user: Two signatures. That's all that's needed to force a wide-ranging House debate — and votes — on border security and the immigration status of 700,000 undocumented young people brought to the U.S. as children. Since moderate Republicans opposed House leadership two weeks ago with a rare discharge petition to force a so-called "queen of the hill" debate (House rule based on the most votes) on immigration, the measure has steadily accumulated support within their own party. The petition needs 218 signatures to start that debate and — with the assumption that all 193 House Democrats will sign on — Republicans need just two more signatures. But that effort now goes on hold as Congress leaves town for an 11-day holiday recess, giving all sides breathing room to figure out what comes next. Many of the 23 Republican signers of the petition face tough re-election races in their districts this November. The debate over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients has challenged lawmakers since last September, when U.S. President Donald Trump ended the program, calling on Congress to find a permanent legislative solution. Lawmakers will return to Washington facing an immediate deadline. Representative Jeff Denham, a California Republican who is one of the leaders of the petition effort, told reporters that June 7 would be the absolute last moment to allow the petition to mature before lawmakers run up against a seven-week summer recess. Denham said talks with House leadership and the House Freedom Caucus, a conservative voting bloc seeking significant security concessions in return for a citizenship path for DACA recipients, have been productive. "We've had an agreement in principle," Denham said of a deal that would provide a 12-year path to citizenship for DACA recipients, known colloquially as Dreamers. "Now it's trying to put that information on paper. So, assuming we can continue to move forward, that is something we would bring to our conference on the 7th when we have our two-hour immigration meeting,... How long will it take for the House to debate the immigration bill?  A. More than a minute  B. About 20 years  C. not enough information  D. About 10 years
A

North Korea’s release of three U.S. citizens may help pave the way for talks between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, but questions remain as to whether those talks will succeed. At the White House on Wednesday, Trump continued to speak cautiously about the coming summit, even while praising the North Korean leader for the prisoner release. “Everything can be scuttled,” Trump told reporters. “A lot of things can happen — a lot of good things can happen, [and] a lot of bad things can happen.” North Korea on Wednesday granted amnesty to three Americans of Korean descent. They had been accused of espionage or trying to overthrow the government, charges widely seen as bogus. Pyongyang has detained at least 16 Americans over the past two decades, often attempting to use them as bargaining chips. All were eventually released, although Otto Warmbier, a 22-year-old college student, died shortly after returning to the United States last year. A White House statement Wednesday praised North Korea’s latest prisoner release as a “positive gesture of goodwill” ahead of the Trump-Kim summit, which is expected to take place as soon as next month. South Korea’s presidential office said Pyongyang’s decision was a “very positive” sign for a successful North Korea-U.S. meeting.  The freeing of the prisoners coincided with a visit to Pyongyang by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who declined to say whether the release was a U.S. precondition for holding talks with the North. “I don’t know the answer to that,” Pompeo told reporters on the flight home. “It would have been more difficult [had the prisoners not been released]. ... I’m glad that we don’t have to confront that.” It’s not clear what, if anything, the U.S. gave up in exchange for the prisoners. It’s not even clear a concession was needed, since North Korea has for decades sought the presumed legitimacy provided by a summit with a sitting U.S. president. What does Mike Pompeo think about President Trump's plan to meet with Kim Jong Un?  A. He thinks it will be a concession.  B. not enough information  C. He considers it a gesture of goodwill.  D. He thinks it is bogus.
B

The Marshall police were looking for the killer, but they had no evidence or witnesses. The case would go cold in a hurry. Carnie was ready to check out of her room--not because of any fear of getting caught--just from boredom. She hadn't sold the old lady's jewelry, but had plenty of cash anyway. Carnie flipped open her cell phone and dialed. "Hello?" "Hey, Sis, how are you doing?" "Fine. What's going on?" "How about if I come stay with you guys for a few days before the wedding?" "You mean now?" "Yeah. If you don't mind." "Uh...sure, that'll be fine." "Great. It'll be like old times." "No, no. I can't party all night and get drunk." Carsie laughed. "Okay. Maybe not exactly like old times. But we'll have fun. See you in thirty minutes." "Thirty minutes? Where are you?" But Carnie had already hung up. It was hard to believe that her sister, Carsie, had wormed her way into the heart of the wealthy doctor. Sis had a lot more patience than she did. She would have just slit his throat and skipped town with his fortune. Surely Carsie hadn't actually fallen in love with the nerd. Maybe her biological clock had started ticking too loud to ignore. Carsie was about to turn 31, and Carnie was only a year behind her. But unlike her sister, Carnie didn't need a man to support her and give her babies. Anything she needed she would get for herself, thank you very much. But it would be hysterical to watch Carsie go through the whole 'until death do we part' shtick. Would she actually have the balls to wear a white dress? If the color of the dress indicates the purity of the bride, maybe she should go with midnight black. Why did Carnie think her sister was marrying the doctor?  A. She wanted to get back at her ex  B. She loved him  C. Her biological clock was ticking  D. not enough information
C

I don’t see a point. That’s the biggest problem with my life currently. I honestly, don’t see a point. Am I working towards temporary monetary gain? Is my goal supposed to be buying my dream car(s)? Is my goal spiritual? I’m currently Catholic, but I’ve seen how spiritually those around me have changed. I’ve even wondered what’s the point of heaven, if everything I want is there. I like life because of the ups and the downs. I enjoy learning and discovering new things. The idea of perfection seems like an impossible concept to me. Maybe even an unenjoyable one. Maybe my goal is to have a family. Being catholic naturally we gravitate towards larger families. But as a libertarian I don’t see a lot of potential in the United States at it pertains to economic freedoms. I see the government encroaching more and more into our lives. Is this the type of country I want to raise a family in? I certainly don’t want to be outside the United States (no offense towards anyone outside of the U.S). Maybe my goal is political. I’ve always wanted to run for office. Maybe governor one day. Would I be able to avoid the waves of bipartisanship, and actually do what I believe is the best for the people of my state. Or would I collapse under the political pressures and sign up for agreements I know in my heart and mind won’t help the people. Only time will tell. I just don’t see a point. I actually have many goals, but I struggle to see the overall point of accomplishing any of it. Especially seeing as anything I do will be lost in the ink-blots of history. What is the author's dream car?  A. Audi  B. Ferrari  C. Jaguar  D. not enough information


assistant: D