The House on Friday narrowly passed the centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, approving $2 trillion in spending over the next decade to battle climate change, expand health care and reweave the nation’s social safety net, over the unanimous opposition of Republicans.

The bill’s passage, 220-213, came after weeks of cajoling, arm-twisting and legislative legerdemain by Democrats. It was capped off by an exhausting, circuitous and record-breaking speech of more than eight hours by the House Republican leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, that pushed a planned Thursday vote past midnight, then delayed it to Friday morning — but did nothing to dent Democratic unity.

Groggy lawmakers reassembled at 8 a.m., three hours after McCarthy finally abandoned the floor, to begin the final series of votes to send one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in half a century to the Senate.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened the final push with what she called “a courtesy to” her colleagues: “I will be brief.” She then put the House’s actions in lofty terms.

“Under this dome, for centuries, members of Congress have stood exactly where we stand to pass legislation of extraordinary consequence in our nation’s history and for our nation’s future,” she said, adding, the act “will be the pillar of health and financial security in America.”

The bill still has a long and difficult road ahead. Democratic leaders must coax it through the 50-50 Senate and navigate a tortuous budget process that is almost certain to reshape the measure and force it back to the House — if it passes at all.

But even pared back from the $3.5 trillion plan that Biden originally sought, the legislation could prove as transformative as any since the Great Society and War on Poverty in the 1960s, especially for young families and older Americans. The Congressional Budget Office published an official cost estimate Thursday afternoon that found the package would increase the federal budget deficit by $160 billion over 10 years.

The assessment indicated that the package overall would cost slightly more than Biden’s latest proposal — $2.1 trillion rather than $1.85 trillion.

It offers universal prekindergarten, generous subsidies for child care that extend well into the middle class, expanded financial aid for college, hundreds of billions of dollars in housing support, home and community care for older Americans, a new hearing benefit for Medicare and price controls for prescription drugs.

More than half a trillion dollars would go toward shifting the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels to renewable energy and electric cars, the largest investment ever to slow the warming of the planet. The package would largely be paid for with tax increases on high earners and corporations, estimated to bring in nearly $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Savings in government spending on prescription drugs were projected to bring in another $260 billion, although a scaled-back measure to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for some medications was estimated to save only $79 billion, far less than the Democrats’ original $456 billion proposal would have.

“This bill will be transformational, and it will be measured in the deeper sense of hope that Americans will have when they see their economy working for them instead of holding them back,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the House majority leader, said Thursday during what was supposed to the closing debate.

The fact that the bill could slightly add to the federal deficit did not dissuade House Democrats from proceeding to vote for it, in part because the analysis boiled down to a dispute over a single line item: how much the IRS would collect by cracking down on people and companies that dodge large tax bills.

The budget office predicted that beefing up the IRS with an additional $80 billion of funding would bring in just $127 billion over 10 years on net. That is far less than the $400 billion the White House estimates it would bring in over a decade, both through enforcement actions and by essentially scaring tax cheats into paying what they owe.

The legislation is moving through Congress under special rules known as reconciliation that shield it from a filibuster, allowing Democrats to push it through over unified Republican opposition in the Senate.

It is a key piece of Biden’s domestic policy agenda, paired with a $1 trillion infrastructure package the president signed into law this week. Its path to Friday’s vote was arduous, from midsummer to deep autumn, with negotiations pitting liberal lawmakers against centrists and House Democrats against senators.

Democrats in the Senate and House had hoped to reach agreement on a final bill before either chamber voted, but that plan was ditched weeks ago amid persistent infighting.

And from the beginning, Republicans — who made it clear they could never support a package of the scope and ambition Biden had proposed — were cut out of the reconciliation talks. While some Republicans voted for the infrastructure measure, they unanimously opposed the expansive social safety net package, arguing that it would constitute a “socialist” encroachment of the federal government into every aspect of American life, and would exacerbate rising costs across the country.

McCarthy, the minority leader, took advantage of the House’s so-called “magic minute” — a custom that allows leaders to speak without time constraints when they are granted their minute of floor time.

He held the floor well into Friday morning, railing for more than eight hours against the bill and the Biden administration, breaking the record for the longest consecutive House speech set by Pelosi in 2018 before he concluded at 5:10 a.m. Some Democrats pointedly walked out before he began to speak, and at times interrupted his speech against the bill with boos, heckles and jeers.

“Every page of all this new Washington spending shows just how irresponsible and out of touch the Democrats are to the challenges that America faces today,” McCarthy said during his diatribe, which appeared designed more to rally his Republican base behind a message for the midterm elections in a debate that had been scheduled to last just 20 minutes.

But just hours later, Democrats filed into the chamber, joking about the lack of sleep. And if Democrats feared the political consequences, it was not evident from the final tally, which reflected support among those from the most competitive districts.

The only Democrat who opposed the bill, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, did so after raising concerns this month about the inclusion of a provision that would generously increase the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes paid, from $10,000 a year to $80,000.

The action — after months of time-consuming maneuvering over the bill — was fueled in part by an eagerness among lawmakers to wrap up their work and leave Washington for their weeklong Thanksgiving recess. It came about eight months after Biden unveiled the first part of his domestic policy agenda, and after several near-death experiences for the package that have exposed deep divisions within his party.

The vote showed remarkable Democratic unity, given the struggle to get to it. A group of moderate and conservative holdouts, wary about the size of the bill, had held out for an official estimate before they would commit to supporting it.

But after the release Thursday of section-by-section assessments from the Congressional Budget Office, the official fiscal scorekeeper, most were swayed. White House officials met privately with the group Thursday evening to walk them through the administration’s analysis and the budget tables, according to a person familiar with the discussion.

“While I continue to have reservations about the overall size of the legislation — and concerns about certain policy provisions that are extraneous or unwise — I believe there are too many badly needed investments in this bill not to advance it in the legislative process,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a key centrist, said in a statement announcing her vote.

For Democrats, the bill is perhaps the last significant opportunity to push through their domestic policy ambitions: an array of environmental provisions, federal support for education and child care, and the fulfillment of a longtime campaign promise to tackle the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

“Now, it’s going to be just telling our story — that’s the challenge,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, as staff carried fresh cups of coffee into his ceremonial office. “We’ve got make sure that people understand which party came through, and we really did.”

The legislation is all but guaranteed to change in the Senate, where two Democratic centrists, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have yet to explicitly endorse it. In an evenly divided Senate, a single defection could sink its passage, and Democrats will have to maneuver the bill through their own internal divisions and a rapid-fire series of politically difficult amendments that could upend the bill.

Democrats must also ensure that the entire plan adheres to the strict rules that govern the reconciliation process and force the removal of any provision that does not have a direct fiscal effect. Those rules have already forced the party to abandon a plan to provide a path to citizenship in the bill for immigrants in the country illegally.

The Senate parliamentarian, the arbiter of those rules, has yet to issue guidance for their latest proposal to provide temporary protection from deportation for millions of migrants who are long-term residents of the United States.

Other elements of the plan may also shift because of objections from individual senators. Manchin, in particular, has raised a variety of concerns, including to four weeks of federal paid family and medical leave and a push to include a fee on emissions of methane, a powerful pollutant.

And Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., have rejected a House provision to generously increase the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes paid, which would primarily benefit wealthy homeowners who itemize their deductions. Instead, they and other senators are discussing an income limit to curtail who could take advantage of the increased deduction.

The provision would raise a cap imposed by Republicans in their 2017 tax law, which Democrats from high-tax states like New York, California and New Jersey, have denounced as punitive for their constituents. While some Democrats have publicly complained about its inclusion, several lawmakers in the New York and New Jersey delegations had established it as a requirement for their votes.

Democratic leaders have suggested that the Senate would move to pass the legislation before the end of the year, despite a number of other pressing fiscal deadlines piling up in December.

The House on Friday narrowly passed the centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, approving $2 trillion in spending over the next decade to battle climate change, expand health care and reweave the nation’s social safety net, over the unanimous opposition of Republicans.

The House on Friday narrowly passed the centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, approving $2 trillion in spending over the next decade to battle climate change, expand health care and reweave the nation’s social safety net, over the unanimous opposition of Republicans. The bill’s passage, 220-213, came after weeks of cajoling, arm-twisting and legislative legerdemain by Democrats. It was capped off by an exhausting, circuitous and record-breaking speech of more than eight hours by the House Republican leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, that pushed a planned Thursday vote past midnight, then delayed it to Friday morning — but did nothing to dent Democratic unity. Groggy lawmakers reassembled at 8 a.m., three hours after McCarthy finally abandoned the floor, to begin the final series of votes to send one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in half a century to the Senate. Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened the final push with what she called “a courtesy to” her colleagues: “I will be brief.” She then put the House’s actions in lofty terms. “Under this dome, for centuries, members of Congress have stood exactly where we stand to pass legislation of extraordinary consequence in our nation’s history and for our nation’s future,” she said, adding, the act “will be the pillar of health and financial security in America.” The bill still has a long and difficult road ahead. Democratic leaders must coax it through the 50-50 Senate and navigate a tortuous budget process that is almost certain to reshape the measure and force it back to the House — if it passes at all. But even pared back from the $3.5 trillion plan that Biden originally sought, the legislation could prove as transformative as any since the Great Society and War on Poverty in the 1960s, especially for young families and older Americans. The Congressional Budget Office published an official cost estimate Thursday afternoon that found the package would increase the federal budget deficit by $160 billion over 10 years. The assessment indicated that the package overall would cost slightly more than Biden’s latest proposal — $2.1 trillion rather than $1.85 trillion. It offers universal prekindergarten, generous subsidies for child care that extend well into the middle class, expanded financial aid for college, hundreds of billions of dollars in housing support, home and community care for older Americans, a new hearing benefit for Medicare and price controls for prescription drugs. More than half a trillion dollars would go toward shifting the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels to renewable energy and electric cars, the largest investment ever to slow the warming of the planet. The package would largely be paid for with tax increases on high earners and corporations, estimated to bring in nearly $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Savings in government spending on prescription drugs were projected to bring in another $260 billion, although a scaled-back measure to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for some medications was estimated to save only $79 billion, far less than the Democrats’ original $456 billion proposal would have. “This bill will be transformational, and it will be measured in the deeper sense of hope that Americans will have when they see their economy working for them instead of holding them back,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the House majority leader, said Thursday during what was supposed to the closing debate. The fact that the bill could slightly add to the federal deficit did not dissuade House Democrats from proceeding to vote for it, in part because the analysis boiled down to a dispute over a single line item: how much the IRS would collect by cracking down on people and companies that dodge large tax bills. The budget office predicted that beefing up the IRS with an additional $80 billion of funding would bring in just $127 billion over 10 years on net. That is far less than the $400 billion the White House estimates it would bring in over a decade, both through enforcement actions and by essentially scaring tax cheats into paying what they owe. The legislation is moving through Congress under special rules known as reconciliation that shield it from a filibuster, allowing Democrats to push it through over unified Republican opposition in the Senate. It is a key piece of Biden’s domestic policy agenda, paired with a $1 trillion infrastructure package the president signed into law this week. Its path to Friday’s vote was arduous, from midsummer to deep autumn, with negotiations pitting liberal lawmakers against centrists and House Democrats against senators. Democrats in the Senate and House had hoped to reach agreement on a final bill before either chamber voted, but that plan was ditched weeks ago amid persistent infighting. And from the beginning, Republicans — who made it clear they could never support a package of the scope and ambition Biden had proposed — were cut out of the reconciliation talks. While some Republicans voted for the infrastructure measure, they unanimously opposed the expansive social safety net package, arguing that it would constitute a “socialist” encroachment of the federal government into every aspect of American life, and would exacerbate rising costs across the country. McCarthy, the minority leader, took advantage of the House’s so-called “magic minute” — a custom that allows leaders to speak without time constraints when they are granted their minute of floor time. He held the floor well into Friday morning, railing for more than eight hours against the bill and the Biden administration, breaking the record for the longest consecutive House speech set by Pelosi in 2018 before he concluded at 5:10 a.m. Some Democrats pointedly walked out before he began to speak, and at times interrupted his speech against the bill with boos, heckles and jeers. “Every page of all this new Washington spending shows just how irresponsible and out of touch the Democrats are to the challenges that America faces today,” McCarthy said during his diatribe, which appeared designed more to rally his Republican base behind a message for the midterm elections in a debate that had been scheduled to last just 20 minutes. But just hours later, Democrats filed into the chamber, joking about the lack of sleep. And if Democrats feared the political consequences, it was not evident from the final tally, which reflected support among those from the most competitive districts. The only Democrat who opposed the bill, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, did so after raising concerns this month about the inclusion of a provision that would generously increase the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes paid, from $10,000 a year to $80,000. The action — after months of time-consuming maneuvering over the bill — was fueled in part by an eagerness among lawmakers to wrap up their work and leave Washington for their weeklong Thanksgiving recess. It came about eight months after Biden unveiled the first part of his domestic policy agenda, and after several near-death experiences for the package that have exposed deep divisions within his party. The vote showed remarkable Democratic unity, given the struggle to get to it. A group of moderate and conservative holdouts, wary about the size of the bill, had held out for an official estimate before they would commit to supporting it. But after the release Thursday of section-by-section assessments from the Congressional Budget Office, the official fiscal scorekeeper, most were swayed. White House officials met privately with the group Thursday evening to walk them through the administration’s analysis and the budget tables, according to a person familiar with the discussion. “While I continue to have reservations about the overall size of the legislation — and concerns about certain policy provisions that are extraneous or unwise — I believe there are too many badly needed investments in this bill not to advance it in the legislative process,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a key centrist, said in a statement announcing her vote. For Democrats, the bill is perhaps the last significant opportunity to push through their domestic policy ambitions: an array of environmental provisions, federal support for education and child care, and the fulfillment of a longtime campaign promise to tackle the soaring cost of prescription drugs. “Now, it’s going to be just telling our story — that’s the challenge,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, as staff carried fresh cups of coffee into his ceremonial office. “We’ve got make sure that people understand which party came through, and we really did.” The legislation is all but guaranteed to change in the Senate, where two Democratic centrists, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have yet to explicitly endorse it. In an evenly divided Senate, a single defection could sink its passage, and Democrats will have to maneuver the bill through their own internal divisions and a rapid-fire series of politically difficult amendments that could upend the bill. Democrats must also ensure that the entire plan adheres to the strict rules that govern the reconciliation process and force the removal of any provision that does not have a direct fiscal effect. Those rules have already forced the party to abandon a plan to provide a path to citizenship in the bill for immigrants in the country illegally. The Senate parliamentarian, the arbiter of those rules, has yet to issue guidance for their latest proposal to provide temporary protection from deportation for millions of migrants who are long-term residents of the United States. Other elements of the plan may also shift because of objections from individual senators. Manchin, in particular, has raised a variety of concerns, including to four weeks of federal paid family and medical leave and a push to include a fee on emissions of methane, a powerful pollutant. And Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., have rejected a House provision to generously increase the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes paid, which would primarily benefit wealthy homeowners who itemize their deductions. Instead, they and other senators are discussing an income limit to curtail who could take advantage of the increased deduction. The provision would raise a cap imposed by Republicans in their 2017 tax law, which Democrats from high-tax states like New York, California and New Jersey, have denounced as punitive for their constituents. While some Democrats have publicly complained about its inclusion, several lawmakers in the New York and New Jersey delegations had established it as a requirement for their votes. Democratic leaders have suggested that the Senate would move to pass the legislation before the end of the year, despite a number of other pressing fiscal deadlines piling up in December.

House narrowly passes Biden’s social safety net and climate bill

3D printing has been around for a while. We even have friends who flaunt small keepsakes they say have been 3D-printed. But printing a full house? An entire neighbourhood? Well, this seems to be something out of the ordinary.&nbsp;

A housing project being developed in Austin, Texas, is set to become world's first 3D-printed neighbourhood. It is scheduled to break ground next year.

A digital rendering of the project showed 3D-printed houses with solar cells on the roof. The development project is a collaboration between Lennar, a homebuilding company and ICON, a construction firm specialising in 3D-printing structures. A Danish firm Bjarke Ingels Group has co-designed the houses.

Each 3D-printed house would take a week to build. The companies say that houses measuring 3000 square feet in size.

Construction of the neighbourhood in Texas would take place with the help of five 46-foot wide robotic 'Vulcan' printers. These 3D printers will pipe out a concrete mixture called Lavacrete to 'print' the houses.

Although the companies have not disclosed the exact cost of house-building, they say that the cost of 3D-printing a house is less than traditional construction methods.

3D printing has been around for a while. We even have friends who flaunt small keepsakes they say have been 3D-printed. But printing a full house? An entire neighbourhood?

3D printing has been around for a while. We even have friends who flaunt small keepsakes they say have been 3D-printed. But printing a full house? An entire neighbourhood? Well, this seems to be something out of the ordinary. A housing project being developed in Austin, Texas, is set to become world's first 3D-printed neighbourhood. It is scheduled to break ground next year. A digital rendering of the project showed 3D-printed houses with solar cells on the roof. The development project is a collaboration between Lennar, a homebuilding company and ICON, a construction firm specialising in 3D-printing structures. A Danish firm Bjarke Ingels Group has co-designed the houses. Each 3D-printed house would take a week to build. The companies say that houses measuring 3000 square feet in size. Construction of the neighbourhood in Texas would take place with the help of five 46-foot wide robotic 'Vulcan' printers. These 3D printers will pipe out a concrete mixture called Lavacrete to 'print' the houses. Although the companies have not disclosed the exact cost of house-building, they say that the cost of 3D-printing a house is less than traditional construction methods.

World's largest 3D-printed neighbourhood to come up in Texas

All over the world, people use Tinder in search of a partner that they could spend time and connect. However, in New Zealand, the dating app is being used by aspiring first-time homebuyers asking for a prospective partner that might assist them in acquiring a house.

According to data provided by Tinder, the number of Kiwis mentioning that they were looking for a partner to buy a house in their Tinder profile had more than doubled.

A Tinder spokeswoman told a New Zealand-based news outlet ‘Stuff’ that&nbsp;the phrase “buy a house” in new users’ bios increased by 2.6 times between June 2020 and June 2021.

The bio is the area of Tinder users’ profiles where they can write about themselves, and outline what they are looking for in a partner.

Tinder provided examples of bios, ranging from light-hearted playful to pure transactional.

“Apparently it's easier to buy a house with someone else. Genuine outdoors bloke looking to settle down hopefully,” a user wrote.

“Bank told me I needed to find a partner to buy a house,” said another one.

“Just want someone to buy a house with, nothing serious,” said a prospective home buyer.

“Apparently it’s easier to buy a house with someone else. Genuine outdoors bloke looking to settle down hopefully,” one man wrote.

“Looking for someone to combine incomes with so we can buy a house using the Kiwibuild $180,000 couples limit,” said another.

However, despite the playful nature of these posts, the growing number of users seeking house also points to a large problem that young Kiwis are facing—housing affordability.

According to local media reports, the average house price across the island nation has soared to NZ $906,532 (approximately US $643,982), up 22% since this time last year.

For the vast majority of homebuyers, banks seek a 20% deposit, and across the country, which means the buyer has to shell out NZ $181,306— which is more than 3.2 times New Zealand’s average annual wage.

Consumer NZ’s survey found that 20% of New Zealanders said they were saving for a deposit but couldn’t catch up, and 42% said they were locked out completely – a total of 62%.

(With inputs from agencies)

All over the world, people use Tinder in search of a partner that they could spend time and connect. However, in New Zealand, the dating app is being used by aspiring first-time homebuyers asking for a prospective partner that might assist them in acquiring a house.

All over the world, people use Tinder in search of a partner that they could spend time and connect. However, in New Zealand, the dating app is being used by aspiring first-time homebuyers asking for a prospective partner that might assist them in acquiring a house. According to data provided by Tinder, the number of Kiwis mentioning that they were looking for a partner to buy a house in their Tinder profile had more than doubled. A Tinder spokeswoman told a New Zealand-based news outlet ‘Stuff’ that the phrase “buy a house” in new users’ bios increased by 2.6 times between June 2020 and June 2021. The bio is the area of Tinder users’ profiles where they can write about themselves, and outline what they are looking for in a partner. Tinder provided examples of bios, ranging from light-hearted playful to pure transactional. “Apparently it's easier to buy a house with someone else. Genuine outdoors bloke looking to settle down hopefully,” a user wrote. “Bank told me I needed to find a partner to buy a house,” said another one. “Just want someone to buy a house with, nothing serious,” said a prospective home buyer. “Apparently it’s easier to buy a house with someone else. Genuine outdoors bloke looking to settle down hopefully,” one man wrote. “Looking for someone to combine incomes with so we can buy a house using the Kiwibuild $180,000 couples limit,” said another. However, despite the playful nature of these posts, the growing number of users seeking house also points to a large problem that young Kiwis are facing—housing affordability. According to local media reports, the average house price across the island nation has soared to NZ $906,532 (approximately US $643,982), up 22% since this time last year. For the vast majority of homebuyers, banks seek a 20% deposit, and across the country, which means the buyer has to shell out NZ $181,306— which is more than 3.2 times New Zealand’s average annual wage. Consumer NZ’s survey found that 20% of New Zealanders said they were saving for a deposit but couldn’t catch up, and 42% said they were locked out completely – a total of 62%. (With inputs from agencies)

Housing affairs: Young Kiwis turning to Tinder to find mortgage mates

The US&nbsp;House of Representatives approved a plan on Thursday to allow an extra 8,000 special immigration visas for Afghans who helped the United States and are at risk of retaliation as US&nbsp;troops complete their pullout from Afghanistan after a 20 year war. 
 
The bipartisan bill, which passed with a vote of 407 to 16, will now be considered by the Senate. It also aims to speed up the processing of the visas. 
 
Representative Jason Crow, a Democrat, who led the group that sponsored the bill, said the additional visas would cover all potentially eligible applicants in the pipeline. US&nbsp;Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged last month that there were about 18,000 possible applicants. 
 
The Special Immigrant Visa program is available to Afghans who worked with the US&nbsp;government or US&nbsp;military. The United States has granted 26,500 such visas since December 2014. 
 
President Joe Biden's administration has been under pressure from lawmakers and advocacy groups to begin evacuating thousands applicants and their families after Biden said the US&nbsp;military mission in Afghanistan would formally end on August&nbsp;31. 
 
"For too long, there has not been a sense of urgency that is necessary to ensure safety for the people who put their lives on the line to help Americans in these difficult circumstances," said Representative Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat. 
 
Concerns for the applicants also have been fueled by an increase in fighting between US-backed Afghan forces and the Taliban in recent weeks, with the militants gaining territory and capturing border crossings. 
 
The United States this month will begin evacuating special immigration visa applicants from Afghanistan and the first batch will be taken to a military base in Virginia as they wait for the process to be completed. 
 
US-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for providing sanctuary to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and its operations used to attack the United States on September&nbsp;11, 2001.

The US House of Representatives approved a plan on Thursday to allow an extra 8,000 special immigration visas for Afghans who helped the United States and are at risk of retaliation as US troops complete their pullout from Afghanistan after a 20 year war.

The US House of Representatives approved a plan on Thursday to allow an extra 8,000 special immigration visas for Afghans who helped the United States and are at risk of retaliation as US troops complete their pullout from Afghanistan after a 20 year war. The bipartisan bill, which passed with a vote of 407 to 16, will now be considered by the Senate. It also aims to speed up the processing of the visas. Representative Jason Crow, a Democrat, who led the group that sponsored the bill, said the additional visas would cover all potentially eligible applicants in the pipeline. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged last month that there were about 18,000 possible applicants. The Special Immigrant Visa program is available to Afghans who worked with the US government or US military. The United States has granted 26,500 such visas since December 2014. President Joe Biden's administration has been under pressure from lawmakers and advocacy groups to begin evacuating thousands applicants and their families after Biden said the US military mission in Afghanistan would formally end on August 31. "For too long, there has not been a sense of urgency that is necessary to ensure safety for the people who put their lives on the line to help Americans in these difficult circumstances," said Representative Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat. Concerns for the applicants also have been fueled by an increase in fighting between US-backed Afghan forces and the Taliban in recent weeks, with the militants gaining territory and capturing border crossings. The United States this month will begin evacuating special immigration visa applicants from Afghanistan and the first batch will be taken to a military base in Virginia as they wait for the process to be completed. US-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for providing sanctuary to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and its operations used to attack the United States on September 11, 2001.

US House approves bid to add 8,000 visas for at-risk Afghans

The US&nbsp;House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee will resume work later this month on Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, after two days of debate on the measure. 
 
A spokesman said on Friday, the panel would consider its consideration of the Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement Act, or Eagle Act, on July 12 after marathon discussion of the measure on Wednesday and Thursday, but no vote. 
 
The desire for a hard line in dealings with China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the deeply divided US&nbsp;Congress, which is narrowly controlled by President Joe Biden's fellow Democrats. 
 
However, the two parties disagree on how best to deal with Beijing. While the Senate passed sweeping legislation with bipartisan support in early June, the full House has yet to finalise or vote on a comprehensive bill. 
 
During the marathon discussion of the Eagle Act, which ended well after midnight on Wednesday and then stretched into Thursday evening, members of the Foreign Affairs panel offered about 100 amendments to the legislation, which was written by the committee's Democratic chairman, Representative Gregory Meeks. 
 
Among other things, committee Republicans, who said before the meeting they would not support the bill, objected to provisions authorising funding for climate initiatives. They also said it was too much of a 'messaging bill',&nbsp;focused more on ordering reports than changing policy, a criticism Democrats dispute. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee will resume work later this month on Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, after two days of debate on the measure.

The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee will resume work later this month on Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, after two days of debate on the measure. A spokesman said on Friday, the panel would consider its consideration of the Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement Act, or Eagle Act, on July 12 after marathon discussion of the measure on Wednesday and Thursday, but no vote. The desire for a hard line in dealings with China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the deeply divided US Congress, which is narrowly controlled by President Joe Biden's fellow Democrats. However, the two parties disagree on how best to deal with Beijing. While the Senate passed sweeping legislation with bipartisan support in early June, the full House has yet to finalise or vote on a comprehensive bill. During the marathon discussion of the Eagle Act, which ended well after midnight on Wednesday and then stretched into Thursday evening, members of the Foreign Affairs panel offered about 100 amendments to the legislation, which was written by the committee's Democratic chairman, Representative Gregory Meeks. Among other things, committee Republicans, who said before the meeting they would not support the bill, objected to provisions authorising funding for climate initiatives. They also said it was too much of a 'messaging bill', focused more on ordering reports than changing policy, a criticism Democrats dispute. (With inputs from agencies)

China bill delayed in US House amid partisan wrangling

US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans said on Monday they opposed Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, meaning the panel will likely advance the bill this week with only Democratic support. 
 
A spokesperson for Representative Michael McCaul, the top committee Republican, said he opposed the 'Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement Act',&nbsp;or Eagle Act, which the committee will consider on Wednesday. 
 
The desire for a hard line in dealings with China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the deeply divided US&nbsp;Congress, which is narrowly controlled by President Joe Biden's fellow Democrats. 
 
However, the two parties disagree on how best to deal with China. For example, Republicans object to provisions in the Eagle Act that would authorise funding for climate initiatives. 
 
But Republicans also said they felt the Eagle Act calls for too many studies and would be a missed opportunity to take meaningful action like tightening control of technology exports and regulating access to some types of sensitive personal data, such as Americans' health information. 
 
"It's largely just a messaging bill," a Republican aide said. 
 
The Eagle Act was introduced in May by Democratic Foreign Affairs Chairman Gregory Meeks. 
 
The Senate on June 8 passed by a strong bipartisan 68-32 majority its own sweeping China bill, the "US&nbsp;Innovation and Competition Act," or USICA, which authorises about $190 billion for provisions to strengthen US&nbsp;technology and research, and approved $54 billion to increase US&nbsp;production and research into semiconductors and telecommunications equipment. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans said on Monday they opposed Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, meaning the panel will likely advance the bill this week with only Democratic support.

US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans said on Monday they opposed Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, meaning the panel will likely advance the bill this week with only Democratic support. A spokesperson for Representative Michael McCaul, the top committee Republican, said he opposed the 'Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement Act', or Eagle Act, which the committee will consider on Wednesday. The desire for a hard line in dealings with China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the deeply divided US Congress, which is narrowly controlled by President Joe Biden's fellow Democrats. However, the two parties disagree on how best to deal with China. For example, Republicans object to provisions in the Eagle Act that would authorise funding for climate initiatives. But Republicans also said they felt the Eagle Act calls for too many studies and would be a missed opportunity to take meaningful action like tightening control of technology exports and regulating access to some types of sensitive personal data, such as Americans' health information. "It's largely just a messaging bill," a Republican aide said. The Eagle Act was introduced in May by Democratic Foreign Affairs Chairman Gregory Meeks. The Senate on June 8 passed by a strong bipartisan 68-32 majority its own sweeping China bill, the "US Innovation and Competition Act," or USICA, which authorises about $190 billion for provisions to strengthen US technology and research, and approved $54 billion to increase US production and research into semiconductors and telecommunications equipment. (With inputs from agencies)

US House Republicans oppose Democratic-led China bill

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has conveyed to his predecessor Benjamin Netanyahu that he expects him to depart from the official prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem within 14 days.

Benjamin Netanyahu told to leave official prime minister’s residence  in 14 days

In a strange development, a town in northern Croatia, Legrad, is selling its abandoned houses for one kuna, which is 11.83 in Indian rupees. This is because of a drastic fall in the population of the town.&nbsp;

Legrad was once the second-biggest population centre in Croatian territory. However, the population rate was deeply affected after the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire a century ago. This was also when new borders left it sidelined.

<img alt="Croatian town Legrad" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="bf7e91a7-4311-4d2e-8e81-c929c600da6f" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2021-06-11T105554Z_2_LYNXNPEH5A0IT_RTROPTP_3_CROATIA-LIFE.JPG" />

Image: Reuters

Town's Mayor, Ivan Sabolic said, "We turned into a border town with few transport connections to other places. Since then the population has been gradually falling".&nbsp;

The fascinating deal comes with a few conditions. People who wish to settle in this town must be financially solvent and under the age of 40. They also need to commit to staying at least 15 years.

<a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/this-croatian-town-is-selling-houses-at-rs-12-here-is-the-reason-101623513749714.html">Also Read |&nbsp;Chicago man jumps into Lake Michigan for 365th straight day</a>

As per Sabolic, the offer had attracted lots of interest from abroad.&nbsp;

The town is a perfect fit for all nature lovers as it is surrounded by green fields and forests. It shares borders with Hungary and has around 2,250 inhabitants. This is just 50 percent of the people that lived here 70 years ago.&nbsp;As of now, 17 properties have been sold. The houses on offer are not in a good state. Some are half-ruins with doors and windows missing and their walls covered with mould.

The municipality has promised an amount of 25,000 kuna towards any refurbishments needed, and for new residents wishing to buy a privately-owned home. As per the mayor, The town will cover 20 percent of the price or up to 35,000 kuna.&nbsp;

In a strange development, a town in northern Croatia, Legrad, is selling its abandoned houses for one kuna, which is 11.83 in Indian rupees. This is because of a drastic fall in the population of the town.

In a strange development, a town in northern Croatia, Legrad, is selling its abandoned houses for one kuna, which is 11.83 in Indian rupees. This is because of a drastic fall in the population of the town. Legrad was once the second-biggest population centre in Croatian territory. However, the population rate was deeply affected after the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire a century ago. This was also when new borders left it sidelined. Image: Reuters Town's Mayor, Ivan Sabolic said, "We turned into a border town with few transport connections to other places. Since then the population has been gradually falling". The fascinating deal comes with a few conditions. People who wish to settle in this town must be financially solvent and under the age of 40. They also need to commit to staying at least 15 years. Also Read | Chicago man jumps into Lake Michigan for 365th straight day As per Sabolic, the offer had attracted lots of interest from abroad. The town is a perfect fit for all nature lovers as it is surrounded by green fields and forests. It shares borders with Hungary and has around 2,250 inhabitants. This is just 50 percent of the people that lived here 70 years ago. As of now, 17 properties have been sold. The houses on offer are not in a good state. Some are half-ruins with doors and windows missing and their walls covered with mould. The municipality has promised an amount of 25,000 kuna towards any refurbishments needed, and for new residents wishing to buy a privately-owned home. As per the mayor, The town will cover 20 percent of the price or up to 35,000 kuna.

Croatian town Legrad selling houses for less than $1. Here is all you need to know

Investigators digging under the house of a suspected serial killer on the outskirts of Mexico City have said they have found 3,787 bone fragments so far, apparently belonging to 17 different victims.

Prosecutors in the State of Mexico, which borders Mexico City, suggested the grisly finds may not end there. In excavations carried out since May 17, authorities have dug up the floors of the house where the suspect lived.

They now plan to extend the search to the soil beneath several other rooms he rented out on the same property. ID cards and other possessions from people, who disappeared years ago, were found at the junk-filled home, suggesting the trail of killings may go back years.

The number of bone fragments found underneath concrete floors at the suspect's home would imply the corpses may have been hacked into tiny pieces. That could make sense: the suspect, identified by prosecutors only as "Andrés," was formerly a butcher and in fact sectioned and filleted his last victim.

"The bones fragments are being subjected to lateralisation' studies, which include carefully cleaning each one, identifying what part of the body they are and then placing them in their anatomical position, providing a method for determining the approximate number of victims," the office said in a statement on Saturday.

"This analysis indicates that, up to now, the bone fragments found may possibly be those of 17 people," the statement said.

Authorities have not released the full name of the 72-year-old suspect under Mexican laws protecting a suspect's identity. He has been ordered to stand trial in the killing of his last victim, a 34-year-old woman whose body he allegedly dismembered with a butcher's hacksaw and knives on May 14.

He was caught, not as a result of keen investigative work, but because his most recent alleged victim was the wife of a police commander whom he knew personally.

He was to have accompanied the victim on a shopping trip the day she disappeared, so her husband suspected him when she failed to return. The police officer gained access to police surveillance cameras showing his wife had entered, but not left, the street where the suspect lived; the policeman went to the home, confronted the suspect, and found his wife's hacked-up body inside.

But what investigators also found was women's clothing, voter IDs and audio and video tapes suggesting he may have recorded his victims. The format of the video tapes found at the house may suggest how far the killings went back: authorities found 28 8mm video tapes, which were discontinued around 2007, and 25 VHS cassettes, which largely fell out of favor by 2016.

However, outdated tech formats often remain in use in Mexico after they have been abandoned in other countries. In total, prosecutors said they have found 91 photographs, many of the type people would have used to obtain ID cards; eight cellphones, and women's jewelry and makeup.

Prosecutors said they are still examining the bone fragments to see if they can extract any DNA to identify the victims.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Investigators digging under the house of a suspected serial killer on the outskirts of Mexico City have said they have found 3,787 bone fragments so far, apparently belonging to 17 different victims.

Investigators digging under the house of a suspected serial killer on the outskirts of Mexico City have said they have found 3,787 bone fragments so far, apparently belonging to 17 different victims. Prosecutors in the State of Mexico, which borders Mexico City, suggested the grisly finds may not end there. In excavations carried out since May 17, authorities have dug up the floors of the house where the suspect lived. They now plan to extend the search to the soil beneath several other rooms he rented out on the same property. ID cards and other possessions from people, who disappeared years ago, were found at the junk-filled home, suggesting the trail of killings may go back years. The number of bone fragments found underneath concrete floors at the suspect's home would imply the corpses may have been hacked into tiny pieces. That could make sense: the suspect, identified by prosecutors only as "Andrés," was formerly a butcher and in fact sectioned and filleted his last victim. "The bones fragments are being subjected to lateralisation' studies, which include carefully cleaning each one, identifying what part of the body they are and then placing them in their anatomical position, providing a method for determining the approximate number of victims," the office said in a statement on Saturday. "This analysis indicates that, up to now, the bone fragments found may possibly be those of 17 people," the statement said. Authorities have not released the full name of the 72-year-old suspect under Mexican laws protecting a suspect's identity. He has been ordered to stand trial in the killing of his last victim, a 34-year-old woman whose body he allegedly dismembered with a butcher's hacksaw and knives on May 14. He was caught, not as a result of keen investigative work, but because his most recent alleged victim was the wife of a police commander whom he knew personally. He was to have accompanied the victim on a shopping trip the day she disappeared, so her husband suspected him when she failed to return. The police officer gained access to police surveillance cameras showing his wife had entered, but not left, the street where the suspect lived; the policeman went to the home, confronted the suspect, and found his wife's hacked-up body inside. But what investigators also found was women's clothing, voter IDs and audio and video tapes suggesting he may have recorded his victims. The format of the video tapes found at the house may suggest how far the killings went back: authorities found 28 8mm video tapes, which were discontinued around 2007, and 25 VHS cassettes, which largely fell out of favor by 2016. However, outdated tech formats often remain in use in Mexico after they have been abandoned in other countries. In total, prosecutors said they have found 91 photographs, many of the type people would have used to obtain ID cards; eight cellphones, and women's jewelry and makeup. Prosecutors said they are still examining the bone fragments to see if they can extract any DNA to identify the victims. (With inputs from agencies)

Evidence in Mexico serial killer's house suggests 17 victims

A new Constitutional Bench of the Nepal Supreme Court was formed on Sunday to hear a bunch of petitions against the May 22 dissolution of the House of Representatives after differences among justices over its composition delayed the crucial hearing, according to media reports.

The bench was formed by Nepal's Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana on the seniority and expertise of the Supreme Court Justices. The new Constitutional Bench includes justices Dipak Kumar Karki, Anand Mohan Bhattarai, Mira Dhungana, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada and the chief justice himself, The Himalayan Times reported.

Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari dissolved the 275-member House of Representatives on May 22 for the second time in five months and announced snap elections on November 12 and November 19 on the advice of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli, heading a minority government.

Following the illness of Justice Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha, his successor justices Bhattarai and Khatiwada were included in the Constitutional Bench. Earlier, the hearing was affected due to a dispute in the formation of the Constitutional Bench.

Chief Justice Rana had earlier picked justices Dipak Kumar Karki, Aanand Mohan Bhattarai, Tej Bahadur KC and Bam Kumar Shrestha for the bench to hear about 30 petitions registered against the 'unconstitutional' dissolution, the report said.

As many as 146 members of the dissolved House, including Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, who had staked a claim to form the new government under Article 76 (5) of the Constitution, have also filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of the House.

President Bhandari rejected the separate bids of both Prime Minister Oli and the Opposition alliance's claims to form a new government, saying the 'claims were insufficient'.&nbsp;

A controversy erupted after a lawyer of Deuba raised questions over two justices picked as members of the Constitutional Bench given their previous decision on the case of reviewing the Communist Party of Nepal's unity and registration.

After the justices under question, Tej Bahadur KC and Bam Kumar Shrestha, decided not to leave the bench, two other justices picked for the Constitutional Bench chose to opt-out of the bench. This forced Chief Justice Rana to reconstitute the bench to hear the writ petitions filed against the dissolution of Parliament.

Meanwhile, the Opposition alliance issued a joint statement on Saturday condemning the Cabinet reshuffle done by the Oli government. Oli on Friday reshuffled the Cabinet. The new Cabinet has three Deputy Prime Ministers, 12 cabinet ministers and two state ministers.

Oli has made a mockery of constitutional and democratic values by reshuffling the Cabinet at a time when his move dissolving the House is sub-judice in the Supreme Court, the Opposition alliance said in a statement.

The five-party alliance also said the government's announcement in the budget that it would allow the export of river materials from the Chure range could lead to desertification of the Tarai, and thus it was an anti-national and anti-people move. The alliance also condemned the government move to allow middlemen and racketeers to supply iodised salt.

Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 last year after President Bhandari dissolved the House at the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli, amidst a tussle for power within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP). Oli's move to dissolve the House sparked protests from a large section of the NCP led by his rival Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'.

However, two months later, Chief Justice Rana-led Constitutional Bench on February 23 overturned the decision and reinstated the House of Representatives.

A new Constitutional Bench of the Nepal Supreme Court was formed on Sunday to hear a bunch of petitions against the May 22 dissolution of the House of Representatives after differences among justices over its composition delayed the crucial hearing, according to media reports.

A new Constitutional Bench of the Nepal Supreme Court was formed on Sunday to hear a bunch of petitions against the May 22 dissolution of the House of Representatives after differences among justices over its composition delayed the crucial hearing, according to media reports. The bench was formed by Nepal's Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana on the seniority and expertise of the Supreme Court Justices. The new Constitutional Bench includes justices Dipak Kumar Karki, Anand Mohan Bhattarai, Mira Dhungana, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada and the chief justice himself, The Himalayan Times reported. Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari dissolved the 275-member House of Representatives on May 22 for the second time in five months and announced snap elections on November 12 and November 19 on the advice of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli, heading a minority government. Following the illness of Justice Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha, his successor justices Bhattarai and Khatiwada were included in the Constitutional Bench. Earlier, the hearing was affected due to a dispute in the formation of the Constitutional Bench. Chief Justice Rana had earlier picked justices Dipak Kumar Karki, Aanand Mohan Bhattarai, Tej Bahadur KC and Bam Kumar Shrestha for the bench to hear about 30 petitions registered against the 'unconstitutional' dissolution, the report said. As many as 146 members of the dissolved House, including Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, who had staked a claim to form the new government under Article 76 (5) of the Constitution, have also filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of the House. President Bhandari rejected the separate bids of both Prime Minister Oli and the Opposition alliance's claims to form a new government, saying the 'claims were insufficient'. A controversy erupted after a lawyer of Deuba raised questions over two justices picked as members of the Constitutional Bench given their previous decision on the case of reviewing the Communist Party of Nepal's unity and registration. After the justices under question, Tej Bahadur KC and Bam Kumar Shrestha, decided not to leave the bench, two other justices picked for the Constitutional Bench chose to opt-out of the bench. This forced Chief Justice Rana to reconstitute the bench to hear the writ petitions filed against the dissolution of Parliament. Meanwhile, the Opposition alliance issued a joint statement on Saturday condemning the Cabinet reshuffle done by the Oli government. Oli on Friday reshuffled the Cabinet. The new Cabinet has three Deputy Prime Ministers, 12 cabinet ministers and two state ministers. Oli has made a mockery of constitutional and democratic values by reshuffling the Cabinet at a time when his move dissolving the House is sub-judice in the Supreme Court, the Opposition alliance said in a statement. The five-party alliance also said the government's announcement in the budget that it would allow the export of river materials from the Chure range could lead to desertification of the Tarai, and thus it was an anti-national and anti-people move. The alliance also condemned the government move to allow middlemen and racketeers to supply iodised salt. Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 last year after President Bhandari dissolved the House at the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli, amidst a tussle for power within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP). Oli's move to dissolve the House sparked protests from a large section of the NCP led by his rival Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'. However, two months later, Chief Justice Rana-led Constitutional Bench on February 23 overturned the decision and reinstated the House of Representatives.

New Constitutional Bench formed to hear petitions against House dissolution in Nepal

The Biden administration and House Democrats have reached a tentative deal to allow President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify before Congress about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry, according to a court filing late Tuesday.

The deal appears likely to avert a definitive court precedent that would draw a clear line in an ambiguous areas: the scope and limits of Congress’ constitutional power to compel testimony for its oversight responsibilities, and a president’s constitutional power to keep secret conversations with a White House lawyer.

An appeals court had been set to hear arguments on the case next week, but lawyers for the Justice Department, which has been defending McGahn since 2019 against a House subpoena seeking to compel his testimony, and for the House of Representatives asked the court in a joint letter to drop that plan as mooted by the deal.

“The Committee on the Judiciary and the executive branch have reached an agreement in principle on an accommodation and anticipate filing, as soon as possible, a joint motion asking the court to remove this case from the May 19, 2021, oral argument calendar in order to allow the parties to implement the accommodation,” the letter said.

What to do about the subpoena case, which President Joe Biden inherited from the Trump administration, has been a rare locus of institutional disagreement among Democrats in the two branches.

Lawyers in the Biden White House have been hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters. House Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been determined to push forward after frustration that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy ran out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 presidential election.

The two sides had been negotiating for several months, leading to delays in the appeals court case. The filing was terse and offered no details about the deal, including what limits, if any, there would be — like whether McGahn would testify in public and the scope of what lawmakers could ask him to disclose.

But the filing also flagged a potential wild card: “Former President Trump, who is not a party to this case, is not a party to the agreement in principle regarding an accommodation,” it said.

That absence leaves open the question of whether Trump could try to intervene to block McGahn from testifying by asserting executive privilege. An attempt to invoke it by Trump would raise novel questions about the extent to which a former president may assert the privilege when the incumbent president declines to do so.

Should Trump try to intervene, a rare but limited precedent is a 1977 case, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Richard Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of Jimmy Carter, the president at the time.

That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former White House lawyer’s testimony.

The present dispute centers on the House Judiciary Committee’s desire to question McGahn about matters related to his role as a key witness in the report by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, about efforts by Trump to obstruct the Russia investigation.

After the Justice Department made most of the report public, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify. After he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued.

The case has gone through several rounds of convoluted legal fights over constitutional issues that have lacked definitive precedents because previous disputes have generally been resolved with a negotiated compromise, averting a need for a court ruling.

But the lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena is one of an unprecedented number of cases pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took the House in the 2018 midterm elections and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas.

First, the Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. Last year, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory.

The Justice Department then continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Biden administration had signaled that it was prepared to keep arguing it.)

The apparent resolution of the McGahn subpoena case — unless Trump disrupts it — is similar to a dispute in 2009, when President Barack Obama took office and inherited a House lawsuit over a subpoena for testimony by President George W. Bush’s former White House counsel Harriet Miers related to the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The Obama administration, a lawyer for the House and a legal representative of Bush worked out a deal under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits. That accommodation mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal questions it rose unresolved.

The Biden administration and House Democrats have reached a tentative deal to allow President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify before Congress about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry, according to a court filing late Tuesday.

The Biden administration and House Democrats have reached a tentative deal to allow President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify before Congress about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry, according to a court filing late Tuesday. The deal appears likely to avert a definitive court precedent that would draw a clear line in an ambiguous areas: the scope and limits of Congress’ constitutional power to compel testimony for its oversight responsibilities, and a president’s constitutional power to keep secret conversations with a White House lawyer. An appeals court had been set to hear arguments on the case next week, but lawyers for the Justice Department, which has been defending McGahn since 2019 against a House subpoena seeking to compel his testimony, and for the House of Representatives asked the court in a joint letter to drop that plan as mooted by the deal. “The Committee on the Judiciary and the executive branch have reached an agreement in principle on an accommodation and anticipate filing, as soon as possible, a joint motion asking the court to remove this case from the May 19, 2021, oral argument calendar in order to allow the parties to implement the accommodation,” the letter said. What to do about the subpoena case, which President Joe Biden inherited from the Trump administration, has been a rare locus of institutional disagreement among Democrats in the two branches. Lawyers in the Biden White House have been hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters. House Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been determined to push forward after frustration that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy ran out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 presidential election. The two sides had been negotiating for several months, leading to delays in the appeals court case. The filing was terse and offered no details about the deal, including what limits, if any, there would be — like whether McGahn would testify in public and the scope of what lawmakers could ask him to disclose. But the filing also flagged a potential wild card: “Former President Trump, who is not a party to this case, is not a party to the agreement in principle regarding an accommodation,” it said. That absence leaves open the question of whether Trump could try to intervene to block McGahn from testifying by asserting executive privilege. An attempt to invoke it by Trump would raise novel questions about the extent to which a former president may assert the privilege when the incumbent president declines to do so. Should Trump try to intervene, a rare but limited precedent is a 1977 case, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Richard Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of Jimmy Carter, the president at the time. That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former White House lawyer’s testimony. The present dispute centers on the House Judiciary Committee’s desire to question McGahn about matters related to his role as a key witness in the report by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, about efforts by Trump to obstruct the Russia investigation. After the Justice Department made most of the report public, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify. After he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued. The case has gone through several rounds of convoluted legal fights over constitutional issues that have lacked definitive precedents because previous disputes have generally been resolved with a negotiated compromise, averting a need for a court ruling. But the lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena is one of an unprecedented number of cases pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took the House in the 2018 midterm elections and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas. First, the Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. Last year, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory. The Justice Department then continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Biden administration had signaled that it was prepared to keep arguing it.) The apparent resolution of the McGahn subpoena case — unless Trump disrupts it — is similar to a dispute in 2009, when President Barack Obama took office and inherited a House lawsuit over a subpoena for testimony by President George W. Bush’s former White House counsel Harriet Miers related to the firings of U.S. attorneys. The Obama administration, a lawyer for the House and a legal representative of Bush worked out a deal under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits. That accommodation mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal questions it rose unresolved.

House Democrats and White House reach deal on Russia enquiry testimony by ex-Trump aide

US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that limits the ability of a US president to impose travel ban on the basis of religion. The bill is informally known as the No Ban Act. It has come as a response to former US President Donald Trump's decision to bar travel from several Muslim-majority countries.

It was passed in US House of Representatives by a 218-208 vote. In order to become a law, the bill must pass in US Senate.

Passage of the bill has invited praise from the right groups.

Donald Trump had issued the ban shortly after assuming presidency in 2017. Most people from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, as well as from North Korea and Venezuela were barred from travelling to US.

The ban was considered discriminatory and punitive. Joe Biden had struck down these provisions as soon as he became president earlier this year.

US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that limits the ability of a US president to impose travel ban on the basis of religion. The bill is informally known as the No Ban Act.

US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that limits the ability of a US president to impose travel ban on the basis of religion. The bill is informally known as the No Ban Act. It has come as a response to former US President Donald Trump's decision to bar travel from several Muslim-majority countries. It was passed in US House of Representatives by a 218-208 vote. In order to become a law, the bill must pass in US Senate. Passage of the bill has invited praise from the right groups. Donald Trump had issued the ban shortly after assuming presidency in 2017. Most people from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, as well as from North Korea and Venezuela were barred from travelling to US. The ban was considered discriminatory and punitive. Joe Biden had struck down these provisions as soon as he became president earlier this year.

US House passes bill limiting president's power to bar travel based on religion

The US House of Representatives on Thursday reintroduced a bill that would ban imports from China's Xinjiang region unless it is certified they are not produced with forced labour and allow further sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for abuses against Muslims.&nbsp;

"We have watched in horror as the Chinese government first created, and then expanded a system of extrajudicial mass internment camps targeting Uyghurs and Muslim minorities. We now know the entire XUAR economy is built upon a foundation of forced labour and repression," said Representative Jim McGovern.&nbsp;

According to the Massachusetts Congressman, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act would create a 'rebuttable presumption' that any goods made in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) are made with forced labour and prohibited from entering the United States unless 'clear and convincing' evidence is shown to the contrary.&nbsp;

"Many US, international, and Chinese corporations are complicit in the exploitation of forced labour and these products continue to make their way into global supply chains and our country. It is long past time for Congress to act," McGovern added.&nbsp;

Representative Chris Smith from New Jersey, a Republican, said that the US cannot be silent.&nbsp;

"Congress must hold the Chinese government accountable and give a strong voice to the millions of Muslim Uyghurs, who are victims of genocide, rape, torture, forced marriages, reeducation camps, and other gross violations of human rights. Chinese authorities had the audacity to deny the existence of mass internment camps and portray them as vocational training centres," he said.&nbsp;

The bill would prohibit all imports from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China unless the Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection can certify that the goods being imported to the US are not produced, either wholly or in part, with forced labour and the Commissioner submits to Congress a report outlining such a determination.&nbsp;

The US House of Representatives on Thursday reintroduced a bill that would ban imports from China's Xinjiang region unless it is certified they are not produced with forced labour and allow further sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for abuses against Muslims.

The US House of Representatives on Thursday reintroduced a bill that would ban imports from China's Xinjiang region unless it is certified they are not produced with forced labour and allow further sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for abuses against Muslims. "We have watched in horror as the Chinese government first created, and then expanded a system of extrajudicial mass internment camps targeting Uyghurs and Muslim minorities. We now know the entire XUAR economy is built upon a foundation of forced labour and repression," said Representative Jim McGovern. According to the Massachusetts Congressman, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act would create a 'rebuttable presumption' that any goods made in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) are made with forced labour and prohibited from entering the United States unless 'clear and convincing' evidence is shown to the contrary. "Many US, international, and Chinese corporations are complicit in the exploitation of forced labour and these products continue to make their way into global supply chains and our country. It is long past time for Congress to act," McGovern added. Representative Chris Smith from New Jersey, a Republican, said that the US cannot be silent. "Congress must hold the Chinese government accountable and give a strong voice to the millions of Muslim Uyghurs, who are victims of genocide, rape, torture, forced marriages, reeducation camps, and other gross violations of human rights. Chinese authorities had the audacity to deny the existence of mass internment camps and portray them as vocational training centres," he said. The bill would prohibit all imports from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China unless the Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection can certify that the goods being imported to the US are not produced, either wholly or in part, with forced labour and the Commissioner submits to Congress a report outlining such a determination.

US House reintroduces bill to ban goods from China's Xinjiang

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry.

When Democrats controlled only the House, it was simpler for their leaders to unite behind subpoenaing McGahn. But the officials who now run the executive branch, especially President Joe Biden’s White House lawyers, are hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters.

A glimpse of the institutional disconnect became public late Wednesday, when the Justice Department — which under Trump had been representing McGahn in fighting the lawsuit — asked an appeals court to delay arguments in the case scheduled for Tuesday, citing the recent change in administrations.

“The new administration wishes to explore whether an accommodation might be available with respect to the committee’s request,” the filing said. “Discussions among the relevant parties have begun, and the new administration believes the parties would benefit from additional time to pursue these discussions.”

But Douglas N. Letter, a lawyer for House Democrats — and, effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — opposed that motion, urging the full Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to press forward without delay.

“We appreciate the Biden administration’s efforts to settle this case, and we have actively participated in those efforts,” Letter wrote. “But we do not believe that postponing the argument will improve the prospect of a settlement or serve the interests of judicial efficiency or fairness to the parties.”

Late on Thursday, however, the appeals court granted the Justice Department’s request, moving back the scheduled day for arguments to April 27, and ordering the delivery of a “status report advising the court of the progress of the parties’ discussion” by March 25.

House Democrats were frustrated that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy succeeded in running out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 election. In his motion, Letter raised doubts that any compromise involving Trump would be possible, warning that delay could further thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight powers.

The case centers on McGahn’s role as an important witness in the report by special counsel Robert Mueller about efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. After the Justice Department made most of the report public, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify at an oversight hearing. When he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued.

The Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. But in August, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory.

Justice Department lawyers under the Trump administration continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, however, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Justice Department said it was “prepared to proceed” with the argument as scheduled if the court denied its request for a delay.)

The dispute is further complicated by the fact that there are so many participants — House Democrats, McGahn, the Biden administration and potentially Trump. The former president has not been a party to the lawsuit, but he might try to intervene and assert executive privilege — yet another issue that has not yet been adjudicated in the matter — if the executive branch under Biden drops out of the case.

Patrick F. Philbin, a former deputy White House counsel who is one of the people Trump designated to deal with residual issues related to presidential records, declined to comment.

William A. Burck, a lawyer for McGahn, has previously said that his client intended to defer to the president’s instructions, pending a final judicial order. A person familiar with the deliberations said Burck had not taken a position on what McGahn would do if Biden were to instruct him to talk to Congress, but Trump still told him not to.

Stuart F. Delery, a deputy White House counsel, said in an interview that the negotiations are still preliminary but that the Biden administration would like more time to try to resolve the dispute while preserving the “institutional interests connected to the presidency.”

There are few legal precedents. A rare and limited guidepost is a 1977 case, Nixon v. General Services Administration. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that Richard M. Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of the sitting president at the time, Jimmy Carter.

That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former lawyer’s testimony. Another question is how attorney-client privilege works for a former White House lawyer when the presidency changes hands — and what would happen if Trump were to file a bar ethics complaint going after McGahn’s law license if he cooperates with the House at Biden’s request but over Trump’s objections.

Many such questions have no definitive answers because until recently, it was exceedingly rare for such disputes to be fought without compromise, leading to judicial rulings. But the McGahn subpoena lawsuit is one of an unprecedented number of lawsuits pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took over the House following the 2018 midterm election and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas.

The lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena echoes a similar dispute that President Barack Obama inherited when he took over from President George W. Bush in 2009. House Democrats investigating Bush’s firings of U.S. attorneys had issued a subpoena for testimony by Harriet Miers, Bush’s White House counsel at the time, leading to a lawsuit.

Explaining that Obama did not want to weaken the presidency as an institution, Obama’s then White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, worked out a compromise with a representative of Bush, Emmet Flood, and the Judiciary Committee under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits.

The settlement mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal question unresolved. The result left the White House with more wiggle room in future disputes — including letting the Trump White House raise anew the idea that McGahn was absolutely immune after the House subpoenaed him.

But there are some important differences between 2009 and 2021. Helping ease the way to cooperation, Bush — unlike Trump — had overseen a smooth transition to his successor, and Craig and Flood were former law partners on friendly terms. It is far from clear that Trump will be as open to the idea of compromising.

Letter invoked Trump’s history of stonewalling in warning that it made no sense to delay the full District of Columbia Circuit’s consideration of the case since settlements discussions could fail.

Such a delay “could prevent the committee from securing McGahn’s testimony for much of the 117th Congress, just as it was prevented from securing that testimony for almost the entire duration of the 116th Congress,” he wrote.

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry.

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry. When Democrats controlled only the House, it was simpler for their leaders to unite behind subpoenaing McGahn. But the officials who now run the executive branch, especially President Joe Biden’s White House lawyers, are hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters. A glimpse of the institutional disconnect became public late Wednesday, when the Justice Department — which under Trump had been representing McGahn in fighting the lawsuit — asked an appeals court to delay arguments in the case scheduled for Tuesday, citing the recent change in administrations. “The new administration wishes to explore whether an accommodation might be available with respect to the committee’s request,” the filing said. “Discussions among the relevant parties have begun, and the new administration believes the parties would benefit from additional time to pursue these discussions.” But Douglas N. Letter, a lawyer for House Democrats — and, effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — opposed that motion, urging the full Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to press forward without delay. “We appreciate the Biden administration’s efforts to settle this case, and we have actively participated in those efforts,” Letter wrote. “But we do not believe that postponing the argument will improve the prospect of a settlement or serve the interests of judicial efficiency or fairness to the parties.” Late on Thursday, however, the appeals court granted the Justice Department’s request, moving back the scheduled day for arguments to April 27, and ordering the delivery of a “status report advising the court of the progress of the parties’ discussion” by March 25. House Democrats were frustrated that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy succeeded in running out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 election. In his motion, Letter raised doubts that any compromise involving Trump would be possible, warning that delay could further thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight powers. The case centers on McGahn’s role as an important witness in the report by special counsel Robert Mueller about efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. After the Justice Department made most of the report public, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify at an oversight hearing. When he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued. The Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. But in August, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory. Justice Department lawyers under the Trump administration continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, however, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Justice Department said it was “prepared to proceed” with the argument as scheduled if the court denied its request for a delay.) The dispute is further complicated by the fact that there are so many participants — House Democrats, McGahn, the Biden administration and potentially Trump. The former president has not been a party to the lawsuit, but he might try to intervene and assert executive privilege — yet another issue that has not yet been adjudicated in the matter — if the executive branch under Biden drops out of the case. Patrick F. Philbin, a former deputy White House counsel who is one of the people Trump designated to deal with residual issues related to presidential records, declined to comment. William A. Burck, a lawyer for McGahn, has previously said that his client intended to defer to the president’s instructions, pending a final judicial order. A person familiar with the deliberations said Burck had not taken a position on what McGahn would do if Biden were to instruct him to talk to Congress, but Trump still told him not to. Stuart F. Delery, a deputy White House counsel, said in an interview that the negotiations are still preliminary but that the Biden administration would like more time to try to resolve the dispute while preserving the “institutional interests connected to the presidency.” There are few legal precedents. A rare and limited guidepost is a 1977 case, Nixon v. General Services Administration. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that Richard M. Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of the sitting president at the time, Jimmy Carter. That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former lawyer’s testimony. Another question is how attorney-client privilege works for a former White House lawyer when the presidency changes hands — and what would happen if Trump were to file a bar ethics complaint going after McGahn’s law license if he cooperates with the House at Biden’s request but over Trump’s objections. Many such questions have no definitive answers because until recently, it was exceedingly rare for such disputes to be fought without compromise, leading to judicial rulings. But the McGahn subpoena lawsuit is one of an unprecedented number of lawsuits pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took over the House following the 2018 midterm election and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas. The lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena echoes a similar dispute that President Barack Obama inherited when he took over from President George W. Bush in 2009. House Democrats investigating Bush’s firings of U.S. attorneys had issued a subpoena for testimony by Harriet Miers, Bush’s White House counsel at the time, leading to a lawsuit. Explaining that Obama did not want to weaken the presidency as an institution, Obama’s then White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, worked out a compromise with a representative of Bush, Emmet Flood, and the Judiciary Committee under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits. The settlement mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal question unresolved. The result left the White House with more wiggle room in future disputes — including letting the Trump White House raise anew the idea that McGahn was absolutely immune after the House subpoenaed him. But there are some important differences between 2009 and 2021. Helping ease the way to cooperation, Bush — unlike Trump — had overseen a smooth transition to his successor, and Craig and Flood were former law partners on friendly terms. It is far from clear that Trump will be as open to the idea of compromising. Letter invoked Trump’s history of stonewalling in warning that it made no sense to delay the full District of Columbia Circuit’s consideration of the case since settlements discussions could fail. Such a delay “could prevent the committee from securing McGahn’s testimony for much of the 117th Congress, just as it was prevented from securing that testimony for almost the entire duration of the 116th Congress,” he wrote.

House Democrats and White House split over lawsuit for ex-Trump aide’s testimony

Thirty-one-year old Ines Alcolea ditched the bustling Madrid life in October for a village near the much quieter medieval town of Toledo, unable to face the prospect of more COVID-19 restrictions in her small flat in the Spanish capital.

Spain's hard-pressed millennials are giving up on the city amid COVID

The Madras High Court has raised questions whether individuals can be restricted from buying more than one house until the Government completes the Awas Yojana, which intends to provide housing for all in urban areas by 2022.&nbsp;

A bench comprising of Justice Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose sought responses by March 6th from the Central and State Government over, “when the housing for all ‘Awas Yojana’ would be completed, how many people in the country own more than house or plot, how many families have basic housing amenities in India ”

The Court was hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against the acquisition of about 369 acres of private land near Coimbatore for a housing scheme.&nbsp;

The Court directed the authorities to inform whether the Central and State Governments had schemed to provide housing for marginalized and economically weaker sections. Details were also sought about the families that possess more than one house.

“Why don’t the Governments curb individuals from purchasing more than one house/plot till ‘housing for all’ is accomplished.&nbsp;

Why can’t the registration charges for the second house that an individual buys be charged twice as much? Why not the government charge individuals twice as much electricity charges, water tax and house tax for the second house?”

The bench also observed as to why the authorities could not limit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India, in order to bring down the costs.

The judges highlighted the plight of lakhs of people who are living on platforms, roads, slums and river banks without basic amenities and safety. The court observed that Housing moral all could be achieved when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The Madras High Court has raised questions whether individuals can be restricted from buying more than one house until the Government completes the Awas Yojana, which intends to provide housing for all in urban areas by 2022.

The Madras High Court has raised questions whether individuals can be restricted from buying more than one house until the Government completes the Awas Yojana, which intends to provide housing for all in urban areas by 2022. A bench comprising of Justice Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose sought responses by March 6th from the Central and State Government over, “when the housing for all ‘Awas Yojana’ would be completed, how many people in the country own more than house or plot, how many families have basic housing amenities in India ” The Court was hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against the acquisition of about 369 acres of private land near Coimbatore for a housing scheme. The Court directed the authorities to inform whether the Central and State Governments had schemed to provide housing for marginalized and economically weaker sections. Details were also sought about the families that possess more than one house. “Why don’t the Governments curb individuals from purchasing more than one house/plot till ‘housing for all’ is accomplished. Why can’t the registration charges for the second house that an individual buys be charged twice as much? Why not the government charge individuals twice as much electricity charges, water tax and house tax for the second house?” The bench also observed as to why the authorities could not limit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India, in order to bring down the costs. The judges highlighted the plight of lakhs of people who are living on platforms, roads, slums and river banks without basic amenities and safety. The court observed that Housing moral all could be achieved when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

Concerned about homelessness, Madras High Court asks why not limit individuals from buying more than one house?

At least six people - two women, three men and the pilot - were killed after a light aircraft crashed into a house in the southern Chilean city of Puerto Montt on Tuesday

At least six dead after plane crashes into house in Chile

The US midterm elections on Tuesday will bring a range of fresh faces to Washington, from the vice president's brother to the youngest-ever woman in Congress.

Here is a look at some of the most prominent of the new legislators:

Young left-wing star&nbsp;

At 29, staunch left-winger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and one of the youngest members ever.

Until recently making ends meet as a bartender, Ocasio-Cortez scored an upset in a Democratic primary in New York City to defeat 10-term member Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful members of the party.

She easily won Tuesday against a Republican in the heavily Democratic and ethnically diverse district straddling Queens and The Bronx.

A supporter of leftist Senator Bernie Sanders -- who won his own re-election bid Tuesday -- Ocasio-Cortez has quickly become a national voice with her calls for a universal health care system, tuition-free public universities and the abolition of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has executed President Donald Trump's campaign to deport undocumented immigrants.

Face of change in Boston&nbsp;

Ayanna Pressley, 44, on Tuesday became the first African American woman elected to Congress from Massachusetts, representing much of the same area as John F. Kennedy.

In a story with parallels to Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley defeated a 10-term male incumbent, Mike Capuano, in the Democratic primary for a left-leaning district that includes much of Boston and Harvard University.

Like Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley cast her election as part of a need for better representation in the era of the #MeToo movement.

When she won the primary, she denounced President Donald Trump as "a racist, misogynistic, truly empathy-bankrupt man."

Vice presidential brother&nbsp;

Politics has become a family affair for Vice President Mike Pence, with his brother Greg elected to his former congressional seat in Indiana.

The vice president took to Twitter to congratulate his brother, who easily won the solidly Republican and heavily white district in the Midwestern state.

The elder Pence has little political experience but touted his family ties and his business record.

Pence headed a chain of fuel suppliers and convenience stores under the name Tobacco Road -- which went bankrupt after facing claims worth $100 million.

First Muslim women&nbsp;

For the first time, the US Congress will have Muslim women -- and two of them.

Ilhan Omar, a Somali refugee, won a House seat in a heavily Democratic district in Minneapolis, where she will succeed Keith Ellison, himself the first Muslim elected to Congress.

Rashida Tlaib, a social worker born in Detroit to Palestinian immigrant parents, won a House seat in a district where she ran unopposed by a Republican candidate.&nbsp;

Tlaib has vehemently opposed Trump -- even heckling the then-candidate during a 2016 campaign appearance in Detroit.&nbsp;

"I didn't run because my election would be historic. I ran because of injustices and because of my boys, who are questioning their identity and whether they belong," Tlaib told ABC News in August.

First Native American woman&nbsp;

Kansas Democrat Sharice Davids became the first Native American woman elected to Congress, defeating Republican incumbent Kevin Yoder.

Davids, 38, is an attorney by training and a former mixed martial arts fighter. She is also openly lesbian, in a state that is traditionally conservative.

Davids -- who was raised by a single mother Army veteran -- won a district that includes Kansas City and its southern suburbs.

She wore a T-shirt in her campaign advertisements that read, "Strong, Resilient, Indigenous."

The US midterm elections on Tuesday will bring a range of fresh faces to Washington, from the vice president's brother to the youngest-ever woman in Congress. Here is a look at some of the most prominent of the new legislators: Young left-wing star At 29, staunch left-winger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and one of the youngest members ever.

The US midterm elections on Tuesday will bring a range of fresh faces to Washington, from the vice president's brother to the youngest-ever woman in Congress. Here is a look at some of the most prominent of the new legislators: Young left-wing star At 29, staunch left-winger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and one of the youngest members ever. Until recently making ends meet as a bartender, Ocasio-Cortez scored an upset in a Democratic primary in New York City to defeat 10-term member Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful members of the party. She easily won Tuesday against a Republican in the heavily Democratic and ethnically diverse district straddling Queens and The Bronx. A supporter of leftist Senator Bernie Sanders -- who won his own re-election bid Tuesday -- Ocasio-Cortez has quickly become a national voice with her calls for a universal health care system, tuition-free public universities and the abolition of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has executed President Donald Trump's campaign to deport undocumented immigrants. Face of change in Boston Ayanna Pressley, 44, on Tuesday became the first African American woman elected to Congress from Massachusetts, representing much of the same area as John F. Kennedy. In a story with parallels to Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley defeated a 10-term male incumbent, Mike Capuano, in the Democratic primary for a left-leaning district that includes much of Boston and Harvard University. Like Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley cast her election as part of a need for better representation in the era of the #MeToo movement. When she won the primary, she denounced President Donald Trump as "a racist, misogynistic, truly empathy-bankrupt man." Vice presidential brother Politics has become a family affair for Vice President Mike Pence, with his brother Greg elected to his former congressional seat in Indiana. The vice president took to Twitter to congratulate his brother, who easily won the solidly Republican and heavily white district in the Midwestern state. The elder Pence has little political experience but touted his family ties and his business record. Pence headed a chain of fuel suppliers and convenience stores under the name Tobacco Road -- which went bankrupt after facing claims worth $100 million. First Muslim women For the first time, the US Congress will have Muslim women -- and two of them. Ilhan Omar, a Somali refugee, won a House seat in a heavily Democratic district in Minneapolis, where she will succeed Keith Ellison, himself the first Muslim elected to Congress. Rashida Tlaib, a social worker born in Detroit to Palestinian immigrant parents, won a House seat in a district where she ran unopposed by a Republican candidate. Tlaib has vehemently opposed Trump -- even heckling the then-candidate during a 2016 campaign appearance in Detroit. "I didn't run because my election would be historic. I ran because of injustices and because of my boys, who are questioning their identity and whether they belong," Tlaib told ABC News in August. First Native American woman Kansas Democrat Sharice Davids became the first Native American woman elected to Congress, defeating Republican incumbent Kevin Yoder. Davids, 38, is an attorney by training and a former mixed martial arts fighter. She is also openly lesbian, in a state that is traditionally conservative. Davids -- who was raised by a single mother Army veteran -- won a district that includes Kansas City and its southern suburbs. She wore a T-shirt in her campaign advertisements that read, "Strong, Resilient, Indigenous."

Young progressives, VP brother to enter US Congress

After half of parliament’s budget session was washed out due to disruptions, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has written to Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu requesting a special two-week session in May-June to pass important legislation and facilitate debate and discussion.

"I am aware that the Monsoon Session will be called sometime in mid-July, but a special session sends a different message altogether," read the letter.

"There is no doubt that the complete washout has inflicted great damage on Parliament as an institution, and I think a special session may help retrieve some of its lost prestige," added Naresh in his letter to Naidu.

Meanwhile, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) took a jibe at the Congress party over their demand for another session.

"First they do not let the session run, now they are asking for another session? Do they want salaries and allowances again?," Vijay Goel said.

The entire session of the Parliament was washed out owing to disruptions in the functioning of the House. Both the opposition Congress Party and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party blamed one another for disruptions.

In its wake, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar on Friday announced that the MPs of the BJP-NDA alliance parties would not claim their salaries and allowance for 23 days as the Parliament did not function.

Holding the Congress party responsible for the Parliament washout in the second phase of the Budget Session, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) also decided to go on a hunger strike on April 12.

The Telugu Desam Party, however, blamed the BJP for the disruptions, saying it was practising divide and rule method to run away from providing special status to Andhra Pradesh promised by the National Democratic Alliance.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

"There is no doubt that the complete washout has inflicted great damage on Parliament as an institution," said Naresh.

After half of parliament’s budget session was washed out due to disruptions, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has written to Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu requesting a special two-week session in May-June to pass important legislation and facilitate debate and discussion. "I am aware that the Monsoon Session will be called sometime in mid-July, but a special session sends a different message altogether," read the letter. "There is no doubt that the complete washout has inflicted great damage on Parliament as an institution, and I think a special session may help retrieve some of its lost prestige," added Naresh in his letter to Naidu. Meanwhile, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) took a jibe at the Congress party over their demand for another session. "First they do not let the session run, now they are asking for another session? Do they want salaries and allowances again?," Vijay Goel said. The entire session of the Parliament was washed out owing to disruptions in the functioning of the House. Both the opposition Congress Party and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party blamed one another for disruptions. In its wake, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar on Friday announced that the MPs of the BJP-NDA alliance parties would not claim their salaries and allowance for 23 days as the Parliament did not function. Holding the Congress party responsible for the Parliament washout in the second phase of the Budget Session, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) also decided to go on a hunger strike on April 12. The Telugu Desam Party, however, blamed the BJP for the disruptions, saying it was practising divide and rule method to run away from providing special status to Andhra Pradesh promised by the National Democratic Alliance. (With inputs from ANI)

After washout, Jairam Ramesh calls for special Parliament session

The Rajya Sabha today witnessed an unprecedented 11 adjournments amid a clash between the government and the opposition over how an anti-graft bill should be passed and continued disruptions that prompted the Chair to lament the “murder of democracy”. While the House was first adjourned till 2 PM within 20 minutes after it met at 11 AM due to unrelenting opposition protests, it saw ten adjournments in a row in a space of three hours, after it re-convened in the afternoon.

Chairman Venkaiah Naidu called the protests, which have not allowed any business to be transacted since the House met on March 5, as a “murder of democracy”.

Naidu expressed displeasure over repeated disruptions since Parliament met early last month for the second half of the Budget session. He requested members to return to their seats and at least pass the anti-corruption bill. He said handful of people were obstructing proceedings over their agenda.

When the House met at 2 PM, members of Congress, AIADMK, BSP, CPI-M, AAP, TDP and YSR were in the Well holding placards and shouting slogans — “Narendra Modi – Dalit Virodhi” (Narendra Modi is anti-Dalit) and “Dalit virodhi yeh sarkar, nahi chalegi” (this anti-Dalit government will not be tolerated).

Amid the din, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2013 was taken up for consideration and passage by Deputy Chairman P J Kurien, who asked Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Jitendra Singh to move the bill for consideration, saying he would proceed with it as no member has given their name for a debate on it.

The bill aims to make giving a bribe a specific offence like taking a bribe and seeks to modify the definitions and penalties for such offences, among other things.

When the minister said the bill should just be passed without debate, Kurien asked TMC member Sukhendu Shekhar Ray, who had moved amendments to it, whether he would seek a division to enable voting on his amendments. As Ray insisted on a division, Kurien said the division cannot be taken up as the House is not in order.

Congress Deputy Leader Anand Sharma then raised a point of order saying the new members, who took the oath over the past few days, had not been given division numbers which enables them to exercise their voting right. He said in such a situation, the bill cannot be passed. But Kurien said “this bill is important. If it is not passed, it will have the impact on all government programmes. This bill is in the interest of the country. Therefore, the bill has to be passed” and urged the protesting members to go back to their seats.

The Opposition wants discussion and the government is ready for it, he said and asked the protesting members to take the opportunity to prove their majority at the time of voting.

However, as the exchanges, as well as the noisy protests from the Well, continued, Kurien adjourned the House briefly.

Following this, he held a series of backroom negotiations with leaders of major parties. The House saw repeated adjournments as the discussions in the Chair’s chamber continued.

When the House resumed after a couple of adjournments, Ray again insisted on a division, as other opposition members continued to raise slogans from the Well.

In the melee, Minister Jitendra Singh sought the passage of the bill without debate. “Pass it without the debate by a voice vote as per the sense of the nation,” he said.

Singh also said the government has zero tolerance for corruption. “Those watching today’s proceedings will know who is preventing the bill.” “The bill has gone through the standing committee and time and again it has been discussed over the last four years,” he said.

Referring to Anand Sharma’s point that new members had not been allotted division numbers, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar said, “Let us give you (new members) a slip. You can write yes or no. Already the bill has been moved for consideration. I request you to take this bill forward. We have to pass with the voice vote.”

Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Vijay Goel said “if the House is put to ransom like this and no bills are allowed to be passed, how will the government function? This (bill) should be passed. They (Opposition) have not allowed the House to function, now they want discussion.”

As an unrelenting opposition continued their slogan shouting, the Chair agreed for the division and said, “I wish to take the division and proceed. So, please go back to your seats.”

But as his pleas went unheeded, Kurien said he was sad that the House has not been able to transact any business.

However, Ray said he cannot press for division unless the lobbies are cleared and order is maintained in the House. “If you (chair) cannot do it, then adjourn the House,” he said. As the unruly scenes continued, the Upper House was finally adjourned for the day after witnessing 10 brief adjournments.

While the House was first adjourned till 2 pm within 20 minutes after it met at 11 am due to unrelenting opposition protests, it saw ten adjournments in a row in a space of three hours, after it re-convened in the afternoon.

The Rajya Sabha today witnessed an unprecedented 11 adjournments amid a clash between the government and the opposition over how an anti-graft bill should be passed and continued disruptions that prompted the Chair to lament the “murder of democracy”. While the House was first adjourned till 2 PM within 20 minutes after it met at 11 AM due to unrelenting opposition protests, it saw ten adjournments in a row in a space of three hours, after it re-convened in the afternoon. Chairman Venkaiah Naidu called the protests, which have not allowed any business to be transacted since the House met on March 5, as a “murder of democracy”. Naidu expressed displeasure over repeated disruptions since Parliament met early last month for the second half of the Budget session. He requested members to return to their seats and at least pass the anti-corruption bill. He said handful of people were obstructing proceedings over their agenda. When the House met at 2 PM, members of Congress, AIADMK, BSP, CPI-M, AAP, TDP and YSR were in the Well holding placards and shouting slogans — “Narendra Modi – Dalit Virodhi” (Narendra Modi is anti-Dalit) and “Dalit virodhi yeh sarkar, nahi chalegi” (this anti-Dalit government will not be tolerated). Amid the din, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2013 was taken up for consideration and passage by Deputy Chairman P J Kurien, who asked Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Jitendra Singh to move the bill for consideration, saying he would proceed with it as no member has given their name for a debate on it. The bill aims to make giving a bribe a specific offence like taking a bribe and seeks to modify the definitions and penalties for such offences, among other things. When the minister said the bill should just be passed without debate, Kurien asked TMC member Sukhendu Shekhar Ray, who had moved amendments to it, whether he would seek a division to enable voting on his amendments. As Ray insisted on a division, Kurien said the division cannot be taken up as the House is not in order. Congress Deputy Leader Anand Sharma then raised a point of order saying the new members, who took the oath over the past few days, had not been given division numbers which enables them to exercise their voting right. He said in such a situation, the bill cannot be passed. But Kurien said “this bill is important. If it is not passed, it will have the impact on all government programmes. This bill is in the interest of the country. Therefore, the bill has to be passed” and urged the protesting members to go back to their seats. The Opposition wants discussion and the government is ready for it, he said and asked the protesting members to take the opportunity to prove their majority at the time of voting. However, as the exchanges, as well as the noisy protests from the Well, continued, Kurien adjourned the House briefly. Following this, he held a series of backroom negotiations with leaders of major parties. The House saw repeated adjournments as the discussions in the Chair’s chamber continued. When the House resumed after a couple of adjournments, Ray again insisted on a division, as other opposition members continued to raise slogans from the Well. In the melee, Minister Jitendra Singh sought the passage of the bill without debate. “Pass it without the debate by a voice vote as per the sense of the nation,” he said. Singh also said the government has zero tolerance for corruption. “Those watching today’s proceedings will know who is preventing the bill.” “The bill has gone through the standing committee and time and again it has been discussed over the last four years,” he said. Referring to Anand Sharma’s point that new members had not been allotted division numbers, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar said, “Let us give you (new members) a slip. You can write yes or no. Already the bill has been moved for consideration. I request you to take this bill forward. We have to pass with the voice vote.” Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Vijay Goel said “if the House is put to ransom like this and no bills are allowed to be passed, how will the government function? This (bill) should be passed. They (Opposition) have not allowed the House to function, now they want discussion.” As an unrelenting opposition continued their slogan shouting, the Chair agreed for the division and said, “I wish to take the division and proceed. So, please go back to your seats.” But as his pleas went unheeded, Kurien said he was sad that the House has not been able to transact any business. However, Ray said he cannot press for division unless the lobbies are cleared and order is maintained in the House. “If you (chair) cannot do it, then adjourn the House,” he said. As the unruly scenes continued, the Upper House was finally adjourned for the day after witnessing 10 brief adjournments.

Rajya Sabha witnesses an unprecedented 11 adjournments in a single day

Seeking a vote on strict gun control laws in the wake of America&#39;s deadliest mass shooting last week that killed 49 people in Orlando, Democratic Congressmen resorted to an unprecedented sit-in inside the well of the US House of Representatives. 
 
The leadership of the Republican party, which holds a majority in the House, refused to budge and instead shut off the television cameras used for live coverage. 
 
The Democratic Congressmen used their own smartphones to live telecast -- through Facebook and other social media sites -- the proceedings inside the House along with their sit-in demonstrations in the House well. 
 
Images from inside the well of the House reflected a chaotic situation rarely seen. 
 
One television commentator described this like an anarchy and lawlessness as the rare sit-in inside the House crossed midnight even after the lights were switched off. 
 
&quot;Enough is enough,&quot; said Indian American Congressman Ami Bera, as he joined his fellow Democratic lawmakers in the protest, which was led by legendary Congressman John Lewis, known for his civil disobedience movement. 
 
&quot;Republicans denied us a vote, we sat on the Floor. We sat on the Floor, with John Larson presiding. When they turned off the House cameras, we livestreamed from our phones,&quot; said Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in her remarks on the House floor late last night. 
 
&quot;They can try to shut down the Floor, but because of you, they cannot shut out the voices of the victims and the will of the American people. And now, as you hold up the names of people who have been victims of violence,&quot; she said. 
 
Democratic lawmakers were demanding that Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, bring up a vote on commonsense gun violence prevention legislation before the House recesses. 
 
Refusing to budge under pressure, Ryan described this as a publicity stunt by Democrats. 
 
&quot;This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. That&#39;s point number one. Point number two is this bill was already defeated in the United States Senate. Number three, we&#39;re not going to take away a citizen&#39;s due process rights,&quot; Ryan said. 
 
&quot;We&#39;re not going to take away a citizen&#39;s constitutional rights without due process. That was already defeated in the Senate. And this is not the way to try and bring up legislation,&quot; he told CNN in an interview. 
 
Ryan defended his decision to shut off the cameras and lights arguing that these are as per the House rules. 
 
House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer demanded that Republicans hold a vote on legislation on gun violence. 
 
&quot;After the unspeakable slaughter of 49 innocent people in Orlando earlier this month, it is unconscionable that House Republicans would continue to block a vote even on commonsense safeguards, including expanding background checks and preventing dangerous firearms from being sold to terror suspects,&quot; Hoyer said. 
 
&quot;This is an issue that ought to transcend party - it&#39;s about saving lives and keeping our communities safe,&quot; he said. 
 
(PTI)

Even past midnight, Democrats telecast the session on smartphones after Republicans turned cameras off

Seeking a vote on strict gun control laws in the wake of America's deadliest mass shooting last week that killed 49 people in Orlando, Democratic Congressmen resorted to an unprecedented sit-in inside the well of the US House of Representatives. The leadership of the Republican party, which holds a majority in the House, refused to budge and instead shut off the television cameras used for live coverage. The Democratic Congressmen used their own smartphones to live telecast -- through Facebook and other social media sites -- the proceedings inside the House along with their sit-in demonstrations in the House well. Images from inside the well of the House reflected a chaotic situation rarely seen. One television commentator described this like an anarchy and lawlessness as the rare sit-in inside the House crossed midnight even after the lights were switched off. "Enough is enough," said Indian American Congressman Ami Bera, as he joined his fellow Democratic lawmakers in the protest, which was led by legendary Congressman John Lewis, known for his civil disobedience movement. "Republicans denied us a vote, we sat on the Floor. We sat on the Floor, with John Larson presiding. When they turned off the House cameras, we livestreamed from our phones," said Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in her remarks on the House floor late last night. "They can try to shut down the Floor, but because of you, they cannot shut out the voices of the victims and the will of the American people. And now, as you hold up the names of people who have been victims of violence," she said. Democratic lawmakers were demanding that Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, bring up a vote on commonsense gun violence prevention legislation before the House recesses. Refusing to budge under pressure, Ryan described this as a publicity stunt by Democrats. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. That's point number one. Point number two is this bill was already defeated in the United States Senate. Number three, we're not going to take away a citizen's due process rights," Ryan said. "We're not going to take away a citizen's constitutional rights without due process. That was already defeated in the Senate. And this is not the way to try and bring up legislation," he told CNN in an interview. Ryan defended his decision to shut off the cameras and lights arguing that these are as per the House rules. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer demanded that Republicans hold a vote on legislation on gun violence. "After the unspeakable slaughter of 49 innocent people in Orlando earlier this month, it is unconscionable that House Republicans would continue to block a vote even on commonsense safeguards, including expanding background checks and preventing dangerous firearms from being sold to terror suspects," Hoyer said. "This is an issue that ought to transcend party - it's about saving lives and keeping our communities safe," he said. (PTI)

House sit-in seeking gun control laws described as 'anarchy and lawlessness'

Democrats demanding action on gun control turned to Twitter&#39;s Periscope and Facebook&#39;s live video platform to broadcast their &quot;sit-in&quot; on the floor of the US House of Representatives on Wednesday after the chamber&#39;s cameras shut down. 
 
Representative Scott Peters of California told Reuters he downloaded the online video platform Periscope from the House floor after it became clear that chamber cameras were not operating. 
 
The protest was the latest move by Democrats to persuade the Republican majority in Congress to take up votes on gun control measures in response to last week&#39;s mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, the deadliest in modern US history. 
 
In video streamed on Facebook Live by Congressman Beto O&#39;Rourke, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can be seen speaking into a microphone that was turned off. She could be heard asking the House Speaker to turn the microphones back on. 
 
At about noon EDT (1600 GMT), presiding House officer and Republican Representative Ted Poe declared the House not in order, as Democratic protesters sat at the front of the chamber. 
 
Cable news channel C-SPAN, which typically uses the House cameras to broadcast live footage of Congress, broadcast Peters&#39; Periscope feed instead. 
 
The hashtag #NoBillNoBreak became a rallying cry for gun control supporters on Twitter and quickly became the top-trending hashtag in the United States on the social media platform. 
 
Politicians and average social media users alike used the hashtag as a sign of solidarity with the sit-in.&nbsp; 
 
(Reuters)

After Orlando shooting, Republicans face more pressure to stop voting against gun control measures

Democrats demanding action on gun control turned to Twitter's Periscope and Facebook's live video platform to broadcast their "sit-in" on the floor of the US House of Representatives on Wednesday after the chamber's cameras shut down. Representative Scott Peters of California told Reuters he downloaded the online video platform Periscope from the House floor after it became clear that chamber cameras were not operating. The protest was the latest move by Democrats to persuade the Republican majority in Congress to take up votes on gun control measures in response to last week's mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, the deadliest in modern US history. In video streamed on Facebook Live by Congressman Beto O'Rourke, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can be seen speaking into a microphone that was turned off. She could be heard asking the House Speaker to turn the microphones back on. At about noon EDT (1600 GMT), presiding House officer and Republican Representative Ted Poe declared the House not in order, as Democratic protesters sat at the front of the chamber. Cable news channel C-SPAN, which typically uses the House cameras to broadcast live footage of Congress, broadcast Peters' Periscope feed instead. The hashtag #NoBillNoBreak became a rallying cry for gun control supporters on Twitter and quickly became the top-trending hashtag in the United States on the social media platform. Politicians and average social media users alike used the hashtag as a sign of solidarity with the sit-in. (Reuters)

Democrats broadcast House sit-in on social media to protest gun control impasse

Appointing a new Dior creative director is a &quot;work in progress&quot;, the French fashion house`s chief executive said on Tuesday, with the luxury label still to name a head designer some six months after Raf Simons left to set up his own brand. 
 
Dior, one of the world`s most famous designer houses, announced Simons` surprise departure in October after some three years at the helm. An in-house creative team has been working on collections since. 
 
&quot;(It is a) work in progress, work in progress and we`re giving it a little bit of time,&quot; Chief Executive Sidney Toledano told Reuters. &quot;It`s an important position.&quot; 
 
Toledano was speaking at a preview for Dior`s new London boutique opening this week, a four-floor store selling clothes, accessories, children`s wear as well as a home collection. 
 
&quot;The UK market in London business for us is doing very well, we still have double digit growth,&quot; he said, adding however that last year`s Islamist militant attacks in Paris had hurt tourism and sales in France. 
 
&quot;...What happened in November had a real impact on the first quarter but still we will continue developing our presence in Paris. We have a five-year plan and in September we`ll open a new fine jewellery boutique.&quot; 
 
Dior also presented its cruise collection on Tuesday at Blenheim Palace near Oxford, Winston Churchill`s birthplace and where the label hosted fashion shows in 1954 and 1958. 
 
Cruise collections, originally designed for wealthy fashionistas holidaying on yachts or cruises during the winter months, are outfits produced by stylists on top of seasonal lines. 
 
Lucie Meier and Serge Ruffieux, who are leading Dior`s creative team, took inspiration from &quot;not only the post-war high society`s wardrobes but also the restlessness and wanderlust (that) characterized the period&quot;, according to show notes. 
 
Models, such as new Dior makeup ambassador Bella Hadid, strutted down the catwalk in tops, dresses and skirts adorned in floral as well as Asian and African prints and embroidery.&nbsp; 
 
Sleeves were voluminous and up to the elbow, worn with trousers flared and cut above the ankle or slim skirts.&nbsp; 
 
Dior`s signature Bar jacket, usually cinched at the waist, was slightly longer and covering hips, while its well-known bows were loosened to resemble scarves. Several outfits were layered, such as skirts over trousers.&nbsp;

Appointing a new Dior creative director is a "work in progress", the French fashion house`s chief executive said on Tuesday, with the luxury label still to name a head designer some six months after Raf Simons left to set up his own brand. Dior, one of the world`s most famous designer houses, announced Simons` surprise departure in October after some three years at the helm

Appointing a new Dior creative director is a "work in progress", the French fashion house`s chief executive said on Tuesday, with the luxury label still to name a head designer some six months after Raf Simons left to set up his own brand. Dior, one of the world`s most famous designer houses, announced Simons` surprise departure in October after some three years at the helm. An in-house creative team has been working on collections since. "(It is a) work in progress, work in progress and we`re giving it a little bit of time," Chief Executive Sidney Toledano told Reuters. "It`s an important position." Toledano was speaking at a preview for Dior`s new London boutique opening this week, a four-floor store selling clothes, accessories, children`s wear as well as a home collection. "The UK market in London business for us is doing very well, we still have double digit growth," he said, adding however that last year`s Islamist militant attacks in Paris had hurt tourism and sales in France. "...What happened in November had a real impact on the first quarter but still we will continue developing our presence in Paris. We have a five-year plan and in September we`ll open a new fine jewellery boutique." Dior also presented its cruise collection on Tuesday at Blenheim Palace near Oxford, Winston Churchill`s birthplace and where the label hosted fashion shows in 1954 and 1958. Cruise collections, originally designed for wealthy fashionistas holidaying on yachts or cruises during the winter months, are outfits produced by stylists on top of seasonal lines. Lucie Meier and Serge Ruffieux, who are leading Dior`s creative team, took inspiration from "not only the post-war high society`s wardrobes but also the restlessness and wanderlust (that) characterized the period", according to show notes. Models, such as new Dior makeup ambassador Bella Hadid, strutted down the catwalk in tops, dresses and skirts adorned in floral as well as Asian and African prints and embroidery. Sleeves were voluminous and up to the elbow, worn with trousers flared and cut above the ankle or slim skirts. Dior`s signature Bar jacket, usually cinched at the waist, was slightly longer and covering hips, while its well-known bows were loosened to resemble scarves. Several outfits were layered, such as skirts over trousers.

Dior says new designer ''work in progress''

house

House, News on House, stories on House, articles on House, House stories at Wion, House news, House latest news