It’s no secret that our tax system is outdated, overly complicated, and full of loopholes, and anyone in Washington can tell you that tax reform – especially bipartisan tax reform – isn’t easy. But we – a progressive Democrat from Delaware and a conservative Republican from Texas - believe that we can work together on common sense tax reforms, and we’ve found an unlikely place to start: the energy sector.

Almost everyone agrees that the United States needs to increase domestic energy production, and a number of Democrats and Republicans alike have argued for an “all of the above” energy strategy. Unfortunately, our broken tax system is getting in the way, but we have an idea to fix that: we can level the tax playing field for domestic energy projects, from fossil fuels to the latest clean energy technologies, with the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, which we introduced this week along with our bipartisan colleagues, Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), as well as members of both parties representing a diverse set of districts and states from across the country.

For three decades, the federal government has supported certain energy industries and projects with an innovative provision in the tax code that allows energy companies to form something called a ma
North Korea’s recent test of an intercontinental ballistic missile is a game changer. Only last month, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told Congress that the despotic nation was the “most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security.” Kim Jong-un’s new missile launch confirms Secretary Mattis’s assessment. Perhaps even more concerning is the potential for North Korea to compound the threat by transferring this dangerous technology to another rogue regime, namely its longtime ally Iran.

Tehran checks every box for being a global menace, just like its friends in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Both are state sponsors of terror, have clear nuclear ambitions, and directly threaten U.S. interests and those of our allies with ballistic missiles. Iran looks to North Korea to support and enable its nuclear ambitions. For years, experts have suspected North Korea as being the key supporter behind Iran’s missile and nuclear programs. Today, many of the missiles Iran would use to target American forces in the Middle East are copies of North Korean designs.

North Korean engineers are in Ira
The United States has many complex foreign relationships. Being the world’s only superpower requires dealing with the good, the bad and the ugly of nation-states. The good are obvious. They are America’s allies and partners who we share common interests and values. The bad are America’s adversaries, who often sponsor terrorism, undermine our goals, and flaunt their disdain for the United States. Then there are the ugly. The Benedict Arnold of states that say they are our friends, take billions in U.S. aid, then back the very terrorists that are killing Americans. The ugliest of the bunch is Pakistan.

Pakistan has a long duplicitous relationship with the U.S. Throughout most of the Cold War, America and Pakistan worked closely to contain Soviet advances in South Asia. This working relationship peaked in the 1980s when the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, partnered to bleed the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by providing covert assistance to the Afghan anti-communist rebels. But even as the U.S. bolstered Pakistan’s own defenses, Islamabad was covertly developing a nuclear weapons program that it would later use to proliferate nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea and Iran — the who’s who of bad actors.

In the coming weeks, President Trump is expected to announce the White House’s intentions to roll back our nation’s policies on Cuba. The details of what changes will be made are not known, but the potential economic impact could be significant: a $6.6 billion hit. That’s meaningful to American companies who have begun to make investments and to American workers and farmers supporting exports to a reopened market. It’s time to move forward after nearly six decades of failed policy with Cuba.
The terrorist attacks that have swept the United Kingdom mark yet another chapter in the long war by violent Islamist extremists against the free world. Terrorism in Europe is not a new phenomenon. The fact that three attacks have struck Britain in the last three months alone exposes that despite safeguards and a vast understanding of the terrorist threat, much more must be done to defeat these radical killers.
The Hill

BY REPS. TED POE (R-TEXAS) AND MIKE ROGERS (R-ALA.), OPINION CONTRIBUTORS - 05/18/17 10:05 AM EDT

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been allowed for too long to get away with lawless behavior without serious pushback from the U.S. and its allies. He has spent well over a decade doing everything in his power to undermine the security system put in place at the end of the Cold War, threatening international security and stability.

First he invaded Georgia in 2008. Then Moscow illegally seized and annexed Crimea in 2014 and invaded portions of eastern Ukraine. Putin’s troops are still illegally occupying territory in these sovereign countries.

But the kleptocrat of the Kremlin did not stop there: Under his watch, Russia has been systematically cheating on important arms control agreements, first and foremost the 1987 Intermediate-Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; this violation directly threatens the security of the American people and calls into question Russian adherence to other treaties like the 2011 New Strategic Arms Reduction (START) Treaty.

In 1987, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the INF Treaty, which prohibited the flight, production or possession of all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The signing of the treaty was a monumental and unique accomplishment in arms control: It was the first, and is still the only, treaty to not simply reduce or limit the number of a class of weapon but to actually prohibit a category of weapons outright. It marked a crucial step toward ensuring European stability and securing U.S. interests in the region. And it marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War on terms dictated by the United States and the West.

For eight years, I have joined my colleagues in the fight to repeal and replace the train wreck that is Obamacare. This was the call heard around the nation for years, particularly leading up to President Trump's historic victory. We promised the American people that if they supported us, help would be on the way. As a conservative, I believe that the federal government should have a limited role in our personal lives, including health care. As a cancer patient, I knew the importance of getting this bill right and replacing Obamacare with a patient-centered solution that also ensures access to care for the nearly 30 percent of Americans with pre-existing conditions. But as the American Health Care Act teetered on the edge of a cliff, it was the Freedom Caucus that helped give it the final push.
Whether it is the food we eat, the cars we drive, the light bulbs we use to light our homes, or the clothing we wear, every American household is impacted every single day by the activity of our ports. This activity accounts for over a quarter of our economy, generating trillions of dollars and bringing in over $300 billion in tax revenue each year. As Co-Chairs of the Congressional PORTS Caucus, it is our privilege and duty to be the voice of one of our nation’s top economic engines.
For years and, we would say, for decades, the United States has acquiesced in a toxic relationship with Pakistan, putting up with this nominal ally whose military and security leaders play a lethal double game. Most dangerously, the “game,” if one can call it that, involves headlong nuclear-weapons production and exporting Islamist terrorism.

Successive U.S. administrations haven’t found a way out of this, playing instead the theater of “shared interests” with Islamabad, even when Pakistan’s links with insurgents imperil American lives in Afghanistan while feeding wider instability in central Asia.
This past summer President Obama threatened to put Britain “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with the United States should the British vote to leave the European Union and reclaim their independence. Despite such intimidations, on July 23, 2016 the British people spoke. They chose to throw off the EU’s shackles and take charge of their own economic future in the historic Brexit referendum.