Government Executive - Authors - Elahe Izadi

President Obama Announces Plan to 'Fix As Much of Our Immigration System As I Can'

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:03:37 -0400

Record numbers of unaccompanied children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and a clear signal that immigration reform is dead in the House has prompted President Obama to launch a new administrative effort to "fix as much of our immigration system as I can" on his own.

During a Monday statement from the White House, Obama announced that he has directed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to move immigration resources from the interior of the U.S. to the border. He's also asked them to "identify additional actions" the administration can take unilaterally. Those recommendations are expected by the end of the summer, and Obama will then implement them "without further delay."

Earlier this year, the White House signaled that it will announced administrative action it can take related to deportations to make the process "more humane." But it delayed the results of such a review until the end of August in the name of giving the Republican-led House the political space needed to moving reform in July. "I held off on pressuring them for a long time to give Speaker Boehner the space he needed to get his fellow Republicans on board," Obama said.

"I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing," Obama said.

House Speaker John Boehner informed Obama last week that the House will not vote on immigration reform this year, Obama said. The two spoke in-person before a PGA event.

"In our conversation last week, I told the president what I have been telling him for months: the American people and their elected officials don't trust him to enforce the law as written," Boehner said in a statement. "Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue."

The House will spend July moving to sue Obama over his use of administrative action, with House Speaker John Boehner saying the president isn't faithfully executing the laws of the land.

And now, the crisis of unaccompanied minors coupled with unexpected events (such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor losing his primary to an immigration hawk), has made the already dim chances to move reform this year even more unlikely.

The move to take administrative action related to immigration policy is a semi-win for Immigration advocates, who have been criticizing the administration from the left for deporting what they deem a record number of people from the U.S. They had expected some action was to come this summer, but the delay in review left many frustrated.

While Obama signaled that he would take some actions to ease such deportations, the crisis at the border has pushed the White House to beef up security on the border and increase immigration judges to speed up removals.

In a letter sent Monday to Congressional leadership, Obama wrote that the administration may seek to work with Congress to provide DHS with more authority to process and return unaccompanied minors from non-Mexican, Central American countries. He also asked Congress to approve emergency funding to speed up removals, enhance border security, increase the number of immigration judges, and to work with Central American nations to "address the root causes of migration."

Much of the drastic rise in children at the border is due to migration from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. Unlike such immigrants coming from Mexico, these Central American children can't be immediately returned to their countries-of-origin. Instead, they are supposed to be turned over to Health and Human Services, and are put into deportation proceedings—which can take months.

Republicans have laid the blame on the administration for creating the crisis at the border, saying that previous administration actions such as DACA has encouraged young children to make the dangerous trek to the U.S.

"The president's own executive orders have led directly to the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, giving false hope to children and their families that if they enter the country illegally they will be allowed to stay," Boehner said after Obama's statement. "The White House claims it will move to return these children to their families in their home countries, yet additional executive action from this president isn't going to stem the tide of illegal crossings, it's only going to make them worse."

While many of the children cite violence in their countries as the main reason they are fleeing, the administration has acknowledged rumors of U.S. policy is playing a role in fueling the crisis.

(Image via Orhan Cam/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Behind Dianne Feinstein's Calculated Rebuke of the White House

Michael Catalini and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:25:21 -0400

Dianne Feinstein wanted the White House off her lawn.

In the hours after the Obama administration revealed that it had traded five Taliban suspects for Bowe Bergdahl, the influential Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman went public with her anger. The president should have notified her, Feinstein said in a public rebuke that was so odd because it was so rare.

And as if to underline the virtue of her position, she said White House national security aide Tony Blinken called to apologize for not alerting her to the swap.

Suddenly, there was uncommon daylight between President Obama and the Democrat who serves as his chief congressional defender on all security and intelligence issues.

"She didn't need to go as far as she did," complained one senior Democratic aide.

Other aides echoed the sentiment. They complained that Feinstein's criticism—characterized as sharp by senior Democratic staff—made little sense in an environment where Republicans seize on any controversial White House maneuver or misstep as a potential campaign-trail boon.

And indeed, they latched onto it.

"What's perplexing, not only was it the president, but the president of the same party, which left a lot of unanswered questions and created a firestorm," said Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, himself a former head of the Intelligence Committee.

Feinstein has since tried to rein in her pique and rewrite the episode. "I was just asked a question," she said when asked about reports that she was at odds with the White House over Bergdahl. "I gave a simple answer. I'm not going to make another comment. Thank you."

And when pressed, she went so far as to defend the White House's lack of communication.

"Wherever I go, that's the question. 'Has the White House called you? Well, why hasn't the White House called you?' I mean, please," Feinstein said. "The White House has a lot of things to do. I just spoke with the White House chief of staff, the senior [National Security Council] people. This happens all the time. So please don't make that an issue. There are a lot of things that are issues. This is not one of them."

But those who know Feinstein say she knew what she was doing when she publicly challenged the White House for failing to notify Congress before letting terrorism suspects leave Guantanamo. It was a product of the frustration that all of them feel as administrations repeatedly and increasingly cut Congress out of the loop on intelligence matters.

The only difference is that this time, the slight was great enough to irk even this White House's great defender.

"I'm just telling you that we've been battling," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who chaired the committee from 2007 to 2009. "That's all I've done. I was on the committee before 9/11, and all we've done is fight this issue, of the administration not really wanting to brief the Senate."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, defended Feinstein's rebuke. "Dianne Feinstein is a very thoughtful senator. She thinks through every issue very thoroughly and she has the benefit just like I do of an extensive background on this proposal as well as the individuals involved," he said. "Like me she's never questioned the Bergdahl side of it other than they told us they were gonna give us 30 days' notice and they didn't. And that's not right. That's sticking it in the eye of Congress and they shouldn't have done that."

The fallout from the Bergdahl swap has certainly strained the congressional-White House relationship, members say, but to what extent is uncertain. On a committee whose work is classified and hearings are behind closed doors, aides and panel members are reluctant to talk about tension with the administration. "In recent history … this is unprecedented," said Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, a former GOP chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

But had Feinstein or any other senator wanted to pound the administration further, they could have when the Senate considered the intelligence reauthorization, which passed unanimously just this month.

For its part, the Obama administration denies its relationship with Feinstein took a hit over the Bergdahl swap. And, like Feinstein, White House officials are suggesting the split is not an issue.

"The fact that this partnership persists, even when we don't see eye-to-eye, is a testament to the strength of this vital relationship and our shared commitment to keeping the nation safe," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

Certainly, Feinstein's relationship with the White House has had ups and downs. She was a staunch defender of the administration's positions after the leak of the National Security Agency's data-collection program last year. She also agrees with the president that the detention center in Guantanamo Bay should be closed. But in March, Feinstein took to the Senate floor to accuse the CIA of searching Intelligence Committee staff computers to allegedly undermine a congressional investigation.

And in 2009, when Obama tapped Leon Panetta, a former member of Congress and Clinton White House chief of staff, Feinstein objected, arguing the president should have chosen someone from within the intel community. Her objections were not enough to derail Panetta, but they did result in an apology from Vice President Joe Biden, which led to Feinstein saying she would support the president's choice.

Indeed, it seems Senate Democrats, Feinstein included, are willing to forgive the White House—if only after creating a stir that precedes an apology.

"The White house, to their credit, has said, 'We made a mistake,' " said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. "So I always jump up and go from here."

George E. Condon Jr. contributed to this article.

]]>

Obama Tells Congressional Leaders He Won’t Seek Authority on Next Steps on Iraq

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:30:06 -0400

President Obama told top members of Congress Wednesday that he won't need to ask for congressional permission on the next steps he will take on the crisis in Iraq.

"The president just basically briefed us on the situation in Iraq, indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for steps he might take, and indicated he would keep us posted," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters after a White House meeting about Iraq.

While top Republicans had been highly critical of Obama earlier in the week for not providing a plan on Iraq, their tenor has died down. McConnell characterized the meeting by saying they "had a good discussion."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had said Tuesday that the administration doesn't "need any more authority than they already have to do whatever they need to do there."

Despite no signs from the White House that it will formally ask Congress for authority to take any kind of military action, there are pledges to keep leaders informed. The White House said the president "asked each of the leaders for their view of the current situation and pledged to continue consulting closely with Congress going forward."

"It was a good meeting. Everybody seems satisfied. The president is going to keep us as informed as he can as this process moves forward," Reid said back at the Capitol Wednesday.

While top Democratic leaders have asserted that Obama retains such an authority, some Democrats question it and want Congress to be able to weigh in. The administration could use the 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force resolution, for instance, but the legality of such a move is still unclear.

The leaders wouldn't divulge what options the administration is weighing to respond to the violence in the region. Obama has already ruled out sending on-the-ground combat troops, which is something that congressional Democrats have stood against. The U.S. will be sending up to 275 armed forces to provide embassy security.

Earlier in the day, the Associated Press reported that Obama is moving away from military airstrikes as a response.

Obama updated congressional leaders on the U.S. response to diminish the crisis by "urging Iraq's leaders to set aside sectarian agendas and to come together with a sense of national unity" and American efforts to strengthen Iraqi security forces in their fight against the militants, according to the White House readout of the meeting.

]]>

White House Knew Bergdahl Swap Would Go Through a Day Before It Happened

Michael Catalini and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:11:36 -0400

One reason the Obama administration may have not alerted Congress 30 days in advance of the Sgt. Bowe Bergdal swap: It made the decision right before it took place.

"They knew a day ahead of time that the transfer was going to take place. They knew an hour ahead of time where it was going to take place," the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, told a small group of reporters Tuesday.

President Obama has said that the swap required quick action: "We had to act fast in a delicate situation that required no publicity," Obama said Friday on NBC Nightly News.

The administration has also argued that it put Congress "on notice" back in December 2013, via a signing statement from Obama relating specifically to a requirement that the administration notify Congress 30 days in advance of releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Additionally, administration officials point out that they had previously briefed lawmakers on the idea of swapping these five Taliban leaders.

Durbin says it was "impossible" for the president to strike the deal and then wait 30 days, saying it could have "endangered the man's life" by waiting.

"So we have a provision in the law about 30-day notification which doesn't square with reality. Could he, could anyone have contacted Congress sooner? Perhaps," Durbin said. "But this notion of 30 days, I can't believe anybody's arguing, 'Well as soon as we knew there was a transfer we had to wait for Congress to think it over for 30 days.' That is not in the best interests."

But that argument doesn't satisfy everyone on Capitol Hill. A number of lawmakers, particularly Republicans, emerged from a closed Senate Armed Services Committee briefing Tuesday still critical of the administration's decision to make the swap without more of a heads-up to Congress.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said the 30-day notice issue is one outstanding problem for him. "I'm still troubled by whether the administration met the 30-day requirement and I'm digging into that further," he said.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin said administration officials presented some additional information that was not included in last week's all-senators closed briefing. On Tuesday, administration officials focused more on "the legal reason" for why the 30-day notice was not needed, namely pointing to Article II of the Constitution, which specifies the president's role as commander-in-chief.

Levin later said that officials knew of the detailed location "a few hours" before the swap and that the deal had come together in just "a matter of days."

]]>

House Democratic Leadership 'Leaning Toward' Playing Ball on Benghazi Select Committee

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 21 May 2014 11:43:18 -0400

After weeks of debate within party ranks whether to participate, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is now leaning toward appointing members of her conference to the Benghazi Select Committee.

Pelosi met with members of House Democratic leadership Wednesday morning and will likely hold another meeting Wednesday afternoon to update them on negotiations between her and House Speaker John Boehner. "No decision has been made, but Pelosi is now leaning toward appointing a full complement of members," says a senior Democratic aide.

The panel has slots for seven Republicans, who were appointed last week, and five Democrats. Democratic leaders had lobbied for an even split, but when it became clear that wasn't going to happen, they pressed Republicans to ensure equal representation on various issues, such as subpoenas and the right to be present and participate in the deposition of witnesses.

]]>

The Latest Battleground for Immigration Reform Lies Within the Military

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 21 May 2014 09:38:37 -0400

This is how difficult it is to get any sort of immigration-related legislation through the GOP-controlled House: A Republican-authored bill to allow "dreamers" to enlist in the military and also qualify for legal status is being blocked.

Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of California has been lobbying to get a vote on his proposal, the Enlist Act, which is cosponsored by 26 Democrats and 24 Republicans, including Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner said "there have been discussions" but "no decisions" on whether to allow a stand-alone vote on the measure.

Denham had initially tried to get the proposal through via the National Defense Authorization Act, a must-pass defense bill. GOP leadership killed that idea Friday and on Tuesday night it was blocked in the House Rules Committee from coming to the floor as an amendment to the bill.

"We have supported it in the past, but trying to do this on the national defense authorization bill seems to us to be an inappropriate place to do it," Boehner said earlier in the day.

The legislation would allow those who were brought to the U.S. illegally before 2012 and were younger than 15 at the time (known as "dreamers") to enlist in the military and gain permanent legal status. Upon honorable discharge, such service members would then be eligible to apply for citizenship.

To drum up support for the measure, Denham, along with Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado and Democratic Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Joaquin Castro, held a press conference Tuesday during which undocumented youth discusses their high grades, their experience with military programs like high school ROTC, and their desire to enlist in the military.

"My dream was, I'm going to serve in the military," said Abraham Diaz, who was brought to the U.S. as a child by his family. "We want to serve our country. This is has been our country."

And once again, while advocates want Congress to pass immigration-related legislation, they are increasingly looking to the White House to step in and take executive action. The Homeland Security Department is reviewing its deportation policy and should announce the results of that review soon. The Pentagon is also weighing a change to allow some undocumented immigrants to enlist in the military, which would essentially mirror Denham's proposal.

"The Department of Defense has the ability to do this today, and if the military takes the position that they want the best and brightest, and these men and women meet the criteria, then I think it's something that the Department of Defense is willing and able to do," Denham said.

Denham, a vocal supporter of comprehensive immigration reform who represents a district with a large Hispanic population, has faced fierce conservative opposition on and off the Hill for his bill. Heritage Action pledged to key-vote the National Defense Authorization Act if it included language about dreamers.

Conservative Republicans, who opposed including the Enlist Act in NDAA, circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter, and said such a provision amounted to amnesty. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, a cosponsor of the Enlist Act, eventually pledged to not include the proposal in the underlying bill text, for fear that it would become a poison pill.

Denham turned his efforts this month to get the bill through as an amendment on the defense bill, which would have forced lawmakers to go on the record about the proposal. The office of Majority Leader Eric Cantor shot that down on Friday. "No proposed ENLIST amendments to NDAA will be made in order," a Cantor spokesman had said in a statement.

Denham said he was surprised by that move. "The statement came from staff, so I'm still looking for a reason," he said.

Cantor has previously echoed support for a path to citizenship for dreamers, but the "Kids Act" that would do just that hasn't materialized.

During Tuesday's Rules Committee hearing, Denham insisted that the measure was germane to the debate around NDAA as a change to military code. He offered the bill as an amendment last year and it was ruled in order then, but he ended up withdrawing it when committee jurisdictional issues arose. He pledged not to withdraw this time around.

"Not only is this an issue of national security and military readiness, but those kids who are here and have gone through our education system, why wouldn't we let the Department of Defense to pick the best and brightest?" Denham said. "I believe in earned citizenship, but there's no better way to show your patriotism, your commitment, your sacrifice, and the willingness to earn your citizenship than a willingness to serve in our military."

Changing immigration policy to benefit dreamers has become one of the few legislative areas that inspires strong bipartisan support. Combine that with military service, and it would seem that getting support for legal status shouldn't be all that tough. After all, quite a few lawmakers from both parties have signed onto Denham's bill.

But this latest showdown underscores the difficulties in the House to do pass any legislation related to immigration this year, particularly when it comes to allowing a path to legalization or citizenship.

]]>

Here Are the Republicans Serving on the Benghazi Select Committee

Sarah Mimms and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Mon, 12 May 2014 10:47:32 -0400

While House Democrats are still mulling over whether or not to boycott the newly formed House select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks, Republicans have chosen their members who will serve on the panel.

Reps. Susan Brooks of Indiana; Jim Jordan of Ohio; Mike Pompeo of Kansas; Martha Roby of Alabama; Peter Roskam of Illinois and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia will fill six of the seven slots designated for Republicans. House Speaker John Boehner had previously picked South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, to serve as chairman.

"We're going to get to the truth, plain and simple," Jordan said before the committee picks were announced. "Gowdy is uniquely equipped with his skill sets, his demeanor."

Indeed, many of the members are lawyers and serve on committees that have previously investigated the attacks, which left four Americans dead. Gowdy has already compared the upcoming panel's work to a trial, saying on MSNBC, "It would be shame on us if we intentionally dragged this out for political expediency. On the other hand, if an administration is slow-walking document production, I can't end a trial simply because the defense won't cooperate."

Gowdy, Brooks and Jordan serve on the House Oversight Committee, which has held numerous hearings on the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks and the Obama administration's response.

Westmoreland sits on the the Intelligence Committee and serves as chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee. He had convened an informal group of lawmakers to examine the previous Benghazi investigations, and concluded that multiple committees were hampering efforts at fact-finding.

Pompeo also serves on the Intelligence Committee, and Roskam is the deputy whip. Roby is a former lawyer who used to be on Armed Services. Jordan is chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee.

Jordan said Thursday that there were "three questions that need to be answered" in the context of the select committee: why the administration ignored requests for additional security before the attack, why the response during the attack was not more immediate and forceful, and where the narrative that the attack sprung out of a video and protest originated.

"We're going to get to the truth, plain and simple," Jordan said before the committee picks were announced. "Gowdy is uniquely equipped with his skill sets, his demeanor."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday that Democrats are considering how to participate in the committee. The panel has spots for seven Republicans and five Democrats -- a makeup which won't change -- but Democrats want equal access when it comes to issuance of subpoenas, documents and other things.

Democrats huddled on Friday afternoon to discuss their options after Boehner sent them an email laying out the way the committee will operate. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called the letter from Boehner "a slap in the face," but said that Democrats had yet to make a final decision about whether they would participate in the committee.

"It is actually worse than the current situation that we have in Oversight and Government Reform. It's a step backwards," Cummings said, arguing that the new rules could allow the majority to call witnesses and issue subpoenas with consent from Democrats. "The conversations will continue between the speaker and the leader. But I was extremely disappointed with the response."

In a statement, Boehner said he urges "Democratic colleagues to treat this tragedy with the proper respect and appoint members so that we can finally, on a bipartisan basis, get answers, provide accountability, and help deliver justice."

The House is now in recess for the next week, though conversations could continue over the phone. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday morning that her caucus remained divided into four distinct groups: those who favor sending a full delegation of five Democrats to the committee regardless of the rules, those who favor sending one member to report back to the conference, those who want to pull out of the process entirely and those who are still holding out hope for discussions between Republican and Democratic leadership.

]]>

Republicans Have Created Their Benghazi Select Committee. Now What?

Sarah Mimms and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Fri, 09 May 2014 10:31:56 -0400

It's official: The House has its Benghazi select committee, approved along party lines 232-186.

The entire Republican conference voted Thursday evening to create the committee, with just seven Democrats joining them. Democrats voting in favor of the creation were Georgia's John Barrow, North Carolina's Mike McIntyre, Florida's Patrick Murphy, Minnesota's Collin Peterson, West Virginia's Nick Rahall, and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema and Ron Barber.

The new panel comes after numerous hearings were held by four other House committees investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

House Speaker John Boehner has previously said a select committee was unnecessary, but that changed with the release of an email that had been sent by White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. The email, which suggests the White House played a role in shaping how Rice discussed the attacks, was obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch and has Republicans concerned that the administration is withholding information from Congress.

"This doesn't need to be, shouldn't be, and will not be a partisan process," Boehner said Thursday on the House floor. "Four Americans died at the hands of terrorists in a well-coordinated assault, and we will not take any shortcuts to the truth. We will not allow any sideshows that distract us from those goals."

But Democrats have roundly rejected the need for a committee, citing the numerous hearings and congressional work that has already gone into investigating what happened in Benghazi and its aftermath. They charge that its formation is politically motivated, and they rebuked the National Republican Congressional Committee for using the creation of the committee to drive fundraising.

"This is nothing more than a kangaroo court in the making," House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra said this week.

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a respected former federal prosecutor known for dramatic questioning who will lead the panel, has called on fellow Republicans to abstain from any fundraising based on the investigation.

But House Republican leadership hasn't followed Gowdy's suit; Boehner dodged the question of NRCC fundraising, saying Thursday, "Our focus is getting the truth for these four families and for the American people."

The panel has slots for seven Republicans and five Democrats. Democrats are still weighing whether to appoint members to the committee; while leadership appears to be leaning toward a boycott, they haven't made it official yet. They could make an announcement as early as Friday, according to a leadership aide.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer sent a letter to Boehner earlier this week, requesting equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on the panel, as well as equal representation when it comes to the issuance of subpoenas and how documents are obtained and potentially released, among other points.

The committee's work could go on for years, well into the next campaign cycle. This particular committee expires at the end of the 113th Congress, but the next Congress can reauthorize it. If leadership chooses to do that, it won't be hard—Republicans are expected to maintain control of the House.

The money used for the committee comes out of existing funds authorized for the functioning of the House, but a specific dollar amount for this committee has not been spelled out.

]]>

S.C. Republican Will Head Up the Benghazi Select Committee

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:42:07 -0400

House Republicans have tapped South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy to head up a select committee to investigate Benghazi.

In a statement Monday, House Speaker John Boehner called Gowdy "as dogged, focused, and serious-minded as they come." The former federal prosecutor is known for his aggressive style and dramatic questioning during congressional hearings.

"I know he shares my commitment to get to the bottom of this tragedy and will not tolerate any stonewalling from the Obama administration," Boehner said. "I plan to ensure he and his committee have the strongest authority possible to root out all the facts."

The House is expected to vote to create the committee this week, perhaps as early as Thursday.

Democrats will whip against the vote to create the committee, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters Monday. But Hoyer wouldn't indicate whether Democrats will want to be included in the committee.

"We haven't seen the language of what they're talking about," Hoyer said. "We've made it pretty clear that we think this a political, not a substantive effort, and if they want to have a substantive effort than it ought to be an equally balanced committee so that this is not an exercise in partisanship."

Boehner announced the creation of the committee last week. Additionally, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to appear before that panel May 21 to answer questions about how the Obama administration responded to the attack in Libya.

All of this raises Benghazi, which has turned into a favorite political issue of Republicans, to a new level of congressional scrutiny. The work of the committee will help keep the issue in the headlines in the height of midterm election season.

The flurry of new activity around investigating Benghazi comes on the heels of the release of an email, obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch, which Republicans point to as a "smoking gun" that the White House was involved in a cover-up. The email was sent by White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, ahead of her scheduled appearances on several Sunday talk shows to discuss the attacks in Libya, and it suggests the White House had a role in shaping how Rice discussed the attacks.

But it's unclear that lawmakers can actually dig up new information; Congress has already held numerous hearings delving into Benghazi, and Democrats are calling the select committee a waste of time and money.

"One thing this Congress is not short on is what happened before, during, and after the attacks on Benghazi," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

]]>

Ted Cruz: John Kerry Should Resign Over Israel 'Apartheid' Comment

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:26:57 -0400

Sen. Ted Cruz wants Secretary of State John Kerry to resign over his comment that without a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel risks becoming an "apartheid state."

The Texas Republican, who's possibly running for president in 2016, took to the Senate floor Monday to call for Kerry to step down.

"Sadly, it is my belief that Secretary Kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds," Cruz said. "Therefore, before any further harm is done to our national security interests and to our critical alliance with the nation of Israel, that John Jerry should offer President Obama his resignation and the president should accept it."

Kerry's remarks, made in a closed-door meeting with world leaders and captured on audio obtained by The Daily Beast, warned of the consequences of failing to reach a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state," Kerry said. "Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to."

Sen. Cruz was one of just three senators to vote against Kerry's confirmation to be secretary of State last January.

The State Department released a statement from Kerry Monday night reaffirming his support for Israel, saying "I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes." "Israel," Kerry said, "is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one."

And the secretary addressed his word use explicitly:

I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution.

Kerry's initial remarks have sparked other congressional responses. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called on Kerry to apologize, saying in a statement Monday that "the use of the word 'apartheid' has routinely been dismissed as both offensive and inaccurate, and Secretary Kerry's use of it makes peace even harder to achieve."

President Obama has previously rejected the use of the term "apartheid" to describe the current state of affairs in Israel, saying it's "emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it's not what I believe."

And the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee called Kerry's remarks "deeply troubling" in a rare statement released Monday.

"Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate," AIPAC said. "The Jewish state is a shining light for freedom and opportunity in a region plagued by terror, hate, and oppression."

Matt Berman contributed to this article.

]]>

Virginia Hasn't Learned Anything From Last Year's Government Shutdown

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:40:13 -0400

In 2013, the federal government shut down over what was essentially a divide in Washington over Obamacare.

In 2014, the same could happen in Virginia.

On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Virginia Senate passed a $96 billion budget that included a provision in which the state would accept federal funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid to thousands of low-income Virginians. That prompted the Republican-controlled House of Delegates to reject the spending plan.

Unless Virginia gets its act together by July 1, the state government could shut down -- which is pretty remarkable, given how poorly Virginians viewed the federal government shutdown of 2013 over Obamacare. The commonwealth is home to many federal employees, and the timing of the federal shutdown -- just weeks before the gubernatorial race -- was largely seen as hurting the Republican candidate, former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. This, despite Cuccinelli rejecting the tactic: "Holding one part of government hostage to another part, I don't think is a proper way to govern," he said then.

Now back to current-day Virginia, where both sides don't show any signs of budging. Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe convened a special session so lawmakers could hammer out a budget. Two weeks later, and they've all left Richmond no closer to a deal. Democrats are blaming Republicans, and Republicans are blaming Democrats for their unwillingness to back down from the expansion.

McAuliffe made Medicaid expansion a central tenant of his 2013 campaign, and even back then he was faced with the prospect of a government shutdown over it.

Republicans are now dragging Democratic Sen. Mark Warner into the mix, asking him to reach out to McAuliffe to avoid a shutdown. That's notable given that Warner, a moderate Democrat, faces reelection later this year. Warner urged the Republicans to work toward a bipartisan solution.

So will the government shut down in Virginia? Well, for all the bragging that state officials tend to do about how they always pass balanced budgets and get their work done, such an impasse isn't all that rare. For instance, last summer, legislators in Washington states faced the prospect of a shutdown and laying off thousands of employees amid squabbling over taxes and things such as how much fish Washingtonians consume. In 2012, Maryland officials had to come together in a special session and passed a last-minute "doomsday" budget. And so on.

Virginia will eventually come to a resolution -- just like the federal government did in the fall of 2013. But will Virginia turn off the lights in the process, just as the federal government did? We'll just have to wait and see how this episode plays out.

]]>

The One Democratic Priority President Obama Won't Take Executive Action On

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 10:36:09 -0400

Over the past few months, President Obama has either picked up his pen or has seriously considered doing so on a number of big-ticket priorities for the Left—ranging from a minimum-wage increase to executive orders relating to equal pay, which he signed Tuesday.

But while the president has taken executive action on those issues, there's another major one he hasn't addresed with an executive order, much to the chagrin of LGBT advocates: enacting protections resembling those that would be provided under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

"It's a total head-scratcher. The president has taken action before on issues positively affecting our community that have required more of his political capital," says Human Rights Campaign spokesman Fred Sainz. "So, it makes no sense why he wouldn't immediately proceed to protect at least 16 million workers. This was a campaign promise made almost six years ago."

In November the Senate passed ENDA, which bans workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Since then, advocates have been pushing the president to sign an executive order that would ban LGBT workplace discrimination for federal contractors. In March, more than 200 Hill Democrats signed a letter urging Obama to take such action.

The White House position is that it prefers ENDA to pass Congress and doesn't want to take the onus off of the legislature to move the bill. Unlike a minimum-wage increase to $10.10 and the Paycheck Fairness Act—both of which may not even make it out of the Democratic-controlled Senate—ENDA cleared the upper chamber with bipartisan support.

"The fact is that legislation, which has moved in the Senate, if it were to be passed by the full Congress and signed into law, would have the greatest benefit when it comes to ensuring the rights of LGBT individuals," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in March. Carney has also said an ENDA-like executive order would be redundant if ENDA passed, a point that advocates have pushed back on.

But just because ENDA made it through the Senate doesn't mean the House will take it up. (And strong bipartisan support in the Senate sure did a lot push the House to take up immigration reform, right?) House Speaker John Boehner has said ENDA could lead to costly and frivolous lawsuits and that LGBT discrimination is already covered by existing law. Oh, and he's already told other lawmakers that ENDA won't pass this year.

Executive orders have obvious flaws for advocates. They are temporary and limited in scope. Some—particularly a potential one regarding deportation enforcement—can also serve as a signal of the low likelihood of Congress moving on related legislation. Republicans have taken major issue with executive actions issued by Obama, saying that they are contributing to a distrust of the administration to enforce the law.

"His difficulty is trying to give Congress the opportunity to do its work," House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra said. "If unfortunately, Republicans in the House continue to be obstructionists and decide they'd rather be AWOL than get their work done, it would not surprise me if you see the president continue to use his executive authority to try and do the things he can."

The House Progressive Caucus pushed the administration hard on the executive action that raised the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors. Caucus Cochair Raul Grijalva said there's a frustration among caucus members that Obama hasn't signed an ENDA executive order, and that more pressure needs to be exerted on the administration.

"He becomes the right, moral option, and the last option to do something facing discrimination for the communities," Grijalva said of Obama. "I don't think the White House likes to be put in this position, put in that role, but that's the reality as long as these folks are blocking everything."

Obama moving on executive orders, even if they are limited in scope, also serves to elevate Democratic priorities in a midterm year. The actions taken Tuesday prohibit retaliation against federal contractors' employees for sharing wage data with each other and direct the Labor Department to collect wage data from them. Obama signed them on Equal Pay Day, which also coincides with a push in the Senate this week to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill mirrors the executive actions, but applies to all employers, and it also makes employers liable for civil lawsuits.

Advocates for executive actions that just affect federal contract workers argue that they translate into real-life benefits, even if for just a segment of the American population.

"The same logic that the White House is using for all of their executive orders applies to this one—there's no difference and to suggest otherwise fails logic," Sainz said of an ENDA executive action. "Congress isn't acting and the country can't wait."

]]>

Senator Dismisses Claim Her 'Emotional' Views Compromised a Report on Torture

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:23:22 -0400

In response to comments from former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden that she may have compromised a report on CIA interrogation tactics because of her "emotional" views about the issue, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has one word: "Nonsense," she told reporters in the Capitol Monday.

"I have no doubt that there are very powerful people who don't want this report out, but what was said was just absolute nonsense," Feinstein added.

The Intelligence panel voted 11-3 last week to declassify portions of the report that details the CIA's interrogation and detention program between 2001 and 2009. Hayden said over the weekend that Feinstein may have been motivated by her personal feelings to change the program, pointing to her statement that the declassification "would ensure an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted."

"That sentence, that motivation for the report, may show deep, emotional feeling on the part of the senator," Hayden said on Fox News on Sunday. "But I don't think it leads you to an objective report."

Other lawmakers have already decried Hayden's comments. On Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called them "simply outrageous."

]]>

Senate Takes First Step to Declassify Report on CIA Interrogations

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:00:40 -0400

In a closed hearing Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted 11-3 to declassify portions of a CIA report detailing post-9/11interrogation tactics.

It now goes to the White House, which will hold final authority on declassifying more than 500 pages of a 6,200-page report, including an executive summary, findings and conclusions about an interrogation program involving more than 100 detainees.

"The purpose of this review was to uncover the facts behind this secret program, and the results were shocking," said Chairman Dianne Feinstein. "The report exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation. It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen."

Feinstein added that the report also details problems with the CIA's management of the program, which ran between 2001 and 2009, and its interaction with the executive branch and Congress about it.

President Obama has said he favors declassification. It's unclear how long it'll take, though, until the public gets to see the report. Feinstein said she hopes it will take as little as 30 days for the White House to release portions of it.

The contents of the report conclude that the CIA mislead the public on aspects of its interrogation program in the wake of 9/11, the Washington Post reported earlier this week, including "enhanced interrogation techniques."

A number of Republicans had publicly stated previously that they didn't support the report's findings, and have expressed concerns that it was produced by Democratic staff and doesn't include interviews with CIA officials. "This report is totally biased," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has said.

Nonetheless, all but three voted in favor of declassifying it.

Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss voted to declassify portions of the report because "we need to get this behind us."

"This committee has got important work that needs to be done. I was never in favor of this report being done. I think it was a waste of time," Chambliss said. "We had already had a report done by the Armed Services Committee on this issue. This is a chapter in our past that should have already been closed. However the general public has the right to now know what was done and what's in the report."

Feinstein would not disclose how individual senators voted, but confirmed all three nos were Republicans. North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr said he voted in favor of it "to give the American people the opportunity to make their own judgments," he said in a statement. "I am confident that they will agree that a 6,300 page report based on a cold document review, without a single interview rof Intelligence Community, Executive Branch, or contract personnel involved, cannot be an accurate representation of any program, let alone this one."

Republican Sen. Susan Collins voted in favor of the declassifying the report. Aside from her, Burr and Coburn, the other Republicans on the committee are Sens. Marco Rubio, Dan Coats, James Risch.

Some lawmakers are already calling for the declassification of the entire 6,200-page report, such as New Mexico Democrat Sen. Martin Heinrich.

"When people see the content, when it's declassified, I think people will be shocked at what's inside," Heinrich said of the executive summary.

]]>

Senate Raises Debt Ceiling

Sarah Mimms and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:45:00 -0500

It took an act of God to get Congress to move quickly on the debt ceiling, but move quickly it did. The Senate passed legislation to suspend the debt ceiling Wednesday, 55-43, more than two weeks before the nation was set to default, and with little uproar, forecasting an end to the debt limit brinkmanship that has nearly crippled Washington annually since Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, took the gavel in 2011.

With snow threatening to pummel the Washington area Wednesday, Congress moved up its schedule, introducing debt ceiling legislation in the House on Tuesday morning and passing it within hours, with a majority of Democrats and 28 Republicans joining together.

The Wednesday Senate vote didn't come without drama. Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz objected to allowing the debt limit bill to pass with a simple majority, which would have spared any Republicans from having to vote for it. And the cloture vote to shut off debate was tense, lasting almost exactly an hour as Republicans tried to find the votes for passage.

There was a lot of wrangling on the Senate floor during the cloture vote. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., stayed by the Senate clerk's desk, looking tense. When Cruz walked in to cast his vote, Murkowski turned away from him and then walked away from the desk.

Republican leadership worked the floor as they searched for votes. Finally, several Republican leaders exited the cloakroom and changed their votes, as if it say "let's all hold hands and jump together." First, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Minority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, cast yes votes, with the latter having initially voted no.

Then, one by one, Republican John Barrasso (Wyo.) John McCain (Ariz.), John Thune (S.D.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) changed their votes to yes. The final vote on cloture was 67-31, with 12 Republicans joining Democrats to end debate.

Those votes to end debate could come back to haunt the GOP leaders, as both McConnell and Cornyn are facing primary challengers in their reelection campaigns this year. The Senate Conservatives Fund is already tweeting that "Kentucky deserves better." And it wouldn't have had to happen if not for Cruz.

"I think his memory doesn't seem to last longer than six months," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said of Cruz's pushback, referring to the Republican's support of the government shutdown last October.

President Obama has indicated that he will sign the legislation, which will allow the nation to pay its bills through March 15, 2015.

The debt limit has been the defining characteristic of a gridlocked Washington, with the nation coming to the brink of a default several times, most recently saved by a last minute deal last October. But don't expect Congress to do much with more than a year without an impending deadline on its plate; the rest of 2014 is pretty much filler.

Though the vast majority of the House Republican conference opposed the measure, conservatives quickly gave up on using the Feb. 27 debt limit deadline as leverage to cut overall spending, acknowledging that the president was not willing to negotiate over the matter. President Obama and Senate Democrats have long said that they would accept only a clean debt ceiling lift.

Amid arguments among the House majority conference, many Republicans conceded that they would not be able to attach any conservative measures to the debt ceiling increase as long as Obama remains president and Democrats control the Senate.

"It's just a matter of keeping the funding going consistent with the omnibus until the November elections and hopefully we have more Republicans, we control the Senate and maybe we can start some of these reforms," Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee, admitted last week.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., bemoaned the fact that his party wasn't willing to put up more of a fight for concessions from Democrats over spending, arguing that the GOP will have to stand its ground if it hopes to do better in the future. "Republicans will need to be willing to fight for it, if we're going to get that," he said.

A number of Republicans don't see the debt-limit-as-leverage tactic going away in the long-term, but in the short-term many are accepting the political reality. Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who voted for the debt ceiling increase, said there is no mechanism for Republicans right now to bring down spending and deficits. "We don't have one under this president. This is a tax and spend president."

That's good news for the nation's credit rating, which was downgraded in 2011 during the tense negotiations of the debt limit increase. Democrats are encouraged by Republicans' move to pass a clean debt ceiling, particularly with room to spare before the deadline. "I hope [that this continues]," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Wednesday. "I think John Boehner showed real leadership.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was similarly optimistic. "I think we will go back to the responsible way of making sure that our country does not default," she said.

But that optimism is tempered by the knowledge that just because Democrats held the strongest hand this time around, it doesn't mean they will maintain it. What goes up, must come down.

]]>

House GOP Scraps Debt-Ceiling Plan

Sarah Mimms and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:57:00 -0500

House Republicans scrapped a plan they devised Monday night to raise the debt ceiling with an additional measure to reverse veterans' cuts. Instead, they're going clean, according to a source in the room.

Leadership had wanted to extract something out of raising the debt ceiling and had settled on rolling back the $6 billion on cost of living cuts to military pensions. But Democrats have long insisted they won't give anything in return for raising the debt ceiling. The GOP plan would have relied on support from a good number of Democrats, since many conservatives will vote against raising the debt ceiling regardless of what's attached.

Many House Republicans had let Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, know of their dissatisfaction about the earlier plan on Monday night.

And House Democrats, including Democratic conference chairman Xavier Becerra of California, suggested Monday that if Boehner was depending on Democratic votes to get the measure through, he should not be so confident. Democrats have been clinging to their demand for a debt-ceiling hike to be passed without any strings attached.

"I'm pretty boxed in," said freshman Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C. He said he wasn't likely going to vote for the debt-ceiling lift at all, but now will definitely not.

"House Republican leaders told members this morning that it is clear the paid-for military COLA provision will not attract enough support," says a source from the room Tuesday morning. The speaker did make clear that the new plan would have the necessary number of Republican votes, but would have to be carried by Democrats.

A clean bill will force at least a few dozen Republicans to join with Democrats in order to raise the debt ceiling, a move that could be unpopular with conservative groups and constituencies that have called for spending cuts in exchange for an increase in the nation's debt limit. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who is close with leadership, and others have often referred to these members as "sacrificial lambs." Boehner says he will vote for the clean raise.

House Democrats are already sounding off on the new, clean plan.

"That is what our position has always been and the speaker has been gracious in his conversations with us as to see what we would vote for and we told him we would vote for a clean [debt ceiling]," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said as she exited the House Democratic conference meeting Tuesday morning. "We think no matter who the president is and who controls the congress, the full faith and credit of the United States is not negotiable."

House Democratic leaders sent a message to their members this morning that "the debt ceiling is clean, must be clean and that's the only kind of vote that we would take," said New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey.

Democrats have long been against voting for a debt ceiling increase with anything attached to it, and were concerned that doing so would set a dangerous precedent.

"The Democrats have made it clear that they will vote for a debt ceiling that is clean and any attempt to attach any other goodies onto it is unacceptable," Lowey added. Maryland Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer expects 180 or more House Democrats to vote for the clean raise.

On the Senate side, Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., called the new plan "encouraging," and that she "look[s] forward to [the House GOP] sending over a debt limit bill with no ransom demands attached."

Not everyone is quite as happy. The Senate Conservatives Fund blasted out a release Tuesday morning saying that "John Boehner must be replaced as Speaker of the House."

The new plan, introduced Tuesday with a planned vote for Wednesday, would violate a GOP pledge to allow a three-day waiting period between a bill being introduced and a vote. There is, however, a loophole in that pledge for passing emergency legislation. House Republican aides insist they are not in violation of the three-day rule because the language was posted to Rules last night, and that they will just push forward with a portion of it.

The Treasury Department has said Congress has until Feb. 27 to raise the debt limit, and Boehner has repeatedly vowed the nation will not default on its obligations. The Senate is considering a measure to roll back the military cuts this week.

The move is a political win for Democrats, who now don't have to go on record against restoring veterans' cuts, or alternatively look hypocritical for violating their "clean only" pledge. But Republicans also now avoid a messy fight over the debt ceiling. In fact, many conservatives had been asking leadership to put up a clean bill for weeks, since that's how they expected the drama to play out. Looks like they're getting their wish.

Matt Berman and Billy House contributed to this article.

]]>

These Conservatives Are Done Fighting Over the Debt Ceiling

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:22:00 -0500

The world looked different four months ago for conservatives. They were fired up. The government was shut down over demands to defund, then delay, Obamacare, and the debt-ceiling increase vote was around the corner. "We're really, very energized today. We're very strong," Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told Fox's Sean Hannity then. "This is about the happiest I've seen members in a long time because we've seen we're starting to win this dialogue on a national level."

But now with another major deadline ahead—the debt ceiling—Bachmann and other Republicans sound markedly different. "What I've heard from other members," Bachmann says, "is that this is not going to be the hill that they're going to die on."

"You have to know when to hold them and you have to know when to fold them," Bachmann, who isn't advocating for a clean debt-ceiling bill, continued. "You just need to be wise to know when to have political fights. It isn't that our allegiance to principles have changed, it hasn't at all. You just need to know when your opportunities are and when to exercise your leverage."

With House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, repeatedly vowing the country will not default on its debt, and leadership looking for sweeteners to a debt-ceiling increase, some conservatives are actually saying a clean bill should come to the floor now. That's how they expect this whole episode to play out anyway, they reason. They'll vote against it, but save the drama.

"What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and expecting different results. That applies in this case," says Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. "You can expect the same results if you have the same participants."

It's an "obvious" realization, he adds.

Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho has said the House should just take up a clean debt-ceiling bill. "Give the Democrats their vote. We don't have to vote for it." Likewise, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan acknowledged where things are headed: "I wish they would do something substantive, but they're not going to, so let's just avoid the theater and get on with it."

Indeed, "a sense of realism among the conference" has taken hold, Bachmann says. Let the Democrats take a tough vote first or attach something that would do some good, she reasons.

But what about the Hastert Rule, which informally forbids any bill being put on the floor without the support of the majority of the majority? House Republican leadership has already broken it six times from 2011 to 2013, and it looks like they may again. "Mother Teresa is a saint now, but if the Congress wanted to make her a saint and attach that to the debt ceiling, we probably couldn't get 218 Republican votes," Boehner said Thursday.

While Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana doesn't want a clean bill first, he says "there is some merit" to conservative members saying a clean bill should just move forward now. "We're at a point now where we've got about as much discretionary spending as we can get out of this administration," he says. He estimates that as many as 40 Republicans will vote against a debt-ceiling increase no matter what's attached to it.

Conservatives push back on the idea that this new sense of realism is an attitude change. Rather, it's a response to changed circumstances. Ahead of the government shutdown, Obamacare was about to be implemented. They felt this was their last shot to make a grand stand to prevent it from being rolled out. "Common sense [told] you that this president has got to consider delaying or at least reviewing, reconsidering or altering" Obamacare, Fleming says. "We were willing to go to the mat for that reason."

The shutdown and how it played out disabused them of that idea. But confidence in their leadership also plays a major role. Even before House Republicans huddled at their annual retreat to hash out a debt-ceiling strategy, leadership was signaling a default wouldn't happen.

"What you're picking up from a lot of conservatives on the Hill, and this extends beyond the Hill, is they recognize their leadership in Congress isn't willing to fight," Dan Holler of Heritage Action says. "Their members, their constituents, no one wants to see a fake fight. No one wants to see them going through the motions."

So while Republicans search for something they can attach to a debt-limit increase, some conservatives are resigning themselves to the inevitable conclusion. And the only way to change a conclusion that looks inevitable is to switch up the cast of characters. There's always November. "We need to change the Senate," Massie says.

Sarah Mimms contributed to this article.

]]>

Republicans Scrap Plan to Tie Debt Limit Vote to Keystone, Obamacare

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:56:00 -0500

Well, it looks like House Republicans are back at the drawing board over what to do about the debt limit.

House Leadership has pulled the plug on proposals that would tie raising the debt ceiling with approval of the Keystone XL pipeline or eliminating the so-called risk corridors in the Affordable Care Act because these plans couldn't reach 218 votes, according to a House aide with knowledge of the talks.

The debt limit has been suspended through Feb. 7, and the Treasury Department estimates it has enough extraordinary measures to last through the end of the month.

Republicans may seek other priorities in exchange for raising the debt limit and no clear strategy has emerged.

A number of Republicans have anticipated that the House will eventually vote on a clean debt ceiling increase. Even conservatives like Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho are saying that's the path forward. "I actually think we should just do a clean debt ceiling," he told reporters this week. "Give the Democrats their vote. We don't have to vote for it."

]]>

Musical Chairs at State of the Union Hasn't Inspired Harmony on Hill

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:13:00 -0500

Congress's problems are too big for a seating chart to fix.

Bipartisan seating has become a staple at recent State of the Union addresses, and it may be this year, too. But for all the warm and fuzzy feelings the practice is meant to inspire, the three years on Capitol Hill since the tradition began have been among the most partisan and gridlocked of all. Congress reached a new milestone last year, with the institution having its lowest output since 1947.

Bipartisan seating has become the equivalent of referring to a political foe as "my friend."

The practice of lawmakers of opposite parties sitting next to each other during the president's address began in 2011 as a response to the shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., just weeks before. Many lawmakers participated, and think tank Third Way helped push the cause.

"There was almost a physical reaction by members to Gabby's shooting, and I think a lot of members understood how filled with rage and hatred the political debate had been for the previous two years, so there was very much a conscious effort that we sit together," recalls former Rep. Brad Miller, who, along with other North Carolina Democrats, sat with Republican Rep. Howard Coble.

In 2012, a handful of lawmakers continued the practice, with Giffords in attendance sitting between Arizona's then-Rep. Jeff Flake, a Republican, and Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat. This year, four lawmakers—Sens. Mark Udall of Colorado, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Arizona Reps. Matt Salmon and Ron Barber, who holds Giffords's old seat—are spearheading the effort anew, asking House and Senate leadership to encourage making bipartisan seating a permanent tradition.

"Although this gesture has not ended the gridlock on Capitol Hill, we feel it continues to be a step in the right direction, symbolizing the importance of working together across the aisle to solve the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States," the lawmakers wrote in a letter. "Permanent bipartisan seating at the State of the Union would be one small way to bridge the divide and to encourage members to find bipartisan solutions to our nation's problems."

But don't expect any directives in Congress on the matter, at least not from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who will be sitting next to Vice President Joe Biden. "The Speaker trusts members to decide where to sit," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

Third Way cofounder Matt Bennett argues that such symbolism and civility in high-profile political events is important, and constitutes one of many small steps to a functional Congress.

"This spectacle at the State of the Union, of one side of Congress kind of hopping up and applauding and the other glowering and staying seated, really underscores a lot of what people are feeling disheartened about," Bennett says. "So when you have it mixed up a little bit and you don't have that kind of bifurcated Congress that's so visible in this big annual event, there is some meaning to that. However, we never suggested or thought for a second that this was going to fix anything. It's a marginal difference."

Miller concedes that the practice didn't do much to alter the mood in the halls of Congress. But, he adds, "Optics are better than nothing. I think it's better to do than not do, but I think it's unrealistic to think it's going to have a big effect."

This article appears in the January 23, 2014, edition of NJ Daily.

]]>

Rest Up From the Budget Fight, Because There's a Debt Ceiling One Around the Corner

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:32:59 -0500

Don't expect the relative fiscal peace on the Hill engendered by the budget deal to last for long. Top Republicans are already looking ahead to the next fight: the debt ceiling.

"I doubt that the House, or, for that matter, the Senate, is willing to give the president a clean debt-ceiling increase," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters Tuesday.

McConnell appeared to defer to his House GOP counterparts to figure out what, exactly, they can extract using the leverage of the debt ceiling. "I can't imagine it being done 'clean,' so we'll have to see what the House insists on adding to it as a condition for passage."

His comments come after House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan said over the weekend that his caucus, with Senate counterparts, will have to "meet and discuss what it is we want out of the debt limit."

"We don't want nothing out of this debt limit," Paul said on Fox News Sunday. "We're going to decide what it is we can accomplish out of this debt-limit fight."

Congress may not have to face the prospect of raising the country's borrowing limit until March, or maybe even as late as June, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

McConnell, who has been relatively mum on the debt limit in the government-shutdown aftermath, still eyes the debt limit as something that Republicans can use to get something out of the administration and Democratic congressional leaders.

"Every time the president asks us to raise the debt ceiling is a good time to try and achieve something important for the country, and as you all know, many significant pieces of legislation have been attached to debt ceilings over the years," McConnell said Tuesday. "The debt-ceiling legislation is a time that brings us all together and gets the president's attention, which with this president in particular when it comes to reducing spending, is a bit of a challenge."

Michael Catalini contributed to this article.

]]>

Turkeys -- and Chimps -- Saved by Washington This Thanksgiving

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:04:41 -0500

A couple of turkeys getting pardoned isn't a big deal, compared with the hundreds of research chimps about to be spared a lifetime of living in research labs.

After President Obama pardons the turkeys Wednesday, he will sign into law a bill passed by the House and Senate that frees up restrictions on the National Institutes of Health to spend money on retired research chimps. The bill had strong bipartisan support on the Hill.

NIH has decided it won't use the animals for research anymore and has plans to retire most of them. But a 2000 law barred it from spending more than $30 million over time to take care of retired research chimps living in reserve sanctuaries, the retirement communities for our fellow primates. The agency had predicted it will hit that limit—or the "chimp cliff," if you will—sometime mid-November.

Obama will also sign a handful of health-related bills into law, including one that boosts federal oversight of pharmaceutical compounding. That legislation came about in the wake of hundreds becoming sick and more than 60 people dying from tainted steroid injections produced by a Massachusetts compounding center.

(Image via Y.F.Wong/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

How Senate Republicans Can Retaliate on the Filibuster

Michael Catalini and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:32:40 -0500

If you're looking for a coordinated Senate Republican tactical response to Harry Reid's nuclear detonation, you're not likely to find it any time soon.

Republicans have no proportional counterattacks now that the majority leader has scorched the filibuster on nominees. But that doesn't mean they don't have any means to strike back.

There are plenty of procedural tools GOP senators can use to extract smaller wins or inflict some pain on Democrats in the interim, but ultimately the best way for the minority to retaliate is to win a majority in 2014, say Capitol Hill strategists and advisers.

The Senate's reliance on unanimous consent to pass many bills provides Senate Republicans with a powerful lever to pull. UC is often used to move noncontroversial bills quickly through the upper chamber. Some Republicans say that's not likely to happen as often now. "There will be no UCs," suggested a former senior GOP aide. "You won't be able to get a UC to go to the bathroom."

Already, conservatives outside the Capitol are urging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to exercise this option. Red State, the influential conservative website, called on Republicans to withhold consent on every issue that comes before the Senate.

But there are downsides—namely, that withholding consent plays into Reid's efforts to paint Republicans as obstructionists. So if torpedoing all UC requests gives Senate Democrats an advantage, there's little incentive to pursue that course, argue some Republicans. Plus, the Republican-controlled House ensures nothing unpalatable will get through.

"Senate Republicans don't have to jam up the system," said GOP strategist Rick Wilson. "They don't have to play screw around because the House plays a buffer."

Other influential conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, have suggested stigmatizing the nominees confirmed in the post-nuclear-option Senate, giving them an air of illegitimacy.

But there's little indication on the Hill—at least, so far—that Republican senators will adopt this approach. A senior Senate GOP aide said there has been no effort to mount a conference-wide response and doesn't expect one for now.

The more likely strategy, say former Senate aides, would be for McConnell to pick which bills and nominations to hold up, with the intention of extracting some cost from Reid.

"If Harry Reid is trying to push something through at the end of a session, then now you really have it," said Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute and a former top aide to former Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo. "You punish him for something he really wants."

As for whether that approach plays into Reid's aim of casting Republicans as obstructionists, Strand pushed back. "Really you're trying to create a give-and-take," he said. "In exchange for what you want, here's what we want."

Plus, that whole obstructionist narrative is "already baked in the cake," said Wilson. "It's hard for people to hate Congress any more than they already do. It's hard for people to say, 'Goddamn those Republicans,' more thoroughly than they already have."

Go too far, and Republicans fear they could be even further marginalized as the minority party in the upper chamber. From their point of view, Republicans believe Reid has demonstrated his willingness to do whatever it takes to score victories for Democrats and the White House.

"Right now, there's no incentive for the White House to negotiate with us because Reid will change the rules," a former GOP leadership aide said.

Whether Reid would actually revisit the nuclear option on legislation, though, seems unlikely. Getting the votes to strip the filibuster threat from nominees was difficult enough, and Reid said in an interview with WAMU this week that he'd leave the decision to future majority leaders to decide whether to expand simple-majority rule in the Senate.

Democrats, for their part, aren't yet sure how Republicans will strike back in the next year. "People assume they're going to make us burn all the time on debating nominees. As far as how their frustration will manifest itself on the legislative calendar, we don't know yet," said a Democratic leadership aide. "The ball is in their court."

What it all really comes down to is control of the Senate. Republicans acknowledge the only way to get that is to prevail against the vulnerable Democrats up for reelection in 2014. Messaging over procedural rules really isn't going to work in a place like Louisiana, Arkansas, or Alaska. And given that Reid "reigns supreme" in the Senate, "literally the only strategy available to Republicans is to win in 2014," said a Senate GOP aide.

If that happens, all bets are off. McConnell declined to lay out his plan of attack after Reid changed the rules. But Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, gave some indication on the Senate floor last week.

Grassley said the "silver lining" of the change is that Republicans will one day be in the majority, and they "will likely" nominate and confirm both lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes. The Senate changes last week still left the filibuster intact on nominees for the highest court in the land.

"There will come a day when we will have the Senate," Wilson said, "and our vengeance will be hideous to behold."

]]>

In the Aftermath of a Post-Nuclear Senate, Everyone’s Dug in Deeper

Michael Catalini and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:53:34 -0500

The sun had not set on the post-nuclear Senate, when Democrats began looking forward to confirming a slate of White House nominees as Republicans dished out doomsday forecasts on the future of the institution.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., invoked the rules change—first dubbed the "nuclear option" and later called the "Reid Rule"—and began a process in which executive and judicial nominees, though not Supreme Court justices, could be confirmed via a simple, 51-vote majority.

The upper chamber is on track to confirm Patricia Millett to the U.S. Court of Appeals-D.C. Circuit after Thanksgiving recess, and the White House has submitted a slate of other nominees to other posts. But when it comes to budget deals and other legislation—particularly bills that need 60 votes to pass—the rules change hasn't done much to create a bipartisan atmosphere.

"It puts a chill on the entire United States Senate," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "It puts a chill on everything that requires bipartisanship."

McCain, who reached a deal to thwart a rules change back in the summer, now says it's "too late" to forge an agreement to go back. He had been working for two weeks to avert what happened Thursday, including an hour-long meeting in Reid's office Wednesday night.

"I've reached [out] until my arm aches, OK?" McCain said. "They are governed by these hard-over, newer members of the Democratic caucus who have never been in the minority, who are primarily driving this issue and they succeeded. And they will pay a very, very heavy price for it."

And what could that price be? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., isn't laying out a play-by-play on how Republicans will bite back. "I don't think this is a time to be talking about reprisal. I think it is a time to be sad about what's been done to the United States Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world."

Republicans, like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, warned that judicial nominees would become more and more partisan because, "the party in power is going to be pushed by base votes," he said. "The political nature of who you pick changes because you are not going to have to accommodate anybody on the other side."

Indeed, the Senate Democrats who were most vocal in support of the rules change did include a cadre of newer members who haven't served in the minority. Their arguments in favor of the change took hold this week, particularly as some of their weary, more experienced colleagues felt they had no other options.

"I feel like we've been forced into it, and I think it's terribly unfortunate," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. "You can't decide you want to remove judges from a circuit without getting a law passed to reduce the number of judges on that circuit. You don't get to block nominees in order to effect legislative policy, and that's what they're trying to do."

A number of Democrats are thrilled that, as they put it, the fever has been broken and they can move on to confirm judges that hadn't been blocked because of their qualifications, but because Republicans objected to Obama filling the court with his choices. "I'm not afraid of democracy," said retiring Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

"Not uneasy at all. Happy about it," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "I've been supportive of it for a long time. It took us awhile to get the whole caucus there. I am thrilled to get the Senate back to work."

Republicans have argued that the rules change was a distraction, designed to remove the focus on the problems associated with the rollout of Obamacare. Landrieu, who faces a tough reelection fight back home, countered that the rules change had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act.

"It had to do with the fact that the Senate has been at a dead standstill and there are a handful of senators led by Ted Cruz, supported by Mitch McConnell, and flamed on by David Vitter, that think they own this floor and they don't," she said. "The American people do and we're going to get back to their business."

Reid's changing of the rules basically delivered on something many Republicans say they've been expecting. Very "matter of fact," was how Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., put it. "This is something that everybody thought would come, they just didn't know when."

"We were all tired of being threatened by it," said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Other lawmakers tried to find a way out. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, had dinner Monday night with a group of senators who convened during the shutdown, to come up with a short-term compromise.

"It was very shortsighted of the Democrats to force this. There was a group of us working to try to come up with some sort of compromise and I think it's unfortunate that we were not given the time to try to come up with something that might have produced a different ending," Collins said.

Democrats, particularly the more apprehensive ones, were acutely aware of how their votes on Thursday could come back to haunt them. "If you've been around awhile, I think you worry about everything—including the sun coming up—coming back to haunt you," McCaskill said. "There's nothing I do that I don't worry about."

]]>

Budget Conference: A Committee of Two?

Billy House, Stacy Kaper, and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:40:11 -0400

It's supposed to be a committee of 29 separate voices from the House and Senate. But the early signals from the inaugural meeting of the bipartisan House and Senate budget conference are that it may operate more like a committee of two: Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray.

Ryan said Wednesday that the committee won't be formally sitting down as a group again until Nov. 13—a fact that seemed to catch even some of the panel's members by surprise. That leaves barely a month before the panel's Dec. 13 deadline to report its recommendations back to Congress.

"That is a huge concern to me," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. "The American people expect us to be getting into the nitty-gritty, not just giving opening statements and checking out for two weeks."

Ryan said the lack of formal committee meetings before mid-November was because House and Senate schedules don't overlap until then.

But several members of the committee, charged with keeping the government funded past Jan. 15 and avoiding another shutdown, said the weeks between now and Thanksgiving are crucial to getting work done. Finishing before Thanksgiving could allow more time for the House and Senate to reach agreement, and give appropriators time to craft individual spending bills or a larger omnibus package.

"When you look at the hourglass … the time between now and Thanksgiving is crucial," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Not that all committee members didn't get a chance to express themselves in opening statements Wednesday. One after the other, they spoke before the cameras, though the meeting was largely overshadowed by testimony taking place elsewhere over Obamacare. Their statements were marked by words like "together" and "compromise" and "agree."

Yet the two chambers are still sharply divided on the issues, such as new tax revenues and changes to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

The notion of a "grand bargain" that could tackle changes to entitlements, overhaul the tax code, and cut trillions from the national debt is being downplayed as highly unlikely, something both Ryan and Murray indicated in their opening statements and before.

Instead, the focus is on finding some way to soften the next round of sequester cuts and forging a spending plan through Sept. 30, 2014 (the rest of the current fiscal year) that would go beyond simply extending existing funding levels.

"Nobody has to abandon their principles," said Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman. "Instead, we need to find out where our principles overlap. We won't solve all our problems … so let's focus on achievable goals. Let's find common ground."

Murray, the Senate Budget Committee chair, said, "This won't be easy—the House and Senate budgets are very different even for just this year. But if both sides are willing to move out of their partisan corners and offer up some compromises, I am confident it can be done."

Murray said the committee will be working between now and the next conference meeting. "Obviously we all need to get it done fairly quickly. The time is very short," she said.

But with no plans now to meet again until Nov. 13—and pressure to deliver progress by Thanksgiving—it appears evident that not all 29 members of the committee will be instrumental in the real negotiations.

Budget experts, including Steve Pruitt, a former House Budget Committee Democratic staff director, say most of the work of House and Senate conferences--especially a budget conference--typically gets done in private discussions between the House and Senate chairs, the ranking members, and at the staff level.

"That's where the progress will be—in the private conversations," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. "You'll have some parameters by then. Then you've got another month to finalize it. "

Merkley acknowledged that budget leaders are preparing for conversations behind the scenes but argued that provides limited opportunity to work together. "I'm sure that is certainly part of it," he said. "But maybe having regular public gatherings would also help drive more speed behind the scenes."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told his colleagues in a statement, "The deliberations and deal-making shouldn't be done in the dead of night in a backroom with only a small handful of individuals."

Grassley said some of the public cynicism regarding Washington "comes from the fact that many of the recent budget deals have been concocted in a back office by a few leaders, and rank and file members were left to take it or leave it. They weren't debated. There was no deliberation. And nearly no one had an opportunity beforehand to even read them."

Whatever emerges will require the approval of majority of the committee's members before it can be sent as a recommendation to the full House and Senate.

Meanwhile, Wednesday's opening hearing did little to reset what have been relatively low expectations before the conference committee ever gaveled in. Ryan has said he is not seeking a grand bargain, and Democrats have further lowered the bar for success in recent days by making clear they are focused on trying to find a budget agreement for fiscal 2014—not one that extends for 10 years—and finding an alternative to the sequester cuts.

Some conference members said they would consider even small achievements major victories in the current environment.

"Let's get some of our more immediate issues resolved," said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. "Let's lay some foundation and some progress for moving towards the bigger solutions. I think there is a little different expectation this time and hopefully it's one where we can be successful."

]]>

Chimps Endure Congressional Monkey Business

Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:35:42 -0400

If Congress doesn’t act soon, humans won’t be the only primates frustrated with the political process -- chimpanzees will take a hit, too.

Specifically, research chimps owned by the National Institutes of Health. The federal government has decided it won’t use the animals for research anymore and has plans to retire most of them. The problem? NIH is prevented by a 2000 law from spending more than $30 million over time on the care of our fuzzy relatives living in reserve sanctuaries. The agency expects to hit that limit by mid-November.

It’s a chimp cliff, if you will.

“If we do not get the necessary changes to the law it will be very grim indeed,” says Kathy Hudson, NIH deputy director of science, outreach and policy. “We certainly don’t want to be in a position where we’re in violation of the law, but we also don’t want to be in position where these animals are not fed and cared for.”

NIH owns and helps pay for the care of 670 chimpanzees, as of October 2012. The agency had anticipated sending about 60 to the Chimp Haven sanctuary (which is sort of like Florida for chimps). More than 100 are already in the reserve, each costing about $43 a day to care for. The federal government provides 75 percent of the money required to take care of the chimps, while Chimp Haven pays the remaining 25 percent.

A bill before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Wednesday would give Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius greater flexibility in how to spend money NIH already has for the retired chimps in the reserves. It’s sponsored by Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and ranking member Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

And if it doesn’t pass? The current law leaves few options. NIH can’t send the chimps in sanctuaries back to research labs, where they are more expensive to care for but where the agency is allowed to spend money on them. Euthanasia is prohibited unless it’s in the “best interest” of the animal.

Chimp advocates don’t think it will ever come to that. Marcia Kramer, director of legislative programs for the National Anti-Vivisection Society, says private donors and volunteers will likely step up in the short term to help care for the animals if money runs out. “It’s morally unacceptable to the people involved that they would just be euthanized,” Kramer says.

Given its bipartisan support, time is the bill’s biggest enemy. It could pass the Senate under unanimous consent. “This is the time when we really, really, really need Congress to work together, and it’s an issue where there are no opponents, so this should be really easy,” Hudson said.

If recent history is any indication, even the easy stuff is hard to get through a jammed congressional calendar. And as for whether chimps are already fed up with Congress, none could be reached for comment.

(Image via Sam DCruz/Shutterstock.com)

]]>