The U.S. Congress is one step closer to averting a government shutdown Thursday after the U.S. House easily passed a $1.3 trillion spending plan that would end months of the government operating under short-term spending bills. The measure, approved by a 256-167 vote, now goes to the Senate, which has until midnight Friday to approve it and avert the year's third government closure. The massive bipartisan bill would keep the government funded until the end of September. Lawmakers had just hours to read the nearly 2,200-page bill released Wednesday night. Under Senate rules, a single senator can delay the vote but not stop it entirely. Senator Rand Paul has objected to the short time given to members to read the lengthy legislation. As of Thursday afternoon, the Senate was waiting to see how the vote would proceed, raising the prospect of another brief government shutdown. With midterm elections looming in November, the bill likely marks the final time Capitol Hill will consider major legislation this year. The measure would fulfill President Donald Trump's vow to boost military funding but provides funding for limited parts of his immigration agenda. The bill, which the White House said Trump supports, would give Trump a huge budget increase for the military, including a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. "Today marks the beginning of a new era for the United States military," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement Thursday. "This legislation fulfills our pledge to rebuild the United States military." After extensive negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, the bill also provides $1.6 billion for physical barriers and 150 kilometers (93 miles) of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, short of the $25 billion Trump requested for the project he repeatedly touted on the campaign trail while pledging Mexico would pick up the cost. Question: What is probably true about Trump? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- he raises lots of money for the Mexicans
- not enough information
- he was a real estate tycoon
- he likes illegal immigrants

Answer: he was a real estate tycoon

Question: There's a story in my Tuscan family of nobility and forbidden love. It's set in Taranto, Puglia, on Italy's southern heel and involves my daughter's great-great-grandmother. The best known version is told by my husband Marco's uncle, Riccardo, who remembers it being told to him by his elderly Nonna Anna herself. Anna Michela Comasia Maria Calianno. Her long name was a sign of her family's noble status. She was born in Taranto, Puglia, in 1889, into a wealthy, well-educated Tarantine family of physicians, surgeons and landowners. One day, by chance, young Anna answered the door instead of the butler. There was Nicola Cardellicchio, the postman. He came from a poor family of bricklayers and wool spinners, raised by a single mother. "He was no adonis," noted Nonna Anna. Nicola was rather short and stocky, but she liked him immediately. She continued answering the door whenever the postman passed. When Anna's mother, Girolama, noticed her daughter's growing interest in the postman, she forbid her to see him again, threatening to disown her. So Anna did what any lovesick girl would do: she ran away, eloping with Nicola. The couple had nine children in Taranto Mario, Marco's grandfather was born in the middle of the First World War but times were very hard, and they moved north to Torino to look for work. Nonna Anna was perhaps not an instinctive cook. I wondered whether she ever had the possibility to learn how to cook. Her grandchildren, Angela (my mother in law) and Riccardo, remember her only ever making lesso (boiled meat) and these polpette, which became variously known in the family as "sugo di nonna Anna" and, oddly, "amatriciana" (which is actually a different recipe, a chilli-spiked sauce of fried guanciale and tomato to coat pasta). But these polpette plump meat balls, cooked slowly in tomato sauce, a very traditional dish from Puglia were passed down to Anna's daughter in law, Angela's Tuscan mother, Lina, who made them so often for her own family that she in turn taught her daughter in law,... Question: When did Anna and Nicola move to Torino? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- After their children were born.
- After Anna learned how to make meatballs.
- Right after getting married.
- not enough information
Answer: After their children were born.

Question: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Question: What cases are probably referred to the supreme court === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Only cases involving the legislature
- Only cases that are not traditional
- Difficult and important ones
- not enough information
Answer:
Difficult and important ones