AP journalists win Pulitzer for coverage of Yemen civil war Photo Credit: AP Photo/Nariman El-Mofty, File FILE - In this file photo by Nariman El-Mofty, Anas al-Sarrari sits in his wheelchair in his home in Marib, Yemen, on July 29, 2018. The 26-year-old activist said he was left paralyzed by torture by Yemen's Houthi rebels. Associated Press journalists Maggie Michael, Nariman El-Mofty and Maad al-Zikry won the 2019 Pulitzer Prize in international reporting for their work documenting Yemen's brutal civil war. Read More No surprise: Congress misses April 15 budget outline deadline The first year of a divided Congress got off to an inauspicious start on the federal budget, as the House and Senate both failed to approve a budget framework for 2020 before going home for a two week Easter break, continuing a less than stellar bipartisan record of action on spending and deficits on Capitol Hill in recent years. 'Last year was a historically bad year for the Congressional budget process,' said the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, noting it was the first time since 1976 that neither the House nor the Senate voted on a budget resolution. 'Unfortunately, this only adds to a poor budget record,' the group added. One important point before we get too deep into Legislative Nerd Territory - the term 'budget' does not relate to actual spending, but rather to what's known as the 'budget resolution,' which is a budget outline - a framework - for what Congress will do later in the year, filling in the blanks with the specifics of spending choices. As the CFRB notes, this year is not getting off to a good start on the budget, which is even more troublesome given the divided nature of Congress, with Democrats in charge of the House, and Republicans leading the Senate. And the forecast is for a difficult budget year - which many believe might end up in another government shutdown in October, and a possible across-the-board sequester soon after. Here's just some of what gone on, and what to look for on Capitol Hill. 1. Divided House Democrats punt on 2020 budget. Just like Republicans in the House struggled for years to balance the interests of more conservative members of the Freedom Caucus and more moderate GOP lawmakers, Democrats have the same balancing act. More liberal members want to do big things in the budget. More moderate 'Blue Dog' Democrats want a more middle ground on spending. And so, Democrats had to give up plans last week to vote on a bill to raise the caps on federal spending for the next two years by nearly $350 billion. Progressives didn't like it because it spent too much on defense, at $733 billion. Meanwhile, some more moderate Democrats were talking about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The internal Democratic Party dustup was music to ears of Republicans, who chortled about the Democrats running into the Legislative Ditch. 2. Senate Republicans didn't vote on their budget outline either. While Republicans chuckled at the failure of Democrats to force a vote on their budget plan for 2020, GOP Senators didn't even try to act on their budget resolution before the April 15 deadline. The Senate GOP budget resolution would reduce future planned spending increases by over a half billion dollars, but it wouldn't come close to the defense spending levels backed by President Trump - who wants $750 billion for defense. House Democrats have proposed $733 billion, while the Senate Republican budget would have funding for the military set at $643 billion, well below the President's request. And so, for a second straight year, there was no budget vote-a-rama in the Senate on the non-binding budget resolution. 3. The Defense Budget Gimmick used by both parties. With budget caps in place that limit how much you can spend on the military and non-defense items in the budget, Congress is still doing its best to get around those limits, especially for the military, by using an extra fund known as OCO - which stands for Overseas Contingency Operations. For example, President Trump's 2020 budget would put $174 billion in the OCO fund - more money than almost all other federal agencies - in order to get to a $750 billion budget for the Pentagon. Democrats have $69 billion in OCO, with Senate Republicans at $67 billion. If there's no deal on raising the budget caps, then the most money which could be spent on the Pentagon is $576 billion - unless, you get around that with the OCO $174 billion. 'OCO would be the 2nd largest federal agency, if it was an agency,' grumbled the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, as many say it's nothing but a slush fund. 4. McConnell, Pelosi want to negotiate a new budget deal. Even as Democrats were running aground on their effort to pass a bill which increases the spending caps, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to start talks on a budget agreement, as both parties know full well they need to get going now in order to have any chance of an across-the-board budget cut known as the sequester. If you look at graphic just above this bullet point, you will see the figure of $576 billion for the Pentagon, and $542 billion for non-defense spending - those are the 'spending caps' set in law by a 2011 bipartisan budget deal. Current funding is much more than that, at $716 billion for the Pentagon and $605 billion for non-defense spending. The last three deals on the budget caps have raised the amount of spending each time - and the President may not go for that this time around. 5. Looming over all of this is a sequester. The reason lawmakers want to reach a 'spending caps' agreement is that the Budget Act of 2011 is still on the books, and if there is no agreement on the amount of money to spend in 2020, then an across-the-board budget cut known as the 'sequester' will kick in. And that would be a very big deal. If a sequester hits, the military budget would technically have go down from $716 billion to $576 billion - a cut of $140 billion. If the sequester kicks in, domestic spending would be trimmed from $605 billion to $542 billion. Ironically, because of the big increase that the GOP Congress was able to give to the Pentagon in 2017 and 2018, a sequester would hurt the military more than non-defense spending in 2020 and beyond. This is where the OCO funding (look above) comes into play - President Trump could allow the sequester to kick in, but still funnel more money to the Pentagon through that extra fund. One problem with that game plan is the GOP probably would not have 60 votes in the Senate to get that done. This may get pretty messy in the months ahead. Trump threatens to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities Hours after White House officials said the idea was not being considered, and ignoring the legal advice of the Department of Homeland Security, President Donald Trump on Friday afternoon threatened to send illegal immigrants captured at the Mexican border to urban areas known as 'sanctuary cities.' On Twitter, the President first criticized Democrats over stalled efforts on immigration legislation, and then went against officials in his own administration by saying, 'we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities.' Asked by reporters about the plan, Mr. Trump made clear he was ready to do it, especially in California. “They want more people in their sanctuary cities - well, we'll give them more people,” Mr. Trump said. “We can give them an unlimited supply.” Democrats said the idea smelled of political retribution by a President who is frustrated that he cannot unilaterally impose his will on immigration policy, without first getting approval in Congress. 'Trump’s plan to release migrants into “enemy” cities as if they are some kind of contagion is reprehensible,' said Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). 'It seems there is no limit to how far Trump will go to degrade the office he holds,' said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who noted in a tweet, 'here in California, we're proud' of sanctuary cities. 'It demonstrates an unimpeded desire to divide Americans against one another and again conveys once more his utter lack of fitness to serve as the leader of our nation,' said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). Republicans have long chafed at 'sanctuary cities,' jurisdictions which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Space Force not close to Congressional launch pad It may be a prized goal of President Donald Trump, but the idea of Congress spending extra money to set up a new arm of the Air Force to deal with military operations in space continues to be as inviting to lawmakers as choosing vacuum packed astronaut ice cream as a daily dessert. 'I'm having a real hard time understanding why we need this other agency,' said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). 'It just doesn't make any sense to me at all, I'm sorry.' 'I guess we need some convincing that there is a need for a sixth branch in our armed services,' said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), as a Senate hearing on the idea turned into a parade of bipartisan skepticism. 'To create a new bureaucracy that's going to cost us half a billion dollars a year, I've got to be convinced there's some incremental value there,' said Sen. Angus King (I-ME). 'All I see is how a new Space Force will create one more organization to ask Congress for money,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). At a Thursday hearing with Senators, a panel of top military leaders tried their best to convince lawmakers that now is the time to start setting up such a plan, which has been repeatedly championed by President Trump. 'We're going to have a Space Force some day,' said Air Force Gen. John Hyten, the head of the U.S. Strategic Command. 'I think what the committee has to decide when that is going to happen.' It's an idea which certainly has received a lot more attention because of President Trump's support for a Space Force. 'That's the next step, and we have to be prepared,' President Trump said about space in a February event in the Oval Office. 'Our adversaries and, whether we get along with them or not, they're up in space.' But the President's moves to create a Space Command, to sign a Space Force Directive, plug it repeatedly at political rallies, and talk about it with top defense officials has not changed the political dynamic on it for lawmakers in the House and Senate. 'Everybody is excited,' Mr. Trump said of the Space Force in October of 2018 during a visit to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Everybody it seems, except many members of Congress - as all systems are not 'go' at this point. 'You can tell that we're all wrestling with it, we're kind of struggling with it,' said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) told military leaders. Trump on Assange charges: 'I know nothing about Wikileaks' After repeatedly embracing the actions of the Wikileaks website in leaking Democratic Party emails during the 2016 elections, President Donald Trump on Thursday offered little to reporters about the arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who was charged with conspiring with ex-U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning in efforts to hack into secret Pentagon computer systems. 'I know nothing about Wikileaks,' the President told reporters during an Oval Office photo op. 'It's not my thing.' 'I know nothing really about him,' Mr. Trump said of Assange. 'It's not my deal in life,' as the President said Attorney General William Barr would be the one in charge of any legal action against the Wikileaks founder. But it was a different story out on the campaign trail in 2016 in the final weeks before the election, as Assange and Wikileaks made almost daily releases of emails hacked from John Podesta - a top aide to Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton - and those were warmly welcomed by Mr. Trump. 'Boy, I love reading those Wikileaks,' President Trump said just days before the 2016 elections during a stop in Wilmington, Ohio, as he joked with the crowd about going back on the plane to read the latest Podesta emails. 'I wanted to stay there, but I didn't want to keep you waiting,' Mr. Trump added. A few days earlier during a stop in Florida, President Trump again noted the releases from Wikileaks, and his excitement about the details. 'This Wikileaks is like a treasure trove,' Mr. Trump said approvingly. While Wikileaks had attracted attention in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller - labeled as 'Organization 1' in different cases brought in the Russia investigation - nothing in today's indictment had anything to do with the Mueller probe. Instead, the focus of the charges went back to 2010, as federal prosecutors alleged that Assange tried to help Chelsea Manning crack passwords in order to gain access to a 'government network used for classified documents and communications.' 'It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to Wikileaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning,' the indictment stated. But it appeared that Assange was not successful in helping Manning gain access to the secret computer network. 'Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had 'no luck so far,'' prosecutors stated. It wasn't clear if Assange could face additional legal challenges, though some news organizations were reporting Thursday that federal officials indicated more charges against the Wikileaks founder were possible. In 2017, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo labeled Wikileaks a 'hostile intelligence service,” as the U.S. regards Assange as nothing more than a pawn for Russian Intelligence. Asked about that opinion of Wikileaks from U.S. Intelligence, President Trump on Thursday seemed unaware. “I don’t know much about it,” Mr. Trump said. Assange charged in hacking conspiracy with Chelsea Manning Hours after being removed from the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he had been holed up for seven years, U.S. prosecutors unveiled charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, alleging that he helped former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning try to access a trove of classified computer documents which were then transferred to Wikileaks and released to the public. “The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers,” prosecutors announced in the Eastern District of Virginia. In the indictment unsealed on Thursday morning, federal prosecutors charged that Assange 'was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States.' The indictment says Assange 'agreed to assist Manning' around March 8, 2010 in cracking the password, as Manning was downloading materials to send to Wikileaks. The indictment of Assange includes quotes from exchanges between Manning and the Wikileaks founder, using the “Jabber” online chat service. The indictment was dated March 6, 2018. The indictment does not charge Assange with any crimes for releasing the documents provided by Manning - only in the effort to hack into U.S. military computers to access more information. In Congress, lawmakers in both parties called for a quick extradition of Assange to the United States. “While President Trump may ‘love Wikileaks’ for flooding the airwaves with information stolen by the Russian government, Mr. Assange is in fact a tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence service,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY). “Under the guise of transparency, Julian Assange and Wikileaks have effectively acted as an arm of the Russian intelligence services for years,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Author of this content has low reputation.