Government Executive - Authors - Fawn Johnson

Congress' Road to Recess Is Still Blocked Over Highway Funding

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:13:18 -0400

It's still a long road to recess.

The House is expected to adjourn until after Labor Day this week, and the Senate could quickly follow suit if only members could figure out what to do about a highway bill. If only. They must send legislation to the president this week to avoid disrupting distributions to state transportation departments.

Lots of members would also be much happier if the Export-Import Bank charter were reinstated before they go home to face their constituents. But other members are willing to use every tool they can to stop Ex-Im from coming back to life. All told, it will make for an interesting week.

After a rare Sunday Senate vote, the Senate version of the highway bill will likely include an Ex-Im provision. The House version doesn't. That's not the only problem. The House and Senate versions of the highway bill are different in size and scope, and their various champions are still competing for the upper hand. The House bill is a short-term patch until December designed to allow members to come up with a longer-term plan. The Senate bill sets six years of policy and pays for three years of highway authority through a variety of budget and banking tricks that are raising eyebrows among accountants and politicians alike.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster says the Senate highway bill actually rolls back some of the reforms he fought for under current law. House GOP leaders aren't too thrilled with the idea of accepting a massive Senate highway bill without the chance to amend it or weigh in.

But Senate leaders are determined to move forward with their own highway and transit measure, waiting for the House to prove they will actually reject it before they start negotiating in earnest. This will all happen two or three days before Highway Trust Fund authority expires on July 31.

Then the House goes home. If senators are still in the mood for legislation—not likely, but possible—there is a possibility that leaders will bring a stalled cybersecurity measure to the floor. GOP leadership has repeatedly said it hopes to vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan information-sharing bill before breaking for the August recess.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The trio of Cabinet officials who stared down Senate naysayers of a proposed Iran nuclear deal last week will return to Capitol Hill Tuesday to conduct the same activity in the House. Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew will appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to defend the deal struck between Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, and four other countries to curb Iran's nuclear program.

Things got testy in last week's Senate hearing, with Kerry telling his former colleagues that their desire for a better deal was a "fantasy." The atmosphere isn't likely to be any friendlier in the House, where Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce has said the deal has "several shortcomings" and ranking member Eliot Engel has said he has "serious concerns and questions."

ENERGY

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee kicks off debate on its comprehensive energy package with a pair of markups on Tuesday and Thursday, a process that could bleed over into the following week. The 357-page package is the result of months of bipartisan negotiations on the committee. It contains titles on energy infrastructure, cybersecurity, and efficiency, and it reauthorizes a much-wanted public lands program, but it skirts more controversial issues like offshore energy production and climate change.

The committee is also expected to hold a vote on lifting the decades-old ban on the export of crude oil as early as next week. Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski has introduced legislation that would lift the ban and expand revenue-sharing to Alaska and Atlantic Coast states. A markup of the legislation is slated to start on Tuesday.

Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee Wednesday will lean on the Endangered Species Act to attack the Environmental Protection Agency's rules on power-plant emissions, arguing that the EPA did not consult with the proper agencies over how the rule would impact species like manatees. Several administration witnesses will testify, but the EPA declined to send a witness.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Three of the five members of the Federal Communications Commission will appear in front of Congress this week, at a pair of hearings focused on the agency's actions. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, and Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai will testify Tuesday in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in the latest in an ongoing series of FCC oversight hearings. On Wednesday, Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel will appear before the Senate Commerce Committee during a hearing on wireless broadband and spectrum policy.

HEALTH

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a subcommittee hearing on America's growing heroin epidemic. Speakers include officials from the White House and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The House Education and Workforce Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday to review the policies and priorities of the Department of Health and Human Services, at which HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell will testify.

Also on Tuesday, the Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on rural health care disparities created by Medicare regulations.

Off the Hill, National Journal will host a forum Tuesday on the future of Medicare, and on Thursday the Heritage Foundation will hold a discussion on the future of Medicare and Medicaid to mark the programs' 50th anniversaries.

FINANCE

The House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday reviewing the impact of Dodd-Frank at its fifth anniversary. Chairman Jeb Hensarling has been an outspoken critic of the law, so it is likely the hearing will be used as a chance to pick apart things House Republicans don't like. On Tuesday, the Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on lifting the crude-oil-export ban, and on Wednesday, the Senate Banking Committee will look at the role of bankruptcy in addressing companies that are "too big to fail."

WHITE HOUSE

President Obama continues on his tour through Africa Monday. He'll meet with Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, attend a summit meeting with regional leaders, and have dinner at the National Palace.

On Tuesday, he'll participate in a civil-society roundtable and bilateral meeting with the chairwoman of the African Union Commission, Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma. He'll start his journey back to Washington on Tuesday.

Eric Garcia, Kaveh Waddell, Dustin Volz, Clare Foran, Rebecca Nelson, and Caitlin Owens contributed to this article.

(Image via Tim Roberts Photography / Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Senate Enjoys a Relatively Friendly Debate Over a Contentious Bill

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:10:49 -0400

Don't look now, but the Senate is actually having a constructive debate on a contentious issue.

In an environment that has been tense and marked by bullying on everything from defense spending to trade policy to the fate of the Export-Import Bank, the Senate's debate over a carefully negotiated bipartisan education bill has gone remarkably smoothly. The chamber has held dozens of votes on amendments, some of which were controversial and voted down, and accepted dozens more without conflict. Everyone seems to be breathing a sigh of relief.

The Senate is expected to finish its work on the education bill this week, marking a major milestone for educators and advocates who have been looking for a rewrite of No Child Left Behind for eight years. The House passed its more-conservative version of the legislation last week, with an eye toward a conference committee with the Senate. Democrats oppose the House version, but they also know that it can't move any further to the right in conference if President Obama is expected to sign it.

But before they get there, the Senate needs to finish its own bill. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander is having the time of his life as the Republican manager of the floor debate. This is exactly what he has been waiting to do for four years since he stepped down as the No. 3 Senate Republican to focus on hard-core legislating.

"So far, so good, but something will happen," Alexander cautiously said last week about the relatively friendly floor debate. "We've considered a lot of amendments. We've got dozens more that Senator Patty Murray and I have agreed to," referring to the Democratic floor manager and cosponsor of the bill.

The big amendments on tap deal with discrimination, school vouchers, early education, how federal money is distributed to states, and how schools account for student achievement. Some of them, like the vouchers amendment, would incur Democrats' opposition if they passed. Others, like accountability, would draw Republican opposition. But those amendments probably won't pass. Alexander and Murray have coordinated the amendment process such that the deal-breaker proposals can get votes but won't upset the balance of the bill heading into a conference committee.

The House, meanwhile, has several noncontroversial bills on tap while GOP leaders figure out what to do about a standoff over the uses of the Confederate flag that has stalled the Interior Department spending bill and, for now, has also put off consideration of the financial services and general government appropriations measure. Later in the week they will vote on a bill sponsored by all California Republicans to alter water-preservation rules under the Endangered Species Act to get more water to drought-suffering farms and towns.

ENERGY

As California continues to clean up from the May oil spill that polluted beaches near Santa Barbara, a House Energy and Commerce panel will put a spotlight on the regulatory agency in charge of pipeline safety. On Tuesday, the Energy and Power Subcommittee will hear from Stacy Cummings, the interim director of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, over PHMSA's implementation of a 2011 pipeline safety law, which critics have said has been too lax.

On Wednesday, House Republicans will take aim at the Obama administration's management of fracking on public lands during an oversight hearing convened by the Natural Resources Committee's Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds a hearing Wednesday on the nomination of Kristen Kulinowski to join the Chemical Safety Board, an agency that recently saw the dismissal of its chairman and has been left with just two active members on its five-person board.

FINANCE

It will be a full week for the financial services committees ahead of the fifth anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen will testify before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday. On Thursday, Yellen will testify before the Senate Banking Committee.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Chairman Richard Cordray will testify before the Banking Committee for the agency's semiannual report to Congress. Shelby has previously spoken about putting the CFPB under Congressional appropriations instead of having it receive money from the Federal Reserve, which is how it receives funding.

HEALTH

On Monday, the White House will host its 2015 Conference on Aging. Some topics include financial security, healthy aging, and technology. On Wednesday, the Senate Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on diabetes research.

The Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a subcommittee hearing on Tuesday to discuss ways to strengthen Medicare and to make sure the Medicare prescription drug program operates effectively. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on Thursday to review HealthCare.gov controls.

And on Tuesday, the National Health Council will release a state-by-state comparison of changes that have been made to improve exchanges and what still needs to be done.

WHITE HOUSE

President Obama will start his week by delivering remarks at the White House Conference on Aging, a conference held each decade since the 1960s to help improve the quality of life for the elderly.

On Tuesday, he'll kick off a focus on criminal-justice reform, speaking at the NAACP's 106th national convention in Philadelphia. In the speech, he will "outline the unfairness in much of our criminal-justice system, highlight bipartisan ideas for reform, and lay out his own ideas to make our justice system fairer, smarter, and more cost-effective while keeping the American people safe and secure," press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday.

Obama will begin a two-day swing through Oklahoma on Wednesday, visiting the Choctaw Nation in Durant to speak about expanding economic opportunity. On Thursday, he is set to become the first sitting president to visit a federal prison: the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution, just outside Oklahoma City. There, he'll meet with law-enforcement officials and prisoners, as well as film an interview for a Vice documentary on the criminal-justice system.

Eric Garcia, Caitlin Owens, Jason Plautz, and Rebecca Nelson contributed to this article.

]]>

As Deadline Nears, Highway Bill Still Stalled

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:26:41 -0400

Senate Republicans have just under three weeks left to conjure something out of nothing.

That's the magic trick the majority is tasked with this week as it tees up a highway bill for floor votes with the current Highway Trust Fund authorization due to expire at the end of July. And so far, they are resisting pressure from Democrats and House Republicans to use international tax changes to pay for the measure.

The surface-transportation bill, which allows states to tap into the federal trust fund for highway and transit projects, is the next item on the Senate's agenda after the chamber completes work on an education bill. The only problem is that the bill isn't quite ready.

"Senator [Mitch] McConnell says we're going to go to a transportation bill next," said Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, last week. "Those of us here have just one question—what transportation bill?"

The House's outlook on highways is even less clear. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said Friday that he wants to pass a five-month extension to allow time to put together a longer-term transportation bill that also changes the international tax code. It's unclear when a vote on that short-term patch will happen.

The Senate actually does have a broader transportation bill ready to go, but the measure only takes care of part of the problem. The Environment and Public Works Committee completed work last month on a bipartisan six-year highway bill that sets the policy for surface-transportation construction and maintenance. The only problem is that it doesn't include anything to offset the cost. What's more, lawmakers don't even know what the cost is. The Congressional Budget Office is still analyzing the bill to come up with an estimate of its impact on federal coffers.

Yet conversations with senior GOP lawmakers and aides make clear that Senate Republican leaders are hell-bent on two things when it comes to finding offsets: 1) Don't touch anything that could mess with broader tax reform, including international taxes. 2) Don't even think about raising the gas tax.

That doesn't leave many options for cobbling together the $90 to $100 billion that would be needed to fully implement the transportation bill. But Senate Republicans insist they can find a way.

"We are looking under every rock we can find," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn. "There has been an extensive search for pay-fors that we are now are going to have to consider. Not all of them people are going to be comfortable with, so we're going to have to figure out where the consensus is."

Aides say the details of those offsets are still coming together and will be unveiled as the highway bill comes to the floor. Democrats fear the plan will include cuts to other domestic programs, which they would oppose. At best, the package will be a mish-mash of tiny tax tweaks, with the possibility of niche items like the wind-production tax credit, according to Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Senate Republican. "I'm told PTC is in," he said last week.

In an illustration of how fluid the situation is, Thune also queried reporters: "What have you heard?"

Republicans doubt that they can find enough spare change in the federal budget to fund a new transportation program for a full six years, but Thune said they hope than can at least get to two years. "It's going to be dialable. In other words, the length of the bill is going to be directly related to the pay-for," Cornyn concurred.

Meanwhile, Democrats and some Republicans are pushing for a reduction in the international tax rate on U.S. companies that, through those companies' profits from such a change, could generate enough money for a long-term transportation bill. Ryan is drafting such a plan, and Sens. Rob Portman and Schumer are putting together another version.

House GOP leaders seem to like Ryan's idea, at least according to him. "I can speak for our leadership, which is we want to do a six-year highway bill and we think there's a problem, international tax laws, that needs to be dealt with. And we think that these two could be married together as a solution," Ryan said last week.

But both Ryan and Portman acknowledge that the details of the international tax deal are too complicated to complete before July 31. "We have not introduced legislation. So we're not ready to have a vote in the next couple of weeks," Portman said.

McConnell is dismissive of the entire scheme. He said early last week that he was "skeptical" that it would work, and that negativity only escalated in subsequent days. Tax reform is really, really hard, GOP leadership aides said. Holding out the hope that Republicans and Democrats can come to a deal on a small but integral part of the tax code that President Obama can sign and that Republicans can accept is a pipe dream. There has to be another way.

There's another problem. Ryan's idea of a five-month extension doesn't help the current highway conundrum because it puts lawmakers right back where they started, scrounging for offsets. They would need to come up with roughly $8 billion to pay for an extension that would begin Aug. 1 and last through the end of the year. They tried that a few months ago and came up dry.

Up until late last week, Senate Democrats were threatening to block anything that looked like a short-term extension of highway authority. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the idea was "disgusting."

But one day later, Schumer indicated that Democrats could, with caution, accept an extension through the end of the year if it included assurances that a long-term solution was in the works. "Is there going to be enough there for folks to feel confident?" he said. "Right now, it's the only viable solution."

That is, until the GOP leadership proves otherwise.

Alex Rogers contributed to this article.

(Image via JPL Designs/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

House Republicans Will Take Two Swats at the EPA This Week

Fawn Johnson and Jason Plautz, National Journal — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:07:09 -0400

Pope Francis's eminently quotable encyclical on the environment couldn't have been better timed for floor debate this week in the House, as the chamber takes two swats at the Environmental Protection Agency's controversial rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants.

The rule forms the tentpole of President Obama's climate agenda, which Republicans dislike. Expect Democrats who support the climate change initiatives to bring up Francis's descriptions of the Earth turning to "filth" and his disdain for unchecked growth.

The House is first slated to vote on a bill from Rep. Ed Whitfield and others that would allow states to opt out of the EPA rule and delay its effective date until all legal challenges are settled. That rule is also blocked under a rider in the $30.17 billion-Interior Department and EPA appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, which slashes $718 million from last year's EPA's budget and includes riders scaling back regulations on Clean Water Act authority, ground level smog and fracking.

The House also will debate on the floor a bill that would reform the nation's chemical management system, potentially amending the chemical law that has not seen a significant Congressional upgrade since its passage in 1976.

The Senate, meanwhile, is expected to pass early in the week one of the president's highest priorities, a trade promotion authority bill paving the way for free-trade deals such as the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership pact. Obama will have to rely upon about a dozen Senate Democrats who want to make sure that other trade-related bills, including one helping workers displaced by such deals, will be taken up and passed afterwards. They'll have to trust Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to ensure that the separate trade adjustment assistance bill, or TAA, won't fall by the wayside. McConnell said Thursday that even though his fellow Republicans have major reservations about TAA, "the votes will be there to pass it" in order to get TPA done. The goal is for President Obama to sign both bills by the July 4 recess.

After that, McConnell has to decide how hard to push back on Democrats who have insisted that they will block all federal spending bills until there is a new summit on the budget. Last week, Democrats followed through on their threat to block a Defense Department appropriations bill, which met with the expected "how dare you?" reactions from GOP supporters. McConnell could schedule another vote on the DOD bill or other spending bills to drive home the point.

There are also some bipartisan measures waiting in the Senate wings. There is a cybersecurity bill prepped and ready for the full Senate that would encourage companies to share data about breaches with federal investigators. The legislation needs at least a week of floor debate for amendments but has an excellent chance of passing afterwards. There is also an education bill, carefully crafted by two highly respected negotiators, Sens. Patty Murray and Lamar Alexander, that would update the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. Like cybersecurity, the education bill needs some vetting by the full Senate before final passage, but once that is over, it could set the benchmark for a long-overdue education reauthorization.

HEALTH

A Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell draws nearer, with the next batch of opinions scheduled to be announced Monday and a decision expected by the end of the month.

Following last week's Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill released in the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee will hold a subcommittee markup of the Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies appropriations bill on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee's oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing on rising health insurance premiums under Obamacare. Witnesses have yet to be released, but the discussion will almost certainly center on double-digit premium increases reported by some insurers for next year and will provide ample opportunity, yet again, for a larger debate over Obamacare.

WHITE HOUSE

President Obama begins his week hosting an Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan at the White House. He'll attend various meetings there Tuesday.

Wednesday, Obama will host a reception for LGBT pride month at the White House.

Obama will attend meetings at the White House Wednesday and Thursday.

Caitlin Owens, Alex Rogers, Dustin Volz and Rebecca Nelson contributed to this article.

(Image via kirillov alexey / Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Most in the Military Get No Retirement-Savings Help. That Could Be Changing.

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:01:05 -0400

This one seems like a no-brainer. If this year's Senate Defense authorization bill gets enacted, soldiers like the now-famous "American sniper" Chris Kyle would be able to leave the military with something in their back pockets for retirement. Kyle had 10 years of service in the Navy and served four tours in Iraq. But when he was honorably discharged in 2009, he had no employer-sponsored retirement savings.

In the eyes of a powerful reform commission, that's a little ridiculous. Heck, even Wal-Mart and 7-Eleven offer 401(k) plans with company matches for employee contributions.

Kyle is a high-profile example of one of the biggest defects in military compensation: 83 percent of men and women in uniform exit the armed forces without any retirement funds. Only those who stick around for 20 years are given the sweetest retirement deal—pensions for life. It's not fair to the rest of the soldiers. It hurts recruitment. It doesn't reflect the modern workforce.

Those are the findings of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, a Congress-ordered group, which recommended earlier this year that the military switch from an inflexible defined-benefit plan to a blended retirement plan that includes 401(k) investment options for all service members. Both the House and Senate versions of the Defense authorization bill include language largely reflecting the commission's recommendations. They would make retirement savings available to 75 percent of service members, excluding only those who serve less than two years.

The Senate version, which is being touted by Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain as one of the biggest leaps forward in military compensation, would vest service members in a thrift savings plan after two years on the job. At that point, the military would match their own monthly contributions up to 5 percent of their salaries. All service members would start with a 1 percent monthly contribution from the government.

In an interview, McCain told National Journal that he has been waiting almost 30 years to modernize the compensation of military personnel. He considers this year's proposed changes in retirement benefits to be one of the most significant parts of the Defense bill.

He took those statements to the Senate floor earlier this month. "The retirement reforms in this legislation will enable service members to save for retirement earlier in their careers, create a new incentive to recruit millennials, and increase retention across the services," he said.

Significant, yes. Controversial, no. There has been little public debate in Congress about the proposed changes to the Defense authorization and no amendments regarding retirement benefits. In part, that's because members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees agreed two years ago to wait until the military-compensation commission came out with its recommendations before acting. When the commission's report was published in January, the committee chairmen essentially adopted the recommendations in their entirety. There were few surprises in the report, but it gave lawmakers the ironclad justification they felt they needed to put the thrift savings plan into the Defense bill.

Why did they need a commission to back them up? There is a catch to the new system. It would actually reduce a 20-year service member's pension by about 20 percent, which has caused angst for some military brass. But if those same soldiers were to contribute to the thrift savings plan, their total retirement packages would be almost 20 percent higher, according to the commission.

Many soldiers' groups heartily endorse the changes. They have been given the seal of approval by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, and the Air Force Association.

Committee staffers have worked doggedly to please everyone with a carefully crafted deal that preserves the old pension promises for service members. For example, current service members can opt in to the new 401(k) system, but it isn't required. Those who have worked most closely on the project are pleased with its outcome, arguing that the changes are long overdue. Now it's just a matter of getting past other political hurdles to get them enacted.

]]>

Pentagon Procurement Could See Dramatic Changes

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:59:00 -0400

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain has two ideas for radically changing the way the Pentagon does its shopping.

No. 1: Each new weapon or service contract should have one person, preferably a service chief, sign off on it and take responsibility for it from start to finish. No. 2: That person's military branch should pay a fine if the cost of the program goes beyond the original budget.

These two changes would represent an unhinging of the Pentagon as it now operates. They are some of the boldest provisions in the Senate's defense authorization bill, propelled by McCain's sense of urgency in curbing wasteful defense spending and also, tangentially, marking his place in the history books as a major Pentagon reformer.

"What the Pentagon has turned into is the absolute quintessence of 'Everybody's responsible, so therefore nobody is responsible,'" the Arizona Republican said in an interview.

DOD's centralized system of acquisition has perversely created a situation in which the commanders who ultimately will use a weapons system can weigh in only on how it will work. They don't have any authority over how it is researched, developed, or contracted. This inevitably leads to cost overruns because the proposed products get weighed down with unnecessary requirements dictated by people who, by design, see only one part of a bigger picture. If a Naval commander knew, for example, that his request for a gold-plated widget would add $1 million to the engine of a new submarine, he might determine that a copper-plated one will do. If he never knows the cost consequences of his requests, it's hard to control the costs.

McCain likes to cite the $2.4 billion cost overrun on the new Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, which has the dubious distinction of being the single most expensive piece of military equipment ever. He was incensed last year when the chief of naval operations couldn't tell him who was responsible for that particular snafu. "Here's the chief of the service that can't tell you who's responsible for a $2.4 billion cost overrun. Do you know what Arizona can do with $2.4 billion? That would take care of every problem they ever had for the next 10 years," he said.

This sentiment is at the heart of the acquisition changes in the National Defense Authorization Act: If you're going to spend taxpayer money, you'd better be willing to say that you know you're doing it. "The secretary of the Navy, now, when there is a new cost overrun, has to sign on the dotted line: 'I am aware that there is an additional cost to the catapults on the aircraft carrier,'" McCain said.

The proposal is reverberating throughout the uniformed leadership of the Pentagon, according to a former committee staffer who declined to go on the record because of the sensitivity of the topic. Frank Kendall, DOD's undersecretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics, has expressed concern that McCain's proposal would give his office less legal power than the individual branches of the military. Of course, that's exactly what McCain is after, happily stating that power will be redistributed to the people who can make better decisions.

These changes wouldn't take all power away from the central acquisition office. In fact, some analysts predict that only a fraction of its authority would go away. The cost-overrun penalties wouldn't apply to procurements begun before 2009, for example, and the Defense secretary has the authority to designate point people for joint projects or "other specific cases," according to the committee report.

Still, the proposed new acquisition system deserves the dramatic labels that McCain proudly gives them. Current and former staffers of the committee say direct accountability for cost overruns is almost unprecedented. That simple alteration could serve up scapegoats for long-simmering frustrations about the massive amount of waste generated by poorly executed projects. Would those procurements work more smoothly if service chiefs were able to decide, for example, when it's time to move from a technological-development phase to a manufacturing and production phase?

There are lots of opinions about how procurement programs go wrong, but to date there has been little direction regarding whom to blame. Long-running weapons programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have been punching bags for members of Congress and defense analysts alike. But they have very little recourse for their complaints.

Here's an example: "The military would have gotten into a lot less problems if they had actually had working prototypes before they committed to a multibillion F-35 production," said Peter Singer, a senior fellow and military-technology specialist at the New America Foundation.

McCain feels similarly. "I fought it tooth and nail for years," he said.

But, when push came to shove, McCain allowed more orders for the F-35 to remain in the defense bill this year, regardless of the problems with the Joint Strike Fighter. "Once a weapons system gets to a certain level of production, it's impossible to kill," he said.

It's this type of runaway development that McCain is trying to rein in, but it's impossible to know whether his idea for changing it will make things better or worse. For example, will the threat of a cost-overrun penalty make service chiefs cautious about trying out new commercial manufacturers or researchers, despite Congress's encouragement that they branch out beyond traditional contractors? Will different branches of the military all be working on similar projects?

One thing is clear. These changes, if they go through, will cause a dramatic shift within the Pentagon. That may make some programs work more smoothly, but it will also probably make others worse. Then, committee observers say, Congress will no doubt need to come back and tinker in 10 or 15 years.

One former committee staffer put it this way: "Frankly, at this point, any change is worth doing."

]]>

Why John McCain Thinks the Days of Fighter Pilots Are Over

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:27:54 -0400

The days of the Navy fighter pilot are almost over—or at least they should be.

That's the opinion of Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We think that the Navy should be looking at drones to replace manned aircraft. I believe that the F-35 is the last manned fighter aircraft," he told National Journal. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the same during a speech in April: "The F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike-fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly."

Compared with manned aircraft, drones offer many advantages, but none greater than this: Drone pilots can, for example, fly a mission in Syria from a base in Nevada and be home with their families after. Fighter pilots face far greater hazards, and sometimes don't come home at all.

There is, of course, an extensive moral debate raging about how, why, when, or even whether the U.S. should carry out drone strikes, but even if the nation's defense shepherds decide they want drones to replace manned aircraft entirely, there's another hurdle to clear: a massive military-industrial complex that struggles to keep pace with changing technology.

Members of the Armed Services Committee have been blunt about their concerns that the Defense Department isn't adapting to new technology fast enough, but it's not simply a recalcitrance to adjust. The decision about where to invest in future military technology is inextricably intertwined with investment decisions made years or even decades ago.

The F-35 program was once the latest and greatest idea, too. Decisions about the F-35 were made "under very different strategic circumstances nearly 20 years ago," the committee noted in its report on defense authorization.

And just as the prospect of mothballing the F-35 has produced a gridlocked debate on Capitol Hill, some worry that decisions about drone innovations will meet a similar political morass—and stagnate because of it.

"We're in a massive period of technological shift, both a civilian shift and on the side of war—drones to cyberelectromagnet rail guns to space, you name it. They're all disruptive. They're all shifts," said Peter Singer, a military strategist at the New America Foundation who specializes in 21st century technology. "I'm a big supporter, clearly from what I'm saying, of updating wherever possible, not just merely the technology but the system and processing that yield that," Singer added.

Drones haven't hit this conundrum yet since they represent relatively new technology. DOD is unburdened by past decisions and can venture in a variety of directions, something the committee heartily supports. Remote-controlled planes and sea vessels could offer an alternative for monitoring far-flung areas from the relative safety and comfort of home, committee aides say.

Can a sophisticated drone system like that actually be developed? Congress is enthusiastic to find out. Lawmakers are giving the Pentagon the green light in developing military drones for a variety of missions—long-range and short-range, surveillance, strikes, etc.

Among the pro-drone perks in the Senate's defense bill: $10 million for 24 MQ-9 drones, the unmanned vehicles that have been used by special operations to combat terrorist organizations; $11 million for submarine-launched aerial drones; and $725 million in additional money for the Navy's unmanned combat air system program. The bill also encourages more coordination with academic labs on the development of cutting-edge unmanned air systems and sensors.

McCain and ranking member Jack Reed also are pushing DOD to step up its game on training drone pilots. They said in a recent letter to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter that they believe the Air Force's recent statement that it lacks 400 MQ-9 pilots is understated. The shortages have "placed extreme strain" on the current pilots and sensor operators, the senators said.

The letter's notable opening offers a bold statement about where the military is going: "We are all aware that unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are an essential element in America's warfighting arsenal."

McCain has gone so far as to suggest that the drone operations for spying missions should be moved from the Central Intelligence Agency to the Pentagon. He has met with opposition from Democrats and members of his own party, primarily Sen. Richard Burr, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee that oversees the spy drones. Much of that spy program still lies with the CIA, which isn't what McCain wanted. But the committee report also is peppered with encouragements to the Pentagon to develop drones on its own for many uses.

The trajectory of the Defense Department's fledgling drone and robot programs will be a prime indicator of how adaptable to new technology this country's defense system can be. McCain is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the acquisition system that he hopes will bring in more entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley and other nondefense R&D meccas. If his scheme works, the armed forces could look more like Iron Man each year, to the extent that the latest technology is put in use for our soldiers. At least that's the hope.

Even so, there are limits to the abilities of remote-controlled combat vehicles. Drone planes work best in sparse areas with few civilians and lots of space. That makes them great for hunting al-Qaida leaders in the desert, but not so great for the rooting out ISIS cells that gather in more populated areas. "ISIS is located in urban areas surrounded by civilian populations. It's much harder to use drones," said Audrey Kurth Cronin, a terrorism specialist and professor at George Mason University.

Procurement analysts also worry that the Defense Department's outreach to entrepreneurs will fall short because the profit margin is too low or the combat specifications are too difficult to meet. With some commercial profit margins at 30 percent or higher, it's hard to imagine a nondefense developer that would be willing to engage in a conversation about building a drone that the military says "should cost" X (less than commercial value) but also have Y and Z extra security features.

And then there is the worry that these green-lit programs will soon become old baggage. Killing a program is tantamount to publicly throwing taxpayer money in the trash, a political taboo. Keeping it going means there is still hope that it will work. The still-kicking F-35 fighter is a prime example. Once you commit to a major combat vehicle, it's best to see it through. At least that was McCain's explanation for not killing it in this year's NDAA. "First of all, the money was available. And second of all, the aircraft, we are committed to the acquisition of some 2,000 of them. We felt it was appropriate to go ahead and move forward," he told reporters last month.

McCain says his proposal for a new acquisition plan should alleviate the likelihood that drone programs will suffer the same fate. "The secretary of the Navy, when there is a new cost overrun, has to sign on the dotted line," he said. "They're going to be responsible."

]]>

When the Defense Bill Collides With 'Extraneous' Politics

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:01:57 -0400

Welcome to the defense standoff of 2015.

"We've never faced this issue before," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain said in an interview about a brewing disagreement over defense and nondefense budgeting that could shutter the government later this year. "I'm very worried."

"You can't just increase spending on the Department of Defense. You have to increase spending on other agencies," countered ranking Democrat Jack Reed in a separate interview.

These are the two senators who lead one of the most influential committees on Capitol Hill, who can't say enough good things about one another, who agree on almost everything in terms of 2016 military policy. They just happen to be on opposite sides of a politically-charged debate about government budgeting that has almost nothing to do with the inner workings of the military or their committee.

And it's interfering with their defense bill, something they have worked doggedly to put together. McCain worries that the budget disagreement could "cripple the whole process" of defense authorization. Reed says he hopes Democrats' insistence on changing the budgeting scheme will serve as a "lever that will move the process" toward a detente akin to the one struck by Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan two years ago.

A Familiar Story

McCain and Reed are new characters, and the budget scuffle is a new obstacle, in a familiar story about the Armed Services Committee. The long-running narrative is about how bipartisan legislation to help the men and women in uniform and protect our country gets hampered by other, nonmilitary questions. In 2010, McCain chastised then-Chairman Carl Levin for putting hate-crimes language in the defense bill. Levin immediately countered by reminding McCain that he offered a campaign-finance amendment to the defense bill in 2000.

This year, the fight is particularly venomous, causing longtime military observers to wonder whether these external pressures will cause the National Defense Authorization Act to fall apart this time. At issue is an off-budget war fund that is used to backfill required cuts to the Pentagon that no one, Republican or Democrat, wants. Democrats protest that the war fund is a "gimmick," an underhanded way for Republicans to do what they really want (and get reelected for)—feed defense and starve other government programs.

"It's an easy way to put money in. It's defense spending. It's not offset," said Reed, who took the extraordinary step of voting against the defense bill that he helped write when it was in committee because of the off-budget funding. It was a tough vote, perhaps one of the toughest for Reed, a West Point graduate who loves the Army. It was too tough for other committee Democrats. Reed could only convince three others to join him.

President Obama has threatened to veto the measure for the same reason. That looming prospect prompted Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to call the weeks of Senate floor debate on NDAA a waste of time. Later, Senate Democratic leaders said they would not ask senators to vote against the bill on the floor. Democrats' misgivings over the bill's funding situation grew by the day, something they repeatedly discussed throughout the weeks of floor debate. Still, many caucus members like to vote for it every year.

This is the lore of the defense bill. It is notoriously difficult to oppose, although many people, Obama included, have threatened to derail it over the years. In the absence of congressional earmarks, it offers one of the closest legislative links between elected officials and their constituents. Because it deals in the minutia of the military, they can dabble in tangible details that impact their states. One small example: Sen. Marco Rubio successfully inserted an amendment to the bill authorizing a land exchange between a Navy landing field and a Naval air field in Santa Rosa County, Florida—his home state.

"You see a higher degree of involvement by members of Congress, particularly where hometown or home state projects are concerned," McCain said.

John Isaacs, a longtime defense budget watcher for the nuclear-reduction advocacy group Council for a Livable World, put it more bluntly. "What a lot of people do on the Armed Services Committee is protect weapons systems in their state," he said. A case in point is Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who noted in his statement supporting the defense bill that it included $800 million in additional funding for Virginia-class submarines, which happen to be built in his home state of Connecticut.

The Bill That Never Fails

It's simple tradition. Every year, the bill passes. It's been that way for 53 years. With each go-round, it survives new and creative hurdles. Obama has threatened to veto it for several years running, but he never has.

The measure regularly goes down to the wire. Obama waited until Jan. 2 to sign the fiscal 2013 bill. The same thing happened for the 2014 bill; it was signed Dec. 26.

But for some reason, be it simple momentum or an honest respect for the nation's armed forces, Congress and the White House don't let this one lapse. Committee members in the House and Senate are proud of this. They also are grateful that the drama seems to be limited to "extraneous" issues, as McCain likes to call them.

"We produce one bill a year, and we produce that bill every year and it sort of builds a rhythm and it has us working together. It's not as unpredictable as some other committees," said Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The House and Senate Armed Services panels also are unlike other House/Senate authorizing committees (such as banking, taxes, Judiciary) in that they are almost always in sync across the Capitol. Even when Democrats ran the Senate and Republicans ran the House, the NDAA bill bore the names of two chairmen from different parties—progressive Democrat Levin, and hawkish Republican Rep. Buck McKeon. McCain regularly meets with his counterpart in the House, Rep. Mac Thornberry. He says they get along "extremely well."

The collaboration between House and Senate committees makes the actual writing of the NDAA go relatively smoothly. "If you take a close look at the NDAA in the House and the NDAA in the Senate, you'll see that a lot of stuff drops off when we get to conference," said Smith. "We've got to get the cooperation on both sides to make it happen."

The Add-Ons

Yet it's precisely because it always passes that the bill attracts a lot of unrelated agenda items. At times, it is lawmakers' only chance to get attention for their issue. Sen. Amy Klobuchar has been working for several years to pass legislation to stop metal theft—people stealing bronze stars and such from veterans' graves or monuments and selling them to scrap dealers. This week, she came to the Senate floor asking that her metal theft bill be added to the defense measure. She was rebuffed by McCain, who said it was a Judiciary Committee issue. This wasn't necessarily a surprise to Klobuchar, who was clearly frustrated. But it gave her the chance to call attention to the legislation, which isn't controversial but hasn't advanced in the slow-moving Senate.

There have been a few failed attempts to attach the Dream Act, which would legalize undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. The 2010 bill included a nonmilitary provision giving federal police officers authority over hate crimes, a huge victory for civil-rights advocates.

Just last week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to attach cybersecurity legislation to this year's bill. Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk proposed an amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which is in danger of lapsing soon without congressional action.

These latest moves are offshoots of the fundamental disagreement about government budgeting that could culminate in a government shutdown. Democrats say they will block all spending bills, including the allotment for the Defense Department, that abide by the mandatory budget caps. Republicans say they want the caps for domestic programs to stay in place, but they say defense spending needs to increase above the caps because of escalating military situations in the Middle East and Russia. The impasse could last well into the fall.

That's why lawmakers have tried to get crucial bills like the Export-Import Bank and cybersecurity onto the defense bill. It has a remarkable track record even in the midst of this current, major disagreement that could cause a government shutdown. Even so, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees already are planning for a defense authorization conference committee in July. The bill is on a glide path as long as Obama doesn't veto it. And this time, he just might.

"At this point, the Republican plan is to hope that he doesn't. That is their plan," Smith said.

The Path Forward

Herein lies the conundrum.

Every year, extraneous fights imperil the NDAA, which is generally written with lots of bipartisan cooperation. There are always provisions in it that some people don't like, but the committee operates in an old-school legislative style. The disagreeable parts are tolerated for the sake of the generally positive whole.

Every year, negotiators find a way through the external fights, setting up a higher-stakes game for the next year. In 2010, McCain said the hate-crimes addition would doom the bill. "It will be like other authorization bills. It's just not going anywhere," he said.

He was wrong then, but he might not be wrong now. If Obama vetoes the bill, Senate Democrats believe they can muster enough votes to sustain it. That would mean the defense authorization bill dies for the first time in 53 years. Or, more likely, it sits on a shelf until Republicans and Democrats work out their differences over the budget.

Absent the budget gimmick, the bill itself has support from a broad swath of members and a second run at passage would probably be relatively simple. It just might not happen until Christmas.

]]>

Democrats Go Wobbly on Defense Bills

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:20:02 -0400

Senate Democrats were against defense authorization before they were for it. Or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, their message is mixed: They fully support the troops, but they really don't like how Republicans are supporting the troops with contingency war funds.

Does that translate into a "no" vote or a "yes" vote? On the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets Pentagon policy, it's a "yes." On a Defense Department spending bill, it's a "no." The overseas contingency fund that Republicans are using to boost the Pentagon is acceptable to Democrats in a policy bill but not a spending bill.

Democrats overwhelmingly voted with Republicans on Tuesday to proceed to final passage on NDAA. But their support for the defense policy bill didn't stop them from spending most of the day railing against the measure's use of contingency funds to meet the president's budget request. Moreover, they expect President Obama to veto the bill anyway, and they believe they can muster enough votes to sustain it. "The votes aren't there to override," said Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Tuesday's 83-15 vote saw only two Republicans voting against proceeding to final passage—GOP presidential hopefuls Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. (Of the other Republican primary contenders, Sen. Marco Rubio was a no-show and hawkish Lindsey Graham was a "yes.") Thirteen Democrats voted to block the measure from going forward, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who also opposed the bill in committee.

Some Democrats switched their positions. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida told National Journal two hours before Tuesday's vote that he intended to vote "no" on proceeding because the defense policy bill includes a war fund gimmick. He opposed the bill in committee for the same reason.

"This is a screwball way of trying to use budgetary fakery. And if they get away with it this year, then next year it'll be more of the same," he said. "I don't have to show my bona fides. I'm a veteran, and I've been there for defense."

After lunch, Nelson voted "yes" to allow the NDAA to proceed to final passage. So did Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who, like Nelson, voted against the measure in committee. Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, the fourth "no" vote in committee, also voted "yes" Tuesday.

"Our Democratic colleagues are sort of conflicted," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn observed. "They would threaten to filibuster the defense authorization bill, and now it seems like they're backing off of that."

Indeed, they have. Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain said before Tuesday's vote that he is "guardedly optimistic" that the NDAA will pass this week, although he says he takes all threats seriously. After the overwhelming vote in favor of proceeding to a final vote, he should feel better. Senate Democrats are waiting to get past the popular defense policy bill so they can stage their real fight on a defense spending bill.

If that's confusing, Minority Whip Dick Durbin sympathizes. "It will be very clear when the appropriations bill comes up. It's a little fuzzier on [defense] reauthorization," he admitted.

Moments before the procedural vote on NDAA, Democratic leaders railed against Republicans' unwillingness to sit down with them and talk through a new budget. "There has been no conversation with the White House. None with us," said Reid. "Legislation is the art of compromise, which they seem to have forgotten."

They intend to show how angry they are, just not right now. "I'm voting 'no'" on the defense procedural motion, said Durbin, just moments before he walked onto the Senate floor and voted "yes."

"I'm voting 'no,' for sure," said Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, who did the same.

It turns out, according to both Schumer's and Durbin's aides, that the two senators were not talking about that day's vote. They were talking about the defense spending bill that will see Senate votes next week.

Other Democrats have said all along that the NDAA is too important for them to give it the thumbs down on the Senate floor, even though they are fully aware that it faces a veto threat that won't be overridden. "There are very important policies in there, important to my state. The A-10 … planes fly out of Selfridge Air Force Base [in Michigan]," Stabenow said. "I've been the leader in making sure that we continue to have the A-10 fighting planes."

Stabenow said there are "very legitimate concerns" with the gimmick that gives extra money to the Pentagon but no other federal agencies. "It's basically being funded by deficit spending," she said.

But Stabenow said that argument will ring truer during debate on a spending bill. That objection won't be against defense spending per se, she assured, but against the entire process. "It's not about voting against the defense appropriations, it's about not starting the process on appropriations on anything," she said. "If it was another bill we'd do the same thing."

]]>

Democrats Set to Block Defense Bill Amid GOP Attacks

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:53:49 -0400

Senate Democrats hope to stop a lauded defense authorization bill this week before President Obama has a chance to veto it. It will mark their latest, but by no means last, vote in protest of mandatory across-the-board budget cuts that were agreed to four years ago as part of a deal to avert a global fiscal crisis.

Blocking the annual National Defense Authorization Act would be an extraordinary move if Democrats can pull it off. The bill is widely considered one of the most important pieces of business for Congress each year. It is generally written on a bipartisan basis, and it contains hundreds of provisions to assist the military in its various operations. This year's bill includes a pay raise for the troops and a long-awaited 401(k) program for service members who serve fewer than 20 years—that is, most of them.

Voting "no" is politically dangerous, opening lawmakers up to accusations that they don't love America. Yet this is where the fight is heading for Democrats.

The Senate is poised to vote Tuesday to wrap up debate on the bill after several weeks of considering mostly noncontroversial amendments. Democrats, including Jack Reed, the top senator on the Armed Services Committee, oppose the overall legislation for one reason: It contains a funding gimmick designed to get around the required budget cuts. Republican defense chiefs added some $40 billion in off-budget contingency war funds to backfill the shortfall aimed at the Pentagon.

The contingency funds, ironically, give President Obama his exact budget request for the troops. The president is threatening to veto the bill anyway, for the same reason Democrats are expected to block it. The president and Democrats correctly point out that the mandatory cuts were never intended to be permanent and are supposed to compel lawmakers to hammer out a less harsh, mutually agreeable budget deal.

Democrats are asking Republicans and Democrats to sit down now and hammer out a new budget agreement, anything really, that is more palatable than the current draconian cuts. "Let's start those negotiations soon before it's too late," said Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate. In a particularly damning floor speech, Schumer denounced Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for playing a "game of chicken." The standoff could lead to a government shutdown, he warned.

So far, Republicans haven't taken up the invitation. Instead, they are daring rank-and-file Democrats to break with their party leaders on a politically popular bill that takes care of America's troops. "I would think this would be of some concern to common-sense Democrats. They have to be wondering if their leaders have totally lost it, completely lost it," McConnell said on the floor.

Sen. Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican in her first term, reflected the sentiment of more junior GOP senators about Democrats' demand for a leadership budget summit. "That is baloney. I am a U.S. senator," she said in an interview. "The people of Nebraska sent me here to do the work, and you're telling me that I shouldn't be having any say in appropriations bills and let a room full of people decide what to do?"

All along, this fight has been aimed squarely at the government funding process, with at least a hint that the popular NDAA wouldn't be caught up in the net. Earlier this month, Senate Democratic leaders indicated they would tolerate "yes" votes on NDAA because, technically, it sets defense policy rather than giving money to the troops. But a Democratic leadership aide said last week that the caucus has hardened against the NDAA, too. The normally polite debate started to go south when a Reed amendment to undo the budget ploy was rejected by Republicans, the aide said. It got worse after that.

McConnell then attempted to attach a cybersecurity bill that had not been fully vetted by Democrats. In a surprise to some Republicans, Democrats voted against the amendment even though all lawmakers have been trying for years to move legislation to press companies to give federal investigators access to their computer networks. Democrats argued that McConnell's move was an underhanded attempt to slip complex legislation under the door and bypass an important floor debate.

Then McConnell moved to end the NDAA debate, setting up Tuesday's vote. The maneuver only intensified Democrats' animosity.

The veracity of Obama's opposition to the budget gimmick may be bolstering Democrats' willingness to vote against the bill. Republican leaders are understandably dubious that Obama is serious, because he has threatened to veto defense bills before without doing so. But at least one prominent Republican, Armed Services Chairman John McCain, says this time is different. Asked whether he believes Obama will carry out the veto, McCain said: "I'm afraid so. I'm afraid so. It's a terrible setback for the military. It's really a very serious setback."

Democrats will argue this week that this backdoor approach to maintaining an adequate defense budget actually harms the troops. The contingency war fund is year to year, which means Defense Department officials have no way to plan for multiyear equipment purchases or research. At the same time, defense chiefs on Capitol Hill are loudly worrying that the weapons and communications systems for U.S. troops are fast becoming obsolete. Soon an off-the-shelf smartphone will be more advanced than soldiers' walkie-talkies, defense analysts say.

It won't be an easy sell for Democrats. In making their case against the defense authorization bill, they will be forced to contend with rhetoric like this from Fischer, a member of the Armed Services Committee: "I can't imagine how you could vote 'no' and be able to go home and look at your constituents. How do you explain to them that you voted no in taking care of our military and our national security?"

This week, Democrats are going to try.

]]>

Senate Takes Up Defense Authorization Bill, House Works on Defense Spending

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:30:10 -0400

The Senate could wrap up its work on the National Defense Authorization Act by the end of this week if the managers of the bill continue to plow through as many amendments as possible, as they promised last week. Before that happens, there could be votes on subjects as diverse as closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and treating service members and veterans with Alzheimer's disease.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he wants the NDAA floor debate to wrap up by the end of the week, which he hopes could happen with consent from both Republicans and Democrats. But that means they will need to agree on when enough is enough on individual amendments. The NDAA is a perennial target for amendments in the Senate because it is viewed as the only bill that usually makes it all the way through the process.

So far, the amending process has gone smoothly, with lawmakers disposing of about a dozen amendment proposals last week in two days of debate. But the real fireworks on defense have yet to come. On tap is a critical amendment from Democrats that will seek to raise some $40 billion in domestic spending to match the emergency war funds for the Pentagon in the bill. The amendment goes to the core of the Democratic message this year that budget caps put in place to avert a fiscal cliff three years ago are damaging the country economically and strategically. If it fails—which is likely, given Republicans' disdain for it—it isn't clear how many Democrats will vote for the final bill.

On the right, former Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe has filed an amendment that would prevent the Pentagon from transferring Guantanamo detainees onto U.S. soil. The bill lays out a process by which the president can transfer detainees to high-security U.S. prisons without granting them all of the rights that U.S. prisoners typically have. Congress would have to approve of any such plan before it could be carried out.

Inhofe's amendment to stop that process is surprising, considering he supported the defense bill in committee and presumably was part of the negotiations on Guantanamo Bay. But, like many Republicans, Inhofe is upset with President Obama's release of some detainees and feels that the bill's language makes it easier for that behavior to continue. "Senator Inhofe believes the language in the bill will allow the president to be able to continue emptying Gitmo and take us one step closer to closing the facility. Since we are in a time of war, he would prefer the language prohibit the transfer or release of individuals detained at Gitmo. Period," said Donelle Harder, a spokeswoman for Inhofe, in an email.

The House, meanwhile, has spending bills on tap. Members will finish a lengthy debate on funding the transportation and housing agencies, the biggest non-defense appropriations bill on its list. Up after that is the Defense Department's appropriations bill, which gives the Pentagon its spending money for the next fiscal year. Expect yet another fight from Democrats on sidestepping the mandatory budget caps.

House members will also consider bills to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the regulatory agency charged with overseeing the derivatives market, and to roll back an Agriculture Department rule on labeling meat by its country of origin.

WHITE HOUSE

President Obama begins his week in Germany at the meeting of the G-7 nations before returning home Monday evening to spend the rest of the week in Washington.

Obama actually began his work week Sunday, with a full day of meetings with leaders of other major economic powers. The agenda in a resort near Munich includes a session on energy and climate as well as one on terrorism. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi also is attending that meeting as the world leaders discuss the ongoing battle against the self-described Islamic State.

Obama is scheduled to fly back to the United States late Monday, and on Tuesday will attend the Catholic Health Assembly conference in Washington and deliver remarks about his signature health care law.

The president has no public events planned for the remainder of the week, although he is to headline a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Washington on Thursday.

Visit National Journal to read more about Congress' agenda this week.

Jason Plautz, Caitlin Owens, Brendan Sasso, and S.V. Dáte contributed to this article.

]]>

The Next Budget Conflict Has Begun, With a Potential Shutdown on the Line

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:58:49 -0400

The message from Senate Democrats this week will go like this: Serious talks should begin now on avoiding a government shutdown. Why force us to carry out our threat of blocking all spending bills until we hit September, the last few days of the fiscal year, to come up with a panicked back-against-the-wall solution? We all know that's where we're heading.

Lawmakers from both parties admit they haven't gotten past the posturing part of this battle to a point where they can sit down and actually negotiate. People in both the Republican and Democratic caucuses are hoping for a budget compromise like the one struck by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray two years ago, but there has not yet been a whisper of even an introductory meeting to start such a bargaining session.

In the meantime, the Senate will spend this week debating the finer points of a crucial defense authorization bill that might already be a dead horse. It is expected to pass the Senate, perhaps by the end of the week. But it will have to be reconciled with a House version, and the White House has threatened to veto the final bill if it includes a funding "gimmick" to meet its own request of some $612 billion for the Defense Department.

Before final passage in the Senate, Democrats will make the case that mandatory budget caps put in place more than three years ago are damaging to U.S. troops and the country's national security. They will ask that the measure's $40 billion in off-budget contingency war funds be walled off until a similar amount of money is made available for nondefense agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, sponsors the amendment that would unravel the "escape route" from budget caps that GOP hawks have used to backfill the required cuts to the military. He argues that other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the National Institutes of Health, are just as critical to national security as the Defense Department. "What about the Centers for Disease Control? How do we help protect Americans from things like Ebola?" he queried last week.

Democrats view the debate on Reed's amendment as the beginning of a summer-long conversation about the proper way to fund national security and the country's other priorities. They will point out, for example, that the contingency war fund stops DOD from long-term planning on weapons systems because it has to be re-upped every year.

On that point, Republican hawks agree. Armed Services Chairman John McCain says he hates using the contingency war funds to keep the Pentagon afloat, but he has no choice given the constraints of the budget rules. The other option—to cut money from the military—is unacceptable.

"I've got to play the hand I'm dealt," McCain said in a recent interview. "I'm not going to go along with something that puts the lives of men and women at greater risk. I have an obligation to them."

But Republicans' sympathy for Democrats' complaints is generally limited to those defense-related items. GOP lawmakers view Democrats' demands for equal money for domestic programs as careless and unnecessary. "You have an emergency problem at home. You've got to fix the roof. A tree fell through it. You don't increase your vacation spending," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and a supporter of the mandatory budget cuts.

Sessions said the global crises since the 2011 Budget Control Act—in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Crimea, to name a few—necessitate new emergency spending for defense. But, he added, that shouldn't mean nondefense spending has to occur at the same rate.

And Republicans have already seized on Democrats' vow to block all appropriations bills until the defense vs. domestic spending issue is resolved. "Democrats are trying to extract more funding for the IRS and the [Environmental Protection Agency]," House Speaker John Boehner's office blogged Friday. "And if they don't get it, they're going to hold the budget hostage, and shut down the federal government."

If Democrats' demands are viewed as a simple opening bid in an unfinished negotiation about how taxpayer dollars are spent, then they have succeeded in the first part of their goal—starting the conversation. When Republicans can accurately reiterate their demands in public, if only to shoot them down, they know their arguments have landed.

Democratic leaders last week granted McCain his request that the brewing spending fight not take place on the back of the defense authorization bill. Democratic aides said Senate leaders will not pressure their caucus to vote against it.

But that accession comes with a warning: The vote on Reed's spending amendment is only the beginning. Without an accord on spending, the fight about supplying the troops will get uglier, with a potential government shutdown on the line. The only question is whether lawmakers grapple with it now or in the fall.

]]>

Democrats' Shifting Line on Pentagon Spending

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:15:05 -0400

Senate Democrats are drawing a line in the sand on defense spending—sort of.

They are acknowledging that members of their party will have a hard time voting against an annual defense authorization bill, which includes a number of welcome changes for troops, including a pay raise and 401(k) options for new recruits.

In deference to that sentiment, Democratic leaders said Thursday that they aren't going to block the bill.

But when it comes to defense appropriations bills, they will use every tool at their disposal to stop them from getting through the Senate.

At issue is a much-derided funding "gimmick" that uses contingency war funds to plug a Defense Department budget shortfall that has been demanded by across-the-board spending rules. "We have agreement that the appropriations bill is the place to have this discussion," said Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"We will not vote to proceed to the defense appropriations bill or any appropriations bill" until the budget matter is settled, said Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate.

But Democratic leaders say they are willing to allow "yes" votes on a critical defense authorization bill next week, even if the measure includes the war contingency funding. A senior Democratic aide who requested anonymity to discuss party strategy said it was clear that some members would want to vote for the bill, and added that the Democratic leaders would not muscle the caucus into voting against the bill when it comes time for final passage. It's not clear where the votes will fall.

Reed's statement that the budget fight should take place on appropriations bills is a slight shift from his earlier position. He voted against the National Defense Authorization Act in committee—a first for party leader on that panel—because it uses the slush fund. Reed supports the defense bill in most other aspects.

Reed will put an amendment on the floor early next week that would effectively remove the NDAA's $40 billion in contingency "slush fund" money from the DOD's budget until an equal amount of money is put in place for domestic programs. He says he hopes the amendment will pass, but that is by no means guaranteed.

If the amendment doesn't pass, it's not clear whether Reed will continue his opposition to the bill as a whole. "We'll have to consider what we'll do on final passage," he said.

Republicans took a dim view of the Democrats' shift.

"It's just interesting that Democrats said they were going to first block the defense authorization act in committee … and it passed the committee with only four Democrats voting against it," Sen. John Barrasso said.

"Then [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid said they were going to block the defense authorization act from getting on the floor. Well it got on the floor by a voice vote. So that's coming down the line it just seems that they continue to come up with this locker room talk that says one thing but then when it comes down to the actual voting, they vote a different way. So we'll have to see. We'll see. I'm just saying what they've said and said and said. And it'll matter what just actually happens."

The one person missing from the dais Thursday was, in fact, the person who gave the Democrats the idea that they should not draw the hard budget line on the defense authorization bill—Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain.

McCain has been saying for weeks that the Democrats' protests about across-the-board budget caps should take place on the annual government spending bills, not a critical defense policy bill.

In a recent interview, McCain said he has sympathy for the Democrats' concerns about the arbitrary budget caps, although he isn't as passionate as they are about spending on domestic policies.

McCain agrees wholeheartedly with Democrats that using the annual contingency fund as an escape route from the budget caps is a dumb idea. "Our failure to act to repeal sequestration and replace it with a process that only takes care of defense on a year to year basis is really a gross disservice to the men and women of the military," McCain said.

Democrats couldn't agree more on that point. "We don't believe you are really helping our national defense with a temporary extension of OCO," said Durbin, using the shorthand for the contingency fund.

But, he added, "we want to move the debate to a different level." Or rather, a different bill, not the popular one that takes care of troops.

Alex Rogers contributed to this article.

]]>

Standoff Over Defense Spending Could Seriously Endanger Major Bill

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:47:37 -0400

Lawmakers return to Washington this week with, to put it charitably, a few loose strings to tie up on the bulk-data-collection provisions of the Patriot Act. Senate GOP leaders have been mulling their options on the Patriot Act, and House members have been wondering if they might be called upon to vote on a revised version of the National Security Agency reform bill they passed a few weeks ago.

It's a wonder members have been able to think about anything else.

In fact, lawmakers have several debates on tap. Staffers on the Armed Services Committee have been prepping for floor consideration of the massive defense bill that passed the committee in May. That measure is the most likely item to hit the Senate floor once the Patriot Act issue is resolved, according to Senate aides.

The defense bill debate will feature a now-familiar argument over removing arbitrary budget caps that nobody likes. The caps have forced GOP committee leaders to use off-budget war-contingency funds to meet the White House's $600 billion budget request for the Pentagon. Democrats oppose the gimmick, and President Obama has threatened to veto the bill over the use of the "slush fund" to work around the budget caps. Democrats argue that Congress should lift the caps for defense and nondefense spending alike. Some longtime defense-budget observers say the standoff could seriously endanger the defense bill for the first time in decades.

Other measures on tap for the Senate in June include a cybersecurity bill that would allow the private sector to share more computer data with the government and offer companies expanded legal liability if they choose to participate. The bill easily passed the Commerce Committee in March, but it still could face privacy questions on the floor.

In the coming weeks, the Senate also could take up a bipartisan education bill that was carefully negotiated by the top two members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

The House, meanwhile, is poised to take up two annual appropriations bills—one funding the Transportation and Housing departments and the other funding the Commerce, Justice, and State departments. There are whispers that the transportation funding bill will be delayed because some lawmakers have pledged to use the debate to demand more funding for Amtrak in the wake of last month's derailment outside of Philadelphia. Lawmakers haven't yet figured out how the Amtrak tragedy will be handled in the broader appropriations fight.

This week, the House also will vote on legislation to increase local control of the country's fisheries as part of a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

TRANSPORTATION

On Tuesday, the House Transportation Committee will hear testimony from DOT and Amtrak officials about the Philadelphia derailment that killed eight people. National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Chris Hart and Amtrak President Joseph Boardman are among the panelists. Topics of conversation likely to arise are the following: Amtrak's overall funding shortfalls, the pace of implementing Positive Train Control speed mechanisms, and inward-facing cameras.

HEALTH

The Senate Judiciary's oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing Thursday examining the process that led to the Affordable Care Act's subsidy rule, the part of Obamacare challenged by a Supreme Court case that is expected to be announced at the end of the month. Expect a lot of ACA-bashing. Presidential contender Ted Cruz will preside.

On Wednesday, a joint Economic Committee hearing will look at the employment effects of ACA. And on Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee will examine legislation regarding Obamacare's menu-labeling requirements.

WHITE HOUSE

President Obama is planning a week in Washington in advance of next weekend's trip to Germany for the G7 Summit.

On Monday, Obama welcomes King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands to the White House during their visit to the nation's capital. Later in the day, Obama will host 75 participants in the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative. They have recently completed five-week fellowships in the United States to build entrepreneurial skills and professional contacts for when they return to their home countries.

Obama on Tuesday posthumously awards two World War I soldiers with the Medal of Honor. Both men were wounded in France during battles in 1918. Sgt. William Shemin exposed himself to machine gun fire to rescue wounded fellow soldiers. Pvt. Henry Johnson fought off an attacking squad of Germans with his knife, preventing his wounded comrades from being taken prisoner and receiving grave injuries in the process. Shemin was Jewish and Johnson African-American, and it took special acts of Congress in recent years to permit reviews of their cases.

The World Series champion San Francisco Giants visit the White House on Thursday.

On Saturday evening, Obama leaves for the two-day G7 summit in Bavaria. The meeting of the world's largest economic powers is to discuss issues like Ebola and Russia's annexation of Crimea in addition to the health of the global economy.

Kaveh Waddell, Caitlin Owens, Jason Plautz, Eric Garcia, and Shirish Date contributed to this article.

]]>

The Senate's Three Competing Priorities Before Memorial Day Recess

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 18 May 2015 10:32:14 -0400

Mitch McConnell has three competing priorities this week before he can send the Senate home for a Memorial Day break: Trade Promotion Authority, the Patriot Act, and a highway bill. As of last week, the majority leader had committed addressing all of them, but no one in either party knows how exactly how they will fit together.

Both the telephone-surveillance system under the Patriot Act and the government's authority to draw from the Highway Trust Fund expire at the end of the month, so Congress needs a resolution. On highways, the Senate's No. 3 Republican, John Thune, says the upper chamber will likely follow the House's lead on legislation. The House is slated to vote as early as Tuesday on legislation to extend highway funding authority until July 31. Once that bill is completed and passed in the House, the Senate will probably OK it without debate on a voice vote, according to a Senate GOP aide.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act extension is a trickier prospect. With the House overwhelmingly voting last week to end bulk data collection by the National Security Agency and McConnell vowing to retain the current program, lawmakers find themselves at an impasse. Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate say they aren't sure the requisite 60 votes are there even to extend FISA for 30 days.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin last week outlined McConnell's dilemma this way: "He has two doomsday-scenario bills. He has the [highway] trust fund and the Patriot Act. And I don't know what his plans are, but if it's leaving these until the last week with this trade bill pending, it's tempting fate."

Democrats are looking at several high-profile amendments to the trade bill that could upset the White House and Republicans who support Trade Promotion Authority, also known as "fast track." Among the most contentious will be an attempt to add trade-enforcement requirements—which include labor and currency-manipulation restrictions—to TPA. If successful, those amendments could kill TPA passage.

SECURITY

Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine will be called to testify in front of the House Administration Committee Wednesday on the overall status of security on Capitol Hill. The hearing comes after the department has been criticized for several incidents, including a gyrocopter landing on the Capitol's West Front Lawn and a Roll Call story detailing instances of officers leaving guns in bathrooms.

WHITE HOUSE

President Obama is planning two short trips this week; he will also host a leader from the North African birthplace of the "Arab Spring" uprisings and will wrap up the week with a visit to a Washington, D.C., synagogue.

The week begins with a trip to Camden, New Jersey to highlight that city's police department and its interaction with residents. Obama will tour police headquarters as well as meet with local youths from the Camden community. Camden was a recently named a "Promise Zone," which brings the city federal grants to help establish jobs for young people in troubled communities.

Obama is scheduled to spend Tuesday at the White House, and then travel to New London, Connecticut, on Wednesday to deliver the commencement address at the United States Coast Guard Academy. The president traditionally delivers the graduation speech at one of the service academies each year. Obama is also planning to attend a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Connecticut that afternoon before returning to Washington.

Tunisian President Beji Caid Essebsi is scheduled to meet with Obama at the White House Thursday. He was elected in the first free elections in that country's history late last year. Tunisia was home to the first pro-democratic protests in the Arab world in 2011, which ultimately led to the downfall of a number of autocratic regimes. Obama will hold a Cabinet meeting later that day.

On Friday, Obama is planning a trip a few miles up from the road to the Adas Israel synagogue in Washington's Cleveland Park neighborhood to celebrate Jewish-American Heritage Month. And that afternoon, Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are to host a White House reception for the foreign diplomatic corps.

S.V. Dáte, Clare Foran, Kaveh Waddell, Dustin Volz, Eric Garcia, Caitlin Owens, and Rachel Roubein contributed to this article.

]]>

House Preps Highway Extension as Deadline Looms

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Fri, 15 May 2015 16:33:31 -0400

The House is slated to vote next week on an extension of federal highway authority that would avert a funding cutoff at the end of the month. But lawmakers' reprieve from finding a longer-term solution won't last long.

The legislation, which would allow state transportation departments to draw on the Highway Trust Fund only until July 31, will be considered Monday in the House Rules Committee under emergency procedures, setting it up for a floor vote Tuesday. The extension isn't expected to be controversial on the House floor, as most lawmakers are aware of the problems that would be caused if their states can no longer access money for infrastructure projects.

Tax writers had hoped for a longer extension of highway authority to give them time to put together a robust tax package that would become part of a long-term surface-transportation bill. But extending the Highway Trust Fund authority to the end of the year costs $10 billion, and offsets for that figure are hard to come by.

According to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the two-month extension that lawmakers have settled on does not require any offsets because the trust fund will remain solvent during that period. The measure will allow states to get reimbursed for expenses on federal-aid projects, however.

Senate GOP leaders say they expect to adopt the House's bill, possibly on a voice vote with no debate, later in the week.

(Image via JPL Designs/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Amtrak Has a Trust Problem in Congress

Fawn Johnson and Rachel Roubein, National Journal — Thu, 14 May 2015 10:20:03 -0400

In the wake of a horrific train derailment, everyone in Congress agrees that Amtrak—particularly in the now-paralyzed Northeast Corridor—is ailing. But the two parties are offering very different prescriptions to fix it.

Regardless of the ultimate cause of Tuesday's deadly accident in Philadelphia—the National Transportation Safety Board said the train was going 106 mph in an area where the speed limit was 50 mph—Democrats want more money for Amtrak to shore up the rail line, and Republicans want more accountability.

"The problem is you give Amtrak the money and they blow the improvements or squander it," said Republican Rep. John Mica on Wednesday. "Congress does not trust Amtrak. They've given them the money before."

Democrats, for their part, have for years complained that Amtrak is underfunded. The lack of money for Amtrak explains the deterioration of the track along the Northeast Corridor and the long-overdue bridge and tunnel projects that could help prevent bottlenecks along the line.

"I would say that that program is already somewhat inefficient since Amtrak has a $21 billion state-of-good-repair backlog," Rep. Peter DeFazio, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said at a hearing Wednesday. "It's deteriorating every year, and at the current level of investment, if the appropriators don't cut it, it'll take about 25 or 30 years to get it up to a state of good repair."

That's not to say that Democrats wouldn't welcome more transparency from Amtrak's account books, but they would like that oversight to come in concert with a bigger investment. Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, said Wednesday that he would love to see greater accountability from Amtrak. But he also wants a long-term surface-transportation bill that will allow state transportation departments to plan their projects.

Democrats like Welch discussed the Amtrak crisis Wednesday in the context of the need for more investment. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey went to the Senate floor to discuss how the country has shortchanged its infrastructure investment writ large. "There is an $86 billion dollar backlog of transit maintenance needs—not expanding, just maintaining," he said.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over Amtrak, is working with GOP Sen. Roger Wicker to craft an Amtrak overhaul bill similar to one that passed the House in March. They would have introduced it Wednesday but for Tuesday's accident, which might prompt them to rewrite parts of it. "If there is an action that needs to be taken to improve safety in the wake of this tragedy as we're finalizing the bill, I know we can work together to make that a reality," Booker said.

Republicans, for their part, are dubious about whether giving Amtrak more money will solve any problems.

Mica is unusual among critics of Amtrak. Unlike a host of House Republicans who don't want taxpayer money funding Amtrak at all, Mica actually likes rail. He supports high-speed rail and wants to see a national train network. He just has a low opinion of Amtrak. He refers to the national passenger-rail network as "a Soviet-style train operation." As the past chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he has made life miserable for Amtrak officials, hauling them up to Capitol Hill for hearings and demanding to know where they spend their money.

Now, Mica says, it's going to be harder to convince his GOP colleagues to give more money to Amtrak, even if that money would fix the list of high-priority projects that an independent commission has recommended for the Washington-New York-Boston line.

"The Northeastern Corridor does need substantial investment," Mica said in an interview just outside the House floor. Indicating members of the Republican caucus standing behind him, he added, "This group is reluctant to give it to them, particularly the new kids on the block, because they've had a horrible history."

Democratic Rep. Janice Hahn said at a hearing Wednesday that the specific reason for the Philadelphia crash almost doesn't matter—that the accident should still be a wake-up call. "Even sometimes when we find out that the cause of a train accident was human error or something else," she said, "it seems that we move away from focusing on, 'Did infrastructure play a role?' or 'Are we just another bad infrastructure design away from another accident?'"

]]>

Battles Over the Pentagon's Budget Are Likely This Week

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:41:57 -0400

Congress is thinking globally this week.

Fresh off of a Senate victory last week clearing the way for Congress to review a final Iran nuclear deal, lawmakers in both chambers will get to work authorizing the country's armed forces while the bulk of the week on the Senate floor will be devoted to international trade.

The Senate's "fast track" measure would give President Obama significant advantage in finalizing a massive trade deal currently under negotiation with 11 Pacific and Asian countries. Because the president is at odds with some two-thirds of his own party on the issue, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the floor debate is likely to stretch out for at least a week. Republicans generally favor the deal.

DEFENSE

The biggest issue facing the House this week will be an annual defense authorization bill to authorize funding for the military, including operations in Europe, Iran, and the Middle East. The bill passed the House Armed Services Committee overwhelmingly on a 60-2 vote, but that doesn't mean there won't be some significant spats on the House floor. The most closely watched debate will be over use of the Pentagon's war account to fund its strategic operations. House Democrats and some conservatives don't believe the "slush fund" should be used for basic military needs, but the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund is seen by defense hawks as a way around the punishing budget caps the Pentagon must comply with as a result of sequestration.

The influence of a freshman Republican who also happens to be a retired Air Force colonel will be of interest in the House defense debate. Rep. Martha McSally of Arizona successfully fought for the survival of an old warplane dubbed the "Warthog" in committee over the objections of the Air Force, which is seeking to retire the plane. Whether her amendment survives on the House floor is a good barometer of how much Congress can overrule the budgetary priorities of the military.

In the Senate, the Armed Services Committee will begin deliberations on its own defense authorization bill with new chairman John McCain at the helm. The bulk of the Senate's committee debate will be closed to the public, which has irritated journalists and open-government advocates, who note that the House Armed Services Committee markup was open. McCain claims, however, that with just one week to finish the massive bill, it is too difficult to clear everyone out of the room for the classified portions of the debate and then bring them back when those talks are over. The Senate committee's markups of readiness, emerging threats, and personnel will be open to the public and the press.

WHITE HOUSE

This will be a week of summits for President Obama as he tackles two of the most intractable problems facing the country — poverty, and violence and extremism in the Middle East.

He starts off the week with an event designed to encourage investing in young and women entrepreneurs around the world to take on problems like climate change, poverty and extremism. The meeting will also preview Obama's trip to Africa this summer for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Kenya.

On Tuesday, Obama will go to Georgetown University to meet with more than 120 religious leaders for what is called the "Catholic-Evangelical Summit on Overcoming Poverty." On Wednesday, he will open a two-day summit with leaders from the Persian Gulf. That night, he will host dinner at the White House for the heads of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. On Thursday, the leaders will move their talks to Camp David.

Friday, Obama finishes his week with remarks at the National Peace Officers Memorial Service at the U.S. Capitol.

Clare Foran, Jason Plautz, Eric Garcia, Caitlin Owens, Kaveh Waddell, Dustin Volz and S.V. Dáte contributed to this article.

]]>

Senate Heavy Lifting Begins With Education and Iran; Budget Framework Still Under Negotiation

Fawn Johnson and Sarah Mimms, National Journal — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:35:07 -0400

The most important legislative horse-trading this week will be happening in committee rooms, not on the House or Senate floor.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will begin debating a major education overhaul this week that might actually thread the needle on rewriting the controversial No Child Left Behind law. And the Foreign Relations Committee will vote on crucial Iran legislation, as lawmakers seek to carve out a role for Congress in ongoing nuclear talks without appearing—as the White House will argue—as if they only want to score political points.

Both committee votes represent some of the biggest substantive debates the Senate could take up all year. Both measures will need bipartisan support to get done, even as passions have run high on both the right and left.

The Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday afternoon will take up Chairman Bob Corker's measure to require congressional review of the administration's Iran nuclear agreement. Knowing that the measure will need bipartisan support if it is going to be taken seriously—and if it is going to eventually gain the 67 votes necessary to overcome a presidential veto—Corker has sought to strike a decidedly different tone than a recent Republican-only letter addressed to Iran's leaders that blatantly attempted to undermine an Iran nuclear agreement.

Despite White House resistance, the bill has the support of two panel Democrats—Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and outgoing ranking member Robert Menendez of New Jersey. New ranking member Ben Cardin of Maryland and senior panel member Barbara Boxer of California have pushed for additional changes, which could be debated in the form of amendments.

The education bill, meanwhile, will be taken up Tuesday by the HELP Committee. Presidential hopeful Rand Paul is on the panel, and he may want to use the high-profile markup to make a political statement about the intrusion of government. He has called for the total elimination of the Education Department and is a big supporter of school vouchers. Those positions that are far to the right of a compromise measure cooked up by the committee's top Republican and Democrat—Sens. Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray. How the committee responds to protests like that will be an early test of whether the carefully negotiated education package can hold.

The deal that Alexander and Murray have struck on education could be one of the only bills on the Republican agenda this year that President Obama would sign. (Fast track trade authority is the other measure in that category, but Senate talks in that area are stalling.) The education bill has features that both sides dislike, but it would accomplish something everyone wants—the hugely important feat of bringing the U.S. education code in sync with the times. Right now, states are subsisting on Education Department-granted waivers and other administrative work-arounds to the outdated law. Lawmakers from both parties have an incentive to pass a new education law now, if only to guard against what would happen administratively when the next president enters the White House.

The Senate floor schedule, meanwhile, is dominated with unfinished business. Republican leaders will try yet again to get past a 60-vote threshold on a noncontroversial human trafficking bill that has been gummed up by abortion-related language. It is unlikely Republicans will be able to convince Democrats to give in unless the GOP leaders agree to amend the bill. Waiting in the wings is President Obama's Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, who could finally get a confirmation vote this week. That vote would mark the end of a long wait that has become increasingly irksome to Democrats.

Early in the week, the Senate also will vote on the House-passed "doc fix" bill that would permanently replace the formula for reimbursing doctors who treat Medicare patients. The landmark deal between House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—which takes care of a long-simmering flaw in the Medicare reimbursement system—is expected to pass the Senate, even though deficit hawks are trying to figure out if they can still change the package to save money. Several Senate Democrats also aren't happy that the legislation only extends a children's health program for two years. They might make a last run at a four-year reauthorization.

The House is slated to take up a series of tax-related bills in recognition of the April 15 tax filing deadline day—among them, a bill to repeal the estate tax and several aimed at "restoring trust" in the Internal Revenue Service.

House and Senate leaders are still negotiating the final House/Senate budget framework, which will set the stage for a series of appropriations bills later this month.

DEFENSE

Republican supporters of the Senate's Iran legislation believe they are close to the 67 votes they'll need to override a presidential veto, which is likely if it passes in its current form. But some of their Democratic allies have gotten cold feet in the past few weeks as the White House and outside Democratic groups have ramped up the pressure to oppose it. Sens. Christopher Coons and Mark Warner, who had been counted among the likely yes votes, now are indicating that they are undecided on the legislation. Coons, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, will be a key vote to watch during the committee vote on Tuesday.

It's unclear when the Iran bill will hit the Senate floor, but this week appears unlikely. Once it does, it appears poised to pass. Ten Democrats, including Kaine and Menendez, have signed on as co-sponsors, giving Republicans more than the 60 votes they'll need to avoid a filibuster.

Caitlin Owens, Clare Foran, Jason Plautz, Dustin Volz, George E. Condon Jr. and Eric Garcia contributed to this article.

]]>

There's an IRS Investigation That's Bipartisan and Leak-Free

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:17:00 -0400

The Senate Finance Committee's investigations team is highly caffeinated.

How else could it have gotten through more than a million pages of documents in the last two years? There is an art to the kind of mind-numbing digging that these sleuths do. They set weekly goals for the number of pages reviewed, but they build in time for breaks. The Republican lead investigator tries to make sure her team spends only half its days in document-review mode and the other half doing something else. Every discovery must be fact-checked; the most important goal is to be as meticulous and thorough as possible, no matter how long it takes.

Welcome to the only bipartisan investigation of the Internal Revenue Service in town. The group consists of roughly half a dozen staffers from both Chairman Orrin Hatch's committee roster and that of ranking member Ron Wyden. They have become chummy over the last few years. Republican and Democratic aides meet regularly to share "hot docs" and observations from their individual perusals. As one aide put it, "There's no 'hide the ball' going on."

The goal of the investigation is to reach a common understanding of the facts, which is no small endeavor when it involves one of the highest-profile scandals of the Obama presidency. If IRS officials did actually subject tea-partiers' tax-exempt applications to questionable scrutiny, that is an intolerable breach of public trust, said Hatch and then-Chairman Max Baucus in a 2013 joint letter to the IRS. Hatch was the committee's ranking member at the time, and that letter launched the investigation. Wyden took over the project when Baucus stepped down last year to become the U.S. ambassador to China.

Democrats and Republicans definitely don't agree about whether there was a political conspiracy at work in the IRS before the 2012 elections. Those kinds of conclusions are matters of interpretation and ideology that have derailed other congressional investigations that attempted to include Democrats.

To keep away from such incendiary questions, investigators on the Finance Committee have pledged to focus solely on what happened. Did the IRS selectively subject certain groups based on their political orientation to additional scrutiny when they requested tax-exempt status? What words or phrases did IRS staff look for when determining which applications would be pulled for additional review? Did that strategy violate internal policy? Was the White House involved?

Since the investigators' primary goal is to keep Republicans and Democrats at the table, they work hard to keep politics out of it.

This is also a no-media zone. Even before they started asking questions, committee investigators agreed to keep their inquiries separate from each side's press operations. There were to be no leaks and no casual pontifications to other staffers. Even the Treasury inspector general, who has supplied the committee with their multiple data dumps, has complimented them on their cone of silence.

The staff investigators for each side regularly brief Wyden and Hatch on their findings to the extent the law allows. The staff is bound by nondisclosure rules under the tax code, and Hatch and Wyden are permitted only limited information. They also occasionally give the full committee an update on their progress, but they are even more constrained under the law in divulging specifics to the broader group.

Other than those briefings, the committee's IRS investigation is off-line. The staffers are even careful about when they say the final report will be done. They claim it is coming "soon," but they won't give a firmer timetable because they know that unexpected events or findings can derail their best-laid plans.

This particular investigation seems prone to such surprise developments. Last summer, the staffers were all set to release their final conclusions when they discovered, through a last-minute affidavit request, that there were thousands of missing emails to and from IRS official Lois Lerner and her staff. That led to a series of further questions about how the emails got lost and whether they could be recovered. The data-retrieval process took longer than expected, of course. Now, the committee investigators are waiting for what they think is the last batch of recovered emails from the inspector general. Once they are done parsing those, they can get to work on the final draft of their report.

Both Republican and Democratic investigators are proud of their ability to keep the lengthy investigation a bipartisan effort. They believe that other congressional probes on the IRS's unfair tax scrutiny of tea-party nonprofits have been cheapened by politicization. They don't name names, but it's not hard to figure out what they're talking about. For nearly two years, then-House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and ranking member Elijah Cummings butted heads over how to review the agency. Each side wound up issuing separate reports contradicting some of the claims from the other party. Cummings openly accused Issa of abusing IRS officials and wasting millions in taxpayer dollars in subpoenas. The House then voted along near-party lines to censure Lerner, a move that went nowhere.

The Finance Committee's report will be a different animal, aides from both parties say. They are examining the same questions that others have probed, but they aim to be seen—if such a thing is even possible on Capitol Hill—as completely objective in their conclusions. Something obviously went awry at the IRS. They want to give the public specifics about what it actually was.

Hatch and Wyden plan to offer their staff's findings of IRS misconduct together and (hopefully) free of political statements. That will happen later this year, barring any unforeseen developments. Staffers say the bulk of the report will consist of the facts on which both sides have agreed and the conclusions they have jointly drawn.

But bipartisanship can only go so far. After the joint conclusions, each side will then release its own views about what those agreed-upon facts mean—separately.

]]>

Congressional Outlook: A Week of Partisan Votes and Bad Blood

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:43:10 -0400

Even when senators don't intend to be controversial, they manage to find their way there anyway.

No one can say quite how it happened, but legislation that was supposed to represent a Kumbaya moment in the Senate last week appears to be headed in the opposite direction. A bipartisan bill to boost aid to victims of human trafficking remains stalled over—depending which side you ask—either unnoticed or ignored language banning funding for abortion services.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. There was a widely supported bill on the floor, and lawmakers were busy prepping for an intense budget debate set to begin in both chambers next week. But now, the trafficking bill holdup has thrown into question the timing for a nail-biter of a vote to confirm Loretta Lynch, President Obama's nominee for attorney general, with a fresh crop of bad feelings over the trafficking bill.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had said he expected to bring Lynch up for a vote this week. But on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, McConnell cast doubt on whether that would happen.

"This will have an impact on the timing of considering a new attorney general," McConnell said. "I had hoped to turn to her next week, but if we can't finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again."

Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, quickly attacked McConnell's plan.

"There is nothing stopping the Senate from confirming Lynch and continuing to debate the trafficking bill this week, except Senator McConnell's unwillingness to bring her nomination up for a vote," Jentleson said in a statement. "Senator McConnell is choosing to delay Lynch's confirmation despite having already kept her waiting longer than any attorney general nominee in three decades."

The trafficking measure will face a roll call Tuesday that will require 60 votes to continue debate. Reid says Democrats won't support the motion because the legislation will not allow a fund for trafficking victims to cover abortion services except in rape or incest cases. If that language were to be stripped from the bill, he says, Democrats would support it.

But it doesn't look as if that's going to happen. Senate Republicans are accusing Democrats of shifting their position midstream after all of the Judiciary Committee Democrats voted in favor of the legislation. Democrats say the abortion language was slipped into the bill without the knowledge of committee aides. Everyone is mad.

Whenever she does come up for a vote, Lynch is expected to squeak through the Senate with Democrats' support and a small handful of Republicans already pledging to vote in favor. But the vote also will bring a familiar litany of complaints from Republicans toward the Obama administration for executive actions they dislike on immigration. And Lynch will begin her term with only a mild vote of confidence from the Senate.

The House, meanwhile, will return from a much-needed break after a bruising battle over funding the Homeland Security Department that left many on the right upset. House members will pick up where they left off two weeks ago with a few noncontroversial energy bills. Those votes were postponed after House members adjourned a day early to avoid a major snowstorm in Washington.

DEFENSE

In the wake of 47 Senate Republicans' bold move last week, sending an open letter to Iranian leaders that could strain ongoing nuclear talks, House members will have their chance to weigh in. The House Foreign Affairs Committee will hear testimony from administration officials about the negotiations with Iran to halt its nuclear-weapons program. They will ask whether the nuclear deal will actually quell Iran's weapons program or allow the country to go forward. Testifying will be Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Adam Szubin, the acting Treasury undersecretary in charge of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Clare Foran, Jason Plautz, Brendan Sasso, James Oliphant, and Sam Baker contributed to this article.

]]>

After Rough Week, Senate to Take Bipartisan Turn

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 11:01:35 -0400

It's been a rocky few weeks in Congress. Lawmakers need a break from brinksmanship and blaming. In that spirit, the Senate this week will vote on something everyone agrees on—combatting human trafficking. The House is taking a breather for a mid-winter recess and will reconvene on March 16.

The week off for House members will give everyone a chance to cool off in the wake of a weeks-long standoff over funding the Homeland Security Department. On the brink of a DHS shutdown, House Speaker John Boehner finally caved to the inevitability of a clean funding bill and passed it with the help of Democrats. He took heat from the GOP caucus in a closed-door meeting and then immediately headed upstairs greet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was a lot to handle in one day.

Two days later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell conceded in the middle of yet another major Northeastern snowstorm that the Senate won't be able to debate legislation this week on Iran's nuclear program, even though it's a bill that both Democrats and Republicans want. Democrats want the Foreign Relations Committee to first to consider the bill, which would require congressional review of any comprehensive agreement with Iran. They also want to see what the Iran nuclear talks produce on March 24, when a framework for a deal is supposed to be announced.

McConnell was clearly irritated that Democrats refused to go along with his proposal for floor debate on Iran legislation that they helped draft. But he agreed not to subject the Senate to yet another pointless procedural vote that would fail. Instead, the Senate will debate legislation that passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously to provide more services to human trafficking victims and crack down on perpetrators.

The legislation would give law enforcement more tools to combat the practice, including the ability to charge people who solicit commercial sex with children as "sex traffickers." Ratcheting up the penalties should, in theory, reduce the number of people willing to risk seeking out sex with children, thus minimizing demand.

Senators expect to add to the trafficking legislation in what is expected to be a non-controversial floor debate. Consider it practice for when they take up a slightly more provocative budget resolution later this month. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and ranking member Robert Menendez will offer an amendment to combat forced labor and sexual servitude in other countries. Their proposal would do so by chartering a nonprofit grant-making organization to free victims of modern slavery and punishing corporate perpetrators.

On Monday, the Senate is expected to hold confirmation votes for two key intellectual property positions. Michelle Lee, Obama's pick to head the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Daniel Marti, selected to be the White House "IP czar." Both are expected to face little resistance.

White House

President Obama will hit the road this week, in part to raise money for 2016 Democratic candidates. He'll start in Washington, speaking Monday to the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference. On Tuesday, the president heads south to Atlanta and will speak at Georgia Tech University. That night, he'll attend a Democratic National Committee fundraiser. On Thursday, the president will fly to Los Angeles for another DNC event, returning to D.C. on Friday. Obama will end the week by attending the venerable Gridiron Club dinner. (Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a likely GOP presidential candidate, will be speaking at the dinner as well.)

Defense

Administration officials are set to explain the president's request for to use military force against Islamic and Syrian militants. Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday to discuss both military and diplomatic options. Lawmakers' reactions to these high-level officials will foreshadow the AUMF debate on the Senate floor, which should take place in the next few months.

Sam Baker, Clare Foran, Rachel Roubein, Dustin Volz, James Oliphant, and Brendan Sasso contributed to this article.

]]>

Another Week, Another Shutdown Deadline

Fawn Johnson — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:51:18 -0500

What a difference a week doesn't make.

On Friday, Congress faced a deadline to fund the Homeland Security Department before midnight. Democrats wanted a clean long-term funding bill, while Republicans wanted to block President Obama's executive action on immigration or—at least—force the Senate to go to conference on a measure that might do so. Neither side could get what it wanted, so they punted for another week.

Which means that this coming Friday, March 6, will present the Hill with the same set of bad choices and another shutdown deadline. The Senate is expected to take a procedural vote Monday on whether to go to conference on the long-term DHS bill, but with Democrats unwilling to provide the necessary votes to get to 60, House GOP leaders will be stuck exactly where they were last week.

At the urging of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrats went along with the one-week extension because they believe Speaker John Boehner will put the long-term bill they want on the floor this week. Boehner has said he made no such promise—but that doesn't mean he won't end up doing exactly that by Friday. The question is whether he can do so, thereby averting the shutdown both he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell want to avoid, without imperiling his speakership.

Appearing on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Boehner didn't tip his hand. "The promise I made to Ms. Pelosi is the same promise I made to Republicans, that we follow regular order," Boehner said.

The second major Hill drama this week isn't something anyone in Congress will vote on, although absences and presences will be noted. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday morning. Several Democrats already have said they would boycott the speech, arguing that Netanyahu's timing is inappropriate during that administration's highly sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. It doesn't help matters for Democrats that Netanyahu agreed to visit the United States without consulting Obama.

Republicans say it makes no sense not to at least listen to the leader of another country who visits the United States.

Meanwhile, lawmakers on the House floor will vote this week on a pair of bills aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency's scientific process, including one that would bar agency regulations without the public release of scientific data backing them. The White House threatened to veto previous versions, and EPA officials have said the bill could slow the regulatory process and force the disclosure of confidential information from health studies.

The Senate also is moving on to other business. Senate Republicans already have capitulated to a longer-term appropriations bill for DHS. Many of them voted with Democrats on Friday to fund the agency through the end of September. Senators also have reluctantly agreed to go along with the House's stopgap funding plan for DHS to avert a shutdown, which means the fate of the agency is in the House's hands.

A top item on the Senate's agenda this week will feature a predictably partisan fight over union organizing. Senators will vote on a resolution of disapproval on a National Labor Relations Board rule that changes how union elections take place. Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, calls the procedures "ambush elections" that require employers to hold elections about union representation before they have time to "figure out what's going on."

The debate will give Republicans and Democrats the opportunity to talk about something the public cares deeply about—employment. Alexander says the rule allows a few workers to quietly organize for months before springing a petition on an employer, who must participate in a hearing eight days after being formally notified of the union activity. That harms workers who won't be able to understand the full implications, he says.

Democrats say the resolution shows Republicans' corporate bias. They maintain that the NRLB rule is a long-overdue modernization of clunky union election processes that allows management to delay organizing campaigns to death.

The Senate also is expected to pass legislation combating human-trafficking, which was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last week. The legislation would provide more services to human-trafficking victims and crack down on the perpetrators.

Keystone will be back, too. The Senate will initiate the procedural process to override Obama's veto of a bill to green-light the Keystone XL pipeline. A final vote to override the veto is expected sometime during the week, which will generate a lot of fodder for campaign ads. But Keystone supporters still have not mustered the requisite 67 votes, and the override appears doomed to fail.

Energy

Will there be more snowballs? EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will appear before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday to defend the agency's 2016 budget request to Congress. The budget ask is sure to face scrutiny from committee chair and climate skeptic Republican Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who hurled a snowball on the Senate floor last week in an attempt to argue that global warming is not real.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell is expected to clash with the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee, Alaska's Sen. Lisa Murkowski, on Wednesday. Jewell will appear before the panel to defend her department's budget request. Jewell also is slated to appear before the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday.

The House Oversight Committee also will hold a Wednesday hearing on management reforms to the Chemical Safety Board, which has been dogged by morale problems. The hearing comes a week after the committee released an EPA inspector general's report accusing CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso of using personal email to conduct official business.

Health

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the challenge to Obamacare's insurance subsidies. Republicans in Congress are confident that Obama's signature health care law won't survive the challenge, and they are pressing the administration for contingency plans that are not forthcoming. Democrats say they won't even talk about next steps until they see how the high court rules.

The oral arguments could hint as to where the justices are leaning in King v. Burwell, although longtime court watchers say that tends to be a fool's errand. However, people looking for pontifications on the topic can attend the Alliance for Health Reform and the Kaiser Family Foundation's briefing Friday on "The Affordable Care Act: What You Need to Know."

On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee holds a hearing on a federal discount program for prescription drugs.

Technology

Four House committees will hold hearings on cybersecurity this week, as Congress continues to look for consensus on how to shore up the nation's digital defenses. The House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to examine President Obama's cybersecurity information-sharing proposal. The president unveiled the template earlier this year, but language has drawn scrutiny from privacy advocates who fear it may grant the National Security Agency access to more personal data.

White House

President Obama will spend most of the week at the White House.

On Monday, he will receive recommendations from the police task force he formed after the Ferguson, Missouri, protests. On Tuesday, his focus shifts to programs that benefit adolescent girls. Joined by First Lady Michelle Obama, he will talk about efforts to keep girls in schools around the world.

For the rest of the week, no public events are on the president's early schedule until Saturday, when he will travel to Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery marches led by Martin Luther King Jr. The occasion gives him a chance to talk about the state of voting rights half a century after passage of the Voting Rights Act.

Jason Plautz, Clare Foran, Sam Baker, Dustin Volz , Matt Berman and George E. Condon Jr. contributed to this article.

(Image via Orhan Cam/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Congress Returns With No Plan to Avoid Shutdown

Fawn Johnson, National Journal — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:26:46 -0500

In these final days before the Homeland Security Department is due to shut down, two things are certain: One, the Senate will hold its fourth vote Monday to start debate on a DHS funding bill that also would scrap President Obama's executive action to defer deportations for some 4 million undocumented immigrants. Two, the outcome will be the same as it has been the last three times: Democrats will vote "no," and the impasse will remain.

Monday's roll call will reiterate what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been saying for two weeks—the legislation is stuck in the Senate, and the chamber needs another bill from the House in order to move forward. House Republicans, for their part, seem perfectly willing to let the Senate's stalemate continue, saying that Democrats will be blamed for the shutdown that would begin at 12:01 am Saturday.

What has changed during the lawmakers' week-long recess is a potentially disruptive ruling by a Texas judge putting an injunction on the president's latest executive actions on immigration. The White House has said it will appeal, but in the meantime, all activities preparing for the broad deferral programs have been halted. (A 2012 program for unauthorized immigrants who arrived as children is still functioning.)

In Congress, the court's injunction has had the dual impact of adding fuel to Republicans' argument that Obama overstepped his bounds while also giving them a chance to back off their efforts to stop the immigration actions themselves. If the courts can stop it, the argument goes, then maybe the Hill doesn't have to.

A few cracks in the GOP façade have appeared: Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio visited Las Vegas on a book tour and said DHS should be funded regardless of what happens on Obama's immigration orders, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Florida Republican pointed out that the country can't afford to let DHS shut down, and Obama will not sign any bill that eradicates his deferred deportation programs.

By that logic, there really is no choice but to give Obama what he wants, a clean funding bill that doesn't mention his immigration actions. But nobody in the Republican party is saying that just yet.

The House is moving on to other issues as well. It is expected to vote this week on a controversial bill to rewrite the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. The legislation marks the Republicans' opening bid in an effort to get an education bill to President Obama's desk this year. As such, the measure is conservative and highly deferential to states, removing requirements in current law that Democrats say are needed to ensure that poor schools get the same resources as affluent ones. The vote will likely be along party lines.

DEFENSE

Lawmakers will continue to digest the administration's request for military force to combat the terrorist threats in Iraq and Syria this week, with members on both sides of the aisle saying they want to support an authorization memo but aren't completely happy with the draft presented by the White House. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said last week that the draft represents the beginning of an important conversation. "This is something that is going to take a long commitment by all of those in the free world to undermine what ISIS is doing," he said.

Democrats, for their part, don't want the authorization to be so open-ended that it will wind up justifying military actions years down the road, as the post-Sept. 11 authorization has been used for recent conflicts. The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing Thursday on how the administration's proposal will help the military defeat the terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.

Click here to read more about Congress' agenda this week.

]]>

Homeland Funding Path Murky as Recess—and a Shutdown—Loom

Fawn Johnson — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:05:43 -0500

Congress has one week before funding for the Homeland Security Department morphs from a stalemate into a crisis.

With a weeklong President's Day recess looming, Republicans and Democrats are still blaming each other for the potential shutdown of the agency. Funding runs out on Feb. 27—four days after they return—if lawmakers don't act. And neither side wants to look like they're skipping town without at least trying to resolve the problem.

Despite the fast approaching deadline, the Senate's activities this week are something of a mystery. There could be more votes on the House-passed DHS bill, three of which failed last week. Or not. Senate Republicans say Democrats must relent in their refusal to debate that bill, which also would erase the president's executive action to defer deportations for some 4 million undocumented immigrants. Senate Democrats are refusing to allow the measure to the floor, arguing that such controversial language shouldn't be part of funding legislation that is "must-pass." They also say the bill, as written, would effectively shut down DHS because President Obama will veto it over the immigration language.

Republicans are well aware of Democrats' aversion to the executive action language, but GOP aides argue that the only way to change it that is to allow debate on the bill so it can be amended. They are technically correct on this front. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has parliamentary capability to create its own appropriations bills, but those bills are always added as "substitute" measures to House-passed bills. A "clean" DHS bill does exist in the Senate, sponsored by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, that would fund the agency through the year. But, Republicans say, the only way to get to it is by allowing debate on the House bill.

So far, Democrats aren't biting. They say they will not relent in their opposition to the House-passed legislation. Nor will they accept a modified bill that would erase only part of Obama's immigration plan to defer deportations for unauthorized parents of legal U.S. residents. On this front, Democrats have the upper hand because at least some of them need to vote 'yes' to get past a 60-vote threshold. Once the bill is on the floor, however, they lose that leverage, which should explain the "parliamentary ping-pong," as Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski put it.

While squabbling over DHS, there are a few other items of business that the Senate will take care of. On Monday, senators will vote on Michael Botticelli as Director of the National Drug Control Policy. He is not considered a controversial nominee. Republican aides say the Senate also could vote to confirm Ash Carter, the president's nominee for Defense secretary.

The House, meanwhile, will give Obama his first opportunity to veto a bill since 2010 when it takes up Senate-passed legislation to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The House has already passed a Keystone bill, but the Senate amended it to state, among other things, that climate change isn't a hoax. None of the Senate amendments—including the climate change resolution some non-controversial energy efficiency measures—is expected to prevent the House from passing a Keystone bill for the 11th time since 2011. But the bill still faces certain death at the White House. Neither chamber has a veto-proof majority.

The House also will vote on two small tax bills, one to renew tax credits for charitable contributions and one to extend small business tax credits.

]]>