EVIL BABY.

The US Senate's Republican leader has rejected calls from an unlikely alliance of President Donald Trump, Democrats and some congressional Republicans to boost coronavirus aid. Mitch McConnell said hiking aid cheques from $600 (£440) to $2,000 would be "another fire hose of borrowed money". The Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives had voted to increase the payments to Americans. The outgoing president's intervention has divided his fellow Republicans. Congress agreed the smaller $600 payments in a Covid relief and government funding bill that Mr Trump sent back to Capitol Hill before Christmas, with the president seeking higher stimulus payments. On Monday, congressional Democrats - usually sworn political foes of Mr Trump - passed the measure for $2,000 cheques that he requested. Dozens of House Republicans, reluctant to defy Mr Trump, sided with Democrats to approve the package. Mr Trump begrudgingly signed the original bill with the lower payments into law on Sunday, but has continued to demand more money. "Unless Republicans have a death wish, and it is also the right thing to do, they must approve the $2,000 payments ASAP," he tweeted on Tuesday. What did McConnell say? The Kentucky senator rejected Senate Democrats' calls for the upper chamber to vote on the $2,000 cheques package passed by their counterparts in the House. "The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help," Mr McConnell said on the chamber floor. Instead he offered to roll the proposal for $2,000 cheques into another bill to include other measures that have been requested by Mr Trump but raised objections from Democratic leaders. One would end legal protection for tech companies, known as Section 230. The other would set up a bipartisan commission to investigate electoral fraud, something which Mr Trump has alleged in the presidential election without providing evidence. Democrats said Mr McConnell's proposal was merely a legislative poison pill designed to kill higher stimulus payments. How are Democrats reacting? Liberal Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who votes with Democrats, said on the Senate floor: "All we are asking for is a vote. What is the problem? "If you want to vote against $2,000 checks for your state, vote against it." Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said: "What we're seeing right now is leader McConnell trying to kill the cheques - the $2,000 cheques desperately needed by so many American families." And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "These Republicans in the Senate seem to have an endless tolerance for other people's sadness." How do other Republicans see it? The party usually professes an opposition to government spending as an article of faith, but some of its top senators have rallied behind Mr Trump's call for $2,000 cheques. They include Marco Rubio of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri, both considered possible presidential contenders in 2024. So have Georgia's Republican senators, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, who are fighting for their political lives in a 5 January election against two Democratic challengers. The vote will decide which party controls the Senate next year. But other Republicans have argued the relief bill already provides a wider safety net once its jobless benefits, rental assistance and loans to small businesses to keep workers on their payroll are taken into account. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said that he opposed "blindly borrowing" billions of dollars to send cheques to "millions of people who haven't lost any income".

Started Vote ! V1 V2:

> Opponent's nickname: @AL_MAOT > Theme (must be an image): > Work Type: avatar > Size & Texts: 150×250 & Salah > How many total votes?: 8 > Work time: 12h.

You're working from home. You're gaming, you're binging Netflix, you're listening to music -- and if you're reading this, you're probably searching for a VPN that can handle the massive flood of data running through your coaxial cable. That's where this list comes in. We've tested and reviewed the top VPN performers to find you the fastest VPN that will protect your online privacy and won't slow you down. Keep in mind, however, that it's not easy to speed test a VPN in a way that translates to practicable consumer advice. First, the speed of a VPN can change from day to day, prompting some review sites to create automated monitoring processes. Second, the use of any VPN, no matter how fast, will somewhat reduce your browsing speeds. Then there's the impact of underlying internet speeds in the US, which vary widely according to state and provider. Finally, if you eliminate all potential variables -- from network interference to individual machine quirks -- to create a lab-like test setting, you're essentially testing a product in a digital environment that bears zero resemblance to the operating environment most of us live and work in. For these reasons and others, I'm more interested in creating a VPN testing environment that resembles what you, the regular user, are likely to experience. And that's also why I'm more interested in measuring the amount of speed lost with a VPN (which, for most VPNs, is typically half or more) across both high speed and slower connection types. I want to know these products are going to perform when you're running multiple devices -- Mac or Windows -- on a residential internet connection that may or may not be shared by others, with an eye toward how well they can handle not just browsing, but the heavy traffic loads of streaming, gaming and torrenting. My speed tests for the fastest VPN service are currently conducted manually using OpenVPN protocol -- generally considered the most widely used and most secure type of open-source protocol. To be clear, some of the brands have their own proprietary protocols that may well offer a faster speed, but I wanted to keep this an apples-to-apples comparison. First, I test my internet speed without a virtual private network. Then, I connect my machines to the VPN, and pick five servers in diverse locations across the world. I test those five servers, five times each, at intervals over two to three days via the widely used Ookla Speedtest. Then I average the download speeds of each to find out what percentage of my normal internet speeds are lost with the use of each VPN. (Find out more about how we evaluate and review VPNs here.) Because of the ever-changing roster of frontrunners in the VPN race, you can expect this list to change as it gets updated with our most recent test results for the fastest VPN experience. Among the VPNs we've tested so far, here are the ones that were the fastest VPN at the time of publication. VPN SPEEDS COMPARED 2020 tested speed loss* 2019 tested speed loss* Net change Surfshark 17% 27% Faster in 2020 test ExpressVPN 51% 2% Slower in 2020 test NordVPN 53% 32% Slower in 2020 test *Lower number is better Surfshark Surfshark 16.9% speed lost (faster than 27% loss in previous test) Fastest VPN connections: US Slowest connections: Australia As a relative newcomer in the VPN world, Surfshark ended 2019 with just 27% speed loss in my review, positioning it far ahead of all of its competitors -- except for the seemingly uncatchable speed leader ExpressVPN, which dominated my 2019 testing with less than 2% speed loss. But at the close of 2020, Surfshark was surging ahead of the pack with 17% speed loss, as ExpressVPN speeds fall to 52% speed loss in my most recent tests. The remarkable thing about Surfshark's speed is that its average speeds aren't fighting to overcome major speed losses in any particular test region. This thing showed up on race day and stole the gold, seemingly without breaking a sweat. During testing, my base non-VPN speeds averaged 194 megabits per second, while Surfshark's overall average was 161 Mbps. After taking the averages of five testing locations, not one of the averages from those locations fell below 100 Mbps. That's an across-the-board win against its competitors in every test column. While the competitors below seemed to struggle with US speeds, Surfshark clocked a 204 Mbps average on US connections. Because Surfshark allows you to choose which server to connect to (with a handy visual icon to signal each server's overall crowdedness), one way I could have juked the stats here is by hand-picking servers across the US with the least VPN traffic load. And I would have loved to report New York speeds, for example, specifically for you. But that wouldn't have been fair; NordVPN still frustratingly lacks that feature, so I used Surfshark's automatic server selection option (as I did with the other test subjects). NordVPN couldn't get close to Surfshark's American speeds during testing, though, averaging just 89 Mbps on US connections by comparison. Surfshark again outperformed its peers during UK and European tests, averaging 165 Mbps and 171 Mbps in each, respectively. While future tests might include other regions in Europe, I currently go for a mix of German and French connections. Usually, no matter the VPN, Frankfurt speeds weigh down the average, while connections in Orange and Paris bring on a major numbers boost. That was still the case with Surfshark's speeds, but even Surfshark's German numbers were higher than the average speeds of its competitors. Australia is normally where we see numbers take a dive -- the continent's distance from my test site in Kentucky provides for major latency. Latency was still high, but Surfshark seemed unfazed, clocking a 126 Mbps average download speed. For comparison, that's close to the 122 Mbps average I measured for ExpressVPN's European connections. Singapore is where speeds always get competitive. The speed testing site that I and most other reviewers use, Ookla, ranked Singapore's internet speeds the fastest in the world in 2018 with an average national speed of 181 Mbps. How did Surfshark do there? An easy, breezy 142 Mbps average. Was it a fluke? Was my VPN connection just having a great day? Was Surfshark's overall server traffic particularly light that day? All of those things are possible. That's why I aim to keep retesting this newly crowned speed queen, and why I always recommend you opt for VPNs that offer money-back guarantees and allow you to test their services in your own non-lab settings for 30 days. But these are speeds I haven't seen from any VPN I've tested so far. Surfshark is a beast. If you're shopping for pure speed right now, this fast VPN is the service provider you're looking for. Read our Surfshark review. $2 AT SURFSHARK ExpressVPN $2,000 second stimulus check passes in the House. Now what? BROUGHT TO YOU BY CNET HOW TO ExpressVPN ED I T O R S ’ C H O I C E APR 2020 51.8% speed lost (slower than previous 2% loss in previous test) Fastest VPN connections: Western Europe Slowest connections: US It killed me to see ExpressVPN's pace fall from the jaw-dropping speeds I clocked for it last year. It's not only our Editors' Choice for VPNs but -- because it's one of the few VPNs proven to keep no usage logs during a geopolitical trial-by-fire -- it's my own personal favorite VPN. Its history and durable encryption, combined with its then-untouchable speeds, non-Five Eyes jurisdiction and streamlined user interface made this VPN worth the higher-than-average subscription cost. Last year, ExpressVPN gave me a less than 2% speed loss overall. This year, I clocked a 52% speed loss. Though that's a major dip, it's still a better-than-average score compared to other VPNs. To be clear, ExpressVPN is still a speed demon that consistently ranks in the top 10 for sites with massive automated VPN speed-test processes. Just because Surfshark beat it to the finish line this time doesn't mean ExpressVPN is at all sluggish. It still flies, and most people will have no problems gaming, streaming or even torrenting heavily. During testing, my non-VPN speeds averaged 193 Mbps, and ExpressVPN's overall global average speed was 93 Mbps. Peak speeds were reached on European connections, averaging about 122 Mbps between Frankfurt, Berlin and Paris. Australian speeds outperformed the UK with averages of 101 Mbps and 86 Mbps, respectively. Between the two, however, the UK caught the better individual high score, topping out at 157 Mbps in a single test compared to Australia's highest single-round score of 136 Mbps. Singapore's scores also edged out the UK's by just three points at 89 Mbps. US scores were where ExpressVPN's averages got dragged down: US speeds averaged just 66 Mbps, despite reaching up to 134 Mbps on a single test round. Because of ExpressVPN's history of smoking its opponents on speed tests, my first instinct was to check for a testing issue on my side. So I walked back through my testing process, double-checked my setup and retested to make sure I wasn't accidentally dipping ExpressVPN's numbers. When my results appeared consistent, I checked in with a couple of sites whose automated speed testing I trust and compared notes: Sure enough, as of late October, both Top10VPN and ProPrivacy speed tests show that ExpressVPN has struggled with consistency and slipped down the rankings in the past couple of months. I reached out to ExpressVPN to find out what's happening with the recent dips in its speeds. The company looked into it, and said several of its in-house tests were seeing speeds between 200 and 275 Mbps using OpenVPN protocol. Those results were far above my own. "We think one possible explanation is that there was network saturation between your ISP and our data center during the time period that you tested, which again should not be a typical result," an ExpressVPN spokesperson said. The company also pointed to its new protocol, currently in development. "We are transitioning our legacy OpenVPN infrastructure to Lightway, a VPN protocol that we developed in-house to deliver WireGuard-like speed but far superior security," the spokesperson said. "It's in beta right now as we're still applying tweaks so we can provide the Lightway benefits to our customers at scale, but once it goes into full release within the next couple of months, we are confident it will deliver speeds on par with or better than the fastest Wireguard setups from other providers." Is ExpressVPN still my favorite? Absolutely. And while the call isn't mine alone, I'd argue it takes more than a single speed dip to dethrone the Editors' Choice. All the same, if Surfshark ever gets its servers seized by a government and is found logless in public, ExpressVPN is going to have a problem on its hands. Read our ExpressVPN review. NordVPN 53% speed lost (slower than previous 32% loss in previous tests Fastest VPN connections: Singapore Slowest connections: US Right out of the gate, it should be said that NordVPN has been steadily improving its speeds since I tested it for the first time last year. While my latest tests show the VPN provider falling 2 percentage points behind ExpressVPN, other speed testing sites have seen it routinely surge ahead. Since its embarrassing third-party server breach last year (which appeared to cause minimal damage), NordVPN has gotten aggressive. Along with a suite of fleet-wide privacy improvements to its servers, it's revved up its engine. Granted, some of that may have to do with a new security protocol NordVPN rolled out, called NordLynx. It's built on the still-developing protocol WireGuard, which some argue is less secure than OpenVPN (an option available in all the VPNs listed here, and one I use in testing), but which ultimately creates a faster VPN tunnel. The improvements earned it recommendations from both Ookla and AV-Test. Even with the accolades of others, NordVPN's overall global average speed was 91 Mbps during my testing, in a dataset with average non-VPN speeds of 194 Mbps, for a speed loss of roughly 53%. While it's normal for a VPN to cut your internet speed by half or more, the notable context here is that across the averages of my five test zones, I never saw NordVPN fall below 85 Mbps. It's still one of the most consistent, stable VPNs I've worked with. Singapore led the VPN speed test averages at 98 Mbps, while UK speeds beat European speeds by a hair's breadth. At 99.93 Mbps, UK VPN connection speed squeaked ahead of French and German ones, which averaged 91.90 Mbps. NordVPN also had another photo finish during testing, with Australia beating US scores, 88 Mbps to 86 Mbps. None of these are scores that you can look down your nose at. Read our NordVPN review. $4 AT NORDVPN Boosting your speed No matter which VPN you're using, there are configurations that can help you max out your speeds. These suggestions aren't aimed at improving overall privacy, however, and some may come with privacy reductions depending on which VPN you're using. But if you're interested, here are three ways to boost your VPN speed: Check your protocol: If a VPN works by sending your internet traffic through encrypted tunnels, the VPN's protocol is the method it uses to dig that tunnel. VPNs use different types of security protocols for different reasons, and most VPNs allow you to switch between protocol options at will. Generally, the more secure a protocol is, the slower your VPN speeds. We usually recommend choosing the OpenVPN protocol because it's secure without being cumbersome, but you can amp your speeds by switching your VPN app to IKEv2/IPsec protocol. Choose nearby servers: The closer you are physically located to a server, the faster speed your information is going to travel. Select a server located as close as possible to you to get rapid-fire data return. If you're using a VPN that visually displays how crowded an individual server is, like IPVanish, be sure you're selecting a server that's handling a low amount of traffic. Split-tunneling: Split-tunneling is a feature offered by most leading VPNs that allows you to decide which of your apps' internet traffic is being sent through your VPN. Reducing the amount of device data you're sending through your VPN may improve speeds. All the VPNs listed in this article offer split-tunneling directly through their apps except for NordVPN, which only offers split-tunneling through its mobile apps and via desktop browser extensions for Chrome and Firefox.

Even though most people are probably done shopping for the year, there are still plenty of great deals to be had on the best gaming laptops. Dell produces most of its gaming laptops under its Alienware branding, but there are a few models with the usual Dell label, like the excellent G5 and G7 series. Now you can get one of Dell's high-end G7 laptops for $1,349.99—a savings of $500 from the original MSRP. The model on sale is equipped with an Intel Core i7-10750H processor, a 6-core/12-thread CPU with a turbo frequency of 4.8GHz. Other specifications include 16GB RAM, a 1TB NVme SSD for storage, a 720p webcam, and Thunderbolt 3 support. The main standout feature is the 15.6-inch 4K screen, though it only supports the standard 60Hz refresh rate, while most 1080p/1440p laptops in this price range work at 120-240Hz.Graphics performance should be excellent, thanks to the built-in Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q GPU. Since this is the Max-Q variant, with lower power requirements to prevent laptops from overheating (or requiring large fans/coolers), it's not quite as powerful as the regular or desktop versions of the 2070. Still, it can push enough pixels for a great gaming experience at the native 4K resolution with some games. Dell G7 15.6" 4K Gaming Laptop | $1,349.99 (save $500) This high-end gaming laptop is $500 off the original MSRP. Dell opted to use a 4K screen here, instead of the high refresh rate 1080p/1440p screens found on most other laptops here. It's being sold by Best Buy through eBay.

The way we play games is changing – or, at least, the way I play games is changing. Historically, I’ve always been a one-and-done player; from my collection of favourites, it’s only really the Shenmue saga that I’ve revisited multiple times. And, strangely, GUN – I’ve beaten the PlayStation 2 Western at least half-a-dozen times and I’ve no idea why. Anyway, I digress. The thing is, there are more games than there’s ever been, and yet said titles are demanding more of our time. I’ve noticed quite recently that I’m returning to a lot of my favourites over and over again, whether it’s to earn Triple Rewards in the latest GTA Online promotions or to open Ultimate Team packs in FIFA 21 and NBA 2K21. To be honest, the problem has got so bad that I’ve considered drawing up a calendar to plan out my play time. It’s a first-world problem of the highest order, but I do think it’s a problem. I love the look of Rocket League’s new season; it’s all pulsating LED lights and dramatic goal-line pyrotechnics. But with my slate already so full, I can’t imagine ever having the time to unlock the good stuff in Psyonix’s soccer simulation. There’s double XP and a brand new Battle Pass in Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, too, but I think I’m going to have to skip it. Even single player games, most notably Ubisoft published ones, have gotten in on the act. There’s a holiday-themed festival unfolding in Assassin’s Creed Valhalla this month, and you can participate in all kinds of events to earn tokens which can then be traded for unique gear. It looks like a lot of fun and I’d love to participate, but I haven’t even started the Viking epic yet – it’ll all be done by 7th January, and I’ll miss it. Meanwhile, there’s that new heist in GTA Online clawing at me for attention, and Madden NFL 21’s Ultimate Team has a list of activities as big as my backlog. Honestly, I feel like there’s too much to do at times – it’s overwhelming. I do, of course, appreciate I’m a unique case – I play a lot of games. These seasonal updates and time limited objectives, they’re for the ultra-hardcore fans – it’s to reward them for playing and retain their interest. But I want to see as much as possible; as alluded to above, I love the look of a lot of the content that’s being added to these titles. Heck, the new Fall Guys season looks like superb fun as well! I think I’m going to have to come to the realisation that a lot of this content isn’t made for me – I’ll simply never get to see it. Yes, it sucks – it’s a real shame, but unless I resort to high school-esque time planners then I’m going to have to let it go. I’ll keep playing GTA Online; I’ll keep playing FIFA 21 and NBA 2K21. But I can’t commit to every service-based game – it’s impossible these days.

The Prodrive-BRX (for Bahraini Rally Xtreme) team is based in Prodrive’s Banbury headquarters and consists of two cars: one driven by Frenchman Sébastien Loeb, nine times a World Rally Champion, the other by Spaniard Joan ‘Nani’ Roma, who has entered every Dakar since 1996 and won it both on a motorcycle (KTM, 2004) and in a car (Mini, 2014). Roma has done most of Prodrive’s latest T1 development testing, at venues in the UK and Dubai. During November, he spent nearly two weeks at Millbrook test track in Bedfordshire, driving “harder than you’d go in the event, except by accident” trying to discover what would break first on the car under extreme treatment. The tests ended with some relatively minor wheel bearing issues and a propshaft failure (now fixed), plus a lot of plaudits for his engineering team about the handling and robustness of the new car. Loeb is also pleased with the car’s sophisticated design and toughness (see interview, above right). Testing of back-up machinery is continuing while the two team cars get their last-minute fettling, and Prodrive’s team will fly to Jeddah over Christmas to begin the long campaign. the 2021 Dakar will be one of the biggest ever staged: there are 75 cars, 42 trucks and 110 motorcycles entered from 19 countries. Including back-up vehicles, there are expected to be 679 vehicles and 15 helicopters on the course in total. They will cover an all-new route that includes more than 3000 miles of competitive sections that entrants will never have seen before. It’s rumoured to include more varied driving terrain and more difficult navigation tests than in recent events and ends with a mammoth 320-mile ‘showdown’ competitive section on the penultimate day, where the organisers say the time differences between competitors “could be huge”. The T1 is a purpose-built, steel-spaceframe coupé, similar in length to the Ford Focus but much taller, with a remarkably sleek body designed by former Aston Martin and Jaguar designer Ian Callum. The Dakar regulations allow both two-wheel-drive and four-wheel drive cars. Prodrive has chosen the latter for its innately greater traction under braking and acceleration, despite having to cope with a higher minimum dry weight (1850kg) plus curbs on engine power (400bhp), top speed (107mph) and suspension travel compared with competitive 2WD designs.The T1 project’s chief engineer, Paul Doe, says the event’s regulations are evolving in favour of 4x4s and may eventually outlaw 2WD designs. The team’s “marquee signing”, Loeb, is a seasoned Dakar campaigner but a new recruit to 4x4 Dakar cars, having driven a RWD Peugeot on the previous four events, scoring a best second place outright in 2017. Doe expects the T1 to handle more like a firmly suspended WRC car than the Peugeot buggy with its “gangly” suspension and near-unlimited wheel travel. “Ours is closer in feel to the rally cars of his earlier career,” says Doe. “I believe he will see that as an advantage.”

Six cases of the more contagious variant of Covid-19 first identified in the UK have been confirmed in India. The six individuals who returned from the UK are being kept in isolation, officials said on Tuesday. India joined a list of other countries last week in suspending flights to and from the UK. The new variant is considerably more transmissible than previous strains but not necessarily any more dangerous, experts say. With more than 10 million confirmed cases so far, India has the second-highest caseload in the world after the US. The new strain can "cause havoc" and "throw our healthcare system out of control," Dr A Fathahudeen, a critical care expert who has treated hundreds of Covid-19 patients, told the BBC earlier. Officials in India have begun contact-tracing close contacts and family members of the six who have tested positive for the new variant. Passengers arriving from the UK will undergo RT-PCR tests at all airports in the country, an official statement said. The samples found to be positive will then be genome sequenced by government-run labs in order to detect the new variant. Around 33,000 passengers arrived in India from the UK over the past month. Of those, 114 were found to be positive for coronavirus - their samples have been sent to ten labs for genome sequencing, according to the statement. News of the new variant triggered travel restrictions around the world last week. Several countries such as Canada, Japan, Spain, Sweden and France have all confirmed the presence of the new strain. In the UK, health officials have warned that the country's "very high" Covid infection level is a "growing concern". On Monday, a record 41,385 Covid cases and 357 deaths were reported in the UK. The new, more contagious variant of Covid, first identified in the UK, has now been confirmed in more than 20 countries and territories around the world. While that is concerning, it's not surprising. The first case can be traced back to late September in the south of England, meaning there was ample time for it to spread undetected around the UK and into other countries. Now that the alarm has been raised, scientists around the globe are actively searching for and tracking this variant that is thought to pass more easily between people. And the more you seek, the more you can potentially find. More than 50 countries have imposed travel restrictions on Britain in recent days to help prevent more spread. But WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned against punishing nations that transparently share such information, saying "only if countries are looking and testing effectively will you be able to pick up variants and adjust strategies to cope". Viruses continually mutate and future new versions of Covid will occur. Science will need to keep up.

Senators in Argentina are debating a bill which would legalise abortion up to the 14th week of pregnancy. If it passes, the bill would be groundbreaking for Latin America, a region which has some of the world's most restrictive abortion laws. The bill has already been approved by the Chamber of Deputies but the result in the Senate is predicted to be tight. In 2018 senators narrowly voted against legalising abortion but this time the bill has the backing of the government. "Today is a day of hope, we're going to start debating a project that will avoid more unjust deaths," said Senator Norma Durango, according to AFP news agency. The Catholic Church, which remains highly influential in Latin America, opposes the move. It has called on senators to reject the bill. Pope Francis, who is Argentine, tweeted just hours before the debate that "every outcast is a child of God". Large crowds of campaigners both for and against abortion have gathered outside Congress to try to sway undecided senators. Currently, abortions are only permitted in Argentina in cases of rape or when the mother's health is at risk. "We're really confident it will become law but if that doesn't happen we'll remain in the streets because this battle started in the streets and it will continue in the streets," a pro-choice demonstrator told AFP. Activists have campaigned for the change in the law for years. But anti-abortion protesters hope that the Senate will repeat its rejection of the law. "I know that in the heart of every senator there is love for their children, their grandchildren, and above all a hope that children give us, the joy that children give us and I'm sure they will win with this," one told AFP. Abortions are completely banned in El Salvador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic and only allowed in certain restricted circumstances in most other Latin American nations. In the wider region, only Uruguay, Cuba, Guyana and parts of Mexico currently allow women to request an abortion, with varying limits on the number of weeks of pregnancy in which an abortion is legal. In 2018, when Argentina's Congress last voted on the matter, the measure scraped through the lower house by four votes. But it was rejected in the Senate by 38 to 31. This time, the lower house approved it by a wider margin - 131-117. Of the 72-member Senate, five members are reportedly still undecided. The debate is expected to be long and heated.