There are a limited number of legislative days left for Congress to pass a stopgap funding bill or the government will plunge into a shutdown.

An easy deal isn’t likely amid GOP infighting about sending more aid to Ukraine and regarding timing for opening an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, which is poised to derail negotiations.

There are 12 annual government spending bills that must be passed by both the House and Senate before funding runs out at midnight on Sept. 30. 

However, to give lawmakers more time to push through the longer term 2024 spending bills, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is working on pushing a stopgap measure known as a ‘continuing resolution’ likely through the end of November or early December to stave off a shutdown. 

The CR is supported by Senate Leader Chuck Schumer who called it the way to ‘work this out,’ last month.

But there are only a total of 11 legislative days left on the calendar for Congress to pass the stopgap bill to keep the government temporarily funded. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week in Kentucky that he believes there will be a ‘short-term congressional resolution’ that will likely go into December ‘as we struggle to figure out exactly what the government’s spending level is going to be.’ 

A bill funding military construction and Veterans Affairs projects passed the House before the body left for a month-long hiatus, leaving 11 more bills to move along. 

All spending bills originate in the House and then are moved over to the Senate. 

House lawmakers are returning from their August recess on Tuesday and are expected to first take up the massive $886 billion defense spending bill. 

The issue of sending more aid to Ukraine will be at the center of negotiations.

President Biden has requested Congress approve an additional $40 billion – including $13 billion in emergency defense aid, $8 billion for humanitarian aid to Ukraine, $12 billion in disaster relief and $4 billion for the border to combat fentanyl smuggling.

The White House is urging Congress to pass the stopgap measure in order to avoid a shutdown while negotiations on passing the larger 12 longer term spending bills continue. 

But Ukraine aid is a sticking point that is shaking up the process. 

McCarthy has reportedly indicated that the House will attach disaster aid to the stopgap bill, but will not include additional funding for Ukraine.

However, the Senate has strong bipartisan support for sending more funds to the war torn country, and is likely to put pressure on the House to include more aid.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Punchbowl News this week that he ‘understands’ that McCarthy needs to pass a bill, but the Senate will send back any piece of legislation without Ukraine aid.

‘We’re going to have to work that out,’ the Senate leader said this week. 

In addition, the House Freedom Caucus members said in August that they will oppose any spending bill that gives Ukraine a ‘blank check’ in U.S. taxpayer-funded aid.

They say they will also vote against a measure that doesn’t include provisions to address DOJ ‘weaponization’ and targeting of political opponents and the Pentagon’s ‘woke policies.’

And they want major billion dollar cuts to the appropriations bills because they are still disgruntled at the debt ceiling bill, which did not curb spending to their satisfaction.

McCarthy cannot afford to lose more than four votes from Republicans in his slim GOP majority, so he must strike a deal with the Freedom Caucus, which isn’t afraid to shut down the government.

Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, is stepping down from Congress at the end of the week to due to family concerns. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., is battling bone cancer and not expected to return to the Hill for a few months. In addition, Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., had hip surgery recently and Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., is dealing with a handful of legal issues. 

Even if the government shuts down, around 85 percent will still be in operation. For the employees not considered ‘essential,’ they will be paid once the government reopens. 

The longest shutdown – lasting over a month – occurred during Trump’s presidency due to disagreement on border wall funding.  

Another issue at play is some farther right House conservatives that say they will not support any government funding measure without an impeachment inquiry into President Biden and his connections to his family’s business dealings.

That is ruffling the feathers of more moderate Republicans who say they shouldn’t be tied together.

‘They’re totally separate issues and should be considered separately,’ said Rep. Bob Good of Virginia this week.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., has threatened to remove McCarthy from his speakership position if an impeachment inquiry into Biden isn’t launched. 

The lawmaker urged his GOP colleagues to ‘seize the initiative’ in investigating the 80-year-old president when they return to Washington next week.

He also said McCarthy ‘may not have the job long’ if he ‘stands in the way’ of pushing for a Congressional trial into Biden’s links to his son Hunter’s foreign business deals.

Firebrand Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia also promised to vote against funding the government if impeaching proceedings had not begun.

And House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said last week that an impeachment inquiry is ‘imminent.’ 

McCarthy has said an impeachment inquiry into Joe’s connections to Hunter’s foreign dealings is on the table.

He said if the Biden administration continue to ‘withhold’ documents, Republicans will ‘move forward with impeachment inquiry when we come back into session.’

The White House has rejected every suggestion Joe was involved in his son Hunter’s business deals and insists the Biden impeachment push is politically motivated. 

But a new poll released this week showed that 61 percent of Americans believe then-Vice President Joe was involved at some level in his son’s dealings. 

Ashtead booosted by US ‘mega projects’ and green bill but it warns UK market is softening

• Revenue rose by 19% to £2.7bn for the first half to 31 July year-to-year
• Rental revenue rose by 14% to £2.4bn over the same time period 

By Daniel Fessahaye

Updated: 12:37 EDT, 5 September 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

Jeff Stewart continued to show off his bushy grey beard as he headed shopping on Bond Street in London on Thursday,

The Bill actor, 67, best known for playing PC Reg Hollis, looked worlds away from his clean cut image on the police detective drama in his latest outing.

He once again showed off his very bushy grey beard and longer locks as he was spotted strolling around central London and window shopping.

Jeff, who appeared on the ITV drama from 1984 to 2008, cut a casual figure in yellow shorts and a blue shirt, which he styled with an olive sleeveless jacket.

He kept comfortable in a pair of white trainers and framed his face with a pair of black square glasses. 

He has been seen out-and-about with his different look in recent months, after telling how he grew his hair to distance himself from his The Bill character.

Jeff shot to fame as PC Reg Hollis in the soap in which he appeared for nearly a thousand episodes. 

He starred alongside Graham Cole’s PC Tony Stamp and Mark Wingett’s character DC Jim Carver.

Though he didn’t appear in the pilot episode, he featured regularly from the first regular instalment onwards and appeared in a total of 872 episodes.

The star played Reg for 24 years, before the character was sadly axed in January 2008.

Speaking in 2011 about the decision, Jeff told The Sun: ‘I felt I had been badly let down.’

After hearing the plans from the show’s producers Jeff went back to his dressing room and still dazed by the news, attempted to take his own life.

As he began to black out, he changed his mind and rang the front desk for help. 

Luckily he was found in time and was rushed from the studios in Merton, South West London to hospital. 

‘I didn’t see a counsellor, it was evident I was OK and I never worried how it would affect my career.

‘I thought, “I have a choice, you can either stagnate or blossom”‘, he added.

Jeff has previously told how his bearded appearance has been a way to distance himself from the clean-shaven Reg, with whom he had become synonymous.

He said: ‘I didn’t cut my hair for three years. It was a thought-out, deliberate choice.

‘I thought, “I have to look as different as possible”.’

The Bill ran for a total of 26 years, with the popular series ending in 2010 after being axed – much to the dismay of staunch fans.

Though The Bill was his biggest role to date, Jeff has appeared in a number of other programmes including Crossroads, Doctor Who and Hi-De-Hi!.

He has also starred in independent films and won a Best Actor award for his role in Under Jakob’s Ladder at the Manhattan Film Festival in 2011.

The US House of Representatives approved a new anti-robocall bill by a nearly unanimous vote.

Called the TRACED Act, this law will penalize scammers and require phone carries to block robocalls and ensure all incoming calls are from real numbers.

The bill comes after complaints came pouring in about the scams, as more than 49 billion robocalls were placed just this year – 5.6 billion occurred in November alone.

The TRACE ACT, short for Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, was approved by a 417-3 vote and sponsored by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr, a democrat from New Jersey.

Scroll down for videos 

Pallone said on the House floor Wednesday: ‘Today the House will take strong bipartisan action to protect consumers from illegal robocalls.’

‘A whopping 5.6 billion robocalls were made to Americans in November alone.’ 

‘Today, the House is giving Americans back control of their phones.’

Representatives Justin Amash (I-Mich.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) were the three votes against passing the bill, as reported by The Hill.

Massie worried that the law would give the Federal Communications Commission ‘too much authority.’

The summary of the bill reads: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) shall promulgate rules establishing when a provider may block a voice call based on information provided by the call authentication framework, but also must establish a process to permit a calling party adversely affected by the framework to verify the authenticity of their calls.’

‘The FCC shall also initiate a rulemaking to help protect a subscriber from receiving unwanted calls or texts from a caller using an unauthenticated number.’

‘This bill requires the Department of Justice and the FCC to assemble an interagency working group to study and report to Congress on the enforcement of the prohibition of certain robocalls.’

‘Specifically, the working group will look into how to better enforce against robocalls by examining issues like the types of laws, policies, or constraints that could be inhibiting enforcement.’

Cell phone carries will be required to block all robocalls under the new law and do so for customers free of charge.

It will give government regulators more time to find scammers and penalize them more harshly than ever before

The FCC will also be tasked with providing reports to Congress about what measures are in place to take down illegal scamming operations and oversee a group of companies that will determine where the calls are coming from.

In addition, the act would push the Department of Justice to take action against Many carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, are on board with the new bill and plan to provide customers with tools to block the calls and will implement call-blocking technology at no extra cost.

The bill is supported by the Senate, making it likely, according to The Hill, reach President Trump’s hands by the end of the year.

 

If you’re planning a European escape this summer, you might be wondering how you can make a good impression on the locals.

It’s clearly a top priority for travellers – this year, there has been a 52 per cent increase in Google searches for ‘what is offensive in Europe’.

But worry not. Help is at hand via language app Preply, which has created a ‘European Etiquette Guide’ to help you brush up on European customs ahead of your jaunt.

In composing the guide, the language site surveyed 1,600 Europeans, asking them questions about everything from the do’s and don’ts of greeting people to whether you should remove your shoes in someone’s home. The results of the survey are illustrated below in a series of colour-coded maps – the blue-coloured countries didn’t produce enough data to contribute to the survey results. Scroll down to see how you should behave on your next European getaway…

IN EUROPE, DO YOU REALLY GIVE TWO KISSES ON THE CHEEK TO SAY HELLO?

Preply notes that kissing on the cheeks is a greeting etiquette that’s ‘famously associated’ with Europe.

However, residents of 23 out of the 27 countries surveyed said they would only give two kisses on the cheeks when saying hello if it was initiated by the other person.

If you’re thinking of holidaying in Slovenia, Estonia, Denmark, and Sweden, take note – those dwelling in these four countries said they would never greet someone with two kisses.

Preply notes that Covid-19 ‘may play a part in the decline’ of this cheek-kissing custom, ‘as people have become more aware of the potential risks of close contact’.

WHAT IS THE PREFERRED METHOD OF GREETING SOMEONE?

Across Europe, the majority of people voted that shaking hands is the most appropriate way to greet people – residents of 21 countries feel this way.

Latvia and Denmark, meanwhile, are the only two countries where the majority vote was for hugging.

WHO SHOULD PAY THE BILL AT DINNER IN EUROPE?

Preply notes that Europe is known for its incredible cuisine, so going out for dinner is top of many people’s to-do lists on a European jaunt. However, the task of figuring out how to pay the bill can be ‘tricky’, the language app says.

Generally, the survey found that in Europe, you only need to offer to pay the bill if it is a special occasion, or if you had invited everyone. A huge majority of 24 countries chose this answer.

Meanwhile, residents of three countries – Ireland, Hungary and Cyprus – said that they would always offer to pay the bill.

WOULD A EUROPEAN TAKE THEIR SHOES OFF WHEN ENTERING SOMEONE’S HOUSE? 

‘As a visitor, taking your shoes off at your host’s front door is a simple way to show respect to their home from the get-go,’ says Preply. It adds that removing shoes means you avoid treading dirt into the carpet and shows ‘that you are relaxed in your host’s presence and comfortable in their home’.

Residents of 21 of the countries surveyed – including the UK, Germany and France – answered that they would always take their shoes off when visiting somebody else’s home.

Locals in Spain, Italy and Portugal, however, shared a different opinion, with the majority of residents preferring to keep their shoes on. Giving insight into why this is the case, Preply notes that in sunny locations, ‘carpets, which can be hard to clean and easy to stain, are not as common as they are in places that need additional warmth, such as the UK’.

WOULD A EUROPEAN TAKE A GIFT TO SOMEONE’S HOUSE WHEN YOU’VE BEEN INVITED OVER?

The survey found that 16 countries believe it’s common practice to bring a gift when invited over to a friend’s house. However, in nine other countries, including Austria, the UK and Spain, the majority answered that they prefer to reserve gift-giving for special occasions.

Finland is the only country where the majority said that they would never bring a gift when visiting a friend.

Preply notes that the percentage of married people versus single people bringing gifts was 12 per cent higher, ‘proving a combined income and encouragement from a partner makes this a much more feasible gesture’.

It adds: ‘The gift can typically be something small, such as a bottle of wine for you to enjoy together or a beautiful bouquet to display in their home.’

DO YOU OFFER A DRINK OR SNACK TO YOUR GUESTS WHEN THEY COME TO YOUR HOUSE?

Offering a guest a drink or a snack when they call over to your home is common practice across Europe, Preply has found. 

In fact, residents of all 27 countries surveyed admitted that they would present their guests with food or beverages when they drop by.  

WOULD YOU OFFER TO HELP WITH HOUSEHOLD CHORES WHEN VISITING A FRIEND’S HOUSE?

Offering to help your host with household chores is a subject that divides Europe, the survey suggests. 

It found that locals in 21 countries, including the UK, Italy and Austria, would offer assistance with chores when visiting a friend’s house. 

Germans were the only Europeans who said they would never offer their help, while residents of Finland, Lithuania, Czechia, Latvia and Slovenia admitted they’d give a helping hand only if asked to. 

DO YOU FINISH YOUR FOOD WHEN YOU ARE EATING IN SOMEONE ELSE’S HOUSE?

‘When at someone else’s house, finishing all of the food on your plate is considered a key factor of etiquette when eating, as it is a polite and a kind gesture towards the person who has cooked it,’ says Preply.

The countries surveyed were united in agreement when it comes to this dinner table etiquette – the majority in each location said that they would always finish their food as a sign of respect to their host.

The data showed that men were more likely to finish the entirety of their meals, with 82 per cent voting that they always finish their food, compared to 75 per cent of women. 

DO YOU MAINTAIN EYE CONTACT WHEN IN A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE?

‘When speaking with locals at your vacation destination, your body language can make or break their impression of you and eye contact is a great place to start,’ Preply reveals.

The survey found that good eye contact is perceived as a sign of ‘attentiveness and respect’ in Europe, with locals in 24 countries revealing that they believe you should always maintain eye contact when in conversation.

If you are paying a visit to Estonia or Germany, you should know that locals in these countries are more lenient with the rule – residents said they would only maintain eye contact if the other person did also.

WHAT ARE EUROPEANS’ TAKES ON BEING ‘FASHIONABLY LATE’?

‘If you have a social event planned for your trip, keep in mind that the time you arrive can leave a lasting impression on both the guests and hosts,’ says Preply.

The survey found that residents of 23 countries – including Belgium, Ireland and Turkey – agreed that it’s best to be punctual and arrive on time.

Four countries – Czechia, Germany, Poland and even the fashion capital, France – proudly declined the idea of being fashionably late and instead voted in favour of arriving early.

In fact, none of the countries voted that they would arrive late, showing that being early or on time is the best option when travelling in Europe.

The survey’s full findings can be found at preply.com.

Donald Trump‘s attorney general Bill Barr said that his former boss is not up to the task of winning the ‘transformative’ 2024 election and should not again seek the presidency. 

The former attorney general said that 2024’s presidential election required a Republican who could usher in a new era as Ronald Reagan did in 1980, and said focusing on the 2020 election is not a winning strategy. 

‘I’m all for a new era. That’s what I’m all about, is restoring the greatness of this country. And the principle threat is this progressive agenda. The only way to do that is not to speak about some other election and continue this trench warfare but instead a breakthrough election that will create and usher in an era just like Reagan did,’ Barr told the Washington Examiner. 

‘I don’t necessarily want to take a shot at Trump, but Trump is not that man,’ he added. 

‘If you believe in the MAGA agenda, we’ve already punched the other guy in the nose. Now, how do we actually go about methodically restoring the United States?’ Barr questioned. 

Barr said that Republicans needed to win a wide and decisive victory. ‘And you don’t do that by starting a civil war in the party and calling everyone who doesn’t believe that the election was stolen a RINO.’

The interview did not touch on who Barr felt would be best suited to run as the GOP contender. 

Recent polling has shown that Republicans would rather see Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis than Trump at the top of the ticket.   

A recent poll of Wisconsin state GOP convention-goers found that more Republicans want DeSantis to be the nominee than Trump.

Viewing a potential 2024 field, 38 percent of convention-goers wanted DeSantis, 32 percent favored Trump and 7 percent wanted former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.

Not wanting to commit to challenging a former president, potential 2024 contenders have so far been stuck in limbo waiting on Trump to publicly commit one way or another on whether he’ll run. Trump has been testing his ‘kingmaker’ status within the party over a series of spring primary races that pit Trump-backed candidates against a number of his incumbent foes who refused to deny the results of the 2020 election. 

The nation’s former top law enforcement officer also said he believes Trump could easily won the 2020 election with only a ‘minor adjustment to his behavior.’

Barr, a longtime Trump acolyte, said that his former boss fired him on the spot when he disputed Trump’s election fraud claims. 

Barr has for months been promoting his recently released memoir, One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of An Attorney General. 

In the Washington Examiner interview Barr touched on wide-ranging subjects such as how he found community through bag piping and his parents forcing him to drink a glass of Guinness each day as a child. 

‘I was a scrawny kid, picky eater, and I was walking to kindergarten one day, and I collapsed, I passed out. And so they took me up to St. Luke’s Hospital, which is in the Upper West Side of New York,’ Barr said. 

Still, this week Barr called the Russia probe a ‘dirty’ trick and says there was ‘seditious activity’ in explosive new comments while promoting a memoir where he writes that Trump ‘cared only about one thing: himself’ during the 2020 election overturn effort.

Blow to taxpayers as the UK’s debt interest bill hits £500bn- the highest since the end of the Second World War

• Debt burden lays bare cost to taxpayers of decades-long borrowing binge
• Interest payments as proportion of economic activity at highest since late 1940s 
• The interest bill this year alone is equivalent to more than £4,000 per household 

By Patrick Tooher, Financial Mail On Sunday

Updated: 16:01 EDT, 25 June 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

POPULAR MONEY SECTIONS
Take me to…

Gary O’Neil was sat at home on Sunday musing over Bournemouth‘s plans for pre-season. Come Monday morning he had been sacked over the phone and his successor, Andoni Iraola, appointed within two hours.

The move was a major shock and was, largely, met with condemnation after O’Neil had kept Bournemouth in the Premier League against the odds, given the Cherries’ more modest budget. 

But, truthfully, it should not have been such a surprise, not with new owner Bill Foley calling the shots.

You see, Foley absolutely detests mediocrity. Hates it. Staying up, which many may view as a success year on year for Bournemouth, is not going to cut it for the Austin-born billionaire.

‘I believe if you tolerate mediocrity, your business is going to be mediocre,’ Foley once told the Las Vegas Review Journal. ‘I don’t tolerate it.’ 

And so with that O’Neil was gone and Iraola was in. 

Foley, who had four children to his wife Carol, is a curious character, one that was once described as a ‘frank man with an almost goofy charm’.

He has likened himself to a ‘dictator’ that has to be ‘captain of the ship’. Back in 1996 he described himself as his own ‘worst enemy’.

Born in 1944 in Texas as the only child to a father in the US air force, Foley quickly learned not to get to attached – to things or places.

He bounced around homes, spending time in Canada when his dad was posted there, and he would routinely find himself back in Texas in the summertime at a ranch owned by his mum’s family.

Foley’s dream was to be a fighter pilot but his deteriorating eyesight put paid to that and he was assigned a desk role after graduating from the US Military Academy in 1967.

While a cadet he showed his business acumen by earning $40,000 in profits from trading stocks. It would be the start of a fascination for acquisition and for profit.

And an analysis of Foley – who went on to gain degrees from Seattle University and University of Washington School of Law – shows an almost military-like efficiency when it comes to business. High standards, acquire lots of assets and cut losses without much sentiment if it doesn’t work out. 

‘I always want things better than they were. I can be a little anal about it,’ he told Forbes in 2017.

‘When I’m in a conference room, if the chairs are not all behind the table properly, I rearrange them.’

Foley’s business empire, which has his estimated net worth at $1.6bn by Forbes, has seem him invest in wineries, golf courses, hotels, ski resorts, and restaurants. It has been in the last decade where, even in later life, his ambition in sport is burning hot.

In 2016, Foley paid $500m to purchase the Vegas Golden Knights hockey team, the first NHL expansion team since 2000.

The immediate message was clear: we are going to spend and we are going to win. 

‘I know I can create a winning culture,’ he told Worth in 2016. ‘I believe hockey is going to be easier than some of my businesses.’ 

That is exactly what he achieved, with the Knights winning their first ever Stanley Cup this year, defeating Florida.

But in typical Foley fashion, winning one wasn’t going to quench the thirst for success.

‘We’re not done,’ Foley said. ‘I told William Karlsson (star player) when he signed an eight-year deal [in 2019] that I expect three Stanley Cups during the length of his contract. 

‘When we were on the ice and getting our [championship] picture taken, I looked over at him and told him, “OK, you got one.”‘ 

There is something that Foley said back in 2002 that resonates to this day – and is a nod to why Bournemouth have shaken things up when staying pat seemed the safest option.

‘We’re always looking over our shoulder,’ Foley said in the Santa Barbara News-Press in August 2002. ‘So when things are good, that’s the time to prepare.’ 

And so to Bournemouth, a club he is refusing to let wallow in its image of the smallest fish in English football’s biggest pond.

‘Gary will go on to have a long career as a head coach or manager, but we feel that, at this moment in time, a change is in the best interests of this football club. I would like to place on record my thanks to Gary and wish him all the best for the future,’ Foley said to round out Monday’s statement. 

You’re good but not good enough, basically. 

Michael B Jordan is on board as a minority owner, Foley is willing to spend and he is looking at Aston Villa and Brighton and those pushing English football’s elite and asking, why not us? 

‘We’re not afraid of change,’ Foley told the Athletic. ‘We want to make things better. I want this team to play in Europe. 

‘Our ultimate goal is not to worry about avoiding relegation but to move way up the table.’

Foley did not waste much time in deciding that O’Neil wasn’t taking them there.

Working with Foley isn’t easy. He makes the decisions and he takes the blame, that’s how it goes. 

‘I have looked at several teams over the last two or three years and they all involved minority investment and someone else is already in charge. I don’t like that. I’m a dictator,’ he told BBC Radio Solent upon buying the team.

‘When I’m involved, I need to be the captain of the ship. I had to wait for a situation where I could buy the team myself, with my partners of course, and control the destiny of the team.’

But Jordan can offer something that Foley, for all his billions, cannot: A-List appeal. 

‘He’s going to help with international marketing,’ Foley said of Jordan’s undefined role. 

‘He’s going to help with our brand marketing. In five years, this will be a different club.’

What happens next given his minority stake in FC Lorient, in France’s top division, is one to watch. Multi-club models have delivered great success elsewhere in Europe and Foley is ambitious enough to create a web of talent all directing back to the south coast. 

But if there is one message to send to new boss Iraola: hit the ground running. Foley is not a man to sell mediocrity too.

In a Wednesday evening vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that punts government funding negotiations to the day before Christmas Eve.

Members of Congress voted 224 to 201 on a short-term spending deal that will keep federal dollars flowing through December 23. 

Nine Republicans crossed the aisle to join Democrats in passing the bill – including outgoing Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

‘The legislation before us today is a simple date change that keeps the government up and running as we negotiate the details of final spending bills and complete the work of funding the government programs that meet the needs of hardworking Americans,’ House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro said before the vote. 

The bipartisan bill now heads to the Senate, which must take action by Friday to avoid a government shutdown. 

On Tuesday, lawmakers leading the spending talks finally announced a compromise that would cover a year of federal funding.

But negotiations over the so-called ‘omnibus’ bill have hit fierce opposition from Republicans in the House.

Earlier on Wednesday, House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy called for a slightly longer resolution that would have funded the government until January 3 – when House control would turn over to Republicans.   

He also knocked his GOP colleagues in the Senate for helping Democrats ‘jam through’ a year-long spending bill after leaders announced they ‘should’ be able to clear a deal to fund the government and avert a shutdown. 

‘The majority right now wants to put a small continuing resolution to bump all the members up to days before Christmas to try to vote a package that cannot be written by two individuals will not be here,’ McCarthy said. 

‘The people deciding it aren’t going to be held up to the voters,’ McCarthy said, referring to retiring Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. 

Unlike McCarthy, GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is prioritizing a full-year spending bill, arguing a short-term deal would leave the military and other agencies in limbo. 

‘The Democrats have been in power. They’ve had the House, the Senate and the presidency. They did not do their work. They should not jam us now,’ the California Republican said, noting that funding for fiscal year 2023 was meant to be passed at the start of the fiscal year, October 1. 

If Congress fails to pass an omnibus bill this month, McCarthy said he would force Democrats to eliminate ‘waste and wokeism’ from government spending in 2023. 

The top House Republican signaled he did not want omnibus legislation and instead wanted 12 appropriations bills voted on and passed separately. 

‘We are 20 days before new members will be sworn-in,’ McCarthy went on.

The GOP leader held off on criticizing McConnell for the deal, as he did last week on Fox News, and instead went after retiring GOP Sen. Richard Shelby. 

‘We have two members leading appropriations who will not be here,’ he said, referring Shelby and Leahy.

Asked about McCarthy’s opposition to the omnibus bill, Shelby, R-Ala., told the Huffington Post: ‘He’s running for speaker, he’s supposed to say that.’ 

Last week McCarthy said on Fox that Republicans are ‘wrong’ to cut a year-end spending bill with Democrats. 

‘Does that include McConnell?’ host Laura Ingram asked.

‘Yes,’ McCarthy said. ‘Why would you want to work on anything if we have the gavel inside Congress?’

McCarthy on Wednesday decried that House and Senate appropriators had announced they reached a deal without even revealing a top number.

‘We don’t even know what the baseline is yet. And they want to vote on it next week!’ he said.

McCarthy went on about the $31 trillion in national debt and noted the nation has paid $100 billion in interest on its debt this year. 

‘Why would you feel comfortable moving forward? I don’t think this is a partisan issue.’ 

Meanwhile a group of top House and Senate appropriators announced that the outlines of a deal had been reached that ‘should’ be able to clear Congress – which would avert a shut-down crisis by dispensing with the need for short stop-gap bills. 

They did not say how much money they had agreed on, providing no details in statements from three key appropriations negotiators, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, Republican Senator Richard Shelby and Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro.

It all comes as lawmakers rushed to find a way to reach a deal before government funding runs out at midnight Friday, with lawmakers anxious to get home and avoid yet another chapter of holiday shutdown drama.

The White House has also been pushing for Congress to complete its spending work and pass the measure set to exceed $1.5 trillion, even as Biden hailed a drop in the annual deficit.

‘If all goes well, we should be able to finish an omnibus appropriations package by Dec. 23,’ said Shelby, the retiring top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

House Appropriations ranking member Kay Granger, R-Texas, didn’t take part in the deal announcement. She attended McCarthy’s press conference to express her opposition to the deal.  

The news came hours after the House began moving a stopgap spending bill to avoid a partial shutdown that would otherwise begin on Friday, providing time to pass the sweeping full-year bill, which was expected to include more than $1.5 trillion in funding and will run through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2023.

DeLauro, who head the House Appropriations panel, said lawmakers would ‘work around the clock’ to complete the job.  

A first, procedural vote on the stopgap legislation was set for Wednesday.

‘The experiences of the last decade show that those who risked shutdowns in order to make political points always lose in the end,’ said Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer of New York on Wednesday. He called it ‘a roadmap for funding the government before the conclusion of the 117th Congress’ and said there was ‘still have a long way to go.’

‘Long-term continuing resolutions cheat our armed forces out of the resources and the certainty that our commanders and civilian leaders need to keep modernizing our forces, investing in crucial weapons, and outcompeting adversaries such as China,’ said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The full year ‘omnibus’ bill is also expected to contain new emergency funds to aid Ukraine in its battle against Russian forces.

Ukraine could get billions more, after Biden asked Congress last month for $37 billion.

It also is expected to fold in an unrelated bill reforming the way Congress certifies U.S. presidential elections by reforming the Electoral Count Act.

Negotiators have mostly settled on a Defense funding totaling $858 billion – a 10 per cent jump from prior-year funding. There was a $26 billion difference between the two sides haggling over non-defense funding, the Hill reported. 

Democrats wanted $813 billion, and Republicans wanted $787 billion in non-defense spending.

The latter is aimed at avoiding a repeat of the deadly turmoil of Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump tried to stop the certification of Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election.

Lawmakers, predominantly Democrats, have complained that Trump was able to exploit ambiguities in the law and wanted to underline the largely ceremonial role carried out by the vice president. In 2020, Trump wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence not to accept the electoral vote count.

McConnell said Republicans want work on the omnibus bill wrapped up by Dec. 22. ‘We intend to be on the road going home on the 23rd,’ he told reporters ahead of the agreement.

The House of Representatives passed a bill on Thursday aimed at giving Puerto Rico freedom to choose whether it becomes a U.S. state or breaks off from the country completely. 

Sixteen Republicans joined 217 Democrats for a final vote tally of 233 to 191.

The vast majority of GOP lawmakers were opposed to the bill. Several shared concerns directly with DailyMail.com just before the final vote.

The legislation would allow Puerto Rico to hold its first-ever binding referendum on its sovereignty status.

Puerto Ricans could choose to become America’s 51st state, break off in total independence or an independent country with ties to the U.S.

But its Thursday passage was largely symbolic. The bill now advances to the Senate, where it is unlikely to get 10 Republican votes that are needed to pass. 

The GOP has long been opposed to Puerto Rico gaining statehood. 

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said at a public event recently that the territory gaining statehood ‘dilutes our power.’

But among the Republicans to celebrate the bill’s passage was Rep. Jenniffer Gonzalez Colon, Puerto Rico’s at-large representative in the House.

‘Today is a truly historic day for Puerto Rico. Ironically, it is also a perfect example of the island’s colonial reality,’ Gonzalez Colon said on the House floor just before the vote.

She noted that she represents a territory of 3.2 American citizens – ‘more constituents than anybody in this chamber.’

‘And yet, while we consider a bill I helped write, a bill that will directly impact the life of every citizen I represent, I still must rely and depend on everybody here because I cannot vote on the floor,’ Gonzalez Colon said.

‘Today Congress takes a step towards finally assuming its responsibility…to provide the people of Puerto Rico with an opportunity, a federally binding choice, to democratically decide our future.’

But two members of her caucus told DailyMail.com that they were opposed to the bill, accusing it of being rushed through the House at the end of Democrats’ lame duck majority. 

A third, Rep. Randy Feenstra of Iowa, simply told DailyMail.com that he opposed the bill – but would not say why. 

Both Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida and Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana told DailyMail.com that House Democrats should focus on other issues like the southwestern border crisis with their final days in the majority.

‘First of all, have we even deliberated Puerto Rican statehood here? No. Once again, Speaker Pelosi just tosses stuff on the floor at the last minute,’ Donalds said just before entering the House chamber.

‘There’s been no deliberation…I just think that’s the wrong way to go. Why are we doing this at the 11th hour of the 117th Congress?’

Asked what Democrats should focus on instead, Donalds said: ‘Securing the border.’

Banks spoke to DailyMail.com immediately after casting his ‘no’ vote. While he was in favor of Puerto Rican statehood on principal, the Indiana Republican shared reservations about how the bill was put together – and its implications for US taxpayers.

‘I’ve supported Puerto Rico- Puerto Rican statehood before. I’m concerned though, about how this is written – it would allow, for the way the vote would take place, to allow for Puerto Rico to become independent,’ Banks explained

‘And then the U.S. taxpayer obligation if that would happen.’

He instead urged the majority party to work on solutions to the growing border crisis – just as a COVID-era expulsion policy is on the cusp of expiring.

‘There’s a lot more that should be focusing on…Most importantly, the crisis at the border and the repealing of Title 42,’ he said.

Banks called the surging number of migrants trying to cross the border the ‘biggest humanitarian crisis in American history, that [Democrats’] policies are directly responsible for, and they’ve continued to completely ignore it and act like it’s not happening.’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement lauding the bill’s passage.

‘Today’s historic vote is a key step toward ensuring that Puerto Rico’s future is one of its own choosing,’ Pelosi said.

‘For more than a century, Puerto Rico has been governed under a political system imposed by outside forces rather than established by its own people.’