Article:
For Republicans, the path to this moment has been long and transparently paved — the House in particular has signaled the Republican policy vision through bills it has been passing for years. But many of those measures have gathered dust in the Senate or been doused in veto ink.

 The cleft between the two chambers recalls the situation faced by the insurgent House Republican majority in the mid-1990s. Speaker Newt Gingrich took control with a determined agenda, only to be stymied by the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, who stacked conservative House bills like so many fire logs in the back of the Senate chamber.

 “They’ve been given a golden opportunity here,” said Trent Lott, the former Republican Senate majority leader. “But I have watched over the years when one party has had control of the White House and the Senate and the House, and the danger is overplaying your hand.

 “If you go too far, like what happened with Obamacare, and you get no support at all from the other side, you have a problem,” Mr. Lott continued. “You have to find a way to work with people across the aisle who will work with you.”

 The tax overhaul and an infrastructure bill may be two opportunities for bipartisan cooperation; the Senate Finance Committee is already moving in that direction. Still, both of those issues are expected to remain on the back burner, despite promises to the contrary from Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus.

 The Senate may be narrowly divided, but among the 48 senators in the Democratic caucus are 10 who will stand for re-election in two years in states that voted for Mr. Trump. Republicans are counting on their support, at least some of the time.

 But on many issues, Senate Democrats — including their new leader, Chuck Schumer of New York — are expected to pivot from postelection carping to active thwarting, using complex Senate procedures and political messaging to slow or perhaps block elements of Mr. Trump’s agenda.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 “After campaigning on a promise to help the middle class, President-elect Trump’s postelection actions suggest he intends to do the exact opposite after he’s sworn in,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington. “Democrats will do everything we can to fight back if he continues to pursue an agenda prioritizing billionaires and big corporations while devastating middle-class families and the economy.”

 Republicans have chafed for years at a host of rules, many business-related, that President Obama has issued through the regulatory process, and they have been advising the Trump team on which ones should be undone.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 “I hear probably more about the strangulation of regulations on business and their growth and their development than probably anything else,” the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said at a recent forum. “I think if we can provide regulatory relief right away, that can breathe a sigh of relief into the economy.”

 In late December, the Obama administration rolled out a major new environmental regulation intended to rein in mountaintop-removal mining. That regulation, one of dozens that Mr. Trump is expected to reverse, is meant to go into effect one day before his inauguration.

 But Congress is likely to block it, using the obscure Congressional Review Act, which permits lawmakers to undo new regulations with only 51 Senate votes within the first 60 legislative days of the rules’ completion.

 Given time constraints on the Senate floor, members will have to pick some priorities. They are expected to train their sights on a rule that requires oil and gas producers to reduce methane gases, another that requires mining and fossil fuel companies to disclose payments they have made to foreign governments to extract natural resources, and still others that restrict pesticide use.

 Republicans will also move quickly to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They plan to pass a truncated budget resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year — already a quarter over — that includes special instructions ensuring that the final repeal legislation could circumvent any Democratic filibuster. But Republican leaders have not settled on a health care plan to replace Mr. Obama’s, and they may delay the repeal measure’s effective date for years.

 The Senate must also consider Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks, and Senate Democrats are already trying to slow the process. However, they cannot do much more than that, because when they were in charge, they changed the rules so that presidential nominees other than Supreme Court picks need only 51 votes to be confirmed. Previously, such nominations could face a filibuster, which required 60 votes to overcome.

 Democratic leaders have encouraged members to avoid meeting with Mr. Trump’s nominees until they have turned over their tax returns and made other disclosures. Republicans have been particularly upset that Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, whom Mr. Trump picked quickly to be attorney general, has either not gotten meetings with Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee or had meetings canceled.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Senator Dianne Feinstein of California postponed her meeting with Mr. Sessions until January because, she said, her schedule got too busy. “The senator doesn’t want to rush,” said her spokesman, Tom Mentzer.

 One reason that Democrats are in no hurry is their bitterness over Mr. McConnell’s refusal last year to hold a hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland.

 Lingering in the background is the specter of Russia. Democrats — and some Republicans, who are at odds with Mr. Trump on the issue and may at times be a brake on him — want a vigorous investigation of its efforts to disrupt the election. The Obama administration, which took sweeping steps last week to punish the Russians over election hacking, will release a report this month that is likely to serve as a turning point in those discussions.

 While Republicans may have a rare chance to open the flow of legislation, the party’s leaders are acutely aware of the punishment that Americans have historically delivered in midterm elections when things have not gone well.

 “This is no time for hubris,” Mr. McConnell said. “You have to perform.” ||||| WASHINGTON — On Tuesday at noon, with plenty of pomp and pageantry, members of the 115th Congress will be sworn in, with an emboldened GOP intent on unraveling eight years of President Obama’s Democratic agenda and targeting massive legacy programs from Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson such as Social Security and Medicare.

 In the election, Republicans kept their tight grip on the House and outmaneuvered the Democrats for a slim majority in the Senate. In less than three weeks, on the West Front of the Capitol, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the presidential oath to Donald Trump, the GOP’s newfound ally.

 Advertisement

 First up for Republicans is repeal and delay of the health care law, expediting the process for scrapping Obama’s major overhaul but holding off on some changes for up to four years. The tax code is in the cross-hairs. Conservatives want to scuttle rules on the environment and undo financial regulations created in the aftermath of the 2008 economic meltdown, arguing they are too onerous for businesses to thrive.

 The only obstacle to the far-reaching conservative agenda will be Senate Democrats who hold the power to filibuster legislation, but even that has its political limitations. Twenty-three Democrats are up for re-election in 2018, including 10 from states Trump won, and they could break ranks and side with the GOP.

 Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox: Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller. Sign Up Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

 Here are a few things to know about Congress:

 By the numbers

 Vice President Joe Biden, in one of his final official acts, will administer the oath to 27 returning senators and seven new ones. Republicans will have a 52-48 advantage in the Senate, which remains predominantly a bastion of white men.

 There will be 21 women, of whom 16 are Democrats and five, Republicans; three African Americans, including California’s new Democratic senator Kamala Harris, and four Hispanics, including Nevada’s new Democratic senator Catherine Cortez Masto.

 Advertisement

 Across the Capitol, the House is expected to re-elect Representative Paul Ryan as Speaker, with all the campaign-season recriminations involving the Wisconsin Republican and Trump largely erased by GOP wins. Once sworn in, Ryan will then administer the oath to the House members.

 The GOP will hold a hefty 241-194 majority in the House, including 52 freshmen — 27 Republicans, including Wyoming’s Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and 25 Democrats.

 Confirming the Cabinet

 The Senate will exercise its advice and consent role and consider nominations of 15 department secretaries and six people tapped by Trump to lead agencies or serve in roles with Cabinet-level status, such as the EPA and UN ambassador.

 Democrats won’t make it easy.

 Several in the party have been highly critical of several of Trump’s choices, from Rick Perry, who forgot during the 2012 presidential campaign that the Energy Department was the one he wanted to eliminate, to Treasury pick Steve Mnuchin, the former Goldman Sachs executive whom Democrats have dubbed the ‘‘foreclosure king’’ for his stake in OneWest Bank that profited from the foreclosure crisis.

 Others nominees, such as retired Marine General James Mattis for defense secretary, should easily win confirmation. First, though, Congress must pass a law allowing the former military man to serve in a civilian post.

 There is a limit to what Democrats can do. Rules changes in 2013 allow some nominees, including Cabinet picks, to be confirmed with a simple majority, preventing Democrats from demanding 60 votes to move forward.

 Supreme Court vacancy

 Adding to the drama of the new Congress will be high-profile confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.

 Justice Antonin Scalia died last February and Republicans refused to consider Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, insisting that the next president should fill the high court vacancy that’s now lasted more than 10 months.

 Trump released a list of potential choices during the campaign that included Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who clerked for Justice Samuel Alito. Since the election, the president-elect also has met with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who clerked for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, prompting talk about a possible nomination for the onetime presidential rival.

 Trump has said he wants to nominate a justice who would help overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. Cruz and Lee would fulfill that pledge.

 New face in leadership

 The point man for Senate Democrats is Brooklyn-born Chuck Schumer, who will be a chief antagonist to fellow New Yorker Trump.

 Schumer succeeds Nevada’s Harry Reid, who retired after five terms, and joins Congress’ top leaders — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, and Speaker Ryan — in what is certain to be tough negotiations next year on spending and policies.

 Russian hacking

 The first public hearing on the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the US election is Thursday in the Senate Armed Services Committee, with James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, set to testify. Expect individual panels to investigate, but not a special, high-profile select committee. McConnell has rejected that bipartisan call. ||||| Energised Republicans are set to begin dismantling eight years of achievements by Barack Obama as they take complete control of Washington and bring out the wrecking balls.

 The 115th Congress will sit for the first time on Tuesday, and even before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office, Republicans on Capitol Hill are anxious to start work. Their priorities include repealing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, a tax overhaul, the repeal of environmental regulations, a large transportation bill to create jobs, and the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice.

 “Buckle up,” Vice President-elect Mike Pence told his former colleagues in the House last year, after meeting with them to discuss legislative plans.

 Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell do not agree on everything (AP)

 “I’m very confident that as we move towards inauguration, bring together a great team, work in concert with leaders in the House and Senate, and we’re going to move an agenda that’s going to rebuild our military, revive our economy, and — in a word — make America great again.”

 Indeed, with the Republicans controlling both the executive and legislative branches of government, work is likely to begin shortly after the Congress’s 59 new members — seven senators and fifty-two House members — are sworn in.

 CNN said that the Republicans will want to begin dismantling Obamacare, which they have identified as a priority since it was passed into law in 2010.

 Happy new year! 2017 is going to be a big year for our nation. — Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) January 1, 2017

 They also plan a major tax overhaul and the the reversal of a number of Obama-era environmental regulations.

 “It’s a big job to actually have responsibility and produce results,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told The New York Times. “And we intend to do it.”

 “I hear probably more about the strangulation of regulations on business and their growth and their development than probably anything else,” the House speaker, Paul Ryan, said recently, “I think if we can provide regulatory relief right away, that can breathe a sigh of relief into the economy.”

 Trump's advisor suggests Obama's sanctions against Russia are to 'box in' the incoming President

 At the same time, such legislative efforts will have to share time with Senate confirmation hearings for Mr Trump’s cabinet picks in the days and months that follow the President-elect’s swearing-in.

 It should be easier for Republicans to move nominations after the Democrats changed the Senate's filibuster rules in 2013. Still, Democrats have pledged to fight many of the nominations, highlighting what they call the hypocrisy of Mr Trump’s populist message.

 In truth, the Democrats, weakened in all areas of government since last November’s election, have little ammunition with which to fire back.

 But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will likely try and stop changes to welfare programmes such as Medicare and Medicaid.

 Mr Obama is himself scheduled to visit congressional Democrats on Wednesday to discuss ways to try and save his signature legislation.

 There is much that remains unclear. And there are a number of issues on which Republicans on Capitol Hill are at odds with Mr Trump. They do not agree on his wish to scrap trade deals such as Nafta, and they also do not see eye to eye with him over controversies such as the alleged Russian cyber-meddling in the election.

 While Mr Trump has said he thinks the country needs to move on to “more important” issues, Republican senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have called for hearings on the issue and proposed sanctions beyond those announced by Mr Obama last week. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) - An aggressive campaign by Republicans to dismantle eight years of President Barack Obama's Democratic policies is ready for launch.

 Members of the 115th Congress will be sworn in at noon Tuesday, setting off the GOP's pursuit of a conservative agenda.

 One of the most immediate targets is Obama's health care law. Republicans have long sought to gut the statute and have blamed the law as a primary cause for a lackluster economic recovery.

 But decades-old programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, also will be in the crosshairs as Republicans aim to shrink both the size of the federal budget and the bureaucracy in Washington.

 Democrats will try to block the GOP's agenda by swaying public opinion and using the power they have in the Senate to filibuster legislation. ||||| A Republican-controlled Congress opens Tuesday with the most sweeping conservative agenda in decades, providing Donald Trump ample room to gut the Affordable Care Act, slash corporate tax rates and undo Obama-era environmental regulations.

 The House is almost certain to reelect Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) as its first order of business, dispensing with the messy political infighting that has hobbled Republicans in the past.

 And the Senate will swiftly begin vetting the president-elect’s most controversial Cabinet picks, ready to confirm some when Trump is inaugurated as president on Jan. 20.

 Yet Republicans remain at odds on some high-profile issues — such as how aggressively to investigate Russian hacking in the 2016 election — and how to fulfill other big-ticket promises, such as replacing Obamacare.

 Despite firm Republican control of both the White House and Congress, the internal disputes have left them without a clear plan yet for Trump’s first 100 days, or an endgame for the two years of the 115th Congress.

 Trump’s often shifting views on major issues will test relations with GOP’s leaders on Capitol Hill, and his willingness to skirt ideological rigidity gives incoming Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer of New York and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco an opening to influence and shape the president’s evolving agenda.

 President Obama will visit Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet with Democrats bracing for their new role, not just as the minority party, but as the main roadblock preventing Trump from dismantling the healthcare law and other parts of the Obama agenda.

 Republicans will also assemble behind closed doors. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was a popular conservative congressman before he was elected governor of Indiana, is likely to serve as a crucial link between the Trump administration and its allies in Congress.

 Given Trump’s inexperience in government, Pence is expected to play an enhanced role, perhaps like the one former Vice President Richard Cheney held under President George W. Bush.

 At a minimum, Pence could provide a vital conduit between the untested new president and his more ideological party members in Congress, especially as Ryan’s own relationship with Trump has been strained.

 Ryan flip-flopped over Trump — first withholding his endorsement, then ultimately campaigning for him — but the speaker insists he and the president-elect have let bygones pass as they talk almost daily on their plans for fulfilling Republican promises to voters.

 “Very soon after the race, Donald and I said: ‘Look, this is fantastic. We have so much to do. Let's forget about, you know, any differences in the past and let's get working on this agenda,’” Ryan said recently on Fox News. “And that's exactly what we've been doing from -- that day on.”

 Once Trump takes office, Republicans will face enormous pressure to score some legislative wins after six years of trying to block most of Obama’s initiatives.

 Lawmakers will vote this week on low-hanging fruit -- a popular GOP measure to rein in the executive branch by requiring congressional approval for new federal regulations with an economic impact of more than $100 million.

 The measure, which passed the Republican House three times since 2011, is a GOP priority. Its supporters say it would have prevented nearly all the climate and employment rule changes of the Obama era.

 Republicans are also expected to punish Democrats for last year’s gun control sit-in, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), by imposing new rules that would slap up to $2,500 fines on lawmakers who film such floor protests from smartphones or other devices.

 Whether that would pass judicial review is less clear. Opponents say the proposed ban is clearly unconstitutional.

 But the GOP’s top promise — to end Obamacare — remains a tough haul.

 Votes are expected in coming days on legislation to begin repealing the Affordable Care Act. But these first steps will be largely symbolic while lawmakers debate the details of dismantling the healthcare law.

 With 20 million Americans now benefiting from Obamacare, the GOP’s gutting of it comes with an asterisk.

 Republicans are also likely to postpone fully dismantling the healthcare law until they can sort out their own ideas for a yet-to-be-determined alternative.

 That could push a full Obamacare repeal and replace until 2018 or 2019, after the midterm elections.

 “Repeal and delay, it doesn’t even have alliteration,” Pelosi scoffed on a conference call Monday with reporters. “It’s an admission that it’s a lot for them to lose politically.”

 Similarly, Republicans are still working out the details of tax reform beyond the lower rates proposed in the House GOP’s “Better Way” blueprint agenda for the new year.

 Ryan will almost certainly reemerge as speaker in Tuesday’s floor vote. But his leadership remains constrained by the same internal party divisions that hobbled his predecessor, John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), and that have prevented Republicans from making gains on a cohesive agenda.

 Those divisions surfaced late Monday when Republicans split during a closed-door session over a proposal to gut a congressional ethics office at a time when Trump has promised to come to Washington and “drain the swamp.” Approval of the proposal signaled a rocky start to the new session. ||||| Early morning traffic rolls toward the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 14, 2016. (Photo: J. David Ake, AP)

 WASHINGTON — Bills to block or roll back federal regulations, initially conceived by Republicans as a check on President Obama’s power, are high on the agenda when the House returns to Washington this week and the changes could become reality shortly after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.

 The 115th Congress begins Tuesday with a Republican majority in the House and Senate preparing for the arrival of a Republican president for the first time in eight years.

 The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.

 The House is also expected to consider a nonbinding resolution disapproving the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council vote that called on Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank. The United States abstained in that vote, allowing the measure to pass.

 Regulations are adopted by the executive branch to implement laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Congress already has the power to repeal laws by passing a new bill and getting the president to sign it. And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.

 The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.

 “Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said in a release last week. “We’ve ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy.”

 Read more:

 When the House considered the Midnight Rules Act in November, the White House said it would recommend that Obama veto it. Trump, however, has taken a page from the conservative playbook and blamed government regulations for holding down economic growth and job creation. He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one adopted during his presidency.

 The REINS Act and Midnight Rules Act are aimed at major rules. An April 2015 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said are those that meet one of these conditions: an economic impact of more than $100 million; cause significant price increases for consumers, industries, geographic regions or state or local governments; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or foreign competition.

 The CBO said that over the past five years, 82 major rules have been adopted each year, on average. Blocking such regulations in the future would have “a significant effect on direct spending,” but CBO could not predict whether the effect would be positive or negative because it could not say whether Congress would block regulations to increase or decrease spending.

 Before the House voted on the final REINS Act in 2015, Democrats unsuccessfully tried to include amendments that would exempt rules that affected veterans health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Each attempt was rejected in a largely party-line vote.

 Critics say the changes would endanger the public and worsen gridlock in government.

 “Regulations are public protections that are intended to safeguard regular citizens from dealing with unclean air and water, financial crises and unsafe products,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of the CongressWatch program at Public Citizen. “They are intended to protect us, and to do away with them wholesale is an extremely problematic approach.”

 Gilbert said that while no one would argue every regulation is perfect, the changes Congress seeks to make would effectively stymie future rulemaking and allow Congress to erase actions the Obama administration took since the summer. She said she hoped there would be enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster on the Midnight Rules bill, but on the REINS Act, “it’s possible there could be a path” for it to pass.

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2hKrOZv ||||| House Speaker Paul Ryan with Melania and Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol after the election.

 The Washington, D.C. beat in 2017 is going to revolve around covering a Republican Party that holds the White House and both chambers of Congress for the first time since 2006.

 In those 10 years, Republicans have amassed a wish list of things they’d like to get done. Now’s their chance to tackle that list, and the story of 2017 in Washington will be how much progress they make toward those goals, and how effective Democrats will be in blocking them.

 The Senate will be the site of most contention over the GOP’s agenda, because Democrats have the procedural tools (like the filibuster) and numbers required to fight back. Republicans will hold 52 seats to Democrats’ 46, with Vice President-elect Mike Pence as the tie-breaker.

 In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain a comfortable majority, holding 241 seats to Democrats’ 194. That chamber has more scheduled days of legislative work than any year since 2010 — a reflection of how productive a Congress leaders are imagining next year.

 Democrats have said they’ll work with President-elect Donald Trump and congressional Republicans where they can, but expect more partisan fireworks than friendly cooperation next year.

 Also, don’t expect Trump and Republicans in Congress — many of whom kept him at arm’s length or openly criticized him during the campaign — to always agree, either.

 Here are five big GOP agenda items I’ll be watching closely:

 1. Obamacare

 It’s the big one, the top of the GOP wish list since 2010, the one thing that Republicans believe they must do in the 115th Congress: dismantling the Affordable Care Act.

 Congressional Republicans have been champing at the bit to get rid of President Obama’s signature achievement since its passage, voting numerous times on symbolic repeal measures in the House of Representatives.

 Angry protest votes were easy enough. Now, with control of the necessary levers of power, comes the hard part for the GOP: figuring out a way to not just repeal Obamacare, but replace it with something else.

 The repeal part is relatively simple. GOP leaders forecast a vote to repeal Obamacare as soon as February, which would easily clear the House. In the Senate, Republican leaders will likely use budget reconciliation — the same tactic Democrats used to pass the law in the first place — to ensure a repeal only needs a simple majority of the Senate, not a 60-vote majority.

 The replacement will be much harder, in policy and logistics. Earlier this year, Speaker Paul Ryan outlined a plan aiming to make health coverage more affordable through expanding health savings accounts and allowing the purchase of coverage across state lines, among other things.

 There is disagreement in the party about whether a repeal should be pursued before a replacement is hammered out. But key leaders are coalescing around a plan that would repeal Obamacare soon and then allow two to four years to figure out a replacement, setting up a potential deadline down the road. (D.C.’s already calling it the “health care cliff.”)

 Minnesota’s Republican representatives all want to see the law gone. Incoming Rep. Jason Lewis made opposition to Obamacare a key plank of his winning campaign in the 2nd District. Rep. Tom Emmer said he expects Obamacare will be toast by February, but said the party needs to proceed with caution in its replacement plans.

 How Republicans address Obamacare will be the story not just of 2017, but probably 2018 and 2019, too.

 2. Tax reform

 Republicans and Democrats have been talking about working on comprehensive tax reform for years. In 2017, those proposals will take on a decidedly more conservative tack.

 Broadly, GOP leaders want to lower individual and corporate income tax rates, with a strong focus on the latter: the Ways and Means Committee, which sets taxation policy, has already drawn up a proposal to reduce corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 20 percent.

 On other tax issues, Republicans are going to reach for long-held goals. They likely will take aim at the estate tax, which Trump, Ryan, and other GOP leaders want to get rid of. Most Democrats are loath to drop the tax, which would cost about $200 billion over a decade. In a vote in the House last year, only seven Democrats joined Republicans to repeal it.

 It’s possible Democrats may not be able to put up much resistance to any of these measures. The budget reconciliation tactic is typically meant to reconcile tax legislation with budget legislation, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he expects that is how tax reform bills will move in the next Congress.

 The member to watch on tax issues will be GOP Rep. Erik Paulsen: the only Minnesotan to serve on Ways and Means, Paulsen has floated an array of tax and health care policy tweaks over the years.

 3. Entitlement reform

 Any movement from the GOP on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security could bring some of the messiest politics of 2017.

 It is no secret that Republicans would like to “restructure” Medicare, the government’s program to cover seniors’ health care, and Medicaid, which covers low-income people, in order to reduce the programs’ costs. Medicare and Medicaid cost over $1 trillion in 2016 and cover more than 120 million people.

 The GOP has long wanted to give states money for Medicaid in the form of block grants; they’ve also pushed varying degrees of privatization for Medicare. Trump’s nomination of Georgia GOP Rep. Tom Price, a very conservative voice on health care, as Secretary of Health and Human Services has only added to speculation.

 In November, Price suggested that a long-desired Medicare reform — a voucher program to let patients use government money to participate in a private plan instead of Medicare — could be included as a rider on a budget bill.

 On Social Security, the Republican chair of the Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee floated a bill that would restructure the program. It includes a raise of the retirement age, an idea favored by many conservatives.

 Perhaps more than any others, entitlement issues are political third rails in Congress. They will not be as far up on the agenda as Obamacare, but Paul Ryan and others have been itching to take a crack at them for years. They now have the chance.

 But this is a fight Democrats relish, and talking points they’re deeply comfortable with. Setting the battle lines for 2017, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already declared a GOP “war on seniors.”

 In entitlement debates, watch Democratic Reps. Rick Nolan and Keith Ellison, two of the most vocal opponents to GOP policy in either chamber.

 4. Wall Street reform rollback

 Trump’s populist appeal was bolstered by his calls to take on Wall Street. But Republicans in Congress see an opportunity to pass long-awaited measure to deregulate the financial sector, particularly a rollback of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform package.

 A repeal of the entire law, which is 2,300 pages and incredibly complex, probably won’t happen this Congress.

 But Republicans could chip away at pillars of Dodd-Frank, like the so-called “Volcker rule,” which prevents big banks from making certain kinds of risky investments. They also will likely target the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, defanging it by replacing its director with a board and by giving Congress control over its budget.

 Emmer, a vocal critic of Dodd-Frank, is on the House Financial Services panel, and could play a role in this debate. Ellison, a staunch defender of the CFPB and Wall Street regulation, is also on that committee, and could figure prominently into the debate as well, if he retains his congressional seat.

 5. Energy and environmental deregulation

 Among most congressional Republicans, Obama’s actions to tackle climate change were anathema. With a man friendly to the fossil fuels industry and skeptical of climate science moving into the White House, Republicans are now eyeing a few areas where they might be able to roll back Obama’s environmental policies in Congress.

 Since Trump’s election, the Obama administration has been working frantically to complete 11th hour regulations on climate and environmental protection. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has 60 days to disapprove a regulation from the executive branch — so the 115th Congress could get to work undoing those rules, if it acts swiftly.

 That process would take some work, but it’s feasible. Potential targets of a GOP effort include a rule from the Department of the Interior to reduce methane emissions on public lands, or even the recent rule to block Twin Metals from its leases to copper and nickel deposits near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters.

 Environmentalists worry that Congress could act to make big amendments to existing law like the Clean Air Act, such as excluding carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant.

 Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum, the ranking member on the Appropriations subcommittee that deals with interior issues, is one to watch on these issues. |||||Summary:

– The 115th Congress will be sworn in at noon Tuesday, per WXYZ, which anticipates "an aggressive campaign" by Republicans to take down eight years' worth of President Obama's policies. The station adds that Democrats are ready to fight back by "swaying public opinion" and using their filibuster in the Senate. What else to look for Tuesday: Both the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe predict an easy re-election of Paul Ryan as speaker of the House. Once Ryan retakes the helm, he'll oversee the oath administration to House members. The vetting process will begin in the Senate for some of President-elect Trump's more eyebrow-raising administration picks, including "foreclosure king" Steve Mnuchin, tapped as Treasury chief, and Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil CEO with questionable ties to Russia in line to be secretary of state. One confirmation expected to sail through: retired Gen. James Mattis for defense secretary. The biggest hunk on the legislative chopping block: ObamaCare. But the Times notes any immediate moves against the health care law would be "largely symbolic" as the GOP scrambles to work out the details and come up with their own alternative—which means a full repeal might not happen until after midterm elections. Blocking or pulling back on regulations will be another priority of the Congress, per USA Today, with a bill expected that would give the GOP-controlled Congress approval power over any new federal regulations, as well as a "Midnight Rules Act" that would give Congress sway to nullify in bulk any rules passed during a president's final year in office. Citizens are nervously watching the outcome for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, with MinnPost noting that "any movement from the GOP" in terms of entitlement reform "could bring some of the messiest politics of 2017." Also on deck: a major tax revamp, the dismantling of Obama-placed environmental regulations, and the nomination of a Supreme Court justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia, per the Independent. "It's a big job to actually have responsibility and produce results," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday, per the New York Times. "And we intend to do it." Not that the Republicans' hold on Congress guarantees a unified GOP front: The Times notes "internal disputes" have resulted in no "clear plan yet for Trump's first 100 days, or an endgame for the two years of the 115th Congress." Also complicating matters for the GOP: the president-elect's "often shifting views" on big issues and a "willingness to skirt ideological rigidity." (Also on the Congress itinerary for Tuesday: a vote on a proposal to "effectively kill" the Office of Congressional Ethics.)


News article:

J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

 Even as profit surged, the board of JPMorgan Chase cut the pay package of its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, by 50 percent, in light of a multibillion-dollar trading loss last year.

 By the overall numbers, it was a good year for JPMorgan. The bank reported a record profit of $5.7 billion for the fourth quarter, up 53 percent from the period a year earlier. Revenue was also strong, rising 10 percent, to $23.7 billion for the period.

 “The firm’s results reflected strong underlying performance across virtually all our businesses for the fourth quarter and the full year, with strong lending and deposit growth,” Mr. Dimon said in statement.

 But the year was clouded by a multibillion-dollar trading loss stemming from a bad bet on derivatives. JPMorgan continues to unwind the bungled trade, which had racked up $6.2 billion in losses through the third quarter of 2012. The bank said it “experienced a modest loss” in the last three months of the year.

 In light of the trading losses, the bank’s board voted to reduce Mr. Dimon’s total compensation. That decision was driven by a desire to hold him accountable for some of the oversight failings that led to the troubled bet, according to several people close to the board.

 The board cut Mr. Dimon’s total compensation for 2012 to $11.5 million from $23 million a year earlier. While his salary remained the same at $1.5 million, his bonus was reduced to $10 million, paid out in restricted stock.

 On an earnings call on Wednesday, Mr. Dimon emphasized that this latest quarter largely signaled the end of the trading debacle. “We are getting near the end of it,” he said. Mr. Dimon acknowledged that the board “had a tough job” in assessing how to reduce his total compensation for the year. While “this was one huge mistake,” Mr. Dimon said, the board had to look at “the positives and the negatives.” He added that he “respects their decision.”

 Although Mr. Dimon’s compensation fell sharply, he dodged much of the criticism for the trading losses in two reports released on Wednesday. One report details the result of a sweeping investigation into the trades led by Michael J. Cavanagh, formerly the bank’s chief financial officer, and the other outlines the board’s findings.

 In the case of Mr. Dimon, the reports mainly took aim at his over-reliance on senior managers. “He could have better tested his reliance on what he was told,” the investigation found.

 Instead, much of the blame centered on Ina R. Drew, who oversaw the chief investment unit where the trading took place. Ms. Drew resigned in May shortly after the losses were disclosed.

 Under Ms. Drew’s leadership, there were failures “in three critical areas,” including the execution of a complex trading strategy and gaps in oversight of the large portfolio, according to the investigation. The report indicated that Ms. Drew failed “to appreciate the magnitude and significance of the changes” as the riskiness of the trades escalated.

 Barry Zubrow, the bank’s former chief risk officer, was also singled out. Douglas Braunstein, who left his position as chief financial officer in November, was cited “for weaknesses in financial controls.” The investigation found that the organization should “have asked more questions or to have sought additional information about the evolution of the portfolio.”

 Despite the overhang of the bad bet, JPMorgan produced record profit for the quarter, as economic and credit conditions improved. The bank reduced the money it set aside for potential losses, adding to overall profit. And the bank recorded gains in all its major divisions, showing strength in both consumer and corporate banking operations.

 For the full year, JPMorgan reported earnings of $21.3 billion, compared with $19 billion in 2011. Revenue in 2012, at $97 billion, was essentially flat.

 Despite the rocky market conditions and uncertainty related to the budget impasse, the corporate-focused businesses reported nice gains. Investment banking fees jumped 54 percent, to $1.7 billion, with improvements in debt and equity underwriting. Revenue in the commercial banking group hit $1.75 billion, after the 10th consecutive quarter of loan growth.

 Income in JPMorgan’s asset management group rose 60 percent, to $483 million. JPMorgan has been ramping up the business, as riskier ventures get crimped by new regulation.

 Like other big banks, JPMorgan’s earnings have been bolstered by a surge in mortgage lending, driven in part by a series of federal programs that have helped drive down interest rates. As homeowners seize on the low rates, JPMorgan is experiencing a flurry of refinancing applications. The bank is also making bigger gains when those loans are packaged and eventually sold to big investors.

 Over all, the mortgage banking group posted profit of $418 million for the fourth quarter, compared with a loss of $269 million in the period a year earlier.

 But those low interest rates also present a challenge for JPMorgan, which is dealing with glut of deposits. The bank reported average total deposits of $404 billion, up 10 percent from the fourth quarter of 2011.

 As deposits pile up, the situation is weighing on profitability. The margin on deposits continued to shrink, dropping to 2.44 percent from 2.76 percent the period a year earlier.

 The bank also continues to face a slew of legal problems.

 In the last year, JPMorgan has worked to move beyond some of the issues stemming from the mortgage crisis. Along with competitors, JPMorgan reached deals with federal regulators over claims that its foreclosures practices might have led to wrongful eviction of homeowners. JPMorgan and other banks agreed this month to a $8.5 billion settlement with the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, which ends a costly and flawed review of loans in foreclosure ordered up by the regulators in 2011. The bank spent roughly $700 million this quarter on costs associated with the review.

 Still, the bank is dealing with other cases that could prove costly. New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, filed a lawsuit against the bank related to Bear Stearns, the troubled unit that JPMorgan bought in the depths of the financial crisis. In the suit, filed in October, the attorney general claimed JPMorgan had defrauded investors who bought securities created from shoddy mortgages.

 JPMorgan was also hit with two enforcement actions this week, the first formal sanctions from federal banking regulators over the bank’s multibillion-dollar trading loss. Regulators from the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency identified flaws throughout the bank, citing failures in its ability to assess how big losses might swell as a result of the complex trades. In addition, regulators found that bank executives did not adequately inform board members about the potential losses. ||||| JPMorgan Chase slashed CEO Jamie Dimon's bonus by 53%, citing the fallout from the bank's so-called London Whale trading losses.

 Dimon will take home $11.5 million, including a $10 million bonus. Last year, he was the best paid bank CEO with a $23.1 million pay package that included a $21.5 million bonus.

 JPMorgan's board also decided to push back Dimon's eligibility to sell $79 million of JPMorgan's stock for 18 months. Roughly 2 million shares were eligible for vesting on Jan. 22.

 "As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Dimon bears ultimate responsibility for the failures that led to the losses in CIO and has accepted responsibility for such failures," the board said in regulatory filing.

 At the same time, the board also noted that JPMorgan has reported record profits for three consecutive years and praised what they called Dimon's forceful response to the trading problems.

 Related: Why is JPMorgan's board unchanged?

 JPMorgan reported fourth-quarter net income of $5.7 billion, or $1.39 a share, beating forecasts, while revenue of $24.4 billion was in line with estimates.

 The bank's strong results were driven by a sharp uptick in new mortgages, with mortgage originations increasing 33% year-over year. Fees from mortgages jumped 181% from the prior year.

 While the housing recovery is underway, Dimon said on an analyst call that he expects mortgage revenue to bounce around over the next several quarters.

 Revenues in all of the bank's business line, including investment banking and consumer banking, increased from last year. Investment banking fees jumped 52% in the fourth quarter.

 JPMorgan reduced its staff by 1,500, or roughly 0.5%, to end the year with 258,965 employees. Even with the cuts, compensation expenses jumped 12% from the prior year.

 For the full year, the bank earned $21.3 billion, or $5.20 a share, on revenue of $99.9 billion

 Related: Hey Wall Street, get ready for more layoffs

 Still, investors weren't thrilled by the bank's results. Shares of JPMorgan Chase (JPM) straddled the breakeven line Wednesday. So far this year, the bank's stock has gained more than 5%, after rallying 35% in 2012.

 Going forward, Dimon said JPMorgan expects to buy back less stock in the coming quarters to shore up its capital reserves. The bank still plans to buy back up to $3 billion of stock during the current quarter, but will ask regulators for permission to repurchase fewer shares after that.

 Since the financial crisis, the largest banks have been required to prove to the Federal Reserve that they have sufficient capital reserves to withstand another financial crisis. DImon said that the bank will spend this year building up its reserve related to international regulatory guidelines known as Basel III.

 JPMorgan managed to generate profits during each quarter of 2012, despite recording a $6.2 billion loss from the so-called London Whale trade -- the massive bet on credit derivatives made by one of the bank's London units that went terribly wrong.

 Since the trading losses were revealed, JPMorgan has shaken up its executive ranks and appointed a new chief financial officer. The bank has also fired executives and traders responsible for the losses and has said that their pay is subject to clawbacks.

 In October, the bank filed suit against Javier Martin-Artajo, the former boss of Bruno Iksil, the trader who made the bad bets and came to be known as the "London Whale." A source familiar with the case said Wednesday that the suit had been settled, with Martin-Artajo agreeing to return some of his pay via the clawback mechanism in his contract.

 Martin-Artajo could not be reached for comment. The news was reported earlier by Reuters.

 The fallout from the London Whale continued this week, when the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ordered JPMorgan to improve its risk management procedures.

 In November, the bank said other agencies -- including the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission -- were also investigating the matter.

 On a call with journalists early Wednesday, Dimon said he expects it to be "non-issue" very soon. "We're getting near the end of it," he said.

 JPMorgan is the second major bank to report earnings. Wells Fargo (WFC) kicked off bank earnings season last Friday and Goldman Sachs (GS) reported fourth-quuarter profits that topped expectations early Wednesday.

 Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C) will release results Thursday morning, and Morgan Stanley (MS) reports early Friday.

 CNNMoney's James O'Toole contributed to this report. ||||| Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com

 Several thousand Morgan Stanley traders, investment bankers and other employees will get IOUs instead of cash when bonus day arrives Thursday, a fundamental change in Wall Street pay triggered by the financial crisis.

 The New York company will pay its bonuses in four equal installments, according to people briefed on the plan, with the first chunk coming in May and the last in January 2016. Employees who quit or are laid off before the payments stand to lose their deferred compensation unless they negotiate a separate deal with the company.

 "I don't think there will be a lot of cheers ... |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– That sound you're hearing is probably Wall Street's tiniest violin playing for Jamie Dimon. As many expected, JPMorgan Chase's board slashed the CEO's salary in response to the "London Whale" disaster, dropping his incentive pay a backbreaking 53.5% to $10 million, leaving him a mere $11.5 million with which to feed his family, CNN Money reports. "As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Dimon bears ultimate responsibility for the failures that led to the losses," the board wrote. Of course, the New York Times notes that the firm had an excellent year despite the Whale episode, with fourth quarter profit up 53% year-over-year. Maybe Dimon can cry on the shoulders of Morgan Stanley's traders and investment bankers, thousands of whom will be getting IOUs instead of cash bonuses this year, the Wall Street Journal reports. In response to the financial crisis, the bank is now breaking bonuses into four chunks, the last of which will come in 2016—if the employees are still with the bank. "I don't think there will be a lot of cheers on the trading floors of Morgan Stanley," one former Fed official remarked.


Write a summary based on this article:

First published on Friday Aug. 16, 2013.

 Liliane Cyr retraces the steps she took in 1978, the last time she ever saw her 18-month-old daughter,Yohanna.

 Walking down Rochon St. in St-Laurent, where she lived with the baby in a small apartment, she heads onto Décarie Blvd., to the parking lot of a strip mall. She stops where a taxi stand used to be and recounts how she gave the driver the destination before turning to her then-boyfriend and thanking him for looking after little Yohanna while she worked out of town that week. Then, the 20-year-old mother kissed her baby goodbye.

 Cyr never saw Yohanna again.

 Thirty-five years on, a small congregation of supporters gathered for the sombre anniversary on Aug. 15. Cyr’s daughter, Vera Sarah, sang a song for the sister she had never met but who had always represented hope in their home. New missing posters adorn telephone poles in the neighbourhood, as the RCMP unveiled yet another age-processed photograph that shows how Yohanna might look today, if she is alive.

 “That is my daughter,” Cyr said, looking tearfully at the photograph. “That’s her. It looks so much like her biological father, and like me. It’s special. You can’t see something like this and stop looking. How can I?” Holding a little teddy bear, Cyr said she questions everything.

 When she got to her job that day, she called her boyfriend to check in, but he said Yohanna was in the bathtub. When she called back the next day, he told her Yohanna was with his mother, who offered to babysit so he could come visit Cyr in Les Escoumins, in Quebec’s North Shore region. When they came back to Montreal together, he told her his mother lived in Boston. When Cyr flew to Boston to get her baby, he told her Yohanna had drowned and that he had buried her.

 “I didn’t understand nothing,” she said. “And I got very, very scared.”

 Cyr rushed back to Montreal, alone. She asked her neighbours, phoned hospitals, called the morgue and contacted police. No one had heard or seen anything, no one had information. The taxi driver, the only witness, died a month after he picked her up. Cyr brought baby photos and clothing to the police to open a file, but they went missing a decade later. Police reopened the file in 1994.

 When Aaron Lewis Guay, now her ex-boyfriend, was charged with kidnapping in 1978, he denied everything. In a preliminary hearing, a judge ruled there was not enough evidence to proceed. There was no body, no evidence that he had been watching the child, no crime scene.

 He was also deported because, as a U.S. citizen, he didn’t have the proper papers to stay in Quebec. No charges were laid, but he was told not to return.

 The case went cold. He disappeared too. Did he sell her daughter? Kill her? Smuggle her into the U.S.? What did he do with her? Where is she? These questions haunt Cyr, and she knows he is the only one with answers. She has tried, and failed, to contact him, but hopes the new photo of Yohanna might create new leads.

 In 2005, a U.S. woman, whose husband happened to see a photo of Yohanna and thought she might be a match, contacted Missing Children’s Network. The woman eventually came to Canada, but the DNA proved she wasn’t Liliane’s daughter.

 Cyr still hopes.

 “Maybe she’s alive, maybe she’s dead,” she said. “If she is alive, it would be the most beautiful gift a mother could have, If she’s dead, and someone can show me her bones, I will have to accept it, and I will finally be able to think about something else.

 “But while I wait …” Anyone with information concerning Yohanna Cyr’s whereabouts is asked to please contact the Missing Children’s Network at 514-843-4333 or toll-free at 1-888-692-4673. All calls are confidential. ||||| Update, Oct. 5, 2016: DNA tests have revealed that the U.S. woman is not the daughter of Liliane Cyr. Click here for the full story.

 Liliane Cyr has spent close to four decades hoping someone would contact her with news of her daughter Yohanna, who disappeared from her St-Laurent apartment when she was only 18 months old.

 But she has also watched as promising leads turned to bitter disappointments through the years and, in the hardest moments, wondered if it was best to give up and stop thinking about what happened.

 So when she received a private message two weeks ago through a Facebook page set up to keep Yohanna’s case alive, Cyr, 59, took a deep breath and reminded herself not to get her hopes too high, regardless of what it said.

 The message, received Aug. 5, came from a woman living in the United States. She said she didn’t want to bother Cyr or cause her any pain, but asked how she could get in touch with the investigators in charge of Yohanna’s case.

 Cyr, curious but trying to keep calm, asked what she knew about her daughter. The woman answered with a question of her own: Did Yohanna have a Y-shaped birthmark on her index finger?

 Cyr confirmed that she did, and froze at what came next.

 “I’m not 100 per cent sure,” the woman told her. “But I think I might be your daughter.”

 Yohanna Cyr disappeared from her mother’s St-Laurent apartment exactly 38 years ago on Monday.

 Cyr had left her daughter in the care of her then-boyfriend, a man named Aaron Lewis, while she went to work outside of the city.

 When Lewis went to join Cyr a few days later, he told her Yohanna was being babysat by his parents in Boston. But after Cyr headed to Boston to pick her up, Lewis’s story changed: Yohanna had drowned in the bathtub, Cyr says he told her, and he had no choice but to bury her.

 Lewis was arrested and charged with child abduction, but was acquitted and released because of a lack of evidence.

 Cyr has since spent a lifetime trying to keep her daughter’s case alive in hopes that if Yohanna is out there somewhere, she might start looking for her mother one day.

 Then came the Facebook message two weeks ago.

 According to Cyr, the woman told her she started wondering about her past when she turned 18 and, while trying to get her driver’s licence, found out that her birth certificate was a fake. She pushed her parents for details, but they never provided clear answers.

 She told Cyr she knows of no existing photos from when she was a little girl, and that she occasionally has flashbacks: blurry memories that come to mind of her being loaded onto an airplane as a small child.

 She has sent Cyr photos, and she not only looks like Yohanna, Cyr said, but her daughters do as well.

 “In my heart, I hope it’s her,” Cyr said on Monday. “There can’t be 50,000 people with that mark on their finger, can there?”

 Cyr said local police are communicating with American authorities so the woman can have DNA tests performed to know if she really is Yohanna. Results could take weeks, if not months, and Cyr says she knows not to be too optimistic until then. |||||

– A Canadian woman looking for her missing daughter since she went missing as a toddler almost 40 years ago received a Facebook message in early August that may change her life, the Ottawa Citizen reports. The private message sent to Liliane Cyr, who maintains a Facebook page dedicated to finding her daughter Yohanna, who disappeared from their Montreal apartment in 1978, was from a US woman who started off asking a very specific question about a birthmark on Yohanna's finger, followed by this: "I'm not 100% sure, but I think I might be your daughter." The woman told Cyr that the discovery that her birth certificate was a fake, an odd lack of early childhood photos, and fuzzy memories of a plane ride led her to suspect something was amiss in her past. The Montreal Gazette tells the story of what happened the week Yohanna disappeared, with 20-year-old Cyr leaving 18-month-old Yohanna in the care of Aaron Lewis Guay, her US boyfriend at the time, while she was out of town for work. Guay met up with Cyr a few days later without the baby, first telling Cyr his mom was watching Yohanna, then saying the toddler had drowned in the tub and he'd buried her. Guay was charged with kidnapping, but he denied his original story and a judge ruled there wasn't enough evidence to go on with the case; he was released and disappeared. Cyr says she's trying not to get her hopes up, but she notes that photos of the woman resemble Yohanna. DNA tests are in the works. (Two teens missing for two years were found on a Minnesota farm.)


– Washington, DC, could be about to leave the rest of the US behind and move a lot closer to Europe, at least as far as family leave is concerned. The DC Council backs legislation, to be introduced Tuesday, that would give workers 16 weeks of paid leave for events like the birth or adoption of a child, the terminal illness of a parent, or recovery from a military deployment, reports the Washington Post. The paper notes that the plan applies to almost all workers in the city (including part-time) and is more than double anything on offer in any of the 50 states. It will cover 100% of pay for people making $52,000 a year or less; the maximum weekly pay for the highest earners would be $3,000 per week. The new Family and Medical Leave Fund would be funded by a levy on employers that the Post likens to a state unemployment insurance fund, with employers paying in on a sliding scale that goes up to 1% of salaries for the highest-paid workers. WAMU reports the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015 has the votes to pass the Council; the legislation would then go to the mayor. The DC plan is a big victory for President Obama's push to boost family leave. Instead of trying to get legislation through Congress, the administration is offering grants to help create state-level paid family leave plans. The administration "has realized the action is on the state and local level, and they gave us the money to model how this could actually work," DC Council member Elissa Silverman tells the Post. "We now have a national platform and a great opportunity with this legislation to show how it can be done." The US is one of the only countries in the world without paid maternal leave, and experts say that has caused a lower rate of female participation in the labor force, reports the International Business Times. (This tech firm offers mothers and fathers a year's paid leave.)

Expand this summary.

Christian Glatz: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24092454@N00/12582433/

 During his State of the Union speech in January, President Barack Obama lamented that millions of Americans do not have paid sick and parental leave. "And that forces too many parents to make the gut-wrenching choice between a paycheck and a sick kid at home," he said at the time.

 His words haven't prompted Congress to adopt any nationwide policies, but a pair of legislators and a coalition of advocacy groups are hoping to do away with that "gut-wrenching choice" in the nation's capital.

 D.C. Council members Elissa Silverman and David Grosso — independents who hold at-large seats — on Tuesday introduced the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015, under which all D.C. residents and workers would be eligible for 16 weeks of paid leave for medical or family reasons, including the birth, adoption or fostering of a child.

 "Almost every country in the world has paid family leave except for the United States, and I think it's time that we rectify that," says Silverman, a first-term Council member who has identified with progressive causes like raising the minimum wage.

 If passed, the bill would offer D.C. workers the most generous paid leave in the country.

 Paid leave for all

 Who Would Qualify? Any employee — whether or not they live in D.C. — of a private business, organization or company based in D.C.

 Employees of the federal government who live in D.C., or D.C. residents who work outside the city, could opt into the system by paying their own contributions to a city-managed leave fund.

 Maryland and Virginia residents who work for the federal government in D.C. would not be eligible.

 Last year, the D.C. government adopted a new policy granting city employees up to eight weeks of paid sick and family leave. In January, Obama issued an executive order allowing federal employees to take up to six weeks of paid leave after the birth of a child, and last month he ordered that federal contractors give workers up to seven days of paid leave.

 And though D.C. law allows employees to take up to 16 weeks of leave after having a child and not lose their job, it does not require that the leave be paid. And for those employers that do offer paid leave, it is often under the guide of short- and long-term disability plans, which means that the amount paid can be less than an employee's usual salary.

 But under Silverman and Grosso's bill, almost all D.C. workers holding full- and part-time jobs would be eligible for paid leave for family or medical reasons.

 The measure would work much like unemployment insurance. Private employers would pay into a new Family and Medical Leave Fund, while federal government workers who live in D.C., along with residents who work outside the city, would make personal contributions to the fund.

 Contributions would vary by salary; 1 percent for every employee making over $150,000 per year, 0.8 percent for those in the $50,000-150,000 range, and so on down. Self-employed residents would be allowed to opt out.

 An employee taking leave would file a claim with the fund, which would pay out the benefits. Under the bill, the fund would cover 100 percent of the first $1,000 an employee makers per week and 50 percent thereafter, for a maximum of $3,000 per week over the course of the leave taken.

 Mothers and children attended Tuesday's D.C. Council session, where a paid leave bill was introduced. (WAMU/Martin Austermuhle)

 In 2014, D.C. received a $96,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Labor to study options for expanding paid leave. Silverman says that the bill being introduced Tuesday draws from some of the research done for that study, as well as conversations her staff had with officials in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island — the three states that currently have paid leave policies on the books, albeit none approaching the amount of time being considered in the D.C. bill.

 Advocates say they do not yet have know how much the bill would cost employers, but that an estimate will be produced by the Office D.C. Chief Financial Officer as the measure moves its way through the Council.

 Silverman says she recognizes that the bill will have a cost to both employers and employees working outside D.C., but that only with a universal approach will the measure succeed.

 "There is a cost, but just like why we have a health insurance exchange, which then pools risk and lowers the cost for everyone, paid family leave takes the same approach," she says.

 Advocates say that while the bill will benefit all D.C.-based employees, it's most important for low-income workers.

 "I can't tell you how many times I've sat in front of a worker who is pregnant, and in what should be a joyful time is sitting in front of me crying and saying she won't have an income anymore as soon as her baby comes into the world," says Sheena Wadhawan, advocacy director at the D.C. Employment Justice Center, one of the dozens of organizations backing the bills.

 "This bill is important because workers should be able to have a child, should be able to care for their families without it turning into the worst moment in their lives when they lose their income and are forced to choose between caring for their children and being able to pay their rent," she adds.

 Concerns from business community

 But as with many measures that have emanated from the Council, some sectors of the business community are concerned with the costs of providing paid leave — and say those costs could force businesses to relocate to outside the city.

 "While the business community definitely wants happy employees, our concern is that there are some issues that haven't been addressed, some of the details, and we're worried that this could affect the business climate in Washington, D.C.," says Harry Wingo, president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce.

 Wingo says he was initially consulted when the bill was being drafted, but that the chamber will not support the version of the bill being introduced.

 "Our concern is that this would go further than any other type of legislation in the nation, in a bad way. The burden would be completely on employers, so this would be employer funded, and in fact employees would not be contributing as they do in other systems," he says.

 Grosso says that contributions to the fund fall exclusively on employers because the city's charter prohibits it from imposing a tax on non-residents. And even though the cost will fall on employers, Silverman says those same employers would benefit from having happier employees.

 "I understand the chamber's concerns, but study after study show that workers who feel like their employer care about them end up being more productive workers, and that benefits employers," she says.

 That's what Jamie Davis-Smith, who attended the Tuesday Council session with her 10-month-old son in tow, said about the six weeks paid leave her husband was given by his employer.

 "I know that for families such as my own that have been lucky enough to experience even a short period of paid leave, it really results in a great appreciation to your employer and promotes a lot of loyalty to your employer," she says.

 Advocates also say that the business community similarly complained about other measures passed by the Council, including a 2008 bill requiring that all employers give employees paid sick leave. In May, the D.C. Auditor published a report saying that that law — which was expanded in 2014 to include tipped workers — had "minimal impact on employers."

 Grosso says the bill would move D.C. closer to what is considered a standard benefit for families in many other countries.

 "In other countries, this is the norm. And this is how it is done, and it is supported because they believe in strong families in other countries better than we do here," he says.

 The bill has been assigned to a Council committee for a hearing and markup, after which it would go to the full Council for voting. Two separate votes are required for any legislation to pass, after which it is sent to the mayor for consideration.

 According to Grosso's office, the bill is being co-sponsored by Council members Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1), LaRuby May (D-Ward 8), Anita Bonds (D-At Large), Kenyan McDuffie (D-Ward 5), and Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) — giving it enough votes to pass the Council. ||||| Like millions of soon-to-be mothers, Charlotte Brock, 35, faced an agonizing decision before the birth of her child: Stay at work and pay for professional care or quit her job and devote time to the unpaid labor of child rearing. The stakes were especially gut-wrenching since Brock, a Marine veteran who spent two years in Iraq, is a single mother.

 “They’re only babies for such a short period of time,” she says. “I really wanted to do the best I could do for him -- being there, bonding with him, being attentive to his needs, helping him develop in the best way possible.”

 It was also a decision she didn’t think she’d have to make. Brock had a good job at a defense policy think tank in Washington, D.C., run by ex-military people and was earning upwards of $65,000 a year. The firm offered generous paid sick time and vacation benefits. It only seemed natural to Brock that those benefits would extend to paid parental leave.

 “I guess I had just misunderstood,” she says.

 Eventually, Brock's bosses offered her 12 weeks of unpaid leave -- the maximum amount provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act-- even though the federal law only covers firms with 50 or more workers and did not apply to Brock’s employer. Either way, she decided against it. The amount of time off was too short, and most importantly, it was unpaid. So she quit her job and moved in with her parents in Ottawa, Canada, where she spent the next two years.

 When Brock dropped out of the labor force five years ago, she followed in the footsteps of millions of other Americans who are overlooked by the government's official count of the unemployed. As this month’s jobs report shows, a smaller share of the civilian population is officially in the labor force -- either employed or unemployed and looking for work -- than at any time since the late 1970s. It’s one of the big reasons why bosses across a wide array of sectors aren’t feeling pressure to hike pay, even as the official unemployment rate slides downward.

 It’s a hot political talking point today as the White House touts the strength of the economic recovery. But the steady decline in so-called labor force participation predates the Obama administration by nearly a decade. It’s driven in large part by demographics: The Baby Boomer generation, whose careers extend from the waning years of the post-World War II boom to the recent recession, is gradually retiring. Economists deem that mass exodus responsible for about half of the total decline since 1999.

 The Great Recession fueled the drop, too. People who can’t find work sometimes give up the search for a new job and drop out of the labor market altogether -- a trend that notably marked the recent downturn. On top of that, working-age men have gradually been leaving the labor force for decades -- in large part as decent-paying blue-collar jobs have either disappeared or left American shores, replaced by low-paying service sector jobs.

 “It’s about the attractiveness of jobs that are available,” says Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University. “If you were a high school graduate that had a good paying job in a field like construction or manufacturing, what you have left to choose from now is going to be a huge step down. It’s hard to take a job that’s paying 30 to 40 percent less than before.”

 An often overlooked part of the story, though, is the decline in working-age female participation -- people like Brock.

 For decades, women entered the U.S. labor force at a rapid rate, growing from near 40 percent participation at the dawn of the 1960s to 70 percent by the turn of the century. Since then, the trend has tapered off. From 2000 to 2014, labor force participation for women aged 25 to 54 fell nearly 3 points to 73.9 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). On this measure, the U.S. ranks behind the vast majority of its fellow OECD nations -- 17th out of 22. Others, meanwhile, are seeing steady gains.

 A 2013 National Bureau of Economic Research paper from Cornell economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn shed light on a major reason behind the discrepancy between the U.S. and other OECD countries: the dramatic difference in paid parental leave policies. Most of the world guarantees workers this benefit; only the United States and Papua New Guinea do not.

 Paid parental leave makes re-entry into the labor market easier, since workers are entitled to their old jobs back, says Kahn. “But it also actually encourages women to get into the labor market even before they have children, because it’s a benefit you can only qualify for you if you have a job. The benefit actually serves to bring people into the labor market so they can qualify for the benefit in the first place.”

 The system under the Family and Medical Leave Act is far more limited, Kahn says. Not only is it unpaid, but it doesn’t cover small employers or workers who’ve worked less than a certain number of hours in a year. The amount of actual guaranteed time off too is dramatically less.

 “If you have a less than a 50 percent chance of qualifying for the benefit, and it’s a 12-week period. That’s much less encouragement than a country where it’s universal and you have a 57-week entitlement,” says Kahn. (Norway offers this.)

 Instead the stateside system leads to plights like Charlotte Brock’s, whose re-entry into the labor force turned out to be as grueling as the decision to leave. After two years out of work, Brock she says she struggled to find a job when she was ready to work again. “I’ve never really recovered professionally from that,” she says.

 Brock is now studying for a master’s degree in industrial and organizational psychology. She was also working part time as an editor before losing her job this week. In the meantime, she’s become an unabashed supporter of paid parental leave.

 “It’s a question of human rights for the mother and the child,” she says. “We’re mammals, we’re meant to have this bonding. To not include it is inhumane.” ||||| D.C. could have the best family leave benefits in the country if the city's council adopts a plan that would grant District residents and workers 16 weeks of paid leave. (WUSA 9)

 D.C. could have the best family leave benefits in the country if the city's council adopts a plan that would grant District residents and workers 16 weeks of paid leave. (WUSA 9)

 The District would become the most generous place in the country for a worker to take time off after giving birth or to care for a dying parent under a measure supported by a majority of the D.C. Council.

 Under the legislation that will be introduced Tuesday, almost every part-time and full-time employee in the nation’s capital would be entitled to 16 weeks of paid family leave to bond with an infant or an adopted child, recover from an illness, recuperate from a military deployment or tend to an ill family member.

 The broad new worker benefit, enthusiastically supported by the Obama administration, would be paid from a fund created by a new tax on D.C. employers. The benefit would dwarf family-leave assistance in all 50 states and would also mark a step toward benefits offered by most European countries, where parents can take as much as a year of paid time off following the birth of a child.

 The measure also could soon mark a rare legislative victory in Washington for President Obama — not on Capitol Hill, but down Pennsylvania Avenue inside city hall.

 The administration has spent years watching its ideas to address rising income inequality fall flat in Congress amid partisan gridlock. The proposed measure amounts to a new strategy in executive branch workarounds: using local law to forge a policy bulkhead for bigger changes nationally. Supporters said the bill would help to address the widening gap between rich and poor by helping families take time off when they otherwise couldn’t make ends meet.

 D.C. Council member Elissa Silverman said paid family leave would make the District more competitive regionally by making it easier for women to reenter the workforce. “There is a big problem with keeping women in the workplace and making it feel like you can come back.” (Bill O'Leary/THE WASHINGTON POST)

 “The Obama administration has realized the action is on the state and local level, and they gave us the money to model how this could actually work,” said D.C. Council member Elissa Silverman (I-At Large), one of the lead supporters of the measure. “We now have a national platform and a great opportunity with this legislation to show how it can be done.”

 The measure is the first major legislative product to flow from a grant program that U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez has openly advertised as an end run on a Republican-controlled Congress, which, when it comes to worker compensation, has declined to take up the issue of a stagnated federal minimum wage.

 [Perez, White House begin road show to build support for family leave]

 “The United States is one of the few countries on Earth without national paid leave. Fortunately, we have seen remarkable progress . . . where innovative state and local officials are designing paid-leave policies that work for their citizens,” Perez said last week in a statement.

 The D.C. Chamber of Commerce on Monday pushed back against the proposal, saying in a letter to the council that the business community has not been privy to the Department of Labor-funded research used to develop the legislation. The group warned that an entirely employer-funded family-leave program “would be unprecedented and make the District of Columbia dangerously uncompetitive.”

 But an increasingly liberal D.C. Council has pushed the issue to the forefront and with greater force than even some Obama administration officials expected.

 The D.C. legislation would more than double the length of any paid-leave program in the country. Only three states have enacted such laws over the past 10 years. Currently, the maximum benefit is six weeks of partial paid leave in New Jersey and California.

 The District would offer 16 weeks and unprecedented coverage for workers’ salaries and hourly wages: 100 percent of pay for those making up to $52,000 a year.

 Employees who earn more than that would be eligible for $1,000 a week plus 50 percent of their additional income, up to a maximum of $3,000 per week.

 Almost all D.C. employees would be eligible. The only ones excluded would be residents of Maryland and Virginia who work for the federal government, because the city could not compel it to participate. District employees of the federal government and federal contractors could opt into the system and pay a small fee to participate.

 [Poll: Do you support the D.C. paid family leave proposal?]

 The plan would be paid for with a first-of-its-kind new levy on D.C. employers, akin to a state unemployment insurance pool.

 Every D.C. employer would be required to pay into the fund on a sliding scale. Law firms, lobbying groups and others with the District’s highest-paid workers would pay the equivalent of 1 percent of the salaries of employees who earn above $150,000, or about $1,500 annually per worker.

 On the low end, employers of minimum wage workers, who now earn $10.50 per hour, would have to contribute 0.6 percent of each worker’s pay, or about $131 per employee per year.

 “It’s a very cost-effective program, it doesn’t require a lot of money to provide a whole lot of benefit,” said Jeffrey Hayes, study director for the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the D.C. nonprofit organization that the District hired with its $96,000 Labor Department grant to model the plan.

 Hayes used a series of sophisticated simulations to help determine how the District could afford to offer paid family leave for nearly all workers — full-time and part-time, and especially lowincome workers.

 Silverman and council member David Grosso (I-At Large), who pushed the measure for months behind the scenes, recently attended a symposium led by the Labor Department where the District’s efforts were lauded for helping to “push the needle” on family-leave law.

 At the symposium, Perez announced the Obama administration would triple its grants for similar work, to a total of $2 million. It is behind efforts in 12 states and local governments nationwide to spur family leave laws.

 Grosso last month took the plan before dozens of members of the local Chamber of Commerce and argued that it would make D.C. employers more competitive regionally because it would create loyalty to the District, compared with Maryland and Virginia, which have no statewide paid-family-leave programs. A handful of businesses have signed on in support, while others have said the plan would create burdens on companies to find temporary help if the paid leave entices more employees to utilize family leave already allowed under federal law.

 But Grosso’s pitch to colleagues has primarily been focused on the bill as a partial solution to growing wage disparities. He has argued that family leave should not become the domain of the wealthy.

 “The fact of the matter is, if you’re making less than $1,000 a week, you can’t make ends meet on a fraction of your pay. You can’t afford to take that leave,” said Grosso, chairman of the council’s education committee.

 He pointed to research that men who care for their children as infants are more likely to be a bigger part of their kids’ lives later on.

 “In this country, we really don’t reward strong families the way we should,” Grosso said. Like most other council sponsors of the bill, he does not have any children but said he and his mother had to stagger shifts years ago to care for a terminally ill grandmother. |||||


© Provided by AFP A Chinese animal lover consoles a dog after a convoy of trucks carrying some 500 dogs to be sold as meat, were stopped along a highway in Beijing on early April 17, 2011, and the dogs were later rescued to the China Animal Protection Association

 A Chinese woman has paid over $1,000 to save 100 canines from being eaten during a dog meat festival, media said Sunday, as activists have lashed out at the event labelling it cruel.

 Animal-loving Yang Xiaoyun paid about 7,000 yuan (US$1,100) to save around 100 dogs in the southern city of Yulin on Saturday, web portal Netease reported.

 The city holds an annual festival devoted to the animal's meat on the summer solstice, which has provoked an increasing backlash from animal protection activists.

 Reports said that Yang, 65, plans to rehouse the dogs at her home nearly 2,000 kilometres (124 miles) away in Tianjin.

 Pictures posted online showed her browsing a market in Yulin where the dogs were kept in cages.

 © Provided by AFP A vendor waits at a corner of a makeshift dog market in the suburb of Beijing 01 April 2001, with various mongrels in cages for sale to dog meat lovers

 Activists, who say the festival is cruel, have in the past travelled to the city to hold demonstrations, sometimes buying dogs to save them from the cooking pots.

 Locals have been quoted as saying that animals are killed in a humane way for the festival, where their meat is then served with lychees.

 The majority of "meat dogs" in the country are stolen pets and strays, according to an investigation published this month by Hong Kong-based charity Animals Asia, though eating dog is unusual in most parts of China.

 Around 30 million households in the country are estimated to keep dogs as pets, helping to fuel the growing animal rights movement.

 This year the festival has been targeted by British Comedian Ricky Gervais, who posted a series of messages on Twitter with the hashtag "StopYuLin2015".

 The city's government has tried to distance itself from the event.

 "Some residents of Yulin have the habit of coming together to eat lychees and dog meat during the summer solstice," the city's news office wrote on Sina Weibo, a Chinese Twitter equivalent.

 "The 'summer solstice lychee and dog meat festival' is a commercial term, the city has never (officially) organised a 'dog meat festival'," it added.

 Eating dog is not illegal in China, but the government called on meat vendors to respect food safety laws.

 "Yulin is an open, tolerant and civilised city," it said. "We welcome people across the world to pay attention to Yulin." ||||| Dog and cat meat traders at Yulin festival in China have said that business is booming, despite calls for it to close amid animal cruelty accusations.

 It is expected that thousands of cats and dogs will be slaughtered this weekend to mark the summer solstice on Sunday in Yulin, washed down with lycee wine.

 Government officials have ostensibly “banned” the controversial annual Yulin Dog Meat Festival after it attracted protesters and criticism from around the world.

 Some readers may find the below images distressing

 A woman on her moped transports more than 10 dogs, which had just been slaughtered, to her market shop for sale

 However, the slaughter of cats and dogs for meat is not outlawed in China, and the local government in Yulin says it cannot stop legitimate businesses preparing meat in the run-up to this year’s solstice on 21 June.

 In pictures: Yulin meat festival

 6 show all In pictures: Yulin meat festival

 1/6 Yulin meat festival A man selling live dogs for meat Dog meat for sale at Dongkou Market, Yulin, Guangxi Zhuang, China (Photo by Sipa Asia/REX)

 2/6 Yulin meat festival A dog vendor lifts up a dog to protest against animal rights activists coming to block the local dog meat festival (Photo: EPA/LI KE CHINA OUT)

 3/6 Yulin meat festival Dog meat for sale at Dongkou Market in Yulin (Photo by Sipa Asia/REX)

 4/6 Yulin meat festival Dog meat for sale at Dongkou Market, Yulin (Photo by Sipa Asia/REX )

 5/6 Yulin meat festival Dog meat for sale at Dongkou Market in Yulin (Photo by Sipa Asia/REX)

 6/6 Yulin meat festival Animal rights activists in Rome try to reach the Embassy of China to protest against the Festival of Yulin, but are blocked by the police (Stefano Montesi/Demotix/Corbis)

 Indeed, it has been reported that business is only getting better for the dog and cat meat traders as the controversy continues.

 Celebrities including Leona Lewis and Ricky Gervais have denounced the festival this week.

 A slaughterhouse butcher transfers a cat to a cage, to be handed off to Peter Li. Shortly after, Li rescued the cat from the slaughterhouse

 Peter Li, animal activist group Humane Society International’s China specialist, visited the market earlier this week and reported: “I saw cat and dog intestines and carcasses strung up.

 “Workers were blow-torching the carcasses to make them shiny and ready for shipment to restaurants. There were some dogs still alive in wire cages, but they looked exhausted, emaciated and dirty.” ||||| Peter Li is a China policy specialist at Humane Society International. He is also an associate professor of East Asian politics, University of Houston-Downtown. The views expressed here are solely his.

 (CNN) Yulin's dog meat "festival," where some 10,000 dogs are slaughtered and served up as meals, is often wrongly assumed to be an ancient Chinese tradition.

 In fact, the festival only dates back to 2009 when it was launched in the city in China's southwest to celebrate the summer solstice.

 The consumption of dog meat does have historical precedence in China.

 At its height during the Han Dynasty (202 - 220 AD), dog meat was considered a delicacy.

 Yet, dog eating soon lost favor and by the Sui-Tang dynasties (581 -- 907 AD), dog eating had been rejected as an indecent habit.

 Subsequent dynasties valued dogs as helpers and hunting buddies.

 Losing battle?

 In the 21st century, dog eating is facing strong criticism inside China. Three decades of economic expansion has spawned a growing army of animal lovers and pet owners believed to be 30 million strong.

 Of China's estimated 130 million dogs, at least 27 million are urban pets, according to research group Euromonitor.

 As more young people move into the cities, they look to companion animals for comfort in the absence of the family unit.

 With their new found bond with animals, this new generation of Chinese see cats and dogs as thinking, feeling individuals deserving of compassion. Most importantly, they are friends not food.

 I believe the dog meat industry is fighting a losing battle.

 My own investigations and those of Chinese activists and journalists all confirm its downward spiral as the cruelty involved is exposed.

 Guangzhou, a city well known for eating dogs, cats and exotic wildlife, just closed a dog meat restaurant that had been in operation for 51 years, according to local reports.

 Likewise, brutal dog slaughter used to be everywhere in Beijing's suburbs less than 10 years ago, but it has now virtually disappeared.

 In 2011, local authorities shut down the Jinghua Dog Meat Festival following nationwide condemnation.

 JUST WATCHED Inside China's dog meat 'festival' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Inside China's dog meat 'festival' 01:23

 How long can Yulin authorities remain defiant of Chinese and international public opinion?

 Rabies risk

 The dog meat trade is a serious threat to human health, and Chinese authorities have every reason to stand by the animal advocates.

 China has the world's second highest incidence of rabies in humans. And according to China's ministry for public health , Guangxi province, where Yulin is located, has the largest number of cases in China, while Yulin is one of China's "top ten cities" for cases of human rabies.

 Eating dog meat of itself does not cause rabies, but the handling and slaughter of vast numbers of unvaccinated dogs exposes the traders to a high risk of rabies infection.

 Transporting the dogs to the festival is an intrinsically brutal operation. Dogs for Yulin come from as far as central and north China's Henan and Shandong, more than 1,000 miles away.

 They are crammed into wire cages unable to extend their limbs, denied food and water for days during the exhausting trip. The dogs arrive at their destination malnourished and underweight, dehydrated, often dying from injuries or from being poisoned during capture. Others are already dead.

 Food safety disaster

 This isn't solely an animal welfare issue; it's also a food safety disaster.

 China's food safety regulations ban the processing, selling and serving of products from diseased or dead animals of unknown causes.

 And yet the Yulin authorities seemingly ignore these rules, allowing dog meat from unknown sources to be sold to consumers, and in so doing prioritizing the profits of dog meat traders over consumer health.

 When contacted by CNN, a spokesperson for the local food and drug administration declined to answer any questions.

 JUST WATCHED Dog meat festival in China sparks outrage Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Dog meat festival in China sparks outrage 03:21

 The average Chinese citizen finds public dog slaughter inexcusably offensive.

 Dogs are openly killed in crowded marketplaces, on the streets, and most shockingly next to elementary schools, imposing bloody and cruel practices on vulnerable members of the public.

 Such public slaughter risks creating an indifferent and morally defunct society.

 Beating and killing these struggling, crying dogs in full view of other terrified dogs showcases an industry that is devoid of humanity.

 Additionally, the criminal activity of dog theft sustains much of the dog meat industry, with often violent confrontations between angry dog owners and the thieves.

 Changing culture

 Protesters gather to demonstrate against dog meat trade in China.

 Opposition to dog eating is not about interfering in the food choices of dog meat eaters, nor a challenge to Chinese culture.

 No culture is stagnant; it evolves and progresses.

 During my most recent trip to Yulin in May, I sat down to have tea with five dog meat traders. I asked them if they wanted their children to step into their shoes. They answered a resounding "No."

 Their children were ashamed of their parents' profession. The 19-year-old son of one trader asked: "Why are you doing this, out of all the jobs out there?"

 It is a question resounding throughout China, and the authorities need to listen. |||||

Write a summary.

– Don't like the thought of dogs being served up with lychees? Neither does Yang Xiaoyun, a 65-year-old Chinese woman who saved 100 canines from being killed and served at a dog-meat festival in southern China, AFP reports. The animal lover paid about $1,100 yesterday for the dogs in the city of Yulin, and plans to take them home to Tianjin, about 1,240 miles away. Her gesture has drawn more attention to Yulin's controversial festival, where activists hold demonstrations, charge animal cruelty, and sometimes buy dogs so they won't get eaten. "I saw cat and dog intestines and carcasses strung up," an activist tells the Independent. "There were some dogs still alive in wire cages, but they looked exhausted, emaciated, and dirty." Locals say the dogs are killed in a humane manner at Yulin's festival, where people eat dog meat with lychees—but the tide in China may be turning against the practice. Roughly 30 million Chinese households are said to have dogs now, while more young people are moving into cities and buying animals for companionship, CNN reports. What's more, the city of Guangzhou—known for serving dogs and cats—just shut down a dog-meat restaurant. But while officials have criticized the Yulin festival, they stop short of imposing a legal ban against the slaughter of cats and dogs. "Yulin is an open, tolerant and civilised city," says the city's news office. "We welcome people across the world to pay attention to Yulin."