input: OPTIONS:
- After December
- not enough information
- After October
- After June Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: 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,... Question: When do lawmakers return to Washington? Answer:
A:
output: After June

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Imagine the person you would most like to be, the version of you that is living the life you always imagined. This person has somehow found the solution to all the challenges you face right now. You don't know how, but you can tell that she has her shit together at long last. She is not perfect because she is still growing and learning but she is what you ache to be. Can you see a picture of this wonderful evolved future you? PHYSICAL What does she look like? What clothes is she wearing? What colour and style is her hair? How does she stand and walk? How does she speak? How often does she smile? Make the physical image colourful and bright and see the beauty, love and light in her eyes. EMOTIONAL How does the wonderful evolved future you connect with your partner and children? How is she at work? What does she do after a bad day? What are her sources of rest and renewal? MENTAL How does the wonderful evolved future you think about her life? Is she filled with positive optimism for the future? Is she grateful for the past struggles that have made her strong? Does she think kind and loving thoughts towards herself? Does she take great care of herself? BEHAVIOUR How does the wonderful evolved future you behave around food? Does she eat fresh, healthy food in appropriate amounts? Does she move her body in ways that fill her with energy and vitality? Does she indulge in treats occasionally? Does she forget about food unless she is hungry? Does she get enough sleep? Does she take great care of herself? NOW PUT HER TO WORK Once you have a brilliant, clear, detailed description of the wonderful evolved future you it is time to put her to work. Every time you are faced with a behavioural choice ~ what to eat, how to train, believing negative thoughts ~ ask yourself "What would the wonderful evolved me do?" Vividly imagine her in the situation you are now in and take note of what she would do. Question: When does the author suggest you think about your future self the most? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- When you are faced with a behavioral choice
- When you are bored
- not enough information
- When you are at your best

Answer: When you are faced with a behavioral choice

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: WHITE HOUSE President Donald Trump on Monday declared he has an "absolute right" to pardon himself and then also tweeted his assertion that the federal government investigation into ties between his 2016 election campaign and Russia is "totally unconstitutional." While Trump has frequently ignored established norms and challenged the understood limits of presidential powers, his latest comments are viewed by some legal scholars as unprecedented and testing constitutional boundaries. "I was shocked" by Trump's tweets, said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University. "No president has ever tried it," she told VOA News. "It's unlikely the president can pardon himself. I think the court would say no" and if he did give himself a pardon, "most congresses would impeach him." Bloch also notes when most people accept a pardon "it's an admission of guilt," thus it would be a bad idea for Trump to pursue such a course of action. The professor, who has testified before the Senate on whether a president can be indicted and tried while in office, says the special counsel is "absolutely constitutional." Another constitutional scholar, Keith Whittington at Princeton University, said, "I think it is important to note that the president's comments reference serious arguments that are being debated by legal scholars, but these are difficult and unusual constitutional questions that would ultimately be answered in the courts." According to Northwestern University Law Professor Andrew Koppelman, "Trump's position on pardons is consistent with the Constitution's text, but inconsistent with the overall structure. It means that the President could commit capital treason, or any other federal crime, and then immediately pardon himself. "It means that he could commit murder in the White House," Koppelman said. "It makes no sense within the Constitution as a whole." Asked by reporters Monday about Trump's comment on his ability to pardon himself, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders repeatedly replied: "The... Question: After this news story, law professor Susan Low Bloh is probably: Answer:
OPTIONS:
- Still shocked about the President's Trump's tweets
- Still testifying before the Senate.
- not enough information
- Still working on her college degree at Georgetown University

Answer:
Still shocked about the President's Trump's tweets