in school.

"For the first time in more than two decades, we believe that guns could be an issue that matters in a real and positive way for Democrats," said Matt Bennett, executive vice-president for public affairs at Third Way, a centrist Democratic thinktank.

But Bennett worries Democrats risk alienating voters frustrated with Trump's presidency if they go too far with measures like licensing and gun buybacks.

"The danger is that we're moving away from ideas that have near-universal support among voters to ones that have closer to 50% support," Bennett said. "Congress hasn't done anything for 25 years, so maybe we should start with something that's universally popular."

But many advocates believe the moment for bold reform is now.

"The center has shifted on this issue," said Igor Volsky, executive director and founder of Guns Down America, which organizes for "a future with fewer guns". "The approach we're seeing now reflects the political reality and the political environment that we're living in."
Sabrina Siddiqui contributed reporting. Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Congress finally ready to pass gun control legislation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress returns to Washington this week after a summer recess punctured by a string of mass shootings under pressure to confront a uniquely American problem: how to combat the scourge of gun violence?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
homelessness is reaching an emergency level in los angeles (opinion) - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homelessness is reaching an emergency level in Los Angeles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mark Ridley-Thomas writes that Los Angeles is enduring a crisis of homelessness that has yet to recede. And its cost, the moral expense to us as a community and region, deserves a statewide declaration of a State of Emergency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Question: How is your issue presented differently/similarly when in a non-US source? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Question: How is your issue presented differently/similarly when in a non-US source? 

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it talked about how the US Health Care is different to the Canadan Health Care. One reason is that they are different is because the two countries' health care systems are very different-Canada has a single-payer, mostly publicly-funded system, while the U.S. has a multi-payer, heavily private system-but the countries appear to be culturally similar, suggesting that it might be possible for the U.S. to adopt the Canadian system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In discussions of health care reform, the Canadian system is often held up as a possible model for the U.S. The two countries' health care systems are very different-Canada has a single-payer, mostly publicly-funded system, while the U.S. has a multi-payer, heavily private system-but the countries appear to be culturally similar, suggesting that it might be possible for the U.S. to adopt the Canadian system.

Much of the appeal of the Canadian system is that it seems to do more for less. Canada provides universal access to health care for its citizens, while nearly one in five non-elderly Americans is uninsured. Canada spends far less of its GDP on health care (10.4 percent, ver-sus 16 percent in the U.S.) yet performs better than the U.S. on two commonly cited health outcome measures, the infant mortality rate and life expectancy.

In "Health Status, Health Care, and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," (NBER Working Paper 13429) June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill take a closer look at the performance of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. The authors examine whether the Canadian system delivers better health outcomes and distributes health resources more equitably than the U.S. system.

The authors begin by examining the evidence on health outcomes. They note that the infant mortality rate and life expectancy are affected by many factors other than the health care system. For example, low birthweight-a phenomenon known to be related to substance abuse and smoking-is more common in the U.S. For babies in the same birthweight range, infant mortality rates in the two countries are similar. In fact, if Canada had the same proportion of low birthweight babies as the U.S., the authors project that it would have a slightly higher infant mortality rate. Thus, the authors conclude that differences in infant mortality have more to do with differences in behavior than with the health care systems.

A similar argument may be made for life expectancy. The gap in life expectancy among young adults is mostly explained by the higher rate of mortality in the U.S. from accidents and homicides. At older ages much of the gap is due to a higher rate of heart disease-related mortality in the U.S. While this could be related to better treatment of heart disease in Canada, factors such as the U.S.'s higher obesity rate (33 percent of U.S. women are obese, vs. 19 percent in Canada) surely play a role.

To compare how the countries perform on other health outcome measures, the authors use the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health, a survey of about 9,000 residents of the two countries conducted in 2002-2003. The authors begin by comparing self-reported health status. While this measure is subjective and may be influenced by factors outside the health care system, it is widely used by researchers. They find that self-reported health status is similar in the two countries-if anything, more people report themselves to be in excellent health in the U.S.

Next, the authors examine three other outcome measures: an index of overall health, a depression index, and a pain indicator. Focusing on whites (to sidestep differences in the racial composition of the two populations and the problem of racial disparities in health outcomes), they find that the two countries score similarly on the overall health index and pain indicator, while the U.S. has a slightly higher incidence of depression.

The final health status measure examined is the incidence of chronic conditions like high blood pressure, heart disease, and asthma. These measures are less subjective, but also are known to be influenced by behavior and other factors outside of the health care system. The authors find that the incidence of these conditions is somewhat higher in the U.S. However, respondents with these conditions are some-what more likely to be treated in the U.S.-in the case of emphysema, the treatment rate is twenty percentage points higher in the U.S.

Turning their attention to the availability of health care resources, the authors examine the use of cancer screenings including mammograms and PAP smears (for women), PSA screenings (for men), and colonoscopies. They find that the use of these tests is more frequent in the U.S. - for example, 86 percent of U.S. women ages 40 to 69 have had a mammogram, compared to 73 percent of Canadian women. The U.S. also is endowed with many more MRI machines and CT scanners per capita. The authors find evidence of the possible effectiveness of higher levels of screening and equipment by examining mortality rates in both countries for five types of cancer that could be affected by early detection and treatment. Because the incidence of cancer may differ for reasons other than the health care system, they compare the ratio of the mortality rate to the incidence rate - a lower ratio corresponds to a lower death rate for those with the disease. They find that the ratio is lower in the U.S. for all types of cancer except cervical cancer, suggesting that the U.S. health care system is generally more successful in the detection and treatment of cancer.

The authors also examine wait times, which are often cited as a problem in Canada. Though comparative information is limited, available data indicate much longer waits in Canada than in the U.S. to consult a specialist and to have non-emergency surgery like knee re-placements. The authors can also draw some inferences from a question about unmet medical needs. While the incidence of unmet needs is slightly lower in Canada (11 percent, vs. 14 percent in the U.S.), it is interesting to note that waiting time is cited as the reason by over half of Canadians who report unmet needs. By contrast, cost is cited as the reason by over half of Americans. The importance of long waits in Canada was recently highlighted by the Chaoulli case in Quebec which successfully challenged the government ban on private provision of medical services covered by the Canadian system. Private services are expected to alleviate shortage of facilities under the system and reduce wait times. Cases are being brought in other provinces.

In the final section of their paper, the authors consider several measures of the success of the two health care systems. The first and perhaps simplest measure is the level of satisfaction reported by patients. Americans are more likely to report that they are fully satisfied with the health services they have received and to rank the quality of care as excellent.

Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S.

The authors conclude that while it is commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system would deliver better health out-comes and distribute health resources more fairly than a multi-payer system with a large private component, their study does not provide support for this view. They suggest that further comparisons of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems would be useful, for example to explore whether the higher expenditures in the U.S. yield benefits that are worth their cost.
The authors acknowledge financial support from the Achelis Foundation and the Weismann Foundation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comparing the U.S. and Canadian Health Care Systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In discussions of health care reform, the Canadian system is often held up as a possible model for the U.S. The two countries' health care systems are very different-Canada has a single-payer, mostly publicly-funded system, while the U.S. has a multi-payer, heavily private system-but the countries appear to be culturally similar, suggesting that it might be possible for the U.S.