Datasets:

omarroka29

/

satiriclr

like 0

Jeb Bush calls Clinton's State Department email storage 'baffling' Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush on Friday stepped up his criticism of Hillary Clinton, calling it "baffling" that she stored official U.S. State Department emails on a personal server rather than safer government systems."It's a dangerous world, and security would mean that you couldn't have a private server," the former Florida governor said in an interview with Radio Iowa on Friday morning. "It's a little baffling, to be honest with you."Bush and other Republicans have pounded Clinton, the early front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, for using a personal email account for work during her four years as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.They claim she was trying to avoid transparency and could have posed a security threat.Clinton has turned over to the State Department 55,000 pages of her email records that were stored on a private server, and asked the agency to release them. But officials said the review could take months, ensuring the controversy extends beyond the expected launch of her campaign.Bush also used a personal email account during his time as governor but has released hundreds of thousands of the emails from that account. Bush told Radio Iowa he would not use a private email account if elected president.White House spokesman Josh Earnest has said official policy requires that any work-related emails sent on personal accounts be documented on government systems. Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to President Barack Obama, said he had a very firm policy requiring that administration officials keep work email on government systems. "He believes in transparency," Jarrett said in an interview on Bloomberg TV. She would not speculate about whether Clinton broke those rules.Clinton's team says previous secretaries of state also used private email addresses, and she quickly complied with requests to turn over the documents.Congressional Democrats said Clinton has also cooperated with a U.S. House of Representatives panel probing the 2012 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. The panel's chairman, Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, sent subpoenas demanding Clinton's emails relating to the incident.The committee's senior Democrat, Representative Elijah Cummings, asked Gowdy to withdraw the subpoenas and publish hundreds of pages of Clinton emails already in the panel's possession.A Gowdy spokesman said the panel would move forward with the subpoenas and would not release any emails until it had all relevant communications.

non

Obama says learned about Clinton's emails from news reports: CBS U.S. President Barack Obama said he learned through news reports that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account for official business while she served as his secretary of state, CBS News reported on Saturday."I'm glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed," Obama said, according to an excerpt of an interview with CBS released by the network.Clinton, seen as the front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2016, said on Wednesday she wanted the State Department to release the emails quickly."I think that the fact that she is putting them forward will allow us to make sure that people have the information they need," Obama said in the interview, versions of which will be aired on Sunday morning on CBS."The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the Blackberry I carry around, all those records are available and archived," Obama added.The growing controversy over Clinton's use of personal email for work while she was U.S. secretary of state threatens to cloud the expected launch of her campaign.Clinton tried to quell the growing controversy late on Wednesday, saying she wanted the State Department to release the emails quickly. But a senior State Department official told Reuters on Thursday the task would take time. "The review is likely to take several months given the sheer volume of the document set," the official said.The State Department has said there was no prohibition during Clinton's tenure on using personal email for official business as long as it was preserved.A total of 55,000 pages of documents covering the time Clinton was in office has been turned over, according to the State Department. But Clinton and her aides controlled that process, and the emails were not archived on government servers.

non

Former health secretary to head up Clinton Foundation: WSJ Donna Shalala, a former U.S. secretary of health and human services, will lead the nonprofit Clinton Foundation after its previous chief executive resigned in January, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.Shalala, who is personally close to the Clintons and served in President Bill Clinton's administration, would take over after a somewhat dramatic period for the foundation, the paper said, citing unnamed sources.Hiring her to run the foundation puts the charity in the hands of a trusted family ally at a time when Hillary Clinton is mulling a run for president in 2016.The foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Former President Clinton founded the foundation in 2001 to focus on global issues such as health and leadership. Media reports in recent months said the foundation took money from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state, at least once in violation of its ethics agreement with the Obama administration. Green groups have been troubled by the foundation's ties to energy companies.In January, former foundation head Eric Braverman stepped down and was replaced temporarily with a longtime Hillary Clinton aide. Shalala announced last year that she would leave her post as president of the University of Miami in 2015 after 14 years there. She led the Department of Health and Human Services for eight years, and before that was chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

non

Senate Iran debate postponed after Democrats object Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday postponed plans to debate and vote next week on a bill requiring President Barack Obama to submit any nuclear agreement with Iran to Congress for approval.Many Democrats, including the bill's co-sponsors, had not wanted a vote before an end-March deadline set by international negotiators for reaching a framework agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program.They accused McConnell of using the legislation to score political points and of bypassing normal Senate committee review.The bill would require the president to submit a final nuclear agreement to Congress and restrict his authority to waive sanctions for 60 days so lawmakers have time to weigh in.Obama has threatened to veto the bill, saying it impinged on presidential authority and could undermine the talks.McConnell announced plans for a vote next week just after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress on Tuesday warning the United States it was negotiating a bad deal with Iran.Republicans infuriated many congressional Democrats by inviting the conservative Israeli leader to speak just two weeks before elections in Israel, without consulting them or the White House.Senator Robert Menendez, who introduced the measure last week with Republican Senator Bob Corker, was among several Democrats who said they would not vote until the end of the month. Democrats, even those most skeptical about the Iran talks, do not want to move any legislation that might compromise negotiations before the deadline.A veto would mean the bill would need the support of two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives to become law.Corker said his goal was a veto-proof majority to send the "strongest signal" to negotiators. Many members of Congress from both parties worry Obama is so eager for a nuclear deal that his negotiators will make too many concessions."I greatly appreciate the Majority Leader's commitment to getting the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act across the finish line by allowing the vote to occur at a time when we will more likely generate a veto-proof majority," Corker said in a statement.Don Stewart, McConnell's deputy chief of staff, said the Majority Leader changed his plans because Democrats were objecting to their own bill.

non

Review of Hillary Clinton emails to take months: official A growing controversy over Democrat Hillary Clinton's use of personal email for work while she was U.S. secretary of state could drag on for months, threatening to cloud the expected launch of her 2016 presidential campaign.Clinton tried to cool the brewing firestorm late on Wednesday, saying she wanted the State Department to release the emails quickly. But a senior State Department official told Reuters on Thursday the task would take time. "The review is likely to take several months given the sheer volume of the document set," the official said.At the same time, the department is investigating whether Clinton violated policies intended to protect sensitive information when she conducted all of her official business through a personal account while serving as secretary from 2009 to 2013, the Washington Post reported on Thursday, citing a senior department official.Using personal email did not automatically break rules, but the department is determining whether work emails sent from that private account contained information that must be handled on a system meeting specific security protocols, the Washington Post reported. The State Department has said there was no prohibition during Clinton's tenure on using personal email for official business as long as it was preserved. It had no immediate comment on the Washington Post report.Fox News on Thursday released a State Department cable sent from the secretary's office in 2011 reviewing some email policies that encouraged employees to avoid conducting official business from personal accounts. An extended review or investigation could dash any Clinton hopes of putting the controversy to rest quickly."I want the public to see my email," Clinton said in a tweet. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."The controversy landed Clinton in trouble just as she prepares to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. It has prompted some Democrats to wonder whether someone else should be their candidate in the bid to succeed President Barack Obama.A total of 55,000 pages of documents covering the time Clinton was in office has been turned over, according to the State Department. But Clinton and her aides controlled that process, and the emails were not archived on government servers.Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters during a visit to Saudi Arabia that the State Department would review the documents "as rapidly as possible."Clinton's tweeted statement came hours after a congressional committee investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, subpoenaed her emails.The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi demanded all Clinton communications related to the incident and told Internet companies to protect relevant documents.The panel's Republican chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, told reporters he wanted the documents within two weeks or a "really good explanation" for why not. Republicans have scrutinized Clinton's actions regarding the Benghazi attack in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed and have also criticized Clinton's transparency and ethics. The former first lady and U.S. senator has been a lightning rod for Republican detractors dating back to the administration of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.Clinton is the presumptive favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and there was no sign the controversy was forcing a change of plans. A Democratic source familiar with campaign planning said to expect a Clinton announcement on her intentions in the spring.The Republican National Committee's top lawyer on Thursday asked the State Department's inspector general to investigate if Clinton's email use violated federal law.

non

Michigan's Miller, U.S. House's only female committee chair, to retire U.S. Representative Candice Miller, a Michigan Republican who is the only female committee chair in the U.S. House, announced on Thursday she would not seek re-election.Miller, who chairs the committee on House Administration, is a former Michigan secretary of State. She was first elected to Congress in 2002, and said she will not run for office again in 2016."This is the community that I love, that I call home, and at the conclusion of my current term in office, I will be coming home," said Miller, 60, in a video posted on Facebook. She called serving her suburban Detroit district "the greatest privilege."She did not say why she was retiring, other than to say she would "freely pass the baton." Her committee oversees elections and day-to-day operations of the House.Michigan's Republican governor, Rick Snyder, said he has long respected her expertise and leadership on national defense matters and her efforts to protect the environment, especially the Great Lakes."I thank her for her devoted service and wish her and her husband, Don, the best for what will be next in their lives," Snyder said in a statement.

non

Cheney: Obama is "the worst president of my lifetime" When former Vice President Dick Cheney looks at President Obama, he sees "the worst president in my lifetime, without question."Cheney, who spoke to Fox News' James Rosen in an interview published in Playboy, continued, "I used to have significant criticism of Jimmy Carter, but compared to Barack Obama and the damage he is doing to the nation--it's a tragedy, a real tragedy, and we are going to pay a hell of a price just trying to dig out from under his presidency."As tensions between Russia and Ukraine continue to rise, Cheney told Rosen that the only way to change Russian President Vladimir Putin's behavior is "to rebuild the military. You're not going to be able to do anything long-term if your diplomacy's not credible, and your diplomacy's not going to be credible if you don't restore U.S. military capability - and we are going in exactly the opposite direction."Cheney also blamed Mr. Obama for the global spread of "Al Qaeda-type organizations," across the Middle East and North Africa, saying, "I think the threat is growing steadily, and I think our capacity to deal with it is rapidly diminishing." President Obama, for his part, pins the responsibility for the rise ISIS on the Bush administration, telling Vice recently, "ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot."

non

Jeb Bush calls Clinton's U.S. State Dept. email storage 'baffling' Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush on Friday stepped up his criticism of Hillary Clinton, calling it "baffling" that she stored official U.S. State Department emails on a personal server rather than safer government systems."It's a dangerous world, and security would mean that you couldn't have a private server," the former Florida governor said in an interview with Radio Iowa on Friday morning. "It's a little baffling, to be honest with you."Bush and other Republicans have pounded Clinton, the early front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, for using a personal email account for work during her four years as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.They claim she was trying to avoid transparency and could have posed a security threat.Clinton has turned over to the State Department 55,000 pages of her email records that were stored on a private server, and asked the agency to release them. But officials said the review could take months, ensuring the controversy extends beyond the expected launch of her campaign.Bush also used a personal email account during his time as governor but has released hundreds of thousands of the emails from that account. Bush told Radio Iowa he would not use a private email account if elected president.White House spokesman Josh Earnest has said official policy requires that any work-related emails sent on personal accounts be documented on government systems. Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to President Barack Obama, said he had a very firm policy requiring that administration officials keep work email on government systems. "He believes in transparency," Jarrett said in an interview on Bloomberg TV. She would not speculate about whether Clinton broke those rules.Clinton's team says previous secretaries of state also used private email addresses, and she quickly complied with requests to turn over the documents.Congressional Democrats said Clinton has also cooperated with a U.S. House of Representatives panel probing the 2012 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. The panel's chairman, Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, sent subpoenas demanding Clinton's emails relating to the incident.The committee's senior Democrat, Representative Elijah Cummings, asked Gowdy to withdraw the subpoenas and publish hundreds of pages of Clinton emails already in the panel's possession.A Gowdy spokesman said the panel would move forward with the subpoenas and would not release any emails until it had all relevant communications.

non

U.S. said to ready criminal charges against Sen. Menendez The U.S. Justice Department is preparing criminal corruption charges against New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, CNN reported on Friday.Citing unnamed sources briefed on the case, CNN said the charges center on allegations Menendez used his office to promote the business interests of a Democratic Party donor and friend in exchange for gifts.Menendez's office said he would speak to the media at 7 p.m. on Friday in Newark, New Jersey."As we have said before, we believe all of the senator's actions have been appropriate and lawful, and the facts will ultimately confirm that," Tricia Enright, Menendez's communications director, said in a statement.Noting the official investigation of the matter was ongoing, she said the senator's office "cannot address allegations being made anonymously."CNN said Attorney General Eric Holder has given the green light for prosecutors to proceed with charges and an announcement could arrive in coming weeks.Holder, who was traveling in South Carolina with President Barack Obama, said he could not comment.Justice Department officials declined to comment.Two law enforcement officials told Reuters the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been conducting a major corruption investigation of Menendez for some time, and one said it was nearing completion.Menendez is the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he is the top Democrat. He has been a critic of the Obama administration's Cuba and Iran policies, but he is a staunch supporter of the White House on other issues.Federal authorities have probed Menendez's relationship with Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen, a Democratic donor who has been accused of over billing the Medicare program. Media reports over the past two years alleging wrongdoing by Menendez have not been substantiated and at least one, involving underage prostitutes, has been discredited.Menendez, who is Cuban-American, is among the most senior Hispanic politicians in the country. He was re-elected to a second term in the Senate in 2012 and spent 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives.CNN said the government's case focuses on Melgen and, in part, on plane trips that Menendez took in 2010 to the Dominican Republic as a guest of Melgen.In 2013, Menendez's campaign repaid Melgen $11,250 for a flight on Melgen's private plane three years earlier.Prosecutors also are focusing on whether Menendez promoted Melgen's business interest in a Dominican Republic government contract for port screening equipment, CNN said.

non

Bill Clinton defends his charity's foreign government donors Former U.S. president Bill Clinton on Saturday defended donations his family's charity receives from foreign governments after renewed criticism that they would create conflicts of interest should his wife, Hillary Clinton, run for president.Clinton said it was possible to work with foreign governments even if one disagrees with some things they do, and that it was acceptable for them to donate to the Clinton Foundation if the donations are publicly disclosed."I think it's a good thing," he said onstage at a youth conference organized by the foundation at the University of Miami during an interview with Larry Wilmore, a television talk-show host. "The UAE gave us money. Do we agree with everything they do? No. But they help us fight ISIS," he added, using an acronym for the Islamist militant group Islamic State.The United Arab Emirates donated between $1 million and $5 million to the foundation in 2014, according to a list of donors published on the foundation's website. It was one of several new foreign governments, including Canada and Saudi Arabia, that have begun giving to the foundation since Hillary Clinton, who is on the cusp of announcing a run for the presidency as a Democrat in 2016, stepped down as U.S. secretary of state two years ago. Before she took office in 2009, the Clintons and the Department of State agreed that foreign governments that already supported the foundation, such as Oman, Australia and Qatar, could not increase their contributions, and that no new foreign governments could begin contributing. Exceptions to this would have to be approved by State Department ethicists and lawyers, who would check for possible conflicts of interest.The Clintons also agreed to annually disclose the names of all new donors to the foundation, which does charitable and development work in dozens of countries. Hillary Clinton's political opponents say the donations would create at least an appearance of owed favors that could cloud U.S. government foreign policy."My theory is: disclose everything and let people make their judgments," Bill Clinton said in the onstage interview.Hillary Clinton spoke onstage about women's rights before her husband arrived. She has faced a week of intense criticism from political opponents, transparency advocacy groups and some journalists for exclusively using a private email service during her time as secretary of state. She addressed neither that nor the criticism about donors in her remarks.

non

State Department reviewing if Hillary Clinton's emails broke rules: Washington Post The U.S. State Department has begun a review of whether Hillary Clinton's use of personal email for work while she was secretary of state violated policies aimed at protecting sensitive information, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.The Post quoted a senior department official as saying Clinton's use of personal email was not an automatic breach of the rules. But the official added the department would examine if Clinton's emails included sensitive material and, if so, whether required security protocols were in place.

non

Review of Clinton emails to take 'several months': U.S. official A review of Hillary Clinton's personal emails while she was secretary of state will take several months, a senior State Department official said on Thursday, a day after Clinton tweeted that she wanted the emails released to the public."The review is likely to take several months given the sheer volume of the document set," the official told Reuters.

non

House freshmen Republicans vow to press conservative demands Bruised but undeterred, some of the far-right Republicans who picked a fight in Congress and lost this week over funding the U.S. domestic security agency say they're just getting started.The views of a handful of first-term conservatives who spoke with Reuters after the Department of Homeland Security battle suggest more conflict among Republicans lies ahead. At the core of these House of Representatives members' defiance is a conviction that their duty as lawmakers lies first with constituents and the Constitution, while House Speaker John Boehner's agenda comes further down the list.For Boehner, who was stunningly rebuked last week by these same conservatives in a pivotal vote, unifying his party for tough fiscal challenges ahead may be more difficult than ever."My job's not to demand where leadership should or shouldn't be. That's not even on my radar," said Representative Jody Hice of Georgia. "My job is to represent the people in my district."A Baptist preacher who gained fame hosting a conservative talk-radio show, Hice was one of the six freshmen among 52 Republicans who voted last week to sink Boehner's last-ditch plan for a three-week extension of Homeland Security funding.Hice and others wanted funding for the department to be contingent on blocking Democratic President Barack Obama's executive orders lifting the threat of deportation against millions of undocumented immigrants.Their demand was blocked by Senate Democrats, delaying approval of funding for weeks for the department that coordinates domestic counter-terrorism activities, then ultimately dropped in legislation Boehner and Democrats pushed through to fund the DHS with no conditions.Representative Barry Loudermilk, another new conservative from Georgia, said many of his constituents saw Obama's order last November as both a violation of Congress' powers under the Constitution and an unfair issuing of work permits to 5 million illegal immigrants who would compete with them for jobs. "A lot of our colleagues felt this was an oath-of-office vote to uphold the Constitution," he said.The Obama administration insists it acted legally, although a federal judge has temporarily halted implementation.'WE OWN BOTH HOUSES'Representative Dave Brat, a small-college economics professor from Virginia, said he, like others, supported Boehner until it became apparent the speaker would back down on the immigration demands. "I am highly skeptical that we couldn't have found a way. We own both houses - and we lost," Brat said.Several of the freshmen are joining an aggressive new bloc of House conservatives known as the Freedom Caucus, whose founding members were among the recent Republican dissenters.Boehner and more moderate Republicans are not taking the challenge on their right flank lightly. An outside Republican group aligned with Boehner ran internet and broadcast ads against some of the conservatives this week, saying they were putting domestic security at risk.The American Action Network also launched a $525,000 ad campaign on Friday to thank 20 House Republicans who voted for the Homeland Security funding bill, calling them "conservative champions."The group said the campaigns are the start of a multi-million dollar effort to promote "center-right priorities."These will likely include a transportation funding debate, a mid-year fight over the future of the Export-Import Bank, and a battle over raising the debt limit and approving a budget.The American Action Network aims to counter well-financed conservative groups such as Club for Growth, which often urges votes against major spending compromises and has promoted conservative primary challengers, including Loudermilk. Representative Tom Cole, an Oklahoma moderate close to Boehner, said the new conservatives should read the Constitution and realize "we don't get to make the Senate do what we want."They "need to dial back their expectations to realistic levels. I also think leaders should maybe not satisfy every demand," Cole said.

non

Obama sends war draft to Hill President Barack Obama asked Congress on Wednesday for a three-year authorization of war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant that would restrict the U.S. military from engaging in “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Now comes the hard part: selling it. Story Continued Below While congressional leaders of both parties enthusiastically embraced the idea of blessing the six-month old bombing campaign against Islamic militants, the specifics of the White House text immediately drew fire from Republicans and Democrats who are set to battle for weeks over its language prohibiting the “enduring” use of ground troops. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he won’t support “efforts that impose undue restrictions on the U.S. military and make it harder to win,” while Senate Democrats badgered the administration both publicly and privately over language they believe is too vague. “There’s a real ambivalence there,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in an interview. “There should be more clarity in terms of what that means. There’s a lot at stake.” The draft authorization, which Congress is likely to begin considering after next week’s recess, would also repeal the 2002 Authorization of the Use of Military Force that allowed the George W. Bush administration to launch the Iraq War. The 2001 AUMF used to justify the war against terror in Afghanistan and other countries — a subject of Democratic concern — would remain in place even after Senate Democrats asked the White House to make 11th-hour changes to the text during a Tuesday meeting with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and White House counsel Neil Eggleston. The draft war authorization targets ISIL as well as “individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside” the terror group, and also targets “any closely-related successor entity. “It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq,” Obama said Wednesday afternoon in a short televised address from the Roosevelt Room. “At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances.” Adding that “we need flexibility, but we also have to be careful and deliberate,” the president noted that the White House had reached out to both Democrats and Republicans before submitting a draft AUMF, and implied he was open to changes from Congress. “I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands,” Obama said. “I’m optimistic it can win strong bipartisan support and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission.” The White House immediately began putting the hard sell on lawmakers on Wednesday. After working the Senate Democratic Caucus at a Tuesday lunch, top administration officials trained their attention on the House. Eggleston briefed House Democrats Wednesday morning during their weekly conference meeting, following his private meeting with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democratic leadership Tuesday evening. The proposal is almost sure to be altered as it works its way through the Republican Congress, probably starting in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Corker and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will lead a closed-door special GOP caucus to get Senate Republicans on the same page as they prepare for a weeklong recess and hearings that could begin in late February. McCain is expected to lead a push to further loosen the ground troops’ language, though he no longer serves on Corker’s committee, which must ultimately write, amend and vote on a war authorization. Corker said Wednesday morning that Obama’s work is not done, even though Capitol Hill has finally received a draft text six months into the conflict with ISIL. “It also will be important that the president exert leadership, lay out a clear strategy for confronting the threat posed by ISIS, and do the hard work of making the case to the American people why this fight is necessary and one we must win,” Corker said. Obama argued in a letter accompanying the text that the growing threat of Islamic militants in the Middle East mandates that Congress work with the White House to strengthen the country’s authorization to combat ISIL. “The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a threat to the people and stability of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East, and to U.S. national security. It threatens American personnel and facilities located in the region and is responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens,” Obama wrote. He added: “If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who have pushed their party leadership for months to write an AUMF regardless of Obama’s engagement, quickly scheduled a joint news conference on the authorization proposal Wednesday. Schiff said in a statement that the proposed language from the administration strips Congress of “excuses for any further delay of a debate and vote on a new authorization.” Obama said he is still committed to repealing the 2001 AUMF, which authorized the bulk of the military operations that followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Democrats are broadly skeptical of continuing to use that authorization as legal justification in the ISIL conflict. “Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF,” Obama wrote. But that promise might not be enough to quell Democratic complaints. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) , who is playing an integral role in the Democrats negotiations with the White House, said he had “serious concerns” with the proposed draft. “It provides overly-broad, fresh authority for the deployment of U.S. ground forces in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, and any other countries in which ISIL or its affiliates may be operating. Second, it leaves in place indefinitely the blank check authority granted to the Executive in the 2001 AUMF,” the Maryland Democrat said. “It makes little sense to place reasonable boundaries on the Executive’s war powers against ISIL while leaving them unchecked elsewhere.” Van Hollen also said he is eager to avoid “dragging the United States into another unnecessary ground war in the Middle East” — comments that highlight the upward struggle the White House will face among Democrats who are deeply troubled by the Iraq War and have little appetite to see U.S. troops return to en masse to the Middle East. In a nod to Democratic concerns, Obama stressed in his appeal to lawmakers that the draft proposal would not “authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.” “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations,” Obama wrote. “The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.

non

Immigration ruling hardens lines in DHS fight A Texas judge’s rejection of President Barack Obama’s immigration actions has strengthened conservatives’ resolve to use the Department of Homeland Security funding bill to oppose his moves — potentially complicating efforts for a quick end to the partisan standoff just 10 days before the clock runs out. Rather than defusing the conflict on Capitol Hill by making it moot, conservative lawmakers and senior aides said Tuesday, the ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen makes it even clearer that Congress cannot allow Obama’s actions to stand. “The president has acted unconstitutionally, and it is the president — not Congress — who must back down,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), an immigration hard-liner. Story Continued Below Instead, Republicans said, it’s the Senate Democrats who need to give in by allowing a vote on a House-passed DHS bill that would block the president’s efforts to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. “This court ruling certainly does provide us with an important, I think, a helpful argument to fund everything but what a federal district court has ruled as unlawful or unconstitutional,” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, a vulnerable Republican and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “We all want to keep this nation safe and secure, so let’s do that. Let’s not fund what’s in dispute.” “This gives momentum to the position that we’ve taken and the majority of Americans have [taken] that what the president did is wrong,” said conservative Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. He added, “It just helps our case all the more.” But Democrats showed no signs of conceding, and circulated new CNN/ORC poll results showing that 53 percent of voters would blame Republicans if the department shuts down, compared with 30 percent who would point the finger at Obama. Two conservative Democrats — Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota — said through aides Tuesday that they would continue to stick with the Senate Democratic position of demanding a “clean” spending bill free of immigration riders. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that “regardless of the outcome” of the legal battle, “Democrats remain united in our belief that funding for the Department of Homeland Security should not be used as ransom by Republicans, period.” Hanen’s decision on Monday temporarily halted the implementation of a move Obama announced in November, which was aimed at deferring deportation of roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants and letting them obtain work permits. Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had intended to begin accepting applications Wednesday, but administration officials said Tuesday that they’re putting those plans on hold while they appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Hanen’s ruling, in a lawsuit brought by 26 states including Texas, said Obama lacks the authority to carry out his initiative and is “creating laws from scratch.” The ruling comes at a pivotal time on Capitol Hill. In response to the president’s move, House Republicans loaded a must-pass $39 billion DHS funding bill with a rider that would block Obama’s November policy, as well his 2012 action that deferred deportations of immigrants brought to the country illegally at a young age. Hanen’s ruling does not affect the 2012 policy. But the House bill has hit a wall in the Senate, where the GOP controls 54 seats but needs 60 to overcome a filibuster. Democrats have three times blocked debate from starting, and they are expected to filibuster the bill once again when the Senate reconvenes next week after its Presidents Day recess. With DHS funding set to run out after Feb. 27, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) face a major decision that could define their stewardship of Congress less than two months into the new session: They can take the fight to the brink and hope the public blames Democrats for closing down an agency that’s vital to national security during a time of growing threats from abroad. Or they can give Democrats and the White House a clean spending bill, as either a long- or short-term extension of funding for the department — but that would prompt a furious outcry from the right. “Congress, so threatened, can never acquiesce to this action by funding it,” Sessions said in a statement. McConnell and Boehner gave little indication Tuesday of their next steps — but both blasted Senate Democrats for standing in the way of the GOP bill. “Hopefully, Senate Democrats who claim to oppose this executive overreach will now let the Senate begin debate on a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department,” Boehner said. Still, Democrats took solace in the poll numbers. After the last government-wide shutdown, in October 2013, the GOP incurred a sharp political backlash and weeks of internal backbiting, a situation McConnell has promised to avoid in the new Republican-led Senate. Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican who faces a potentially tough reelection next year, believes Democrats will incur the political backlash this time given their refusal to even debate the controversial policy. That’s a significant break from another endangered Republican senator, Mark Kirk of Illinois, who is calling on his leadership to drop the immigration riders. Johnson added that during the 2013 shutdown, just 13 percent of DHS employees were furloughed, while the rest were considered “essential” and required to report to work, though they temporarily did not receive pay. “I don’t want to see that happen, but we do need to correct the rhetoric from the standpoint of a shutdown. The Department of Homeland Security is not going to shut down,” Johnson said. Leadership aides in both chambers said it’s too early to speculate on how the court ruling may affect the dynamics on the Hill. The appellate court could stay Hanen’s ruling and effectively allow the policy to move forward pending the appeal. But if it doesn’t, Obama’s policy may be indefinitely halted — allowing Republicans who are are nervous about a shutdown to argue that Congress should fund the department since the president’s critics appear to be winning in the courts. Either way, it will be a week before Republicans in either chamber are all in the same room, just days before they need to make a final decision. A unified strategy has been elusive in recent days as Boehner and McConnell each have called on the other’s chamber to take the next step. One fallback idea that has picked up steam in GOP circles — winning the backing of both moderate Maine Sen. Susan Collins and conservative Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — would be to pass a bill that targets only Obama’s November immigration action and doesn’t attack his 2012 directive. That proposal could pick up more momentum after Hanen limited his court order to the 2014 action. “I think if you took the 2012 order out, that would be the strongest position,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). But Democrats insist they’ll accept no bill short of a clean funding package. Republicans have been watching the lawsuit closely as prospects for the House’s DHS bill diminish. The situation is frustrating some senior GOP lawmakers, because it’s consuming valuable legislative time and because the new GOP-controlled Congress was hoping to put brinkmanship and deadline-driven crises behind it. Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the GOP majority whip, said Tuesday that the court victory “is an important one, but the fight to reverse the president’s unconstitutional overreach is not over.” But Cornyn has vowed repeatedly to avoid a shutdown and fund the department. And if the Republican leadership acquiesces to Democrats, the conservative base and lawmakers from the party’s right flank are bound to push back — especially in light of Monday’s ruling. “It just confirms everything we’ve been saying,” Jordan, the conservative House member, said of Hanen’s ruling. “It doesn’t do anything but help us with the position we’ve taken because the position we’ve taken is the right one. We’ll keep pushing.” Lauren French contributed to this report.

non

Steve Scalise still mending fences Steve Scalise is on a non-apology apology tour. Seven weeks after coming under fire for giving a 2002 speech to a group associated with white supremacists, the House’s No. 3 Republican is meeting with key members of the Congressional Black Caucus, conferring with civil rights leaders and trying to forge relationship with reporters — though it’s unclear if that will be enough to fix what could have been potentially career-ending damage. Story Continued Below One of the people he’s met with, CBC Chairman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, expressed frustration that the Louisiana Republican hasn’t committed to attending next month’s 50th anniversary of the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama. Scalise allies insist he is not mounting a formal mea culpa. He expressed regret after the scandal initially broke in late December, but now allies say the House majority whip is just working to build new bonds on Capitol Hill and granting meetings with those who ask. The people he’s sat down with include black lawmakers who were deeply offended by the revelation that as a state legislator he had given the speech to a conference associated with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. That was followed by last month’s news that in 1996 Scalise had also opposed a state legislative resolution apologizing for slavery. Butterfield, a Democratic House member from North Carolina, said last weekthat Scalise is “going to have to determine how to repair the damage that’s been done.” “He has the ability to do it, but the question is does he have the will?” Butterfield said. “I don’t believe in manifestos. We don’t give deadlines. He’s a Republican leader, he’s a leader of the Republican caucus, not of the Democratic conference, and if they want to keep someone in their leadership that has this controversy swirling around, that is their prerogative.” Butterfield added that he would be closely watching Scalise’s decision on Selma, saying the Republican was “equivocal” when invited. Marc Morial, the president the National Urban League, wouldn’t even rule out calling for Scalise’s resignation after meeting with the lawmaker last week, despite characterizing the confab as a “good meeting characterized by respectful dialogue.” “I have been asked whether I would join calls for Rep. Scalise’s resignation, and following today’s meeting, I remain undecided,” Morial said in a statement. “I am, however, hopeful that moving forward Rep. Scalise will demonstrate that he is serious about acting in good faith to build relationships.” Scalise’s office has not commented on the outreach effort and did not respond to a question about whether he will go to Selma. One of his D.C. roommates, Rep. John Shimkus, said he doesn’t think the Republican conference has suffered lasting harm from the revelations. The Illinois Republican said that during the several years they have lived together, he hasn’t seen any sign of Scalise being racist. “There has never been any impropriety, so what Steve has to do, Steve will have to decide,” Shimkus said. “I went to Selma. I just think it’s a good thing to do regardless. It’s probably earlier rather than later might have been good.” So far, Scalise’s public response to the crisis has been a strategy out of public relations 101 — going local. He expressed his initial contrition in December to Louisiana television stations and the New Orleans Times-Picayune but then stopped talking about the controversy in front of the newsmedia. He has avoided sit-down interviews with national reporters and tried to refocus attention on House Republicans’ efforts to take a lead role on the Department Homeland Security funding fight. But he’s also followed a quiet course in D.C., including trying to build relationships with Capitol Hill reporters by holding off-the-record sitdowns. Earlier this month, he met with Butterfield and two other CBC members, Reps. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). The trio had a series of requests for Scalise, including that he go to Selma and line up Republican sponsors to a Voting Rights Act amendment that would reverse portions of a 2013 Supreme Court decision.

non

Ted Cruz's office: New York Times op-ed mocked Hispanic identity The office of Sen. Ted Cruz is ripping into The New York Times for a recent op-ed on Cuba, taking to the newspaper’s own pages to call it “saddening” and “unfortunate.” “Your decision to allow an Op-Ed writer to openly mock a person’s ethnicity — as Ann Louise Bardach did when she wrote that Senator Ted Cruz ‘has been called as Hispanic “as Tom Cruise”’ — is saddening,” Amanda Carpenter, the Texas senator’s director of communications, wrote in a letter to the editor published Friday. Story Continued Below “An Op-Ed writer is not the arbiter of a person’s race or ethnicity, and it is unfortunate that The New York Times would allow someone a platform to pretend so,” she wrote. Carpenter said the op-ed “Why Are Cubans So Special?”, which pushed back against Republican criticism of President Barack Obama’s recent diplomatic opening to Cuba, used the comment “to bludgeon Mr. Cruz’s principled policy positions.” Bardach, author of “Without Fidel: A Death Foretold in Miami, Havana and Washington” and other books on Cuba, also noted that Cruz is not fluent in Spanish. Carpenter, in her response, noted that Cruz’s father Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, who was born in Matanzas, Cuba, and fled the island country in 1957 at age 18, was “imprisoned and tortured in Cuba, and coming to America penniless.” Bardach responded to Carpenter’s criticism by noting that the reference to Cruz was in quotations and “the quote was not the writer’s comment but that of Gilberto Hinojosa, the chairman of [the] Texas Democratic Party, and former Texas county judge.” The comment, Bardach said, was made in October 2013 and first published in My San Antonio. At the time, Hinojosa said: “His last name may be Cruz, but there is nothing, not an ounce, about the way he thinks and the way he has led his life that in any way is similar to Hispanics in the state of Texas and all across America,” Hinojosa said. “Ted Cruz is as much Hispanic as Tom Cruise.”

non

Feds open investigation into Aaron Schock A federal official tells CBS News that the FBI and Department of Justice are investigating Rep. Aaron Schock's spending. The Associated Press reports that the government is convening a federal grand jury in Springfield, Illinois, and the FBI has begun issuing subpoenas to compel people close to Schock to testify, citing a person familiar with the case. The grand jury will hear testimony in early April, according to the AP's report. Schock's resignation is effective Mar. 31, so until then, the Office of Congressional Ethics will continue its investigation into his spending habits.Schock abruptly announced his resignation from Congress on Tuesday with a statement that said that "the constant questions over the last six weeks have proven a great distraction that has made it too difficult for me to serve the people of the 18th District with the high standards that they deserve and which I have set for myself." Schock did not inform or consult his party's leadership about his decision to resign before it was announced. At 33 years old, Schock was among the youngest members of Congress, and he was once considered a rising star in the Republican Party. He had been an able fundraiser, and he cultivated an active social media presence. His Instagram account, for example, chronicled his adventurous, jet-setting lifestyle, showing the congressman rubbing elbows with celebrities and vacationing in foreign countries. But it may have also contributed to a reputation for extravagance, inviting the scrutiny that ultimately prompted his resignation from Congress. Last month, the Washington Post was given a look at Schock's new office, which was painted a bright red, festooned with gilded knick-knacks, and reportedly inspired by the British period drama "Downton Abbey." The Post reported that Schock received the design services for free, prompting a left-leaning ethics watchdog to file a complaint alleging an improper receipt of gifts by a public official.Later that month, the same watchdog group filed a complaint against Schock after it was reported that he spent taxpayer and campaign money on private air travel. An Associated Press review found that Schock spent more than $40,000 on at least a dozen flights onboard private aircraft. The congressman also came under scrutiny after a report found that he'd sold his home in Peoria, Illinois, to a donor at a price far above the market value. He also faced questions about his purchase and use of a vehicle in his home district. Schock bought a Chevrolet Tahoe in 2010, logging just over 81,000 miles on it before he sold it in 2014. He was reimbursed by the government and his campaign for over 170,000 miles driven, however, and his resignation came just hours after Politico asked his office about the roughly 90,000-mile discrepancy. In 2014, when Schock sold his old Tahoe, he spent almost $75,000 of his campaign funds on a new Tahoe that he registered in his name.

non

President Obama’s war push faces rift with the left Before he can get Congress’ approval for his war against ISIL, President Barack Obama may have to win an ugly battle with his own party. A wide range of House and Senate Democrats — many of whom, like Obama, rose to prominence opposing the Iraq War — are warning they won’t support any war-powers measure that gives the president even greater latitude than he’s already asked for. But the Republicans who control Congress insist that any war authorization must offer broad authority to combat Islamic militants, saying the White House’s three-year draft would do too much to tie the hands of Obama and his successor. Story Continued Below That will leave Obama with a critical decision: He can stick with his proposal to limit the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting the GOP-controlled Congress over a draft that many liberals already dislike. Or he can acquiesce to Republican demands and prompt a revolt from his own party, something the president has rarely done during his six years in office. The result could be the largest Democratic rebellion in years, which could send an embarrassing message to U.S. allies just as the United States tries to show unity against a serious national security threat. “If the existing draft moves towards the John McCain and Lindsey Graham position, there will be a significant bleeding of support amongst Democrats,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), referring to the two hawkish Republican senators. “I was sent to Congress in 2006 to make sure we never repeated the mistakes of the Iraq War. I have a pretty clear mandate from my state to make sure we don’t send massive numbers of ground troops back to the Middle East.” Obama submitted a draft Authorization for Use of Military Force to Congress on Feb. 11 after months of bipartisan requests for him to offer his legislative vision. The president’s proposal seeks to balance the demands of defense hawks and liberal doves, setting a three-year time limit to war and prohibiting “enduring offensive ground combat operations” while giving the U.S. the authority to target forces “associated” with ISIL. He proposed repealing the 2002 Iraq War authorization but wants to leave in place the post-Sept. 11, 2001, war-powers declaration, which the administration has used to justify the ongoing military operations against ISIL and terrorists around the world. Many Democrats want to scrap that authorization as well and have given administration officials an earful about it during meetings on the Hill. “The sweet spot is somewhere between an open-ended authorization and one that gives the president the wherewithal to degrade and destroy ISIL but doesn’t give him and the next president a blank check,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “A lot of members on the Democratic side have a pretty good view of what Barack Obama would or would not do. “ But the three-year limit would give the 45th president of the United States — who could be named Bush — a year of authority to go after ISIL, a major worry for Democrats who fear how a Republican might use it. “The problem is the next president — we don’t know who will that be, and what they will or will not do with the same language,” Menendez added. The question for Democrats is what role Obama will play as Republicans seek to tilt the president’s draft toward their party’s more hawkish views. Progressive leaders and Democratic lawmakers say they essentially want Obama to publicly advocate against his own proposal: Shorten the timetable, repeal the 2001 authorization and further restrict ground troops. “The Republicans are trying to enable or at least allow for the possibility of a ground war,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, a progressive Hawaii Democrat who touted Obama’s endorsement in his election last year. “If the language reflects that, they’re not going to get a lot of Democratic votes.” After consulting with key lawmakers for weeks before unveiling the draft, the administration won’t say how aggressive Obama will be in trying to persuade Congress to keep the final AUMF language close to his original proposal. Asked for comment, an administration official pointed to press secretary Josh Earnest’s remarks that “it’s time for Congress to step up to the plate.” So far, Obama has kept some key Democratic players at bay while much of the rank and file revolts. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who met with Obama last week and discussed the matter with the president, has kept his powder dry, as has his leadership team. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has called Obama’s draft “serious and thoughtful,” refraining from echoing liberal members’ criticisms. How Republicans deal with what they call Obama’s “starting point” draft has not been decided either, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) prepare to assume outsize roles. Both men plan extensive hearings to force the administration to publicly sketch out how they would use an AUMF. While Royce set a bright line last week by ruling out a repeal of the 2001 authorization, Corker has been reluctant to express his views over the AUMF request, probably because he will need more bipartisan support than the House does. He wants the hearings to play out first and refuses to say if his proposal will depart from the president’s, saying the administration has to “lay out a plausible way forward.” “On any issue like this, the president has got to personally engage,” Corker said. Corker’s committee includes two Republicans who are probably running for president — Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky — and who harbor opposite views on how much authority to give the White House in this war. Some Democrats believe Paul could vote with them in committee on amendments to tighten the authorization’s language, while Rubio wants no such such restrictions. “We should pass an authorization, and it should be a very simple one: It should say, ‘We authorize the president to defeat ISIS militarily,’” Rubio said. To hear some Democrats tell it, there’s almost nothing the administration can do to get their vote, even if Obama makes a stronger case against ground troops and Democrats can ward off GOP changes. That creates the possibility of a Democratic rebellion even greater than the one that almost sank December’s omnibus spending bill, which killed hard-fought financial regulations, or liberals’ revolt against a 2010 tax deal. “A lot of members aren’t even convinced that we need to vote for an AUMF,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus. “That’s it. We’re still debating that. We have not concluded as a body that we want an AUMF.” Ellison estimates that perhaps three members of his nearly 70-member Progressive Caucus would vote for the draft authorization as it’s now written, and aides caution that many liberals will be impossible to persuade otherwise. Ask a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus about Obama’s war request and you’re likely to get back the same brand of fire-breathing rhetoric that you might hear from a rock-ribbed conservative. “I have seen no credible plan from the administration on how to deal with ISIS,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). “Basically it’s the aftermath of the Iraq War, the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States. And I do not want to fight a third war in Iraq. “I don’t see how this all works out,” DeFazio added. Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said Democrats face a “damn hard” task to balance their responsibility to take on terrorists, horrific recent killings of Americans like Kayla Mueller, loyalty to their president and a nationwide war-weariness. “Even progressive members agonize over this. We’ve seen the atrocities. Kayla is from my home state,” Grijalva said. “You’re dealing with a non-state, you have to destroy it and ISIS. But you have the specter of history hanging over us.” Concerns extend well beyond the party’s left and into the rank and file of the Senate and the House. Some of these Democrats voted against George W. Bush’s Iraq War, but the calculus is different when dealing with a Democratic president whose politics look much like their own. “Oh yeah, they have work to do. There’s no question about that,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said of the president and his team. “We are all living the vacuum of the Iraq resolution. No one wants to make a mistake.” “Frankly, it’s not just Democrats who would be squeamish about it: The American people are not gearing up for another war,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). “They are not.” Some Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are ready to play hardball, insisting that the Senate take up a committee-passed authorization from December that was more restrictive than the president’s draft and would have repealed the 2001 authorization. That plan stalled in the lame-duck Congress late last year after not a single Republican voted for it. “Everything I’ve heard from the president’s counsel, the thing he seems to be saying, is he can’t get” Republicans to support Senate Democrats’ proposal, said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the committee. “My assessment is he’s going to have a hard time flipping people off of [the December bill]. We spent a lot of time doing it.” That means that the liberal opposition could be more than political posturing. If House Republicans lose a sizable number of GOP votes, they’d need Democrats to back the proposal. Moreover, to break a Democratic-led filibuster in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would need at least six Democratic defectors — if he can keep his own conference united, which is no guarantee with four members mulling over presidential runs. “He has to spend a lot of time up here to convince people,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. “The complaint was, ‘OK, send us up your proposal.’ And now he has. Now the ball is literally in our court.” If Congress fails to pass an authorization, it will carry major political ramifications for lawmakers and the president but will have little effect on Obama’s war with ISIL. He can continue fighting the militants with the two broad authorizations still in place, just as he has for the six months leading up to the AUMF debate, though the optics for the United States would be poor if the bill falls apart.

non

Grammys are singing lawmakers’ tune Conservative Republicans Marsha Blackburn and Darrell Issa don’t often schmooze at the same events as Democrats Joe Crowley and Linda Sánchez. But if Elton John stops by — or if Rep. John Conyers is posing for pictures with Grammy nominee Ne-Yo — it’s not your usual political event. Story Continued Below That was par for the course this weekend in Los Angeles, though, where more than a dozen lawmakers headed for the 57th annual Grammy Awards to get in front of industry executives to talk policy and raise money. Politicians — and their political fundraisers — have long glommed onto major sporting and entertainment events like the Super Bowl and the Oscars. But with the music industry facing intense Washington scrutiny over issues like the future of copyright law, the Grammys provide a window into how politicians schmooze and raise money from those they regulate. “It’s part fun, and it’s part that those involved in the issues can meet a lot of people here,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, which oversees the music industry. The New York Democrat and huge Bob Dylan fan held a fundraiser Saturday at the Soho House in West Hollywood. As Hollywood and recording industry execs from Universal and Sony mingled with songwriters over fried chicken, eggs and grits, Nadler spoke about how labels, artists, songwriters and music publishers need to work together for a new music licensing system, while warning that infighting would kill that effort, according to an attendee. Nadler was hardly alone in doing fundraisers. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) held a fundraiser for his McCarthy Victory Fund at the Staples Center on Sunday. Crowley (D-N.Y.) has a box at the Grammys, while Conyers (D-Mich.), ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, and Karen Bass (D-Calif.) also held separate brunch fundraisers. Half a dozen members, including Conyers and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also made the rounds at a Saturday brunch held by the American Society for Composers, Authors and Publishers, where they mingled with Grammy-nominated songwriters like Kevin Kadish, who helped create Meghan Trainor’s hit song “All About That Bass.” While the music stars are certainly a plus, several members said they were just doing their jobs. Blackburn, who often works with songwriters at home in Tennessee, said she probably had nearly two dozen constituents at the ASCAP brunch. Several lawmakers attended a briefing at The Village recording studio. Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Louis Gohmert (R-Texas), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Californians Sánchez and Issa heard from veteran musician Graham Nash of Crosby, Stills and Nash about the need for a more sustainable business model for artists and songwriters. Elton John also dropped by to talk with politicians and even posed for a photo. Afterward, the lawmakers went to the Staples Center for a backstage Grammy tour and attended a briefing on a spectrum issue. “My wife wouldn’t permit me to come out solely for the fun,” joked Jeffries. But more seriously, the New York Democrat, who is an old-school hip-hop fan, said the legal and political issues the music industry face “have become of increasing interest to members from both sides.” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) also said he came because “these are the issues that I work on all the time. So many people who are impacted by the work we do are all in one place here.” Oddly enough, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the only lawmaker who was up for a Grammy this year — the audio version of her book “A Fighting Chance” was nominated for best spoken-word album — didn’t attend the event. Warren tweeted that she was “tickled” to be nominated and “grateful the Recording Academy has never heard me try to sing.” Still, even politicians who weren’t in L.A. for Sunday night’s main event were hoping to use it for their benefit. Ready for Hillary planned to follow the Grammys and use social media during the broadcast, trying to repeat the success of the group’s Super Bowl tweet, which was retweeted 800 times and got more than 180,000 Facebook likes. Hillary Clinton won a Grammy in 1997 for best spoken-word album for the audio version of her book “It Takes a Village.” The industry has plenty at stake in Washington, as the House Judiciary Committee is in the midst of a full review of federal copyright law and is eyeing the complex music licensing system as a top candidate for potential reforms. Various factions of the music business are pleading with Washington for changes — the Recording Academy, which hosts the Grammys, announced a new artists coalition at Sunday’s awards show that will lobby Washington — to would help their bottom lines. Among their goals: A new performance royalty right for recording artists — who don’t get paid when their tracks are played on broadcast radio in the U.S. — or more flexibility for songwriters and music publishers, who have less control over who can play their songs and for what fee. Last week, the Copyright Office released a 250-page report endorsing both of those reforms and many others. The report galvanized the industry executives and lawyers gathered in Los Angeles this weekend, who hope they can guide new rules through a divided Washington. “It’s a particularly crucial time because there is a lot of things happening all at once,” said David Israelite, head of the National Music Publishers Association. “Congress is talking about copyright reform, and so everyone in the music industry is very focused about what’s going to happen in Congress, what’s happening at the Justice Department, things going on in the Patent and Trademark office.” Anna Palmer reported from Washington. Alex Byers reported from Los Angeles.

non

John Boehner: House won’t pass another DHS funding bill Speaker John Boehner reiterated Wednesday that the House will not pass another bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security at this time, despite its standoff with the Republican-controlled Senate. Boehner’s comment — that the House has done its job and it’s time for the Senate to act — came in a closed Republican Conference meeting Wednesday morning. Story Continued Below Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia — both former House members — discussed immigration and the 60-vote threshold the Senate. Senate Republican leaders — including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — have said the House needs to take up a bill. The Senate has been unable to pass the DHS funding bill because it’s loaded with provisions to gut President Barack Obama’s changes to immigration law.

non

Lawmakers not briefed on White House cyber center White House officials gave members of the House Intelligence Committee either little notice or none at all about the announcement Tuesday of a new cyber integration center modeled on the National Counterterrorism Center, sources told POLITICO. A source on the Republican side said Tuesday that the committee’s only advance information about the new center came during a briefing by representatives from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence last week and that the briefer declined to explain what the budget request was for. Story Continued Below “When they were specifically asked for details on their cyber plans, they said there was nothing else they could share at this time,” the source said, adding they were told more information would be made available in more detailed budget documents that have not yet been sent to the committee. That was the last committee members heard of the issue before today’s announcement was trailed with an official leak to The Washington Post, the source said. Asked if committee members believed they should have been briefed in advance, the source replied, “Yes; I can give you a one word answer on that.” A Democratic aide later countered that both Democratic and Republican committee staff were told about the center the day before. A senior administration official said “we notified key staff on the intelligence committees and intend to provide further briefings in the coming weeks.” The Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, projected to have a staff of 50 when it is fully operational next year, is funded by a $35 million line item in the “black budget” request for intelligence funding. The center was first called for by the former co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, in an op-ed last year. There are also concerns that the new center might duplicate the work of other existing federal cyber centers, like the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center at DHS. Officials say the NCCIC is focused on situational awareness and operational response to cyberattacks, whereas the CTIIC will focus on rapidly fusing intelligence different sources about cyber threats. This story has been updated to include comments from a Democratic committee aide and from the administration.

non

John Boehner defends Benjamin Netanyahu invitation House Speaker John Boehner says he didn’t tell the White House about inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress because he “wanted to make sure there was no interference” from the administration. President Barack Obama “doesn’t quite understand that we’re trying to strengthen his hand,” Boehner told host Chris Wallace in an interview aired on “Fox News Sunday.” Story Continued Below “There’s no secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu,” the Ohio Republican said. “I, frankly, didn’t want that getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.” Netanyahu, who is scheduled to appear before Congress on March 3, is the “perfect person” to address the American people on the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and Iran developing nuclear weapons, the speaker reiterated. The prime minister faces an election two weeks later, on March 17. “There’s a serious threat facing the world, and radical Islamic terrorists are not going to go away,” Boehner said. “It’s an important message that the American people need to hear.” The president last week ruled out an extension of talks past the March 24 deadline for a framework nuclear agreement with Iran, but Boehner says there’s still interest in hearing Netanyahu. “There’s bipartisan concern about these discussions with the Iranians,” Boehner said. “Frankly, we want to hear what the prime minister of Israel has to say.”

non

'Downton Abbey' congressman's aide resigns over Facebook posts A top adviser to Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock has resigned after controversial posts were found on his Facebook page. Benjamin Cole, a senior adviser to Schock, told POLITICO he resigned and that Schock, a Republican, accepted his resignation. Story Continued Below The posts had Cole likening black people to animals and said a mosque should be built on the White House grounds for President Barack Obama. It caps quite a strange week for Schock’s office. The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Schock had decorated his office in the manner of the British show “Downton Abbey.” Cole had interacted with the reporter and tried to tamp down the story. His back and forth with the Post reporter was detailed in the story. On Thursday, ThinkProgress and BuzzFeed found the controversial posts on Cole’s Facebook page. “So apparently the closing of the National Zoo has forced the animals to conduct their mating rituals on my street. #gentrifytoday Pt. 1,” Cole wrote during the government shutdown in October 2013.

non

GOP plea on Social Security disability: Do something, Obama The battle over Social Security’s future came back to the forefront Wednesday as top Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee challenged the White House plan to shift $330 billion between the program’s trust funds to avert deep cuts in disability payments, beginning at the end of 2016. President Barack Obama’s new budget plan released last week would accomplish this transfer by temporarily adjusting the formula that distributes receipts from the 6.2 percent federal payroll tax, which workers and their employers pay to finance both the retirement and disability programs. Story Continued Below The administration estimates that a 0.9 percentage point change from 2016 through 2020 would put both trust funds on a path where neither would exhaust its reserves before 2033. But that’s one year earlier, in fact, than the 2034 deadline now predicted for Social Security’s much larger retirement fund. And Republicans argue that Obama must do more now in anticipation of the enormous problems ahead. “I’m hoping that we don’t just kick the can down the road,” said Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). “I’m hoping the president will take an active role in this.” Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner for the Social Security Administration, urged senators to act first to avert the crisis at hand and then begin serious negotiations on finding a longer-term solution. She said the threatened cut in disability payments — about 19 percent — would be a “death sentence” for many of the poorest recipients, but time and again, she refused to opine on more concrete options going forward. When Colvin read aloud the president’s six principles for future reforms, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was scornful. “That’s a set of principles that makes sure we do absolutely nothing meaningful,” Graham said. “If that’s the president’s plan, we’ll never get there.” Graham, like many of the senators, seemed resigned that Congress ultimately must approve some change in the payroll tax formula to avert a crisis. But he warned: “I’m really tired of bailing out water when the boat has a hole in it a mile wide, and we’re using a very small pail.” For this Congress, much still lies ahead. If Republicans believe they can win the presidency in 2016, they could adopt a short-term solution that would allow them to revisit the fight in 2017. In fact, House Republicans have already put in place a rules change allowing a smaller reallocation but making it harder for the president’s plan to be enacted — without additional steps to improve the combined balance for the two trust funds. In the run-up to Wednesday’s hearing, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) took to the floor Tuesday to press Obama to do more. And in an apparent first step to engage the president, Hatch and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are expected to sign onto a bill this week sponsored by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) to narrow the window in which people who receive disability payments can also collect unemployment benefits. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent who serves as ranking member on the Budget panel, angrily accused the GOP of “manufacturing a crisis” to hide its intent to resurrect past proposals to cut Social Security benefits and privatize the system. But by the end of Wednesday’s three-hour hearing, Sanders seemed more confident that the threatened disability cuts will be averted next year. And however partisan the proceedings, they were largely polite with a touch of comedy. Sanders, with his sometimes wild white hair, populist politics and potential presidential ambitions, cut a fiery figure. Enzi was invariably soft-spoken, polite, an accountant by training and also a problem solver in the vein of the late Sen. Henry Bellmon (R-Okla.), who was a major figure in budget debates in the late 1970s. In the upside-down style of Senate hearings, most of the session was devoted to sparring back and forth with Colvin, as the lead administration witness. But this was not without real cost since the two expert witnesses — who had traveled great distances to appear — got to talk only when most senators had already left the room. One of those, Philip de Jong of the University of Amsterdam and an expert on reforms in the Dutch disability system, gently chastised the committee when it finally came his turn. “I come from a country which is not bipartisan, where governments are tri-partisan coalitions or even several-partisan,” de Jong said. “So what I learned here this morning is a lot about U.S. politics, and I’m sorry to say much less about the solutions to the looming problems with funding disability benefits.” Certainly, the crisis has been building for a long time. Established in 1956 under President Dwight Eisenhower, the disability program had grown to the point in the 1980s where it became a target for spending cuts backed by President Ronald Reagan. Those fights still echo today, and critics argue that in the backlash against Reagan’s cuts, Congress went too far in 1984 in liberalizing the standards for medical eligibility. Awards for mental disorders and musculoskeletal disabilities like back pain increased significantly after those changes, and when the baby boom generation started to turn 50, enrollment took off in the mid-1990s. The number of workers getting disability payments has since doubled to 8.95 million in the space of 20 years. About $140 billion went out the door in fiscal 2013, twice the costs of just 10 years before. Demographics and the economy surely explain a lot. Apart from the aging baby boomers, more women have worked long enough to qualify for benefits. The Great Recession accelerated the trend as workers turned to disability as a last resort after unemployment benefits ran out. But testifying alongside de Jong, Mark Duggan, a Stanford University economist, said the more liberal medical eligibility standards have had a bigger lasting impact than many realize. He also pointed to changes in the formula used to calculate Social Security’s early retirement benefits — changes that saved money but then made the disability route more attractive for workers in low-wage jobs. “Consider individuals between the ages of 50 and 59,” Duggan said in his written remarks. “In 1989, 1 out of 23 adults in this age group was receiving [Social Security disability insurance] benefits. But by 2013, this had almost doubled to 1 in 12.” “There have been approximately 2.5 million ‘extra’ SSDI applications since 2008 as a result of the economic downturn,” Duggan told the committee. The rate of new applications has declined as the jobs picture has improved, he said, but many of those 2.5 million applicants “have withdrawn from the labor force, either because they have been awarded SSDI benefits or are still in the process of applying given the long lags in the process.” It’s this loss of workers — and added cost to the government — that is a major concern for reform advocates in both parties. The big question is how far the government can go to intervene early and help a person — with back pain for example — to try to stay in the labor force. The Netherlands’ example is one that intrigues many Republicans because it suggests a level of “privatization.” But that system rests on what amounts to what many in the U.S. would call “employer mandates.” Dutch law requires companies to be responsible for most costs for the first two years after a worker becomes ill. Moreover, the sick pay for workers is a much higher percentage of prior wages than what many workers in the U.S. would receive in similar circumstances. “All Dutch firms are obliged to pay for sickness benefits, rehabilitation, accommodation, job mediation during the first two years of disablement” prior to any application for disability, de Jong said. Moreover, he said, Dutch firms “pay substantially higher rates if one or more of their employees” enter the disability program. The results are impressive. The number of new disability awards fell by about two-thirds, de Jong said, from 2002-2012. At the same time, those already on the rolls who were younger than 45 were subjected to stricter standards, he said, and about 60 percent were back working three years after their benefit status was reviewed. Sanders listened attentively but given his socialist leanings, having a witness from Europe was too much to resist. “Mr. Chairman, I love that we have somebody from Europe. I think that’s a great idea, and I think we should do more of it,” he told Enzi. Soon after, he was off to the races, asking de Jong about health care and education benefits in the Netherlands. “Everybody has health insurance,” de Jong answered. “Maybe we should have a hearing here as to how that works,” Sanders said.

non

Despite FDA moves, push continues for Congress to act on mobile health Apple, Intel and other digital health companies are winning their war against old-school medical device regulation. The industry that stands to make millions from mobile health tech has Food and Drug Administration regulations locked down, and it has the support of Congress, too. With the government’s approval, wearable monitors and health apps on iPhones are proliferating; the wearable electronic market is predicted to be valued at $11.6 billion by 2020. Story Continued Below A sustained lobbying campaign by tech companies that will profit from selling digital health has been successful so far. In recent weeks FDA has promised not to regulate technologies that receive, transmit, store or display data from medical devices, and announced it will keep its regulatory paws off most mobile medication applications as well. But that’s not enough for the industry or members of Congress who say FDA promises, in the form of agency guidances, aren’t enough. They want laws that assure industry it can innovate and sell its products without federal meddling. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), whose SOFTWARE Act is part of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s recently released 21st Century Cures draft legislation, said FDA’s guidance wasn’t enough. Her bill, like a Senate version from Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Michael Benet (D-Colo.), would establish firm limits on the kinds of technology FDA could regulate. “It is clear from the recent guidance documents released by the FDA that they intend to maintain regulatory discretion — that is, they can change the rules whenever they want. Guidance is not the way to go,” Blackburn said. “My legislation will provide the clarity and transparency needed as well as codifying the proper authorities of the FDA.” Blackburn is working “with stakeholders and the FDA” on a draft of the bill that could appear soon, she said. In the meantime, with the FDA’s blessing, developers no longer have to make sure most medical data-displaying products are FDA-compliant, and most medical app developers won’t have to wait for the FDA’s approval before marketing an application. When the Apple Watch comes out this April, for example, it will contain an app — unreviewed by FDA — that allows a diabetic user to see information from a continuous glucose monitor. FDA won’t regulate the app because it’s an accessory to a device. Most health mobile app makers can release their products without pre-market submission to the FDA. Even apps that perform medical device functions will be regulated only if FDA determines they pose a potentially serious risk to a patient’s safety. “The myriad of systems that record, share and use personal and health data have become a significant help for many of us by putting information at our fingertips to use when and where we think it might help promote a healthy lifestyle,” wrote Bakul Patel and Jeffrey Shuren of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health in a blog post elaborating on the guidances. “Through such smart regulation we can better facilitate innovation and at the same time protect patients.” The FDA’s guidances followed increased lobbying by the tech sector, including giant Intel, which purchased wearable technology manufacturer Basis Science last fall, and builds the chips that fuel health and all other kinds of IT. Intel last year spent at least $1.5 million lobbying on telehealth wearables, remote patient monitoring, the use of patient-generated data for meaningful use Stage 3 and other health IT issues. Apple’s lobbying has also surged. According to disclosure forms, the tech giant spent $1.2 million lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2014, including on issues related to health data and mobile devices and health. Apple declined requests for comment for this article. The FDA has been saying it would be relatively hands-off when it comes to digital health innovations, and the finalized guidance was a breath of fresh air for mobile health advocates. The guidances “provide much needed ‘rules of the road’ for e-health veterans and for start-ups,” said Alice Borrelli, director of global health policy at Intel. “FDA is quite earnestly working to ensure that it uses the lightest regulatory touch appropriate for software,” said Bradley Merrill Thompson, general counsel of the mHealth Regulatory Coalition, which lobbied Congress on FDA mobile medical app guidance and regulation. “It’s exciting, because it means that innovation in this space can truly flourish.” FDA guidances have been influential and effective spurs to development, notes Josh Sharfstein, former deputy FDA commissioner and associate dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. “Guidance can be a pathway to help industry understand what’s necessary for approval. A lot of action happens from guidance.” Yet the call for congressional action continues, although ostensibly industry has gotten what it wanted from the FDA. “While it is good to see the FDA acknowledging the types of low-risk technology where its oversight is not necessary, the guidance … ultimately underscores the need [for] legislation like the SOFTWARE and MEDTECH Acts to give the industry certainty and clarity,” said Stephanie Zaremba of electronic health records vendor athenahealth. The Health IT Now coalition recently suggested that Blackburn’s SOFTWARE Act needs to be sharpened so even more software is exempt from FDA regulation. “Current regulatory uncertainty stifles healthcare innovation … we believe Congress must act,” wrote Health IT Now Director Joel White. Rock Health, a seed fund, and Startup Health, a digital health “incubator,” which have funded and coached hundreds of digital health startups, applauded the FDA moves. Guidance on medical device data systems “lowers the barrier to entry dramatically,” said Malay Gandhi of Rock Health. “Clarity and guidance like this from regulators makes it more likely that the world’s best talent will keep investing time and resources into transforming health care,” said Unity Stoakes of StartUp Health, a group whose partners include Mark Cuban, AARP, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Pfizer. While wearables may have won the hearts of lobbyists, investors and lawmakers, other regulators are sounding alarms. The Federal Trade Commission is wary of wearables’ role in the Internet of Things, and digital health was central to the agency’s report on the issue earlier this month. FTC Commissioner Julie Brill said recently the proliferation of mobile health apps and connected devices adds to the need for a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

non

John McCain: Don't handcuff president Sen. John McCain said Sunday he opposes any ISIL war resolution that puts limits on the power of the president, saying on “Meet the Press” that such restrictions were “unconstitutional.” “To restrain him in our authorization of him taking military action, I think, frankly, is unconstitutional and eventually leads to 535 commanders in chief,” the Arizona Republican told host Chuck Todd. Story Continued Below McCain’s remarks highlight the delicate line the Obama administration has been walking in developing and selling an authorization of military power against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, between those who fear Congress would be granting President Barack Obama too much power and those who fear Congress would be improperly handcuffing the president. On ABC’s “This Week,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) spoke for the former group, saying it was “very important to not write another blank check.” “This authorization goes beyond the term of this president — we don’t know who the next president will be or what their intentions will be,” Schiff told Jon Karl. “And the problem with writing something so broad, that has no sunset date, no geographic limitations … but some of my colleagues are advocating for no sunset date.” McCain, calling the president’s policy both inadequate and convoluted, has frequently criticized Obama for his handling of the situation in the Middle East — he did so again Sunday — but he made it clear that he believes Congress had no business putting limits on the nation’s commander in chief. “I think we should not restrain the president of the United States. The Congress has the power of the purse. If we don’t like what the commander in chief is doing, we can cut off his funds for doing so,” McCain said. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), McCain’s colleague on the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed with him about restricting the authorization to three years. “We don’t want to send a signal to the world that we’re there for just so many years,” he told Todd. Reed added: “I think we would be better off having a resolution that did not have a specific time limit. I do think, though, it does make sense to indicate very strongly that our engagement would be limited in terms of American military personnel. And that, I think, is included within the resolution.”

non

DHS stalemate leaves local governments hanging If all politics is truly local, the big sleeper in Washington’s fight over the Homeland Security budget could be the city and county agencies that depend on the same bill to help finance their emergency response teams. Congress is most focused now on the threat of a shutdown next week if lawmakers cannot reach an agreement before DHS’s stopgap continuing resolution runs out on Feb. 27. But lost in this discussion is how much the past five months have already disrupted the department’s annual grant process, which is worth $1.6 billion to state and local governments writing their own budgets this summer. Story Continued Below That’s because a continuing resolution is just that: a temporary fix to “continue” operations as they were before Oct. 1, the beginning of the current 2015 fiscal year. New grant applications for 2015 count as new starts, which are not authorized at this stage. In the words of Craig Fugate, who oversees the grants as administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it’s “a show-stopper.” In House Speaker John Boehner’s native Ohio, the real-life stakes are well illustrated by a refinery explosion and fire that rocked the city of Lima last month. The Allen County emergency management office, which relies on federal grant money for about 50 percent of its budget, had run an exercise just last May with fire, refinery and health personnel in preparation for such a hazard. “It’s a bad day when it happens,” said Russell Decker, who ran the county office and just recently moved up to a state post. “But it could have been much worse if we didn’t have the funding to facilitate those training exercises.” If and when Congress finally enacts a Homeland Security budget, FEMA will surely try to truncate the application process and make up for lost time. But Congress is already two months behind the pace of last year, when much of the money didn’t go out until June. And if the CR is simply extended without any adjustments, the lag will get only worse. “You budget with that grant in mind,” said Wendy Smith-Reeve, director of the Arizona Division of Emergency Management, which must deal with a July 1 start to its budget year. “You’re planning a year in advance what you are going to execute. You are relying on that grant, and if that grant is not available as a funding resource then it’s a negative impact to your entire operation.” The crunch appears to be greatest at the local level, and among smaller states with fewer resources than a California or New York. The number of homeland security preparedness grants grew after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and today include $587 million to address the needs of dense urban areas like New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., which could be potential targets. Smaller, more narrowly focused programs exist for transit and port security as well. And while Congress is mired in a debate about immigration policy, the impacts of the delay are felt by Operation Stonegarden, a $55 million program to better secure roads from the Southwest border. But the most time-sensitive money may be the estimated $350 million Emergency Management Performance Grant program, which goes back decades before Sept. 11 and fosters a national network of state and local managers to respond to all manner of hazards, natural and man-made. Terrorism is part of its portfolio now, but the greater focus is on preparing for and managing the local response to the likes of storms, tornadoes, wildfires, train derailments — and refineries blowing up. Money is provided on a 50-50 formula — with quarterly reimbursements — for what are often payroll costs. Thus any delay in these grant awards is “more “problematic,” said Nancy Ward, a veteran of FEMA and now chief deputy director for California’s Office of Emergency Services under Gov. Jerry Brown. The crunch gets greater moving down the ladder to local jurisdictions less equipped to carry the costs while Washington debates. “What those grants basically do is quite frankly fund and resource the emergency management foundation and structure across the nation,” Ward said. “The majority of local and state emergency management offices are funded through EMPG. … States have to fund those dollars up front because the majority of their staff and their training and exercise and planning dollars are caught up in those grants. “There are many states where if it goes on long enough, they don’t have the wherewithal to do that for an elongated period of time,” Ward said. “Depending on the dollars that they receive, that becomes problematic the longer it goes.” California is better off but scarcely immune. “Right now we have the ability to weather this challenge but if it goes much longer that will start to be a problem in California as well,” Ward said. “The local level or maybe even smaller states have a harder time being able to shoulder their portion of the grant, especially when it involves paying salaries to their workers.” Branch Strickland, director for finance and grants at the New York City Office of Emergency Management, estimated that the annual EMPG grant is worth about $3 million for the city, but the delays now are more of a cash-flow issue, which New York can handle given its size. “Other localities probably can’t and they really rely on that quarterly reimbursement process,” he said. “The EMPG represented about 50 percent of the funding in my county, and we’ve been a county under tight budgets for years,” said the 58-year-old Decker of his own Allen County experience as an emergency manager. “We haven’t had pay raises in Allen County in seven years. It’s not like we have an abundance of funding, so when half of our funding is in question, it certainly impacts my bosses, the elected officials. How are we going to pay for these services?” Thus far in the debate in Congress, the dollars for local and state grants have received relatively little attention. But that could begin to change as the National Association of Counties is scheduled to hold a five-day meeting in Washington that begins this weekend and will surely include visits with local House members, when they return from the Presidents Day recess.. The National Emergency Management Association, which happens to be based in the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), has stayed more in the background since its focus is more on state, not local, emergency managers. But the U.S. Conference of Mayors and International Association of Emergency Managers — representing the localities — have joined the counties in pressing the case for action in a series of letters to the Senate Appropriations Committee leadership. NEMA itself will have its own meeting in Washington in a few weeks and could yet be more drawn into the fray if the impasse continued. When a press spokesman told POLITICO on Wednesday that the grant delay was not a concern for the group, Trina Sheets, NEMA’s executive director, soon after followed up. “Obviously cities and counties are smaller and have a lot less leeway. States have a greater ability to manage this over a period of time,” she said. “When my staff said that, they were strictly speaking from a state perspective.” In a statement released to POLITICO late Wednesday night, FEMA appeared to set March 15 as a make-or-break date for getting a DHS appropriations bill enacted—if grants are to go out fully this fiscal year. “A lack of a full-year appropriation after March 15, 2015 will complicate FEMA’s ability to disburse funds over the remainder of the fiscal year, including to critical needs, such as Emergency Management Performance Grants,” a spokesperson said. “Without the matching federal grants, our state, local, and tribal partners may face difficult choices about how they will make ends meet or curtail their activities.

non

Hillary Clinton keynotes event to honor political journalism Hillary Clinton made an unusual appearance Monday evening - she keynoted an awards ceremony to honor political journalists. "I am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight," she said to the room of about 300 people, many of them journalists. "You know my relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated."Clinton joked that everyone had non-disclosure agreements under their seats, and then moved on to reflect on the life and legacy of Robin Toner, for whom the award was named. Toner was a longtime New York Times reporter who passed away in 2008, the first woman named to be the Times' national political correspondent. Clinton's appearance at the ceremony was a testament to her respect for Toner. "Mostly I am here because I really admired Robin, I admired her approach toward covering the events that I was involved in, directly, starting in the 1992 presidential campaign, when she covered that campaign," Hillary explained.Toner, who was also the Times' lead reporter for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run, sat down with Hillary Clinton for multiple interviews, the last one in 2007 when they spoke about healthcare. Clinton had just rolled out her healthcare plan for the 2008 presidential campaign."We had a long substantive conversation about what I had learned what the country had learned from the '93, '94 experience," Clinton reflected, describing Toner as a reporter who immersed herself in the details and hammered questions of substance in a way that was "totally fair." Clinton held up Toner, known to be a tough, meticulous reporter, as an example to be emulated even as the journalistic landscape changes. She challenged the journalists in the room to be thorough and measured. "You are facing fundamental questions that may not fit into 140 characters but are nonetheless vital to our democracy.I think the stakes are really high," Clinton said. "Too many of our most important debates occur in what I call an evidence-free zone, ideology trumping facts, made-for-cable shout-fests, twitter storms, drowning out substantive dialogue and reporting that often leads to shallower more contentious politics and even no or not the best public policy."On the same day that Sen. Tex Cruz (R-TX) renewed his commitment to repealing Obamacare, as a part of his speech announcing that he would run for president in 2016, Clinton talked about her policy priorities, should she decide to run for President. She'd still fight to expand healthcare to more Americans, she said, but hinted that she might be open to slight alterations to Obamacare."We should be exploring those [questions about the future of healthcare] but at the same time trying to ask ourselves how to improve the Affordable Care Act," Clinton said, adding "there is so much more to do." Clinton also praised Toner's twins -- noting that one of them, the editor-in-chief at her high school newspaper, might "Meerkat us at any moment."Despite what most would concede have been tough weeks for her in terms of the media attention paid to her email accounts and foreign donations to her family foundation, Clinton closed with a pitch for journalism, saying, "We need, more than ever, smart, fair-minded journalists to challenge our assumptions, push us toward new solutions and hold all of us accountable."

non

Impatience grows on Iran Bob Menendez warned President Barack Obama to keep his promise to walk away from talks with Iran if an agreement isn’t reached by a March deadline. Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who has been leading the push to increase sanctions on Iran, said he’s taking Obama at his word that there will be no more extensions of the timeline for an agreement on dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Story Continued Below “It can’t be an endless string of continuations of the status quo,” Menendez said Tuesday as he left a classified briefing for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with White House officials. “I don’t think there is any congressional appetite for endlessly continuing the status quo.” Obama tried to set a hard deadline Monday. “We’re at a point where they need to make a decision,” Obama told reporters. “We now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. The issues now are: does Iran have the political will and desire to get a deal done?” Negotiators for Iran and international powers including the United States have set a deadline of the end of March for reaching the framework of an agreement, and a deadline of June for working out the details. Menendez is holding off on pushing new sanctions on Iran until the March deadline passes. But Iran skeptics questioned how firm Obama’s deadline really is. “I hope he means it. The question is will he actually do it? We’ll see,” said Senate Banking Committee chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who’d oversee any new sanctions legislation. Many observers believe Obama has staked too much on completing a diplomatic opening to Iran — a country once seen as a member of the “axis of evil” — to back out of the talks now. Reaching a deal that dismantled Iran’s nukes and brought it out of its international isolation could become a key piece of his presidential legacy just as President Nixon restored diplomatic relations with communist China. Moreover, since Iran has frozen its program as talks continue, further delays may be seen as preferable to letting Iran return to pursuing a nuclear bomb unchecked. The problem is that many observers believe that, no matter Obama’s intentions, his options are limited if pressure doesn’t produce results. “What will the president do if the Iranians don’t meet the March deadline?” said Ken Pollack, a former Clinton administration official and author of “Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy.” “Do we start bombing? Do we pass new sanctions? I don’t think the administration is interested in any of that stuff.” Obama’s hard line, Pollack said, is “a statement that’s at best open to interpretation.” Even within the White House there are mixed feelings. For instance, should there be a final deal agreement, Obama aides don’t expect the president to be part of a signing ceremony, making it a lower-key event by letting Secretary of State John Kerry do the honors. A senior White House aide said that the administration isn’t planning to take Iran at its word, referring to a Russian adage made famous by Ronald Reagan — trust but verify. This deal will have “lots of verifying, and let’s face it, probably not much trusting,” the aide said. And within hours of Obama’s new hard line, the administration was hedging. The end of March, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters, “is a goal, it remains a goal. … we’ve never called it a deadline. We’ve called it a goal of when we want to achieve the political framework.” Meanwhile, impatience is growing on the Hill. “I trust his instincts and the negotiators’ instincts when it comes to Iran negotiations. They’ve been in a room with the Iranians. And I trust them to know when’s the right time to walk away from the table. But these negotiations can’t be endless,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. “The consequences of no deal are so catastrophic that we should give it a shot, but the Iranians have had a lot of time to show good faith.” “They have to know this is very serious, that they’re getting to the end of their timeline,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat who supports a new sanctions bill but won’t vote for it until after the March deadline passes.“The only thing the Iranians really understand is power and strength, and we’re going to show that.” Obama may also be willing to gamble that if the talks are extended further, he could stave off sanctions by threatening to veto them, daring Congress to pass them even if they don’t have the votes to override. “The administration has made it very clear they want this deal,” Pollack said. “And if there is the prospect of getting this deal even after March, that’s going to be their first choice.”

non

Republicans turn up heat on Dems in DHS fight The Republicans who control Congress have long pledged not to let the Department of Homeland Security shut down on their watch. But with its funding set to run dry in 17 days, and with the House and Senate still tied in knots over President Barack Obama’s immigration policies, no signs are emerging of a solution to the DHS standoff — and Republicans are ramping up their efforts to blame Democrats. Story Continued Below Senate GOP leaders waved surrender on one front Tuesday, acknowledging they won’t be able to overcome the stubborn filibusters that Democrats have waged against Republican attempts to roll back Obama’s immigration actions through the Homeland Security spending bill. Meanwhile, in a brief yet blistering interview, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) suggested that Senate Democrats deserved far more public blame for the impasse than they were getting. “The Republicans — if there is a successful attack during a DHS shutdown — we should build a number of coffins outside each Democratic office and say, ‘You are responsible for these dead Americans,’” Kirk said Tuesday. Kirk also told POLITICO: “In the end, eventually the lapdog media — of which you guys are probably all members of — is unable to call it for what it is: just pure politics to try to hurt the Republicans. I think Democrats mistakenly feel a shutdown is a scenario which advantages them.” Other Republicans tried to deflect the blame from their party, though using less dramatic language. “The Democrats are filibustering it,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. “I don’t know how we get blamed for that this time.” Short of a stopgap funding measure that seemingly no one wants — in either the Capitol or the administration — the GOP-led Congress remains short on specific ideas for avoiding a funding lapse that would risk furloughing tens of thousands of DHS workers and forcing 200,000 more Homeland Security personnel to work without pay. Instead, the $39.7 billion Homeland Security bill has become a legislative hot potato between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who looked at each other to make the next move. McConnell said Tuesday that the DHS ball was in the House Republicans’ court — telling reporters that his chamber was “clearly stuck” because of repeated Democratic filibusters to the bill the House passed last month. That bill would roll back a series of Obama’s directives on immigration dating back to 2011. “We can’t get on it, we can’t offer amendments to it,” McConnell said of the legislation. “And the next step is obviously up to the House.” His top deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), added: “We’re trying, we’ve done the best we can. At some point, the arithmetic is reality.” Senate Republicans such as Hatch and Jeff Flake of Arizona also said the House would have to come up with a new option that could get 60 votes in the Senate. But House Republicans have repeatedly said that their chamber has done its job and that it’s up to senators to find the requisite Democratic support to clear the must-pass funding bill. Republicans have tried to pressure a handful of Senate Democrats who opposed Obama’s unilateral immigration actions to join their side, but so far those moderate Democrats have showed no signs of budging. “Now, the pressure is on Senate Democrats who claim to oppose the president’s action, but are filibustering a bill to stop it,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Tuesday. “Until there is some signal from those Senate Democrats what would break their filibuster, there’s little point in additional House action.” Some senators suggested that a short-term funding bill for Homeland Security would be the likely endgame, although McConnell declined to say whether that was how the DHS fight would end. Some House Republicans and leadership aides privately have mulled a strategy in which the Senate would pass a DHS bill without immigration riders, then send it back to the House, which could amend it. Democrats could still block the measure in the Senate, and Obama would still threaten to veto it, but it would at least show some forward movement. The parties don’t disagree much on the funding provisions of the DHS bill, which Democrats and Republicans negotiated late last year. But the House-passed amendments aimed at gutting Obama’s executive actions on immigration have prompted the biggest partisan fight in the new GOP-led Congress. Obama’s actions could prevent deportations for nearly 5 million immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally and allow them to work here lawfully. The congressional battle comes as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that will implement the key part of Obama’s actions, prepares to start taking applications for the first phase of the new policy next week. November’s actions expanded the 2012 administration directive protecting so-called Dreamers — immigrants who came here illegally as children — and USCIS will start accepting applicants for that part on Feb. 18. Democrats are demanding a clean DHS bill free of immigration provisions, but several senior House Republican aides were skeptical that such legislation could pass the GOP-led House, even if carried mostly on Democratic votes. Still, Democrats indicated that few options exist for a way out of the quagmire short of a clean funding bill for the rest of the fiscal year. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the prospect of a short-term continuing resolution “very, very bad,” and Democrats listed several ways a stopgap bill would hamper DHS — reasons similar to those cited by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who was on the Hill on Tuesday. But Senate Democratic leaders also declined to flatly rule out a stopgap spending bill as a viable — and perhaps ultimate — option. “Jeh Johnson described it this way: It’s like going on a 300-mile trip on a five-gallon tank of gas,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “It just doesn’t work. So we much prefer to do full funding.” Johnson, who has frequently been on the Hill in recent days to urge lawmakers on funding for his department, stressed that point again. Earlier Tuesday, Johnson issued a statement that warned there would be no money to pay for enhanced border-security efforts if Congress resorts to a stopgap bill — saying DHS would be “constrained” by a short-term bill from improving security along the nation’s southwestern border and maintaining the boost in resources to deal with the consequences of last summer’s border crisis. In a brief gaggle with reporters after meetings on Capitol Hill, Johnson declined to say whether he would advise Obama to veto a short-term bill for his department. “We need a fully-funded appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and we need it real soon,” Johnson told reporters. “As long as we’re on a CR, there are things that we just cannot do.” John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

non

Bobby Jindal vs. the world In the past few weeks, Bobby Jindal has been attacked for insisting that Europe allows Muslims to control special “no-go zones,” belittled by the Weekly Standard for offering a “bizarre, anti-intellectual” position on overturning Obamacare, and dismissed as an underachieving lightweight for the Republican 2016 nomination. The Louisiana governor is relishing it all. Story Continued Below During a 40-minute interview in Washington late last week, an energized Jindal hit back at his critics on the right and left, dismissing them as elitist hacks who can’t stand the idea of an Ivy League-educated, unapologetic conservative. He accused GOP bosses in Washington of trying to sanitize the nomination battle and “get us to stop being so rude.” He blasted right-leaning writers who’ve criticized him, saying they’re just out to curry favor with the editorial page of The New York Times and get booked on the Sunday shows. And the 43-year-old governor argued that some Republicans are fine with crony capitalism, as long as their pockets are being lined. It’s all part of a concerted effort by the likely presidential candidate to run as the purest anti-Washington conservative in the GOP field — one who unlike, say, Ted Cruz, boasts years of executive experience. “There’s this tendency amongst even conservative elites to back away from our principles,” Jindal told POLITICO at the offices of the Republican Governors Association. “We need to be unafraid. … We don’t need to apologize for our beliefs.” Jindal, cognizant that he’s an early dark horse for the nomination, seems to be seeking out controversy wherever he can. He has been so unbending in arguing that Obamacare must be completely scrapped and repealed, for example, that a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard criticized him last week for offering a “bizarre, anti-intellectual jeremiad.” The conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru warned in another column that Jindal’s replacement plan for the health law is “unsuitable” because it “would cause millions of people to lose their coverage.” Jindal argues that any Republican replacement plan must focus on reducing costs and not replacing taxes with new revenue hikes. “I said famously in ’12 that we can’t be the party of no, that we can’t be the stupid party,” he added. “We’re beginning to realize we have to offer solutions, especially now that we’re in the majority in both chambers. But there’s still a reluctance to go all the way and stand up for our conservative principles.” The son of Indian immigrants has refused to back away from his speech in London last month in which he warned about “no-go zones” in Europe. Jindal publicly ripped Michael Gerson, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, for accusing him in a Washington Post column of fear-mongering when it comes to radical Islam. His team knew ahead of time that his speech would rile critics, but perhaps he didn’t fully appreciate how much of the backlash would come from the right. Asked about criticism from commentators, Jindal said: “Too many conservatives come to this town, and they want to be liked by The New York Times. It’s pretty easy to be a ‘smart’ conservative. … All you have to do is criticize your own party. … All of a sudden you’re a genius. They say, ‘He must be a really smart guy. We need to book him on our shows. We need to write good editorials about him.’ It’s not hard to do that.” This is a point that clearly exasperates and occupies significant mind-share within Jindal’s camp. Smart people in Washington assume that an Ivy League alum and Rhodes scholar must be pandering when he takes positions at odds with GOP elites, including advocating for a constitutional amendment to let states ban gay marriage, says longtime Jindal strategist Curt Anderson. “The option that the chattering class refuses to consider is that he’s right,” said Anderson. “The elites can simply not accept or even consider the notion that a smart person would not agree with them or would see the world differently.” Anderson says Jindal deserves to be in a category of his own: an authentic, culturally conservative, evangelical Catholic who was shaped profoundly by growing up in Baton Rouge. “Bobby Jindal is an intellectual who enjoys LSU football, as well as hunting and killing ducks, and then eating them,” Anderson half-jokes. Jindal said that he’s always been “a principled conservative across the board,” but “people may be paying more attention now or hearing it now.” As he moves toward a likely announcement for president, which aides say would come sometime in the first half of the year, Jindal is talking a lot like a conservative populist, using the language of “us” and “them” — whether he’s referring to GOP elites or Democrats. The “them” includes some unnamed Republicans in Washington whom Jindal said “are comfortable with crony capitalism. … Their only complaints about the Democratic-run Congress were that they weren’t getting the special deals. They don’t mind the deals; they just want them to benefit their clients.” He criticized top party officials in the capital for imposing new rules that may make it harder for an insurgent candidate to win the nomination, including by cutting the number of primary debates in half. Many in the tea party movement saw the move by the Republican National Committee as a power play to anoint an establishment favorite earlier. “We should rebel against this idea that the leadership is going to somehow narrow the field,” said Jindal. “There’s a big movement within our party … that they think that we’re the great unwashed,” he added. “They want to clean us up and put us in a box and try to get us to stop being so rude and outspoken and harsh. And they say, ‘Look, why can’t we just all come together and compromise?’” He went on to warn that his party is too beholden to big business and complain that corporate interests are behind the intra-GOP push for both “amnesty” and the Common Core testing standards. Immigration and education are two key issues on which the governor is setting himself apart from Jeb Bush, even as he steadfastly avoids criticizing him by name. Jindal advisers note that he remains relatively undefined compared to the other 2016 contenders, including among GOP primary voters in the early states. They joke that a lot of people might remember him only from his poorly delivered State of the Union response six years ago. In early polling, other candidates with much higher name ID, such as Cruz, are also polling in the single digits. Jindal, on the other hand, does not have high negatives among GOP base voters; those who know enough about him to offer an opinion tend to like him. At this early phase of the nominating process, there is a lot of chatter about what “lane” a candidate will fit into. Jeb Bush is in the establishment lane with Chris Christie, for instance. Who will appeal most to social conservatives? Jindal advisers believe that no one but the libertarian Rand Paul has any lane to himself. If he runs, Jindal would try to fill several lanes as a full-spectrum conservative. He’s an outspoken social conservative. He’s a hawk. He’s a policy wonk. But mainly he would be angling to be the smartest alternative on the right to whoever emerges as the favorite of the GOP establishment, whether it’s Bush or someone else. Through his policy-focused nonprofit, Jindal has rolled out plans on energy, defense, health care and education. He recently changed the name of his federal political action committee to match a super PAC that was set up to back a potential presidential bid. Both are called “Believe Again.” Jindal said he has no plans to play up his Indian-American heritage in a presidential campaign; he likes to say that he is against hyphenating Americans. He dismissed a controversy over a portrait hanging in the state capitol in Baton Rouge that shows Jindal with an almost white skin complexion, but he admits he worries about the rise of identity politics in both parties. “We don’t need to become a bunch of whiners,” Jindal said of Republicans. “We don’t need to be the next big victim class. … Absolutely I worry that it’s very tempting to fall in this trap.” “Every four years, you’ll have Republicans complain that the mainstream media is liberal and biased,” he added near the end of the interview. “It is, always has been, always will be. Get over it. Talking about it is not going to change it. The best thing to do is … go around them and make your case as forcefully as you can.”

non

Republicans: Barack Obama still not doing enough to boost economy President Barack Obama is still doing too little to promote economic growth, Republicans said Friday even as they welcomed the good news in the latest jobs report. Republicans have slowly embraced the idea that the monthly jobs reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show an economy on the mend. Friday’s report estimated that the economy created 257,000 jobs in January and revised December’s figure to 329,000 new jobs — with the latter meaning that more jobs were created in 2014 than any year since 1999. Story Continued Below Even so, House Speaker John Boehner said, “millions are still struggling and searching for a good job.” He said the economy needs a further boost, which could happen if Obama signs into law Republican-backed priorities like approving the Keystone XL pipeline and rolling back regulations. “If the president is serious about helping the middle class, he’ll reconsider his threat to veto these bills and work with us to get these things done,” the Ohio Republican said. And Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement that economic recovery is still “too fragile for far too many.” The jobs report put the unemployment rate at 5.7 percent — a slight uptick from December. The Obama administration heralded the report as a sign that the economy is on an upward trajectory. Obama said last week that Democrats need to be more aggressive in taking credit for job growth by trumpeting Obamacare and the stimulus as key factors. “America is poised for another strong year,” Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a blog post. “And so it is critical to avoid brinksmanship and unnecessary austerity, and instead to make investments in our future growth.” But Republicans pointed out that some areas of the economy haven’t returned to their pre-recession levels. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), the chairman-designate of the Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement that “unemployment remains unacceptably high.” Obama is set to travel to Coats’ home state Friday to discuss the economy. “It is welcome news that our economy added jobs at the start of the new year,” Coats said. “Despite this progress, full-time employment has yet to reach pre-recession levels and the amount of people participating in the workforce remains near 30-year lows.”

non

Rep. Paul Ryan brings free market zeal to trade debate Rep. Paul Ryan on Thursday brought his ideological love for free enterprise to the congressional debate over giving President Barack Obama “trade promotion authority,” arguing that U.S. companies and consumers benefit from trade agreements far more than they are harmed. “The thing about trade is, it can feel like a competition, where there’s always a winner and always a loser,” the former vice-presidential candidate said in what was billed as his first major trade speech since taking the helm of the House Ways and Means Committee in January. “But really, it’s more like a collaboration because both sides succeed. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do it. More trade means more people from every country, buying, selling, investing, creating — all working together to build a better world.” Story Continued Below Ryan, who was speaking to trade policy professionals at the Washington International Trade Association, promised quick action on trade promotion authority, a bill that would help the White House bring home a pair of big new trade agreements. He also said he expected movement on a raft of other trade legislation including renewals of the Generalized System of Preferences and African Growth and Opportunity Act, which waive duties on imports from poor countries, as well as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which cuts duties on manufacturing supplies that are hard to find, and a customs reauthorization and trade enforcement package. “Trade is good for America,” Ryan told group. “People have legitimate gripes with the global economy. But let’s be sure we’ve grabbed the right culprit. The problem isn’t when other countries play by the rules. It’s when they break the rules, or rather, it’s when they rig the rules in their favor. And I would argue that the best solution to that is more trade agreements.” U.S. business groups welcomed the speech, which they hoped would help set the stage for Congress to pass a bipartisan trade promotion authority bill as early as March. However, Obama still has a tough job rounding up support for the bill from fellow Democrats. “We think Chairman Ryan made a compelling case for why trade and U.S. trade agreements are drivers of U.S. growth, jobs and competitiveness in today’s global economy,” said David Thomas, vice president for trade policy at the Business Roundtable, which leads a coalition of more than 250 business groups pushing for approval of TPA. But critics of U.S. trade policy seized on data released earlier on Thursday that showed the U.S. trade deficit widened sharply in December to $46.6 billion and also increased for the entire year to $505 billion. One economist called the record month-to-month rise “a bit of shocker,” signalling slower-than-expected U.S. economic growth. “This abysmal new data shows how the past agreements that serve as the template for the trade deals Obama is now pushing destroy more middle-class jobs and further suppress wages,” Lori Wallach, head of Public Citizen’s Public Trade Watch, said in a statement underscoring the group’s opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement with Japan and 10 other countries, including Vietnam and Malaysia. Wallach zeroed in on the record $25.1 billion U.S. trade deficit with South Korea, saying that proved a free trade pact with that country that Congress approved in 2011 has not delivered the export boom that supporters expected. “Since the Korea FTA, our trade deficit with Korea has surged more than 80 percent, which equates to the loss of more than 70,000 U.S. jobs – the same number of jobs that the administration promised would be gained under the FTA,” Wallach said. Ryan did not discuss the trade report in his speech and seemed to cherry-pick other statistics to highlight the benefits of the trade deal with South Korea and two other pacts with Panama and Colombia that were also passed in 2011. “Vegetables to Korea, up 60 percent. Iron and steel to Colombia, up 100 percent. Household appliances to Panama, up 200 percent,” Ryan said. But he also argued the United States collectively has a trade surplus in manufactured goods trade with all 20 of its free trade partners, confirming “what we already knew: The American worker can compete with anybody if given a fair chance.” In addition, making a point rarely heard in the trade debate, Ryan said imports helped strengthen the U.S. economy, even though “global competition is tough.” “Ultimately, that’s a good thing. That means when families shop for groceries or buy a car, they have better choices. And thanks to lower duties on imports, the average American family of four saves $10,000 a year,” the congressional budget hawk said. In addition to his zeal for “free enterprise,” which he mentioned five times in the speech, Ryan laid down a number of red lines for both the Asia-Pacific agreement and another big pact, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership under negotiation with the 28 nations of the European Union. For the TPP, Ryan warned that both Canada and Japan must agree to eliminate their prohibitively high tariffs and other barriers to U.S. agricultural exports. He also pressed Europe on that point, saying it must eliminate all tariffs and end labeling requirements and restrictions on U.S. agricultural imports that are not based on sound science. Ryan also vigorously defended the trade promotion authority bill, which would allow Obama to submit both the Asia-Pacific and European trade agreements to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without any amendments. He argued the legislation was much more than that, since it is the primary means by which Congress tells the executive branch what it wants in trade agreements. “I think of it more as a contract,” Ryan said. “We say to the administration, if you want this up-or-down vote, you have to meet three requirements: Number one, you have to follow our guidelines. Number two, you have to talk to us. And number three, you have to remember: We get the final say.” He also insisted that Congress must approve TPA before the White House finishes negotiations on the Asia-Pacific pact because otherwise negotiators are unlikely to get the best possible deal. However, Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, has argued Congress should not approve TPA until it has a clear idea of what the final agreement looks like. “I agree with Chairman Ryan that when it comes to trade negotiations, Congress has to ‘get involved before the deal is done, not after it’s finished,’ which is why Congress must maintain its leverage until we know the TPP negotiations are on the right path to a more effective conclusion,” the Michigan Democrat said. “This is the most important trade negotiation in decades with economic ramifications for years to come. So we need to get it right.” But Ryan and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have already agreed on different approach and are pushing toward a vote on the trade promotion bill this spring, followed by a possible vote on the Asia-Pacific trade deal in the fall if an agreement is reached in coming months. Failing to pass TPA and complete the Asia-Pacific deal would be a blow to U.S. leadership in the world, Ryan said, while finishing the deals “would emphatically say: ‘Yes. Yes, you can count on the United States. We will be there. We won’t abandon the field. We will stick up for free enterprise and free people.”

non

Black leaders meet with Steve Scalise Leading black lawmakers met with embattled GOP Whip Steve Scalise last week to discuss a path forward after reports surfaced that the Louisiana Republican spoke at a Ku Klux Klan-associated conference while serving in the state Legislature. The meeting last Tuesday was orchestrated by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) and included Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), three other black lawmakers and Scalise. Butterfield said it was a productive meeting that he hoped would be the start of an “ongoing conversation.” Story Continued Below The North Carolina Democrat said he invited Scalise to an anniversary event in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the civil rights march that occurred there in 1965. “I expressed my great disappointment over his missteps over the last 12 years,” Butterfield said. “But I also expressed to him that we cannot dwell on his missteps forever and, at some point, we have to pivot to the future.” Richmond, who is black, was one of the first lawmakers to defend Scalise after reports surfaced that he spoke by videolink to a European-American Unity and Rights Organization event in 2002. The organization was founded by former KKK leader David Duke. Butterfield said the meeting was a chance for Scalise to move forward with African-American lawmakers, who asked the Republican to line up sponsors to a Voting Rights Act amendment. Also in attendance were members of the CBC executive board, which includes Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Andre Carson (D-Ind.) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.). Bass said she pushed Scalise during the meeting on a bipartisan piece of legislation she wants to see move more quickly through the House. “I had a good relationship with him and his wife so when the information about the speech came out, of course I was very surprised. I think most importantly, it opened up a relationship between Scalise and the Congressional Black Caucus,” said Bass, who noted she has traveled on congressional trips with Scalise. “It really began a process. It was positive overall.” Scalise separately met with Assistant Democratic Leader Rep. James Clyburn — the highest-ranking African-American in the House. On Tuesday, Scalise met with Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League — who was an outspoken critic after press reports first surfaced about the 2002 conference. Morial said he asked Scalise to make a speech on the House floor denouncing EURO’s views and facilitate further meetings between civil rights leaders and GOP House leaders. The civil rights leader said he was undecided if Scalise should step down from his post as the No. 3 Republican in the House. “I have been asked whether I would join calls for Rep. Scalise’s resignation, and following today’s meeting, I remain undecided. I am, however, hopeful that moving forward Rep. Scalise will demonstrate that he is serious about acting in good faith to build relationships across the board that can result in addressing critical issues of national concern — beyond ideology and for the good of all Americans, not a select few,” Morial said. Scalise’s office didn’t return a request for comment.

non

Boehner: No clear idea how McConnell will resolve DHS standoff If you thought congressional Republicans had a grand strategy to fund the Department of Homeland Security, think again. Asked Thursday morning whether he was clear about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s strategy to extend funding for DHS, House Speaker John Boehner grinned and said, “No.” “He’s got a tough job,” the Ohio Republican said. “He’s got a tough job over there, I got a tough job over here. God bless him and good luck.” Story Continued Below McConnell (R-Ky.) keeps his strategy under wraps, but DHS funding runs out Feb. 27, so lawmakers have little time. Senate Democrats have blocked consideration of the House’s DHS bill, which would also gut President Barack Obama’s executive actions to ease the enforcement of immigration laws.

non

Loretta Lynch's delayed vote over confirmation The debate about confirming Loretta Lynch is suddenly getting partisan. Democrats are now increasingly slamming Republicans’ handling of President Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general, accusing them of slow-walking the veteran federal prosecutor’s confirmation. Their newest evidence: the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision Thursday to postpone voting on Lynch until after next week’s recess — which means she won’t get a final floor vote until March, at least five weeks after her confirmation hearing. Story Continued Below The confirmation pace stands in especially stark contrast to how quickly the GOP-led Senate has taken up Ash Carter’s nomination for defense secretary. He first appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 4, was swiftly reported out of that panel earlier this week and is headed to a Thursday confirmation vote. “There’s so many similarities between the Lynch nomination and the Carter nomination,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of Lynch’s biggest boosters. “And to move Carter so quickly and to slow down Lynch is very troublesome, and I think they ought to move her ASAP.” One reason for the lag on Lynch is that after Obama nominated her in November, Senate Democrats agreed to postpone her confirmation into the new Republican-led chamber at the GOP’s request. Democrats meant it as a gesture of goodwill, and they also believed Lynch would be confirmed in either a Democratic- or GOP-controlled Senate. But now the Democratic anger is beginning to flare up. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) noted that Lynch has waited longer for a vote than any attorney general nominee in three decades. He urged Republicans to confirm Lynch, currently the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, before next week’s congressional recess — a request that will go unheeded. And Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, who chaired Judiciary when Democrats were in power, said that despite his personal objections to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey under the George W. Bush administration, he moved the process along in just under eight weeks. Republicans have said generally they have no beef with Lynch’s qualifications and résumé. But Republicans are using her nomination as one way to fight Obama over his executive actions on immigration, and they have also repeatedly pressed Lynch over issues involving current Attorney General Eric Holder — who has had a deeply contentious relationship with GOP lawmakers. In an interview Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a frequent Holder critic, said he was still undecided on whether he would support Lynch but sent a strong signal that he was not pleased with the federal prosecutor’s responses so far. “She needs to show me and a lot of other members that she’s going to be a different attorney general than Holder,” Grassley said in an interview. “I haven’t come to that conclusion that she has, and that’s what I’m looking for.” Grassley, who sent Lynch a list of 81 questions — many of them multipart — said he plans to send some follow-up queries to her. On Monday, Lynch returned answers to hundreds of inquiries submitted by committee members, known formally as questions for the record — together, they form a 221-page document. The partisan griping over process comes even though Lynch is expected to win support from both parties. Within Judiciary, Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona have said they will support her. On Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reiterated that he was inclined to back Lynch. “I think she’s a good nominee,” Graham said. When asked if the committee vote on Lynch will be held over until later this month, he responded: “I don’t know. I’m ready to vote.” Under the committee’s rules, any senator can ask for business, such as consideration of a nominee, to be held over for one week — a practice that doesn’t have to be deployed but has become routine. After Thursday’s delay, the next opportunity for a committee vote will be Feb. 26. Of the past five attorney general nominations taken up by the Judiciary Committee, only that of Alberto Gonzales was held over, according to Democrats. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who sits on both Judiciary and Armed Services and has dealt directly with both the Carter and Lynch nominations, said the practice of holding over Judiciary Committee business for one week is “reasonable and common.” He also drew a contrast between the two candidates, noting that Carter has already served in senior Pentagon positions. “Mr. Carter has operated at the top levels of the Defense Department for a number of years at various different times and has earned the respect of people on both sides of the aisle,” Sessions said. As for the attorney general position, Sessions added: “I think there is growing unease of the politicizing of the office of the attorney general, and it’s very controversial.” Lynch has also contended that she has been treated fairly, at least during her hearing. In a response to Grassley in the written questions, she thanked the chairman for the “respectful and courteous way that you chaired my confirmation hearing.” The Justice Department on Wednesday urged a speedy confirmation. “As she showed at her Senate hearing last month, U.S. Attorney Lynch has a distinguished record as a no-nonsense, career prosecutor,” DOJ spokesman Brian Fallon said. “Senators from both sides of the aisle have praised her as highly qualified and deserving of confirmation. We hope and expect the Senate will act on her nomination as quickly as possible.” At her hearing, Lynch impressed Democratic senators and picked up some support from Republicans, who have not protested her qualifications. But several GOP senators were frustrated with her defense of Obama’s controversial executive actions, which she testified are legal. One of the committee’s newest Republicans, freshman Sen. David Perdue of Georgia, announced his opposition to Lynch in a statement Wednesday, adding that he “strongly” disagreed with Lynch’s support for Obama’s actions. “While Ms. Lynch may have an impressive résumé, she did not adequately answer the committee’s questions nor alleviate my concerns about the consistency with which she applies our nation’s laws,” Perdue said. “After thoroughly reviewing her record and testimony, I am not confident she will defend the Constitution, especially when the president seeks to abuse his power.” Senators put her through one more round of grilling through hundreds of written questions on issues spanning from immigration to war authorization, from enforcement of marijuana laws to guns, and other topics as esoteric as wildlife trafficking. The attorney general nominee stayed on message — offering no new major revelations, repeatedly declining to weigh in on dicey policy matters and striking the same themes as her committee testimony last month. More than once, Lynch promised that the Constitution will be her “lodestar” if she becomes the next attorney general — the prominent message of her opening remarks before the committee. And when Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked her to list three ways she would differ from Holder, Lynch stressed how she would bring her own approach in leading the Justice Department, such as “fostering a new and improved relationship” with Congress; bolstering DOJ’s efforts on cybercrime; and giving more attention to the “scourge of human trafficking.” On the issue of oversight, Lynch also pledged to Flake that if she’s confirmed, she will work to improve DOJ’s response time for congressional inquiries. And she repeated multiple times that the department’s legal rationale for Obama’s sweeping executive actions on immigration is “reasonable” — a subject raised by numerous committee Republicans. As she did before the committee, Lynch explained her answers through a legal lens, and she deferred answering questions about many hot-button issues — such as queries on voting rights laws and the immigration executive actions — since they are tied up in pending court cases.

non

Pelosi not committed to attending Bibi's speech House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi left the door open Thursday to not attending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress next month, in a fresh sign of tension on Capitol Hill around the prime minister’s visit. Pelosi, speaking to reporters Thursday, said that “as of now” she’ll attend the speech, but allowed that members of Congress have busy schedules. Story Continued Below “I’m seriously considering going,” said the California Democrat. “As of now it is my intention to go. It is still my hope that the event will not take place. There is a serious unease. But don’t even think in the terms of boycott. Members will go or they won’t go as they usually go or don’t go.” Dozens of Democrats are privately considering skipping the speech because Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) didn’t consult the White House about the invitation and scheduled the event close to next month’s Israeli election. Boehner defended his decision Thursday, saying the invitation was “a very good idea.” “There’s a message that the American people need to hear, and I think he’s the perfect person to deliver it,” Boehner said. “The threat of radical Islamic terrorists is a real threat. The threat of Iran to the region and the rest of the world is a real threat. And I believe that the American people are interested in hearing the truth about what’s happening in that part of the world.”

non

The Republican Party's 2016 war primary Sen. Lindsey Graham wants Congress to give President Barack Obama unequivocal authority to fight Islamic State militants. Yet Sen. Ted Cruz says lawmakers should be wary of handing the commander in chief a “blanket authorization” to wage war. Sen. Marco Rubio is open to sending ground troops into the region if that’s what it takes to win. But Sen. Rand Paul says he’s “not eager” to send troops back to the Middle East, and he’s demanding that Congress set a one-year timeline for a war authorization to expire. Story Continued Below As Congress prepares to dive into its most politically charged debate in years over war and peace, the four Republican senators considering 2016 presidential bids are staking out diverging positions on how much power to give Obama — a fight that is bound to drive the argument on which candidate would best defend the U.S. from threats abroad. The GOP presidential field consists of roughly two dozen potential candidates, but these are the only four who can help shape the proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force and will have to vote on it. If they vote yes and the war campaign goes poorly, they could own the consequences, as Hillary Clinton did after backing the Iraq War authorization in 2002. If they oppose it, they could be castigated as weak on defense at a time when military and political leaders are calling for partisan posturing to be put aside — much like the congressional Democrats who saw their presidential hopes dented after voting against the 1991 Gulf War. “I think it’s going to show divisions,” Graham said, “between those who understand what it takes to contain the threat and defeat the threat versus those who are just stumbling around trying to find a political sweet spot.” Foreign policy has already become a political flash point for 2016. Rubio argues that his Senate experience sets him apart from governors who have little background on foreign affairs. Graham, who serves in the Air Force Reserve, would heavily promote his hawkish national security views and his calls for an assertive U.S. presence in the world. Cruz, a likely candidate, is positioning himself between the neoconservative and isolationist wings of the party, while Paul has long sought a less aggressive American role overseas. In interviews with POLITICO, all four senators laid out their views on the AUMF, showcasing the divide that is about to become more pronounced on the campaign trail. Paul is clearly aiming for younger and war-weary primary voters eager to see the next president exercise restraint before sending troops into harm’s way. “I’m not for declaring a worldwide war where I can send troops anywhere anytime,” said Paul, the libertarian former congressman’s son, who won his first foray into public office in 2010. “I’m not for sending 100,000 troops back to the Middle East.” Last fall, Paul offered an AUMF proposal that would have declared war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, with some caveats. It would rescind existing war authorities for Afghanistan and Iraq approved after the Sept. 11 attacks; it would limit the use of ground forces to intelligence-gathering, attacks on high-value targets and situations where U.S. citizens face an imminent threat; and it would expire one year after enactment. “I’m willing to give my opinion about what I believe; the question is whether or not it resonates,” Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said when asked how his views would play with GOP primary voters. “But I think, frankly, that there are many in the Republican Party who are not eager to send ground forces back into the Middle East.” Graham, a South Carolina Republican, shot back. “The idea that you would declare war for one year and not use any ground troops probably is not going to be taught at West Point,” said Graham, who was elected to his seat in 2002. While Paul calls the 2003 invasion of Iraq “a mistake” that spawned chaos in the region, Graham, a staunch supporter of the war effort, said the Kentuckian “just doesn’t get radical Islam.” “The isolationist, libertarian wing of the party really believes we brought this upon ourselves,” said Graham, who has been back to Afghanistan four times over the past two years for Air Force Reserve duty. “The fact of the matter is: This is a religious war.” On the AUMF, Graham said he’s opposed to setting conditions because he’s not “into restricting our ability to defeat ISIL.” “I don’t want to restrict the commander in chief’s options,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “You can’t have 535 commanders in chief.” Rubio, a Florida Republican elected in 2010, has foreign policy views that more closely align with Graham’s. And he’ll have the first chance to square off with Paul, since both men serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will get the initial crack in shaping the use-of-force resolution. While Paul’s proposal last year limited the scope of the fight to ISIL, Rubio said the language should be broader because the U.S. faces a “rapidly evolving conflict” in which the militant organization could “quickly morph into something different over a period of time, as we’ve already seen happen.” “We shouldn’t be dictating in legislation: You can do this but you can’t do that, you can go here but you can’t go there,” Rubio said of an AUMF. “I think it should be broad enough to allow him latitude on choosing the tactics, the method, the timing, etc. — that’s not just President Obama, it’s future commanders in chief.” Asked about sending ground troops into the region, Rubio said, “I’m open to doing whatever it takes to defeat them.” He added that the president must make a “a cost-benefit analysis” to determine whether U.S. troops would fight alongside Iraqi forces or if they would face threats from militias backed by Iran. “Ultimately, I think we need to do what we can within the realm of the responsible to defeat them,” he said. With their perches on the Foreign Relations Committee, both Paul and Rubio have had a series of high-profile and bitter splits, including over Cuba policy, foreign aid to Egypt and arming moderate Syrian rebels. Yet the two were on the same page in 2013 when they both voted against a resolution authorizing force against Syrian President Bashar Assad, while Graham strongly supported a bombing campaign against the Assad regime. Cruz, a Texan who was elected in 2012, is more known for his stands against Obamacare and immigration than foreign policy. Yet he serves on the Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Pentagon, and has tried to push a national security policy in between the Graham and Paul wings of the party. In an interview, Cruz said the effort against ISIL “has been unfocused” and that the administration needs to seek congressional approval immediately. But when asked if there should be limits on an AUMF, Cruz said: “We need to see what specifically the administration asks for, and what they are purporting to do with the authorization. I don’t think an amorphous and blanket authorization for military force with no time limits is a sensible approach.” While Cruz’s main argument for the nomination is that he’s been a leader in the fight to derail the president’s agenda, agitating leaders in both parties, both Rubio and Graham seem ready to pull the national security card if they mount bids for the White House. While just 43 years old and a first-term senator, Rubio has dived into foreign affairs, taking nine official trips around the world, heading everywhere from Afghanistan and Pakistan in January 2011 to Japan, the Philippines and South Korea in January 2014.  While governors could make good commanders in chief, Rubio said, senators have the inherent advantage of being grounded in national security issues that are central to being president. “My point is there are advantages to being a governor,” Rubio said. “It’s also important to understand the predominant issue before the federal government is national security and national defense.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party’s 2008 presidential nominee and Graham’s closest friend in the Senate, said that once national security concerns begin to get heightened attention, his South Carolina colleague will rise in the polls should he mount a presidential campaign. “As things get worse, Lindsey Graham will gain more prominence,” McCain said. Asked what set Graham apart from Rubio, McCain said flatly: “Vast experience.\"

non

Ted Cruz to launch presidential bid Texas Sen. Ted Cruz plans to announce Monday that he is running for president, an adviser to Cruz has confirmed to CBS News.The 44-year-old Cruz will be the first high-profile candidate to formally launch a White House bid, although several GOP contenders are expected to enter the race in the coming weeks. The Republican firebrand has been touring the country, making stops at states pivotal in a general election campaign, in preparation for a reported 2016 run.Questions of his birthplace might haunt the Texan senator, who was born in Canada, but legal scholars generally agree that it wouldn't disqualify him from a presidential bid."It's pretty clear that he's eligible because he was a citizen at birth," Peter Spiro, a law professor at Temple University, told CBS News in 2013, when Cruz first released his birth certificate to quiet critics.After joining the Senate in 2013, Cruz established himself as an uncompromising conservative willing to take on Democrats and Republicans alike. He promises to repeal the federal health care law, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and scrap the Education Department.His antics in the upper chamber, which included a 21-hour faux filibuster opposing Obamacare in 2013, have earned him notoriety. And though his appeal to the hyper-conservative wing of Republicans -- and to tea party hardliners in particular -- has given him a high profile since his election to the Senate, some remain skeptical about his electability to national office. Cruz's plans were first reported by The Houston Chronicle.

non

David Petraeus: Biggest threat to Iraq's future is Iran, not ISIS The greatest threat to long-term stability in Iraq is not Sunni militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but rather the Iranian-backed Shiite militias who have helped oust ISIS from parts of the country, General David Petraeus warned in an interview published Friday by the Washington Post. Petraeus, who commanded U.S. troops during the height of America's war in Iraq, said the current situation there is "hard but not hopeless." He warned, though, that the Iranians will not play a constructive role in Iraq's future, despite the fact that the U.S. and Iran share a common foe in ISIS."I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq's long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by -- and some guided by -- Iran," he said."They prevented the Islamic State from continuing its offensive into Baghdad," he acknowledged. "Nonetheless, they have, in some cases, cleared not only Sunni extremists but also Sunni civilians and committed atrocities against them.Thus, they have, to a degree, been both part of Iraq's salvation but also the most serious threat to the all-important effort of once again getting the Sunni Arab population in Iraq to feel that it has a stake in the success of Iraq rather than a stake in its failure." Left unchecked, the Shia militias could "emerge as the preeminent power" in Iraq, he said,"outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran." "The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East," Petraeus explained. "It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. The more the Iranians are seen to be dominating the region, the more it is going to inflame Sunni radicalism and fuel the rise of groups like the Islamic State. While the U.S. and Iran may have convergent interests in the defeat of [ISIS], our interests generally diverge." Petraeus also suggested he's worried about the ongoing conflict in Syria, which he described as a "geopolitical Chernobyl." "Until it is capped, it is going to continue to spew radioactive instability and extremist ideology over the entire region," he said, suggesting that any lasting solution to the conflict in the region must bring tensions under control in both Syria and Iraq. Petraeus has recently been in the news due to some legal troubles. He was accused earlier this year of giving classified materials to Paula Broadwell, his mistress and biographer, while he was the director of the CIA. Earlier this month that he entered an agreement to plead guilty to a single count of mishandling classified materials. He will be sentenced on April 23. In spite of his legal woes, Petraeus is still advising the White House on security issues in Iraq, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday.

non

Boehner: Will Senate Dems ‘get off their a—’ on DHS bill? Never mind that Republicans control all of Capitol Hill, House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday wondered when Senate Democrats will “get off their — and do something other than to vote no” on a House GOP plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security. “The House did its job,” Boehner said to reporters Wednesday after a closed-party meeting. “We won the fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to stop the president’s unconstitutional actions. Now it’s time for the Senate to do their work. In the gift shop out there, they’ve got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law. Alright? The House has done its job.” Story Continued Below Senate Democrats have voted uniformly against taking up a House bill that would fund DHS through the end of the fiscal year, while gutting President Barack Obama’s changes to the enforcement of immigration laws. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that it’s up to Boehner’s House to pass another bill that can get through the Senate. In December, when Boehner designed the plan to fight over Obama’s immigration executive actions this month, he promised to fight tooth-and-nail. Asked if it’s working as he envisioned, Boehner said, “It’s working exactly the way I envisioned.” “The issue here is not Senate Republicans, it’s Senate Democrats,” Boehner said. When reminded that McConnell said it’s up to him to pass a bill, Boehner smiled and said, “I love Mitch. He has a tough job to do, and so do I.”

non

Mississippi Rep. Alan Nunnelee dies at age 56 Mississippi Republican Rep. Alan Nunnelee has died from complications related to a brain tumor, his family announced on Friday. The Republican was diagnosed with cancer in May and was sent to home hospice last month after doctors discovered a second, untreatable tumor in his brain. Story Continued Below “Congressman Alan Nunnelee has gone home to be with Jesus,” his family said in a statement. “He was well loved and will be greatly missed.” The Republican’s condition worsened after he had a stroke during an operation to remove the first tumor last fall. Nunnelee briefly returned to Capitol Hill in a wheelchair following the November elections but has been receiving treatment for most of the past month that kept him from Congress. In January, doctors decided to end the cancer treatment and moved Nunnelee to hospice. Nunnelee, 56, was first elected to Congress in 2010 after defeating Rep. Travis Childers, a Democrat. A longtime member of the Mississippi state Senate before he was elected to the House, Nunnelee served on the House Appropriations Committee. The Mississippi Republican was a hard-line conservative known for strong right-wing views. For instance, while serving in the Mississippi Senate in 2001, Nunnelee enacted legislation to have the motto “In God We Trust” placed in school classrooms. On Capitol Hill, Nunnelee was a strong proponent of cutting government spending and repealing Obamacare. He is survived by his wife, Tori Bedells, and three children, Reed Nunnelee, Emily Nunnelee and Nathan Nunnelee. Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said Nunnelee was a low-key “workhorse” on his panel. “Alan was one of those rare individuals that was driven, astute, and loyal to God, family, and country. He was a true gentleman at his very core,” Rogers said. “As a colleague, he was a workhorse — at times eschewing the limelight but ever-willing to dig down and get the hard work done. His work in Congress and on the Appropriations Committee is a testament to his dedication to making his district and this country a better place for all. And as a friend, no one could ask for a more loyal and decent man by your side.” His death creates a second vacancy in the House. Former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) resigned before the start of the 114th Congress. A special election to replace Grimm has not been set yet.

non

Senate’s third try at DHS bill fails The third time wasn’t the charm. Senate Democrats again on Thursday rejected a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security over their opposition to riders that would block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The failed 52-47 vote was the third time this week that Democrats have refused to even debate the House GOP’s proposal. Story Continued Below McConnell changed his vote to no, which allows him to bring the stalled proposal up for a fourth vote at his whim. Party leaders Thursday morning recycled their rhetoric from earlier in the week as McConnell again blasted Democrats for not even debating the bill and Minority Leader Harry Reid linked recent terrorist attacks overseas with the possibility of a Feb. 27 funding lapse for DHS. The stalemate quickly descended into an extended floor spat between Reid and McConnell — the first such direct confrontation of this Congress. “There is bipartisan support to move forward on a free-standing bill that sends Homeland Security directly to the president,” Reid said during a tense back-and-forth. “We want to do that. That’s what should be done.” A bemused McConnell responded by reminding the Nevada Democrat who runs the Senate now: “As my good friend the Democratic leader reminded me for eight years, the majority leader always gets the last word.” “I’m sure we’ll resolve this sometime in the next few weeks,” McConnell (R-Ky.) said as the exchange ended. With a week-long recess scheduled for the holiday week of Feb. 16, Congress has only a handful of legislative days to figure out how to avoid blowing its first major deadline of the year. But three weeks ahead of that deadline, which was created by the December “Cromnibus” funding bill, no proposal exists that can pass both chambers of Congress. House conservatives have insisted on including riders blocking Obama’s efforts to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. McConnell has repeatedly brought that measure to the floor to the unanimous opposition of Democrats. The exercise is intended to demonstrate to House Republicans that nothing can pass the Senate without Democratic support. But the series of failed votes is beginning to frustrate rank-and-file Republicans and ratchet up tensions between GOP House members and senators. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) came to the floor Thursday morning to offer her idea of funding DHS and blocking Obama’s broader 2014 executive action while leaving untouched the more narrow 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which affected certain undocumented immigrants. “We have reached an impasse,” Collins said. “I urge my colleagues to give consideration to my proposed compromise.” But her plan won’t fly with Democrats. Reid says his caucus of 46 Democrats will not accept anything other than a clean funding bill, a position supported by moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Collins’ proposal still amounts to legislative “hostage-taking.” “I don’t appreciate the results she’s asked for,” Schumer said of Collins. “But I always appreciate her efforts.”

non

Senate confirms new drug czar It wasn’t a new attorney general or defense secretary, but the Senate still hit a milestone on Monday by confirming President Barack Obama’s first nominee following a Republican takeover of that chamber. The Senate voted 92 to 0 to approve Michael Botticelli as director of National Drug Control Policy, a nomination that didn’t even draw procedural opposition in the hyper-partisan Senate. Story Continued Below Botticelli was so noncontroversial that he was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee just last week and was whisked onto the Senate floor for a Monday vote, a brief turn to executive nominations while Republicans struggle legislatively to fund the Department of Homeland Security past Feb. 27. Defense Secretary nominee Ash Carter could also be confirmed later this week before Congress goes on a week-long recess, aides said. In announcing his support for Botticelli, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Botticelli has promised a spring visit to the GOP leader’s home state of Kentucky, which is dealing with worsening opioid addiction problems. “Drug abuse is a serious problem in my home state,” McConnell said. “Visits like these help ensure continued federal efforts on Kentucky’s drug problem. And I look forward to working with the next drug czar to move closer to the day when drug abuse is no longer ravaging our families and our communities.” Botticelli is a recovering alcoholic who has served as the acting director of National Drug Control Policy for nearly a year and will have to guide the Obama administration through an unprecedented period of uncertainty for the nation’s drug laws as four states and the District of Columbia recently voted to legalize marijuana. Votes on whether to legalize pot in more states are planned for 2016. A D.C. resident, Botticelli made waves on Friday when he backed D.C.’s ability to spend its own money on legalization after congressional Republicans blocked federal spending on the new law in a December bill. Botticelli said he is against legalization but pro-budget autonomy for the District. “I might not agree about legalization, but I do agree with our own ability to spend the money that we want.],” Botticelli said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

non

Doctors say data fees are blocking health reform As they move to exchange patient information with hospitals and other health care partners, doctors are suffering sticker shock: The vendors of the health care software want thousands of dollars to unlock the data so they can be shared. It may take an act of Congress to provide relief. Story Continued Below The fees are thwarting the goals of the $30 billion federal push to get doctors and hospitals to digitize health records. The exorbitant prices to transmit and receive data, providers and IT specialists say, can amount to billions a year. And the electronic health record industry is increasingly reliant on this revenue. The goal of the 2009 program wasn’t just to move doctors from paper chart to computer. It was also to share the information, improve the quality of patient care and ultimately bring down U.S. health care costs. Most doctors and hospitals have now switched to electronic health records, or EHRs. But the information is often stuck in computers run by hundreds of competing health care software companies — with incompatible products and scant incentive to make them compatible, or “interoperable,” as the industry calls it. The additional costs were not foreseen during the bipartisan congressional push to create the federal incentive program. The expense is now imperiling the broad efforts to reform health care and adding to the host of technical obstacles that already hamper the flow of information. “I believe this to be the biggest threat to the investment the nation has made in health IT,” said David Kendrick, head of Oklahoma’s health information exchange, which links doctors, hospitals and labs in his state. “All the money spent on electronic health records has yielded only a fraction of the value of getting interoperability.” “It’s like giving everyone cellphones and not putting up a cell tower,” he added. GOP congressional leaders are usually reluctant to intrude on business practices. But in this case, some GOP lawmakers are considering sanctions on the software vendors. “Interoperability is what makes an EHR useful,” said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), a physician who leads the House Energy and Commerce trade subcommittee and is drawing up a bill to enforce data sharing. “It’s unfair that practitioners have to spend money on connections they thought were part of the EHR when they bought it.” And it’s frustrating to physicians trying to tap into the promise of real-time electronic patient information. “My vendor holds my data hostage, and I have to pay a ransom to access it,” said an Oregon primary care doctor. The potential of shared data to improve the quality of care while containing costs was one big reason the federal government paid doctors to get electronic health records. Getting that information in real time lets doctors keep tabs on their sickest patients. That Oregon doctor, for example, could learn immediately when a diabetic patient entered an ER with a foot infection, rather than finding out a week later — when it was too late to make sure he got out of the hospital fast with the right medications to take home. When data sharing works, it has good results. “The minute any one of my patients is seen at a hospital or gets an X-ray, the result goes immediately to my electronic health record,” said Ed Bujold, a western North Carolina family doctor. An affiliated hospital system waived a $10,000 fee to set up Bujold’s electronic pipeline. But in general, doctors pay $5,000 to $50,000 each for the privilege of setting up connections allowing them to transmit information regularly to blood and pathology laboratories, health information exchanges or governments, according to more than a dozen sources interviewed for this story. Sometimes additional fees are charged each time a doctor sends or receives data. “The No. 1 factor hindering the exchange of information between health care stakeholders is the exorbitant fees that most EHRs are charging for integration, connectivity and reporting,” said Lance Donkerbrook, chief operating officer of Commonwealth Primary Care ACO, an affiliation of 250 independent physicians. They can’t share information because they have 30 different EHRs among them, and each vendor wants $7,500 to $40,000 to connect them, he said. “The government needs to step in immediately and require these vendors to open access,” he said. The Electronic Health Records Association, which represents most vendors, would not comment on companies’ pricing policies. But it said the connections were expensive because of the lack of common computer-code standards across the hundreds of EHR manufacturers. “As with other areas of health care, variability increases costs, and all stakeholders in health care need to work together to reduce this variability and the factors that drive it,” said Sarah Corley, the association’s vice chairwoman and chief medical officer of NextGen Healthcare. Some question EHR makers’ commitment to easier access. New York and 18 other states spent five years creating simple standards for EHRs to link to health information exchanges in order to eliminate the need to connect with individual EHRs through individual interfaces — “each one a handcrafted engineering problem that costs thousands of dollars and takes weeks if not months of engineering to connect,” said David Whitlinger, executive director of the New York eHealth Collaborative.

non

Rep. Steve Cohen references slavery in Giuliani tweet Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) caused a stir on Twitter on Friday afternoon in attacking Rudy Giuliani over his comments that President Barack Obama “doesn’t love America.” “Rudy Giuliani questioned how much, or even if, President Obama loves America. Maybe he thinks he loves it 3/5 as much as Giuliani & his pals,” Cohen tweeted at noon Friday — an apparent reference to the pre-13th Amendment constitutional compromise between Northern and Southern states that said slaves should be treated as three-fifths of an American for taxes and congressional representation. Cohen told POLITICO he has been getting both negative and positive responses about the post. Story Continued Below “I’m always going to have criticism from the extreme right,” he said, calling the attacks on Obama part of a “continuing strain” with racial undertones since the president took office in 2009. “This is code,” he said. It’s not the first time the Tennessee Democrat has made the news for a tweet. In 2013, Cohen exchanged tweets during the State of the Union with a 24-year-old woman he later revealed to be his daughter, only to find out from a paternity test that she was not. Days later, Cohen tweeted: “Told AfricanAmerican towdriver my week -father -DNA test not father reporter/ attractive fallout.he(not aware of TN9)says,You’re BLack! Yo.”

non

IRS under a spotlight for freezing assets On April 12, 2013, the IRS seized every penny of a nearly $1 million business account held by Georgia gun shop owner Andrew Clyde. His misdeed — if you can call it that: depositing business checks into his bank account in increments under $10,000. Story Continued Below A bipartisan group of lawmakers on House Republicans are on Wednesday preparing to shine a spotlight on the government’s practice of seizing small business civil assets without charging them with a crime, signaling a new oversight focus on an issue gaining more attention and hinting at new legislation backed by both parties. In one instance, a U.S. attorney suggested to one witness’s attorney that he may be getting a harsher punishment because the witness spoke to the press, according to an email reviewed by POLITICO. “There is a strong indication that the IRS has been involved in civil forfeiture that has hurt innocent people,” said House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee chairman Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) in a brief interview, calling it an “abuse by the federal government against citizens.” The hearing was the first for Roskam, who takes over the subcommittee that in the past year focused nearly exclusively on the IRS tea party targeting controversy. But Wednesday’s hearing struck a rare bipartisan accord as Democrats joined their counterparts in lecturing the IRS. “Whether or not it is within the law, it is wrong to, without any criminal evidence, seize somebody’s property,” New York Democrat Charles Rangel fumed. “Common sense and decency says that when the Congress screws up, we expect you people to come back and say this is not working.” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in the hearing apologized to “anyone who got caught up in this,” calling lawmaker’s concerns “legitimate and appropriate.” But he also said his agents were merely following the law. Under the law, banks must report cash bank deposits of $10,000 or more to the federal government — a provision aimed at catching illicit traffickers. Criminals have tried to sidestep the reporting requirement by keeping their deposits under the $10,000 threshold that triggers the reports, a practice called “structuring” that is also illegal. The IRS — like other agencies that engage in the practice, such as the DEA or FBI — has sweeping authority to take assets, having to prove only “preponderance of evidence.” They don’t have to charge anyone with a crime or present any evidence that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but can get a seizure warrant solely by presenting bank statements showing that a business has deposited amounts under $10,000. Critics say that shows nothing. Although the seizure issue crosses several agencies, Roskam’s panel homed in on the IRS, bringing in small business-owner witnesses who had their money taken without a warning while the House Judiciary Committee held a separate hearing at the same time from a Justice Department perspective. Koskinen said the agency is addressing the problem, having announced last October that it will seize assets only after finding “probable cause” that depositors are engaging in criminal activity, not just “structuring” — and only after it’s approved by an IRS senior executive. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed interest in doing more. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), for example, who apologized to the witnesses “for what IRS did to you,” told POLITICO after the hearing that he is interested in legislation that would allow the victims to regain money lost from their predicaments. That’s something the majority also has brainstormed. There has been bipartisan backing to increasing the threshold for seizing assets before, including bills by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), former Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and ranking member Sander Levin (D-Mich.). The broad power in question was aimed at making it easier to catch the bad guys. But the IRS in recent years has used the authority to net small-business owners they believe could be intentionally keeping deposits under $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements. The IRS between 2005 and 2012 seized more than $242 million for suspected structuring violations in more than 2,500 cases, according to data obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request by the Institute for Justice, a conservative nonprofit representing a number of individuals affected by the practice. It made 639 such seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005. And, according to the group who testified Wednesday, “at least” a third of such seizures resulted simply because the businesses were making multiple bank deposits under $10,000. They say no other criminal activity was ever alleged. “How can you be guilty on a suspicion?” asked Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). “This flies in the face of everything we are as a country.” Koskinen retorted that IRS doesn’t make the decision on its own but with a U.S. attorney and a federal judge, though he later specified that IRS agents initially flag and bring the cases to the Justice Department. He said the predicament of the small-business owners doesn’t happen often, noting that in 60 percent of the cases when there is a seizure, no one shows up, suggesting that a criminal is behind the pot of cash and has fled. Still, those caught up in the storm have a tough job of showing they didn’t do anything wrong, but sometimes they don’t get to see a judge for months or years. “The burden of proof basically shifts — it’s incumbent on small businesses to prove they’re innocent,” said Kevin Brown, former acting IRS Commissioner, who was flabbergasted by the way the policy was being used on small businesses. That’s what happened with Clyde, the owner of Clyde Armory. He kept his deposits under $10,000 because his insurance limited coverage for losses due to robbery over $10,000, according to his testimony obtained by POLITICO. After the IRS seized his $940,313 account, he ended up settling to pay $50,000 to avoid a public dispute that could hurt his business and reputation, he will tell the panel. He spent $149,000 on legal bills trying to get his money back. Small businesses often end up settling for three reasons: It can hurt their public image; it can take years to unfreeze their assets; and it costs money to fight back. Jeff Hirsch, who will also testify, fought for two and a half years with his brothers against the IRS to get back more than $446,000 worth of assets the IRS seized from his family business in May 2012. They never got to bring their case before a judge because the government never started the forfeiture proceedings, locking up the assets used to operate their Long Island-based company that distributes snacks to convenience local stores. They relied extensively on credit, paid $25,000 to hire an outside auditing firm to dig through their books and another $25,000 in lawyer bills. Three weeks ago, the IRS dropped the case. It returned the funds, without any interest and without ever charging the brothers with a crime. But some can’t afford to wait as Hirsch did. Randy Sowers, who also appeared Wednesday, decided he and his wife couldn’t operate their Maryland-based dairy farm and creamery without their capital after the IRS took their entire business account balance of more than $62,000. They settled, forfeiting $29,500. Sowers may have gotten an even harsher settlement than others because he talked to the press about his predicament, according to an email exchange shared with POLITICO. His lawyer had asked assistant U.S. attorney Stefan D. Cassella why his client, as part of the settlement, had to acknowledge that the government had “reasonable cause” to take his assets even though he disagreed — despite the fact that another person in a similar case did not have to knowledge this. Cassella retorted in an email that the other person didn’t have have to do that because he “did not give an interview to the press.” Sowers had just talked to a Baltimore-based newspaper, which ran a story on his predicament. IRS has said from now on it will only focus on seizing the assets of those suspected of illicit activity unless it is an “exceptional circumstance,” but at least two former IRS experts weren’t sure how they could classify which accounts were illegal and which weren’t upon initial inspection and seizure. Republicans intend to also push the IRS to apply the recent policy change retroactively, giving businesses that settled in recent years the opportunity to re-open their cases and get some sort of reprieve. They’ll also be seeking more information for the hike in asset seizures in 2012 and 2013. While the number of IRS seizures between 2005 and 2014 often averaged around 1,500, totals reached more than 3,000 during 2012 and 2013. It decreased again in 2014. Republicans want to know why they doubled, then dropped again. IRS will say the recent drop is because it had to scale back its resources, according to a panel source briefed on the position they’ll take. The GOP also wants to know what percentage of assets seized were illicit and which were legally earned. The IRS has told the committee it does not have such a breakdown between what’s called “illegal source versus legal source cases.”

non

Schock treatment: Congressman reviews his travel spending Illinois GOP Rep. Aaron Schock has launched his own review of tens of thousands of dollars in reimbursements he received for official use of his personal vehicle, following questions raised Tuesday about the practice. Nearly every month since he’s been in Congress, the fourth-term Republican has received roughly $1,000 in “private auto mileage” reimbursements from his Member Representational Allowance. At the same time, he has chartered private jets on the taxpayers’ dime, incurring hefty, five-figure bills. And his campaign has shelled out upward of $50,000 for the use of his vehicle. Story Continued Below When originally asked by POLITICO about the reimbursements, his office defended the practice, citing Schock’s extensive travel throughout his Peoria, Illinois, area district. “My district increased from 130 towns to 205 towns after redistricting in 2010,” Schock said in a statement. “I have made a concerted effort to get to each area as often as possible. Between official and campaign activities, my vehicle easily travels thousands of miles a year. This doesn’t just include travel in district, but also airport pickups/drop-offs in Chicago, St. Louis and elsewhere.” He added: “This weekend alone, I traveled 800 miles with events in Quincy, Bloomington, Peoria, Roanoke, Washington and other towns. I am proud that the voters and elected officials of Illinois 18th district can see me out in the district.” When pressed for further information — including details of his official travel in and out of the United States, and of campaign travel — Schock’s office sent a different statement hours later, indicating that it wasn’t sure who was driving his car at certain times, whether Schock was present and whether it was allowed under House rules. “Congressman Schock and his team have a well-deserved reputation for constituent service,” the second statement from his office read. “This is due to extensive travel throughout the district which is 205 towns and 19 counties. The Congressman’s staff has access to his vehicle so it is used frequently when he is both in and out of the district. For example, this weekend over 800 miles were driven crisscrossing the district for events. Congressman Schock takes his compliance responsibilities seriously and procedures concerning this issue will be reviewed to determine whether they can improved.” Kenneth Gross, a leading ethics and campaign finance attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, said reimbursements for using personal vehicles are a “perennial headache.” “Reimbursements for cars are a perennial, ongoing problem that often get into allocation issues, personal use and campaign use and official use — all three of them come into play,” he said, speaking broadly about the issue, not about Schock’s specific situation. “If you are going to do an allocation, you need to have some basis for that allocation.” Multiple sources familiar with Schock’s office’s operation have raised questions with POLITICO about the miles Schock says he drives and how much he’s pocketed in reimbursement charges. Schock has a busy schedule in Washington and around the world — and April 2014 was a perfect example. On April 6, he was in Las Vegas for the Academy Of Country Music Awards. He missed House votes the next day. On April 19, he was in Hawaii, where a photographer posted on Instagram a shot of the chiseled Illinois Republican surfing off Waikiki Beach. He then jetted off to Asia for a six-day congressional delegation trip to China, South Korea and Japan. On April 28, he was back in New York, where he appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and Fox News. Schock was also in Washington for 11 days that month, casting votes on the House floor. Yet in April, Schock received a reimbursement for nearly $1,200 worth of mileage, amounting to approximately 2,100 miles on his personal vehicle. The same month, his aides received a total of $702 in reimbursements, which would equal 1,255 miles in driving. The next month — May 2014 — Schock traveled to Brazil with three other lawmakers for several days as part of an official cultural exchange. Still, Schock received $1,232 in automobile reimbursements, roughly equal to 2,200 miles in official travel. His aides received $750, equivalent to a further 1,341 miles in travel. (Schock’s office declined to say how long he was in Brazil, and whether additional days were tacked on as a vacation. He won’t have to file a disclosure until the summer.) Schock, who has a prized seat on the Ways and Means Committee, has collected tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money for miles he says were put on his personal vehicle. It amounts to more than 150,000 miles driven for congressional business using his car since he took office in the beginning of 2009. In total, Schock is claiming his vehicle has been driven about a quarter-million miles in roughly six years while conducting official and campaign duties. And that doesn’t include upward of $70,000 in taxpayer travel his office has racked up on private planes, which his office says is to help him get around the district more efficiently. In addition, Schock has been reimbursed tens of thousands of dollars more for travel as part of his burgeoning political operation, although this is more difficult to track because individual trips are not disclosed. Schock and his aides boast that he visited 40 districts on behalf of Republican candidates in October 2014 alone. In 2014 alone, Schock’s campaign reimbursed him $18,354 for mileage. His campaign later bought a Chevrolet Tahoe for nearly $74,000. His campaign has also purchased a Ford. Schock’s campaign committees have reimbursed him more than $50,000 for campaign mileage, amounting to nearly 100,000 more miles driven since 2008. He’s also racked up tens of thousands of dollars in private aircraft charters while conducting campaign work. Schock’s spending has come under scrutiny in recent days. It started when The Washington Post revealed that he had redecorated his Capitol Hill office to look like “Downton Abbey,” a show airing on PBS about British aristocracy. POLITICO reported Monday that Schock’s campaign was spending heavily on lush hotels like the Four Seasons and a posh ski resort in Aspen, Colorado, in addition to money his campaign and taxpayer-funded congressional office have spent on private airplane flights around his district and across the country. A pro-Democratic watchdog group has filed multiple complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics in relation to his use of official funds for the office renovation and the sale of his home to a donor. The office has already been looking into whether the Illinois Republican solicited a contribution above legal limits for a super PAC that was designed to target incumbent Republicans. Schock has maintained that he did nothing wrong, and he has not been charged with any ethics violations. Schock’s heavy travel schedule started before the last year. March 2013 was also a frantic time for Schock. He spent the first weekend in Selma, Alabama, for a civil rights pilgrimage. He voted on 10 different days in Washington, casting votes on the Republican budget and a bill to keep the government open. And he closed out the month flying business class to India for a trip paid for by the National Indian American Policy Corp. Schock received $770, which equals 1,362 miles driven. His trip to India spilled over to April, and he returned on April 7. The House was in session for 12 days that month, and Schock did not vote on three days. He was reimbursed $1,278.75, which would mean his car was driven 2,263 miles. Taxpayers also shelled out $1,300 to two private aircraft vendors that month.

non

Patrick Leahy to skip Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech The partisan divide over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March address to Congress deepened further on Tuesday, with the Senate’s most-senior lawmaker announcing that he will not attend the speech. In a highly critical statement on Tuesday morning, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont called the speech arranged by House Speaker John Boehner “a tawdry and highhanded stunt that has embarrassed not only Israel but the Congress itself.” Leahy joins Vermont’s other senator, independent Bernie Sanders, in skipping the speech, as well as a number of House Democrats who have been critical of the address, which comes as President Barack Obama tries to reach a nuclear deal with Iran — an effort opposed by Netanyahu. Story Continued Below The seven-term Leahy said that by unilaterally scheduling the speech without the White House’s input, House Republican leaders “demolished the potential constructive value of this joint meeting.” Leahy’s comments carry extra weight because until the GOP took the Senate in January, Leahy was in the presidential line of succession as Senate president pro tempore. “It has long been an unwritten rule and practice through the decades that when it comes to American foreign policy, we speak and act thoughtfully, with one voice when we can, with the national interests of the United States as our uppermost consideration and with caution about the unintended consequences of unilateral actions like this,” Leahy said. “They have diminished that valuable precedent.” Sanders became the first senator to announce he would skip Netanyahu’s March 3 address, joining several House Democrats that will also not attend the speech. “I’m not going. I may watch it on TV,” Sanders said on Monday. A separate group of House Democrats is urging a delay in the speech, which comes in the middle of campaign season in Israel.

non

Jim DeMint meets with Mitch McConnell to pitch ‘opportunity’ agenda Jim DeMint paid a personal visit Thursday to an old rival: Mitch McConnell. DeMint, a former South Carolina senator and now president of The Heritage Foundation, met one-on-one with McConnell in the GOP leader’s Capitol suite as DeMint pitched Heritage’s “opportunity” agenda. Story Continued Below Things appeared to go over more smoothly with McConnell than they did last month with the House, where DeMint was confronted over his sister organization’s strict ratings of lawmakers’ conservatism. “He’s a good conservative,” DeMint said in an interview as he left the leader’s office. “He’s just in a tough leadership position here.” The session was part of McConnell’s regular meetings with conservatives. A mischief-making conservative who fueled GOP divisions during his time in the Senate, DeMint emerged from the meeting with a positive assessment of McConnell as majority leader. DeMint and McConnell have long been at odds over both campaign and legislative strategy, with the DeMint-founded Senate Conservatives Fund trying over and over to knock off McConnell’s Republican senators, including McConnell himself last year. The Heritage head said he gave no advice to McConnell in the private meeting. Afterward, he praised both the majority leader and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for trying to push back against President Barack Obama’s immigration policies during the funding fight over the Department of Homeland Security. DeMint concluded that McConnell is “the man for the job” of majority leader, despite the frequent criticism from many conservative groups, including SCF, that the Kentucky Republican is a dealmaking centrist. “If there’s anybody who can clear up dysfunction and try to make the Senate work like it’s supposed to, he can do it. Because I think it probably pained him more than anything else to see the Senate kind of become a dysfunctional group,” DeMint said. “I didn’t give him any advice. I wasn’t there to give advice.” Instead, after his two-year cooling-off period since leaving the Senate expired this year, DeMint visited with McConnell to pitch The Heritage Foundation’s free market agenda, which includes pushing right-to-work laws, repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes. DeMint said McConnell was receptive and that the palace intrigue of Republican leadership in the Capitol didn’t come up. “Our job at Heritage is to stake out the right position and build public support for it so politics can move that direction. It’s not about personalities,” DeMint said. “We don’t get involved in primaries, leadership races. That’s what I talked about. We’re promoting an opportunity-for-all, favoritism-for-none agenda.”

non

Obama administration announces new fracking rule The Obama administration is requiring companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations within 30 days of completing operations. A final rule released Friday by Interior Secretary Sally Jewell also updates requirements for well construction and disposal of water and other fluids used in fracking, a drilling method that has prompted an ongoing boom in natural gas production.The rule, which takes effect in June, has been under consideration for more than three years, drawing criticism from the oil and gas industry and environmental groups. By the time the new standard was released Friday, it had collected 1.5 million public comments, according to the Interior Department. The industry fears the regulation could hinder the drilling boom. The environmental groups worry that it will allow unsafe drilling techniques to pollute groundwater. The rule relies on the online database FracFocus - used by at least 16 states -to track the chemicals used in fracking operations.

non

Ted Cruz introduces bill to leave marriage to the states Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is calling on his colleagues to pass a bill that would make same sex marriage a state issue. Cruz, along with 11 other Republican senators, re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act on Tuesday, which aims to allow states to adopt their own definitions of marriage and would block the federal government from applying its own definition of marriage onto states. Story Continued Below “Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor that the federal government should defer to state ‘choices about who may be married,’ the Obama Administration has disregarded state marriage laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold traditional marriage,” Cruz said in a press release. He added, “I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens.” The bill would force federal government to rely on state law to determine whether couples are considered to be married for the purposes for federal law. Last year, Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the same bill but it was not brought to the Senate floor for a vote. The proposed act comes about one month after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case in 2015 that will decide whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to enter into same-sex marriage. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to halt a federal ruling that required officials in Alabama to recognize same-sex marriage rights. Cruz’s effort is joined by Senators Lee, John Boozman (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Inhofe (R-Okla). James Lankford (R-Okla.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), and David Vitter (R-La.) Congressman Randy Weber (R-Texas). Seven of the co-sponsors — Boozman, Crapo, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby and Vitter — were in Congress in 2006 and supported legislation at the time to create a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

non

Harry Reid to undergo surgery again Harry Reid will have his second surgery of the year this week as he continues to recover from his New Year’s Day exercise accident. On Wednesday the Senate minority leader will have a follow-up surgery on his right eye at George Washington University. Reid underwent a nearly four-hour surgery to repair broken bones in his face in January, but his eye was so swollen that it will require another procedure as the Nevada Democrat fights to regain sight in his eye. Story Continued Below “This is a necessary step to assist in recovering full vision in his right eye. His recovery will require him to miss the rest of the week but he is not expected to miss any more time in the office beyond that,” said Kristen Orthman, a spokeswoman for Reid. Reid injured his eye during a Jan. 1 workout when an exercise band snapped and sent him tumbling into cabinets, breaking several bones in his face as well as ribs. Reid has gradually spent more time in the Senate since the first surgery, and delivered a scathing speech on Monday that needled Republicans who are struggling to pass a bill funding Homeland Security. The Senate is expected to be on recess next week, which will give Reid additional time to recover.

non

At stake in immigration debate: Billions of dollars In Congress’ standoff over immigration policy, Republicans seem to be battling not only President Barack Obama but their own rhetoric on government spending. Immigration riders attached to the Homeland Security spending bill by the House GOP turn out to actually widen the budget deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the $39.7 billion measure will need a supermajority of 60 votes under Senate budget rules, even if Republicans get past the Democratic filibuster. Story Continued Below Faced with a Feb. 27 deadline and the Presidents Day recess next week, time is short. And the CBO report never addressed an added cost implicit in the Republican position: How much would it cost for the government to deport all the undocumented workers who stand to benefit from Obama’s most recent executive order? That could be upward of $20 billion to $25 billion, according to the best estimates collected by POLITICO. It’s a sum hard to find these days, given the Republican-backed spending caps imposed on the House and Senate appropriations committees. Indeed, just last week, the GOP leadership ridiculed Obama’s proposal to amend the law to increase discretionary funding — including money for DHS — above the freeze set for fiscal 2016. The president’s critics on immigration, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, argue that the fight is not about dollars but the will to enforce the law. “Has the Obama administration ever asked for the resources necessary for the task of enforcing the law? Of course not,” said a spokesman for the Alabama Republican. But what’s most striking is how each side has invoked Congress’ power of the purse to bolster its arguments in the immigration fight. Republicans are employing their constitutional power to deny funding to the executive agencies that would carry out the president’s November order, as well as a 2012 order which deferred deportations for young undocumented immigrants. But Obama essentially makes the same argument in reverse to justify himself: He says Congress left him with this discretion precisely because it failed to give him the money to fully enforce the immigration laws. “The proposed policy is designed to respond to the practical reality that the number of aliens who are removable under the [Immigration and Naturalization Act] vastly exceeds the resources Congress has made available to DHS for processing and carrying out removals,” reads the 33-page opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. “The resource constraints are striking. … DHS has informed us that there are approximately 11.3 million undocumented aliens in the country but that Congress has appropriated sufficient resources…to remove fewer than 400,000 aliens each year, a significant percentage of whom are typically encountered at or near the border rather than in the interior of the country.” For all the political stakes, it’s surprisingly difficult to get an estimate of how much it costs the government to deport an individual. But money appears to make a difference. Tables compiled by DHS show that the number of annual removals has risen more than 80 percent in the past decade, while enforcement and detention appropriations have doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars. POLITICO published its own calculations in November after comparing 10 years of appropriations with the number of annual removals listed by DHS. There were spikes and dips along the way, but the results showed a relatively consistent pattern of about $7,200 — plus or minus $1,000 — for each removal. When shown these numbers, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement came back with its own estimate that the agency’s average “life cycle” cost for each removal it completed in fiscal 2013 was about $8,661. Jennifer Elzea, a spokeswoman for ICE, explained that the agency “does not track the average cost of removal for an alien, but rather the average life cycle cost per alien. … This cost is inclusive of the Immigration Enforcement Lifecycle including all costs necessary to identify, apprehend, detain, process through immigration court, and remove an alien.” If the government greatly ramped up the number of deportations, that figure might come down. Then again, that number may understate the full costs since the immigrant population affected by Obama’s order is relatively difficult for ICE to identify: individuals who have lived peacefully in the U.S. interior for years and become part of their communities. But taken together, the numbers from POLITICO and ICE indicate that removing 3 million immigrants could cost the government between $20 billion and $25 billion. Immigration rights advocates say 3 million is roughly how many people could seek temporary work permits under Obama’s November order, out of a total eligible population pegged at more than 4 million. CBO’s analysis is more cautious and assumes that just 1.5 million adults will have come forward and been approved as of 2017, the year Obama’s presidency ends. Since the House amendments seek to overturn Obama’s 2012 order as well, CBO adds about 750,000 young people who have already been granted temporary status or will become eligible by 2017. The total then is about 2.25 million people affected by the House amendments. And in estimating future Medicaid and education costs, CBO factors in the likelihood that more children will be born in these families and qualify for assistance. In truth, Obama is doing more than simply deferring deportations for lack of resources from Congress. His November order establishes a process for individuals to get temporary work permits and qualify for government benefits — going well beyond deciding who gets prosecuted and who does not. The Justice memo concedes as much. It says: “The conferral of deferred action does not represent a decision not to prosecute an individual for past unlawful conduct; it instead represents a decision to openly tolerate an undocumented alien’s continued presence in the United States for a fixed period. “This difference is not, in our view, insignificant,” the memo adds. “But neither does it fundamentally transform deferred action into something other than an exercise in enforcement discretion.” But the key word is “tolerate.” Led by Texas, 26 states are hitting hard on this same point in a lawsuit challenging Obama before a federal judge in Brownsville. Sessions’ office argues too that CBO fails to count the added costs that Obama’s order will impose on state and local governments. At the federal level, CBO estimates that two-thirds of the increased government outlays stemming from Obama’s executive orders would consist of cash payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit. As of now, the migrants don’t qualify because the EITC is not available to low-income workers who lack Social Security numbers. The House-passed amendments, by overturning Obama, would save the government a total of $14.85 billion from 2015 to 2025, CBO says, of which an estimated $10.25 billion is from the increased earned-income credit payments. Other costs include nutrition and health-care benefits. Whatever the outcome of the current debate, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) hopes to trim the EITC payments with legislation prohibiting the protected workers from applying retroactively for earned-income credits once they obtain Social Security numbers. The Internal Revenue Service typically allows taxpayers to amend their past filings for the three prior years after getting a Social Security number. But Grassley argues that this ought not to apply here since the earned-income credit is meant to encourage work, which in this case was illegal employment prior to Obama’s order. Early estimates by the Joint Tax Committee indicate that up to $1.7 billion could potentially be saved if Grassley makes this change. Yet the same coin has another side: All these calculations show that this is a migrant population that is working — albeit in low-paying jobs — and generating substantial payroll taxes that would only grow under Obama’s plan. This pattern has been seen before in disputes over child tax credits going to migrants who are not required to have Social Security cards. In 2010, for example, Treasury inspectors found that 2.18 million filers with only individual taxpayer identification numbers collected about $4 billion in child credits. But the same workers generated payroll taxes totaling more than $7 billion — more than matching the tax credits’ cost to the government. In the case of Obama’s executive orders, CBO estimates that $22.3 billion in potential revenues would be lost from 2015 to 2025 if the House amendments were to prevail, including about $17.1 billion at the expense of Social Security. When all the puts-and-takes are counted, the net result is that the deficit would be $7.5 billion wider as a result of the House amendments. [ Obama’s new budget takes this logic a big step further by assuming that more comprehensive immigration reform would translate into $158 billion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. The numbers draw on CBO’s analysis of the Senate bill adopted in the last Congress and again reflect a 3-to-2 ratio between improved receipts and higher costs. Conservatives argue that this is illusory, given that the tide will inevitably turn once the newly legalized immigrants reach retirement age. But in Senate testimony last week, Stephen Goss, the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, said the net cash flow for the trust funds would be positive for 30 years — and that even over 75 years, the cumulative impact of the president’s executive order would be a modest improvement for Social Security.

non

Marco Rubio tops list of absentee lawmakers If there were a perfect attendance award for Congress, Sen. Susan Collins would get it. Since taking office in 1997, the Maine Republican hasn’t missed a vote in 5,788 opportunities. But some of her colleagues have missed quite a few over the years. Story Continued Below Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) have been absent from the most votes in their respective chambers, according to a new analysis by Vocativ in partnership with GovTrack.us. Of 1,198 total votes, Rubio has missed 99, or 8.3 percent, since taking office in January 2011. “He is one of the only senators with young children who has not moved his family to D.C., and tries to spend as much time in Florida with them as possible,” Rubio spokesman Alex Conant told POLITICO. “In addition to his parental responsibilities, in recent years he’s also had to return to Florida and miss votes due to his mother’s health and civic responsibilities like jury duty.” On Rubio’s voting record over the last few years, Conant said there will be no doubt where the Florida senator stands as he travels around the country talking to potential voters for a possible presidential run. “Senator Rubio has not made a final decision about 2016, but he’s seriously considering running for president and taking the necessary steps to prepare a competitive campaign,” he said. Conyers, who is currently the longest-serving member in either chamber, has missed 16.3 percent of 27,195 votes since January 1965. Republicans make up nine of the 10 spots on Vocativ’s Senate list, with Hawaii Democrat Brian Schatz missing the third-most votes after his appointment to the seat following the death of Sen. Daniel Inouye in December 2012. He was subsequently reelected last November. Other names on top 10 list include Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), David Vitter (R-La.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). On the flip side, Democrats have been missing from more votes than Republicans in the House. Alaska Rep. Don Young has missed the most votes among Republicans, absent from 14.8 percent of approximately 25,000 votes. Washington state Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler missed many votes as well during a difficult pregnancy in 2013. Others on the House list: Richard Nolan (D-Minn.), Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who missed three months on maternity leave, Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas).

non

Senate bill would require changes in calculating student loan costs A new Senate bill would require federal student loan programs to use so-called fair-value accounting — which would show a much larger cost to the government of the program. In introducing her Budget and Accounting Transparency Act today, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) cited a POLITICO report of a $21.8 billion shortfall in the student loan program. She said her bill would protect taxpayers and “prevent wasteful mistakes like these from happening.” Critics believe the current government accounting system for credit programs dramatically understates costs because the budgets don’t account for certain risks private lenders have to take into account. Story Continued Below The bill would also require federal agencies to make budgetary justification materials public, and require the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Budget and Management to study whether to use fair-value accounting in federal insurance programs. The House voted for fair-value budget accounting in the last Congress, arguing it makes the costs of federal programs more transparent. But advocacy groups such as Young Invincibles have opposed it. They say the method makes student loans appear more expensive than they are in government cost estimates, potentially opening the door to cuts.

non

Don’t disrespect our president, black lawmakers tell Netanyahu The audience for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on March 3 is shaping up to be largely Republican — and almost completely white. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus say they’re planning to skip the speech, calling it a slight to President Barack Obama that they can’t and won’t support. Story Continued Below Israeli officials have been taken by surprise by the CBC backlash, kicked off by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights leader who said last week he won’t attend, quickly followed by Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and others. As a result, they’re working to set up a meeting for CBC members with Ambassador Ron Dermer — or even Netanyahu himself when he’s in Washington. “To me, it is somewhat of an insult to the president of the United States,” said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), leaving the White House on Tuesday after a long meeting with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who also will miss the speech. “Barack Obama is my president. He’s the nation’s president, and it is clear, therefore, that I’m not going to be there, as a result of that, not as a result of the good people of Israel.” Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, scheduled just two weeks before Israeli national elections, is aimed at stopping a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons program — a diplomatic opening Obama administration officials believe could reintegrate Iran into the international community and enhance Israel’s security. Netanyahu, however, feels the United States and its international partners are being naive about Iran’s true intent. “I’m determined to speak before Congress to stop Iran,” Netanyahu tweeted on Tuesday. Democrats across Capitol Hill have been increasingly vocal about their opposition to the speech, criticizing the prime minister and House Speaker John Boehner for making them choose between their support for their president and support for Israel. Announcements that Democrats plan to sit out the speech have trickled in for days. But the CBC reaction has been particularly potent, striking at the political alliance between Jews and African-Americans that dates to the civil rights movement but has grown more fraught over the years. Often Obama’s strongest defenders against political attacks, black members say they’re outraged that a foreign leader would try to intervene in the U.S. political process. “It’s not just about disrespect for the president, it’s disrespect for the American people and our system of government for a foreign leader to insert himself into a issue that our policymakers are grappling with,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). “It’s not simply about President Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader. It’s deeper than that.” CBC chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told reporters that the speech didn’t come up as a topic in the 90 minutes they spent with Obama in the Cabinet Room. But he, like Meeks, Johnson and many of his members, is not planning to go to Netanyahu’s speech. Butterfield said the black caucus is in “conversation” with Israeli officials to set up a meeting with either Netanyahu or the ambassador, who has met with several black members of Congress as part of his efforts to calm the furor. “CBC members are willing certainty to meet with any representative of Israel. We understand Israel’s plight, and we support the state of Israel,” Butterfield said. The CBC leader said Boehner is as much or more responsible for the slight as is the Israeli leader. “I don’t hold Netanyahu responsible,” Butterfield said. “I hold Speaker Boehner responsible, but I would hope that Mr. Netanyahu would not want to get involved. I personally think it is disrespectful.” That was a word many members used: “It is very disrespectful to this president, and what concerns me more is that I think it’s a pattern that is starting to develop from this speaker that we’re getting more and more disrespectful of the office of the presidency,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.). “I think it’s silly and petty.” Asked whether CBC members see the speech as an insult, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) said, “I think they kind of think it is.” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), the CBC’s only member in the upper chamber, hasn’t ruled out attending, but he won’t commit to going either. “I’ve been asked that a number of times — I’m not commenting,” he said before slipping out the White House gates and onto a waiting bus to take him back to the Capitol. The spokesman for the Israeli Embassy had no comment about the breakdown with the CBC over the speech. But a spokesman for Boehner defended the speaker’s decision to invite the Israeli leader: “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s upcoming visit isn’t about Speaker Boehner, and it’s not about President Obama,” spokesman Cory Fritz said. “At this critical moment it’s important that the American people hear from Israel about the grave threats posed by Iran and Islamic radicalism.” Though many CBC members are boycotting, for now they’ve decided not to make it an official caucus position. “There are a number of members who aren’t going to attend, but they don’t want to make it sound like a group decision,” said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). CBC members Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Donna Edwards (D-Md.) have also announced they’re skipping the speech. Fellow CBC member Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) co-signed a letter Tuesday to Boehner with Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), calling for the speech to be postponed. “The timing of this invitation and lack of coordination with the White House indicate that this is not an ordinary diplomatic visit,” they wrote. “When the Israeli prime minister visits us outside the specter of partisan politics, we will be delighted and honored to greet him or her on the floor of the House.” The idea of meeting with Dermer or Netanyahu separately doesn’t seem to be catching on with CBC members, either. Noting that Dermer once worked for Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Johnson called the ambassador a “longtime, right-wing political hack” and said he is uninterested in meeting with either him or Netanyahu. “I don’t think I would be willing to come to such a meeting,” Johnson said. “Not at that time, and under this condition, no.”

non

GOP avoids showdown over EPA climate change rules Republicans’ aggressive energy agenda has so far conspicuously sidestepped one of their biggest campaign-trail targets: the climate change rules from President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency. The House GOP plans to steer clear of a showdown over the greenhouse gas rules in a broad energy package that it will unveil this week, raising questions about whether Republicans are grasping for a workable plan to stop the carbon dioxide regulations that EPA will issue later this year. Story Continued Below In the Senate, GOP leaders avoided a fight over Obama’s climate change rules during January’s long debate over Keystone XL pipeline. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), whose panel is in charge of EPA funding, has vowed to push a new energy bill that’s “not a messaging” exercise, a comment that suggests she won’t pick a political fight over climate change just yet — though she also has additional leverage over EPA given her leading role in writing the agency’s spending bill. One GOP source with knowledge of the party’s strategy said there is “an obvious lack of enthusiasm among Republican staff, and maybe members, too, to do something on” the power-plant emissions rules that EPA is set to finalize this summer. “There’s not a lot of ‘yay, I’m superexcited’ on this.” In public, however, Republicans vow that they’re committed to fighting what they have long savaged as Obama’s “war on coal.” A spokeswoman for House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan, who left the emissions rules out of his massive new bill, wrote via email that “in addition to this energy package, we plan to move forward with an aggressive agenda to address EPA’s overreach.” The new EPA rules would set carbon dioxide targets for states, requiring them to submit plans to trim emissions of the gas blamed for changing the planet’s climate. And they would set tight limits on pollution from new power plants that could prevent any new coal-fired generation from being built. EPA’s timing for releasing their rules may be the biggest reason for Republicans’ go-slow approach. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma have cited the Congressional Review Act — which successfully stopped one executive-branch regulation in 2001 — as a viable method for undercutting EPA. But an attack using CRA would have to wait until the emissions rules are final later this year. Whether through stand-alone legislation or the CRA, any congressional challenge to EPA is likely to draw a presidential veto. While Republicans have also warned they would use the government funding process to cripple the Obama climate rule, that could trigger a showdown with the White House over who would take the blame for shutting down the agency. And the current impasse over Department of Homeland Security funding that is tied to conservative anger over Obama’s immigration policy holds a lesson for the GOP: Even Senate Democrats who may share their desire to defang EPA and its climate agenda can’t be counted on to support a funding bill that would force policy changes on the president. “No matter the issue, if the Republicans threaten to shut down all or part of the government unless they get their way, Democrats and, more importantly, the American people overwhelmingly reject it,” one Senate Democratic leadership aide said. “Trying to put us in a box only strengthens the resolve of our members, no matter if it’s on Obamacare, immigration, the EPA or anything else. If they try it again on EPA, they’ll find out that the third time isn’t the charm,” the aide added. What’s more, Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, doesn’t appear to be enthusiastic about challenging the EPA power plant rules in her broad energy bill that will address issues from opening new areas to oil and gas exploration to strengthening the nation’s power grid. The Alaskan, who is also the top appropriator for EPA and the Interior Department, predicted she would spend “a lot of time” this year trying to navigate attempts “to load this particular bill with a lot of clever ideas.” “We are going to be working aggressively every step of the way to put together a bill that’s responsive and is something we can gain support for passage [of] — not a messaging bill, but support for passage,” Murkowski told reporters on Thursday. The newest member of her EPA spending panel is McConnell, who cruised to reelection in November with a promise to defend the coal industry from the tighter regulations proposed by the Obama administration. Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said the Alaskan would work with McConnell and others on a bill that meaningfully reins in what Republicans slam as across-the-board regulatory overreach by EPA and the Interior Department. “Her goal is not to wind up with a presidential veto, however, as that would only perpetuate the status quo and allow their actions to stand uncontested,” Dillon said by email. “She is already working to put together a bill that the president will have no choice but to sign — because enough members of the Senate are convinced of its merits.” But rhetoric aside, the path for opponents to challenge the EPA rules is far from clear. “I don’t believe the Hill has settled in on a strategy,” said Tom Pyle, president of the industry-backed American Energy Alliance. After EPA finishes its rule, he added, “I’m sure Sen. McConnell will want to move on the CRA, and, notwithstanding Sen. Murkowski’s comments, there is going to be an attempt” to use spending bills to try to halt the power-plant regulations. The GOP source with knowledge of the party’s EPA strategy agreed with Pyle on one thing: “I don’t think anybody’s got the right answer yet” on the best way to undercut the EPA regulations. At the moment, the source added, House Republicans are “skittering away from anything controversial because they want to get Democrats.” Aside from the DHS funding fight, Republicans’ struggle to unify behind an idea to fulfill the second half of their “repeal and replace” mantra on Obamacare also signals the party’s challenge in taking on EPA. One troubling omen for the GOP: Several Republicans voted for measures backing climate change science during last month’s Keystone XL debate, and five agreed with Democrats that humans “significantly” affect the climate. Those votes chipped away at the party’s rhetorical wall on the issue, and gave greens hope they can challenge the GOP on industrial pollution. Republicans are realizing “that just being against something starts wearing very thin, but actually figuring out what to do” is another, bigger challenge, Natural Resources Defense Council government affairs director David Goldston said. “If you’re going to have an alternative, you have to have unity to do it,” Goldston added. “They’ve got too many hard-liners who don’t want to do anything.” Although Goldston said he had “a feeling that [Republicans] are on the ropes, both procedurally and substantively,” neither he nor fellow environmentalist Tiernan Sittenfeld expect Republicans to end their quest to block Obama’s emissions rules for power plants. “I’d like to think the Republican leadership has finally gotten the message that blocking the EPA’s common-sense proposal to protect public health by cutting carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants is widely out of step with what their constituents want,” said Sittenfeld, senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters. “But if past is prologue, it’s probably just a matter of time before they try again.”

non

Pope will address Congress in September Pope Francis will address a joint session of Congress on Sept. 24, the first time the head of the Roman Catholic Church will have addressed the body. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), himself a Catholic, made the announcement Thursday morning. Story Continued Below “That day, His Holiness will be the first pope in our history to address a joint session of Congress,” Boehner said at his weekly news conference. “We’re humbled that the Holy Father has accepted our invitation and certainly look forward to receiving his message on behalf of the American people.” The news got a quick bipartisan welcome Thursday — unlike the political rancor stirred by next month’s scheduled joint address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “We are honored and overjoyed that Pope Francis, the first pontiff born in the Americas, has accepted our invitation to address a Joint Meeting of Congress during his upcoming visit to the United States,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said of the Argentinian-born pope. She added, “We are eager to welcome His Holiness to the U.S. Capitol and we look forward to hearing his call to live our values, to protect the poor and the needy, and to promote peace.” “I am very much looking forward to welcoming Pope Francis to the United States later this year,” President Barack Obama said at a prayer breakfast Thursday. Boehner’s office says it did not coordinate with the White House when the speaker invited the pope last year. It told the administration of the visit only this morning — which is also when Boehner told reporters. But in terms of protocol, the Netanyahu visit presented a much different situation given that Boehner had given the administration no advanced notice that he was inviting the Israeli leader to come to the U.S. and speak to Congress. In contrast, the Vatican confirmed last fall that Pope Francis will visit the U.S. in September, and he said last month that his swing would include a stop in Washington. “Certainly the president and the team here was aware of the pope’s intent to travel to the United States, intent to spend some time in Washington, D.C.,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday. Earnest said he anticipates Vice President Joe Biden will attend the pope’s speech. But when asked if he could say the same about Netanyahu’s address, Earnest he said he could not — Biden’s schedule for March is still in up the air. Edward-Isaac Dovere contributed to this report.

non

Vouchers have new champions on the Hill Stars of the GOP — from George H.W. Bush to John Boehner — have long endorsed using federal dollars to send children to private schools, but now a gang of newcomers is rolling up their sleeves to try to make it a reality. GOP lawmakers including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana are busy lobbying peers, proposing sweeping voucher bills and nudging school choice into conversations around the 2016 primaries. The issue is still considered a long shot for Republicans in Congress, but they hope to shorten the odds. Story Continued Below “Frankly, I’m going to encourage it strongly as I have conversations with every candidate,” Scott said. President Barack Obama is a firm opponent of vouchers, but past Republican candidates have supported them, and an incoming Republican who embraces the measure could be a game-changer. Others are taking notice: In late January, Sen. Ted Cruz, Boehner and other Republican supporters gathered with Messer and Scott at a rally where the lawmakers extolled the virtues of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program before hundreds of cheering students in yellow National School Choice Week scarves. The school choice pack will gather again Monday for a forum with another potential presidential candidate, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, plus Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. The new guard was elected during the tea party waves of 2010 and 2012. Its members share a sense of optimism and compassion for education issues that reflects a softer (and sometimes liberal-sounding) side of the GOP. Scott likes to say that kids spell school choice “H-O-P-E.” And their policy ideas, like their messaging, sound fresh in contrast with other conservative lawmakers’ calls to eliminate the federal Education Department. As Congress works on rewriting the No Child Left Behind law, right-wing school choice advocates already have injected their opinions into that debate. When he speaks about education, Scott often tells the story of how he flunked high school after failing classes, including civics; was raised by a single mom; and attended four different elementary schools. Those experiences make school choice a deeply personal issue for him, he said, and as his career in politics has flourished, Scott has made a habit of visiting schools at least once a month — sometimes even dropping in via Skype from Washington — to tell his success story and take questions from students. His enthusiasm has gotten the respect of old hands on education policy. Alexander paused while talking about voucher programs for students with disabilities — one of Scott’s signature issues — at a recent event to add, “Tim Scott is compelling when he talks about this.” Scott’s relationship with Alexander reflects his ability to simultaneously agitate and impress: While Alexander has decided to leave most school choice proposals out of his No Child Left Behind draft bill to make it more palatable to Democrats, Scott sees it as his role to get school choice options “baked into the cake” of the bill and has invoked the issue often with the HELP Committee chairman. Scott joins Cruz, and fellow GOP Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Marco Rubio, all of whom have sponsored voucher proposals. Rubio was first drawn to the issue as speaker of the House in the Florida Legislature when the Sunshine State was experimenting with new programs, including virtual schools and one of the country’s earliest voucher programs. Rubio’s federal voucher proposal is closely modeled after one in his home state: It would help create tax credits for donations that go toward private school tuition. ‘Onto something’ At Republicans’ recent retreat, Messer listened to GOP strategist Alex Castellanos promote school choice as one of a handful of issues that should make up a new agenda for the party. “I thought, oh gosh — maybe I’m onto something here,” Messer said. School choice has always been a hard sell in Washington: GOP lawmakers from rural states and those with powerful unions don’t stand to gain much from pushing the issue. In wealthier districts, too, parents may not feel they have much to gain if they are satisfied with their well-funded public schools. Other members of Congress don’t see why it’s worth the time. “It’s an interesting challenge: Republicans believe this will be good for vulnerable kids and kids that need help,” said Frederick Hess, education policy director at the American Enterprise Institute. “But it’s also a fact that their local superintendents, and school boards, and kids, and parents are saying, ‘We don’t think this is a good idea’ in many cases.” Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch unsuccessfully pushed vouchers in the 1980s, and an early attempt to create a voucher program in D.C. was vetoed by President Bill Clinton. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program was later passed with the support of President George W. Bush and Boehner in 2004. It has provided vouchers for about 6,000 students since its creation. “That was admirable work, but I think now, with a new generation of folks pushing, you’re seeing longtime advocates taking a second look to see if [something bigger] is achievable,” Messer said.

non

Harry Reid released from hospital after 2nd eye surgery Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was released from The George Washington University Hospital on Wednesday evening following a second surgery on his injured right eye, though it remains unclear whether he will fully regain his vision. Doctors performed a lengthy surgery on Reid to repair bones in his face in January and drain blood from his eye, but they were unable to access the back of his retina due to swelling and required Wednesday’s procedure. Reid was seriously injured on Jan. 1 after his exercise band snapped and flung him into cabinets, blinding him in the right eye with no clear timetable for a full recovery of vision. Story Continued Below “Doctors will continue to monitor his right eye and hope to have a clearer prognosis for his vision in the coming days. On doctor’s orders, Sen. Reid will continue to rest his eye for the next few days,” said Kristen Orthman, a spokeswoman for Reid. Although Reid has missed significant time in the Senate this year, the Democratic leader has left his tactical mark, leading a partywide filibuster of a Republican bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security but attack President Barack Obama’s immigration policies. The Democratic blockade has left Republicans unable to move the bill through the Senate and sparked internal GOP divisions about the way forward. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been filling in for Reid since Wednesday as the Senate prepares to confirm Ash Carter to be defense secretary, but Reid notified his team before his surgery that he plans to run for reelection in 2016 despite his injuries and the GOP target on him. Senators will leave town as early as Thursday afternoon ahead of next week’s recess. Reid is expected to return to the Senate when the chamber reconvenes on Feb. 23 — four days before funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires.

non

Overheard: Obama and Prince Charles To hear President Obama tell it, the American people like Britain's royal family even more than they do American politicians. Mr. Obama was overheard expressing that sentiment to Britain's Prince Charles during a photo-op at the start of their afternoon get-together in the Oval Office. "I think it's fair to say that the American people are quite fond of the royal family," the president told the Prince in a whispered exchange recorded by highly-sensitive microphones. "That's awfully nice to know," replied the Prince, now on his 20th visit to America, as heir to the British throne. "It's always nice coming back," he told the president, regarding his visit to the U.S. "Everybody's so friendly." But when told by President Obama that Americans like the royals "much better" than "their own politicians," Charles smiled but said he doubted it. He didn't correct the president for likening members of the royal family to American politicians. Charles went on to talk about his return Wednesday to George Washington's estate at Mount Vernon. "I went there 45 years ago in 1970," said the 66-year old heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth. "It was fantastic. It is very special there," he said. As the president and the prince chatted during the brief photo session, Charles' wife Camilla, whose royal title is Duchess of Cornwall, sat quietly on a sofa to their right, with Vice President Biden seated on the couch opposite her.

non

Republicans delay Loretta Lynch, accuse Democrats of ‘faux outrage’ Senate Republicans on Thursday defended their handling of Loretta Lynch’s nomination for attorney general amid mounting Democratic criticism that the GOP is unnecessarily slow-walking her confirmation. The Judiciary Committee officially held over Lynch’s nomination on Thursday, kicking her confirmation vote until after next week’s congressional recess. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that “unfortunately,” Lynch did not provide “very many responsive” answers to her 200-plus-pages of written questions. Story Continued Below “Now, I know there’s a lot of pressure to answer these questions quickly, but that doesn’t excuse the incomplete answers,” Grassley said. “A nominee to be attorney general should take time to familiarize herself with the important issues the Department of Justice faces.” The defenses of the process came from Republicans who support Lynch’s confirmation and those who have expressed their opposition. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, one of Lynch’s most prominent GOP supporters and a former chairman of the panel, said the committee has long had the rule that any member can hold over business for a week. He called Grassley “one of the most fair people I know” and added, “I don’t see any reason for the fuss made here.” “This is a case of faux outrage if I ever saw one,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the second-ranking Senate Republican. He plans to oppose Lynch. The delay for Lynch, who’s now the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, means she won’t see a committee vote until probably Feb. 26, which would put her on the full Senate floor in March. She is poised to clear the panel; Republicans such as Hatch, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have signaled their support. Democrats have pushed for faster action, arguing that Lynch should not be held up because of the broader dispute over President Barack Obama’s immigration policies. But several GOP senators say they can’t support a nominee who believes the latest executive actions on immigration, which could affect as many as 5 million immigrants, are legal. Democrats were quick to come to Lynch’s defense on Thursday. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee’s top Democrat, repeatedly said he believed Lynch was being held to a “double standard” — noting the Senate cleared former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 53 days during the George W. Bush administration. “I guess, because she’s a woman, what I kind of object to is that she is singled out in what I hope would be some reciprocity,” added Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). She ran down several numbers for how long it took to confirm former attorneys general: Janet Reno took 29 days, John Ashcroft took 42, Alberto Gonzales took 86, Mukasey took 53, Eric Holder took 64. So far, Lynch has taken 96 days. However, the number for Lynch is high partly because Senate Democrats agreed to push her confirmation into the new GOP-led Senate, rather than taking it up in the lame-duck session when they were still in power. Obama nominated Lynch in November. Though the drama over Lynch’s confirmation has been dominated by immigration and broader issues involving Holder, one senator raised another topic that has popped up in recent days. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who has long said he will vote against Lynch, noted that one of the reasons he asked for the nomination to be held over is new reports about the practices of the banking giant HSBC. As a federal prosecutor, Lynch helped secure a 2012 settlement with HSBC. As part of her written responses that she submitted earlier this week, she said the bank could face more Justice Department action if it is found to have violated more laws, such as tax evasion. The deferred prosecution agreement as part of that settlement dealt with violations of the Bank Secrecy Act for failures to maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program, she noted in the responses.

non

Ted Cruz’s immigration gambit Outside a Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Ted Cruz lashed GOP leaders for their plan on immigration, telling reporters that it’s a “strategy designed to lose.” Inside the GOP lunch, Cruz was mum and didn’t raise the issue at all, according to three senators at the gathering. Story Continued Below As he prepares for a likely presidential run, the Texas Republican senator is proceeding cautiously on the latest controversy engulfing the Senate. He is trying to showcase his role as a leading agitator, pulling a recalcitrant Republican establishment to the right. But with his party now struggling to find a way out of an immigration jam, pushing conservatives to take a hard line could result in a standoff with the White House and a politically damaging shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security — just as Cruz prepares to roll out his presidential campaign. Unlike the battle over Obamacare that prompted the government shutdown in 2013, Cruz is keeping his distance from this latest fight, blaming GOP elders and Democrats for the mess — while taking an unusually low-profile role despite his own outspoken opposition to the president’s immigration policies last year. Through Tuesday evening, Cruz had not delivered a single speech on the floor over the past week when the issue has dominated the Senate. (His like-minded conservative colleague, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, has spoken for 147 minutes about the topic since Feb. 2.) At several lunches where the issue was discussed, Cruz was either silent on the immigration matter or spoke sparingly, senators said. And even at a private Republican retreat last month in Pennsylvania, Cruz skipped a Senate strategy session where the party’s leadership and committee chairmen laid out a game plan for the first several weeks of the new Congress and discussed the immigration fight, attendees said. It was a sign of how Cruz has to balance his message as a conservative firebrand who says he’s not afraid to “stand and lead” while dealing with the legislative realities in Washington — and the fact that he dines daily with Republican senators when Congress is in session. He’s willing to bash his party publicly but rarely singles out GOP senators by name. And after coming under tremendous heat from his own party during the government shutdown, including being berated behind closed doors, Cruz has avoided private confrontations with GOP senators over the tactics they are pursuing. “No,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said when asked if Cruz had raised concerns about the immigration matter in private lunch meetings. “Not when I’ve been there,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, No. 3 in Senate GOP leadership, when asked if he’d heard Cruz raise private objections to the latest immigration strategy. The back and forth over immigration highlights the larger problems facing Republicans as they deal with their first messy legislative fight since taking control of the Senate last month. In the aftermath of President Barack Obama’s post-election move to defer deportations for roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants and pave the way for them to obtain work permits, Republicans have been struggling to find a strategy to push back effectively. Cruz, one of the most furious critics of what he refers to as Obama’s “executive amnesty,” pushed his party’s leaders to include in a mega-funding bill late last year a provision to block the actions. But GOP leaders, nervous about another government shutdown immediately after they won big in November’s elections, cut a deal with Senate Democrats, who were still in control of the chamber at the time, as well as the White House. They pushed through a compromise omnibus spending package that funded virtually the entire government through the end of September but temporarily extended money for DHS until Feb. 27. The idea, Republicans said, was to fight the president’s immigration strategy when it was time to consider the budget for DHS, the agency that enforces immigration laws, when the party assumed control of both chambers in 2015. So last month, House Republicans included in the $39.7 billion DHS funding bill a provision to block Obama’s 2014 immigration policies and a 2012 move deferring deportations to undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally at a young age. But the GOP quickly ran into a problem: the Senate. Despite controlling 54 seats, Republicans faced a wall of opposition from Democratic senators who are demanding a “clean bill” stripped of any immigration riders. On three separate occasions last week, Democrats filibustered the bill, with Republicans falling seven votes shy of the 60 needed to bring the measure to the floor for a debate. (GOP Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada joined a united Democratic Caucus in blocking the bill.) On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) finally acknowledged the obvious: The chamber was “stuck.” “I think it’s clearly stuck in the Senate, we can’t get on it, we can’t offer amendments to it,” McConnell told reporters. “And the next step is obviously up to the House.” But House Republicans pointed back at the Senate, saying the chamber needed to pass its own bill. The blame, Cruz said, lies squarely at the feet of party leaders. “What I said this weekend was clear, which is this current ‘Crominbus’ bill was designed by leadership,” Cruz said Tuesday, referring to comments he made during two political shows on Sunday. “I objected strenuously at the time and made the point that it was a strategy designed to lose. My objections were overruled.” Cruz added: “Leadership proceeded nonetheless down this path, and it’s now incumbent on leadership to explain what their path is to what they stated the end goal would be.” Still, GOP leaders said they designed their strategy to placate immigration hard-liners like Cruz as well as to avoid a government shutdown. While Cruz voted against the December spending bill, Republicans say they could use the Texas senator’s help to pressure Democrats now. Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said the leadership plan was developed after extensive consultations with House Republicans. “And while it may not be perfect,” Steel said, “it is certainly preferable to the alternative.” Pushing on the issue in the lame-duck session, said Flake, would have been more challenging given that Republicans were still in the minority last year. “Anything that’s tough now would have been tougher before we had a majority,” he said. It’s not unusual for Cruz to differ with his caucus over tactics. Since joining the Senate after winning the seat vacated by then-Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) in the 2012 elections, Cruz in 2013 blocked efforts by the House and Senate to negotiate a budget resolution, arguing it would be a back-door way to raise the debt ceiling. In September 2013, he pushed House Republicans to include in a government funding bill provisions that would have defunded Obamacare, even taking to the floor for a marathon 21-hour speech. A week later, the standoff prompted a government shutdown and ample GOP recriminations over his strategy. In February 2014, Cruz filibustered a bill to raise the debt ceiling, prompting McConnell and his fellow Texas Sen. John Cornyn, along with other Republicans, to advance the measure because they feared its failure would prompt a government default on its obligations. And in December, Cruz — along with his ally, Utah Sen. Mike Lee — effectively forced the Senate to return to Washington for a rare Saturday session in order to lodge a protest over Obama’s immigration policies. The tactic, GOP senators publicly complained, strengthened the Democrats’ hands. Cruz later apologized to his colleagues for abruptly interrupting their weekend plans, though he showed little remorse for mounting the immigration fight. Such fights are expected to be central to Cruz’s likely presidential campaign, giving him an argument to advance that he’s battled with his party leadership over the direction of the GOP. With the House DHS bill stalled in the Senate, Boehner has publicly called on Cruz — and Sessions — to lead the charge in their chamber. “It’s time for Sen. Cruz and Sen. Sessions and Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats to stand with the American people and to block the president’s actions,” Boehner said last week. But Cruz told reporters Tuesday that Boehner and McConnell had “given away virtually all our leverage by funding almost the entirety of the federal government” in last December’s funding package. Cruz also called on McConnell to prevent the confirmation of all presidential nominations who are not vital to national security interests — until Obama relents on immigration. (McConnell has ignored his call.) Asked whether he agreed with Cruz’s criticism of the strategy so far, Sessions was cautious. “I don’t know about that,” the Alabama conservative said. “We should fund Homeland Security, which this bill does, but we shouldn’t fund the unlawful actions the president took on immigration.”

non

Texas governor expects immigration ruling to stick Top Texas officials took a victory lap Wednesday, celebrating this week’s judicial order blocking enforcement of President Barack Obama’s actions on immigration and predicting that this win in U.S. District Court won’t be their last. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said he’s confident the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will side with Texas and 25 other states in trying to halt Obama’s efforts to let some undocumented immigrants receive work permits and a temporary form of legal status. The administration has said it will immediately appeal the ruling. Story Continued Below “It is abundantly clear that the Obama administration has violated the Administrative Procedure Act. And on that issue alone we will win all the way up through the appellate ranks,” Abbott said in a news conference at the Texas Capitol, referring to a statute that governs what the executive branch can do when it makes new rules. “That ruling will be held up on appeal.” Abbott was joined by fellow Republicans Sen. Ted Cruz, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and state Attorney General Ken Paxton. The appeals court decision could come next week and will have an immediate impact on Capitol Hill, where Republicans and Democrats are deadlocked over a House-passed bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security past Feb. 27, but block Obama’s immigration actions. If the court stays District Judge Andrew Hanen’s temporary injunction, the battle over Obama’s immigration policies could shift from the courts and back to congressional efforts to confront the president. Or if Abbott is correct, Republicans in Congress could find a way out of their DHS funding fight and leave the battle against Obama to the courts. But Cruz indicated he will continue taking a hard line regardless of the legal machinations. After running against Obama’s immigration policies last fall, House and Senate Republicans now must “honor the promises we made to voters” and block his actions, Cruz said. “Senate Democrats should look very closely at this opinion and decide whether they want to jeopardize national security,” Cruz said. Democratic aides say Senate Democrats, who have filibustered the House bill three times, will not change their position during a fourth vote on Monday.

non

Nancy Pelosi in Cuba: ‘Great enthusiasm’ in Congress to end embargo Congress should work quickly to end the decades-old trade embargo against Cuba, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said during a visit to the island nation. “I do believe that there is strong bipartisan support in the Congress of the United States to lift the embargo,” the California Democrat said during a news conference Thursday in Havana, according to a transcript made available Friday morning. “I also think that it would be important for us to move as quickly as possible … to move in a positive way to remove Cuba from the list of concerned states.” Story Continued Below Pelosi has been in Havana since Tuesday while leading the first official House delegation to the country since President Barack Obama announced in December that he wanted to normalize relations with the Castro regime. Pelosi met with Cuban leaders to discuss efforts Congress could take to loosen the trade embargo. ”I’m not saying there’s unanimity – but I’m saying there’s great enthusiasm in a very strong, bipartisan way, as you will see from other visitors of members of Congress,” she said. The delegation includes Reps. Eliot Engel, Steve Israel and Nydia Velázquez of New York, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Anna Eshoo of California and David Cicilline of Rhode Island. No Republican joined the delegation. While in Cuba, Pelosi and the other Democratic lawmakers met with Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla; the director of U.S. affairs at the Cuban Foreign Ministry, Josefina Vidal; and the vice president of the National Assembly, Ana Maria Mari Machado. The delegation also met with Miguel Díaz-Canel, the country’s vice president and presumed heir-apparent for Raul Castro. The lawmakers gave few specifics on their meetings with the Cuban officials, but Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said the Democrats raised the issue of human rights during their talks. Proponents of normalizing relations with the Castro government have long argued that easing the embargo would help open Cuba to greater scrutiny and reform of their human rights abuses. “I think it is our view that the best way to promote human rights is to accelerate this new process, to establish a formal embassy in Havana and to establish a formal Cuban embassy in Washington, D.C., and have our embassy officials talk directly with the Cuban government and same thing in Washington; Cuban officials talking directly to our government,” McGovern said. “The best way to advance a cause of human rights is to end a policy which has been a miserable failure for over 50 years.“

non

Mitt Romney invited to headline NRCC dinner The National Republican Congressional Committee has asked Mitt Romney to headline its biggest fundraiser of the year, but the former Massachusetts governor has not confirmed he will attend, according to multiple GOP sources with direct knowledge of the deliberations. Previous headliners of the dinner include Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Story Continued Below The dinner raises big money for the NRCC. Last year, it raised more than $15 million for the House GOP campaign arm. The NRCC said the speaker has not been confirmed. John Bresnahan contributed to this report

non

Marco Rubio sharpens commander-in-chief pitch Jeb Bush may have stolen the spotlight this week, but Marco Rubio wants voters to know he’s been right on foreign policy all along. He was right, he said, when he warned the U.S. to immediately arm moderate Syrian rebels two years ago — before the radicals in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant began beheading hostages and declaring a caliphate. He says he was right when he called on President Barack Obama to employ a more aggressive show of force against Libya four years ago. And he says he was right when he insisted that, absent a more robust strategy, Islamic extremists would use Libya as a safe haven, as they are doing now. As for Bush, Rubio called him a “smart, intelligent individual” who is “certainly capable of learning about” foreign affairs. Story Continued Below The Florida Republican senator, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, is beginning an aggressive effort to sell voters on his judgment and foresight on matters like Syria, Iran, Libya, Russia and Ukraine, making the case there should be no doubt he has the wherewithal to lead the country at a time of war. It’s a necessary push for a first-term senator and potential presidential hopeful who is trying to convince GOP voters that he isn’t a policy lightweight lacking executive experience, but rather a deep thinker who is fully engaged in complex foreign affairs and can manage the country’s sprawling national security apparatus. The question, voters will ask, is what kind of “judgment” the 2016 candidates showed each time a crisis from abroad has flared up, he said. “I feel very comfortable about my record,” Rubio told POLITICO in an interview Thursday. Rubio wouldn’t compare his views to other potential 2016 foes, though he offered what seemed to be a backhanded compliment to Bush, who gave a much-noticed speech on foreign affairs this week. Senators, Rubio said, are able to deal with foreign policy matters “on a regular basis,” unlike governors who tend to matters more parochial in their states. When asked whether he had a handle on Bush’s foreign policy views from their time together in Florida, Rubio said: “There’s not a lot of foreign policy in the governor’s office. He certainly is someone who is capable of learning about it, and I know he has a natural interest and curiosity about these issues. And he’s someone who is well-read and well-traveled.” A Bush spokesperson declined to comment. In essence, Rubio is gambling that even war-weary voters will get behind a candidate who espouses views that could draw the U.S. into more foreign conflicts — all led by a young and untested president. Rubio’s comments come as foreign policy has been thrust to the forefront of the 2016 campaign. As threats grow from abroad, nuclear negotiations on Iran reach a critical juncture and Congress engages in a consequential debate over authorizing force against ISIL, potential Republican candidates are trying to show how they differ from Obama — and one another. Bush, a former Florida governor, used a speech this week in Chicago to lay out his most extensive thinking yet on foreign policy, detailing a hawkish worldview that seemed close to that of his brother, former President George W. Bush, as well as Rubio’s. In the past year, Rubio has taken an increasingly high profile on foreign policy, especially after his role trying to shepherd through a comprehensive immigration bill that stalled and provoked a backlash on the right. On the Senate floor, in donor events and in speeches, he’s been an outspoken advocate for a more robust U.S. role, winning back some conservative skeptics who viewed him warily after the messy immigration fight. Indeed, Rubio, is far less likely these days to engage in the daily battles over domestic policy consuming the Senate. Even in December, four hours before the government was on the brink of a possible shutdown without a fiscal deal, Rubio was on the Senate floor in the dead of night, speaking to an empty chamber about a topic virtually no one else was discussing: national security. “As you look around the world,” Rubio said at the time, “you start to see the need for American leadership.” At 43 years old, Rubio, who was elected to the Senate in 2010 after serving 8½ years in the Florida Legislature, including state House speaker, is trying to defuse nervousness in GOP quarters that the party can’t afford to elect a political neophyte after watching Obama’s meteoric rise in public life. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the son of Cuban immigrants has traveled the world extensively in an official capacity — from East Asia to the Middle East — as he has built up a foreign policy portfolio he hopes to sell to primary voters. Since his Senate victory, which sent then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist bolting from the GOP, Rubio has increasingly advocated an aggressive U.S. presence in the world, defending the need for foreign aid even to troubled countries like Egypt, strongly supporting the U.S. embargo against Cuba and backing immediate sanctions on Iran even as multilateral negotiations over the regime’s nuclear program take shape. Yet, at times, he’s broken from the neoconservatives who dominated George W. Bush’s administration. When Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul took to the floor and mounted a nearly 13-hour filibuster criticizing Obama on the use of drones two years ago, Rubio spoke in support of his potential 2016 rival’s cause — even as defense hawks like Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticized Paul as naive. While Rubio supported an aggressive posture against the regime of Syrian leader Bashar Assad, he opposed Obama’s 2013 call for Congress to authorize military strikes. In the interview, Rubio was unsparing in his criticism of the Obama administration, saying the president has erroneously employed a “light footprint” approach to hotspots around the world. He said he opposed the Obama administration’s policy toward Syria in 2013 because the “president couldn’t lay out a strategy.” “It should not have been a military strike per se, but it should have been fully engaged in arming, training and equipping non-jihadist Syrian rebels so they can become the group — not just for Assad and to remove Syria from the orbit of Iran, but also it would serve as a way of blocking out the emergence of groups like ISIS,” Rubio said, using an alternative acronym for ISIL. “That’s what I warned about from the very beginning.” Libya is expected to be a major flash point in the presidential race, especially if Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state in Obama’s first term, emerges as the Democratic nominee. Already, critics like Paul have sought to tie Rubio to the chaos in that country: A senior Paul aide said recently that Rubio had been on the Obama “cheerleading” foreign policy team when the U.S. and its allies attacked Libya, leading to the creation of a “Jihadist wonderland.” While Rubio backed the military action against then-Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi in 2011, he said the president’s strategy was meandering and indecisive, allowing the conflict to drag on and for instability to ensue. “The situation in Libya was also predictable, and I warned about that,” Rubio said. “That conflict with Qadhafi took too long. Had the U.S. engaged fully and decisively, the conflict would have ended sooner. We would have less independent militias — and it would have been easier for a central government to take root and become in control of the country. “I wanted to engage but engage decisively,” Rubio said. “You’re better off not intervening than to intervene like that.” Despite the criticism of Obama’s record, Rubio is reluctant to criticize the Iraq War launched by George W. Bush in 2003 that has contributed greatly to the chaos in the region. He won’t say whether he would have voted against the war authorization in 2002 had he been a senator, saying that “hindsight is 20/20.” He argued that the intelligence community reported at the time that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — which turned out to be false — and that the world was forced to respond to Iraq’s violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions. “I understand why people voted for that,” Rubio said. “It turns out in hindsight that some of that intelligence was wrong. That being said, the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein not in power. Obviously, if we knew today what we knew back then, I would imagine the Bush administration’s approach would have been different.” Whether Rubio is right over how to handle ISIL remains to be seen. He’ll have a chance to directly shape the debate when the Foreign Relations Committee begins extensive hearings on the president’s war resolution in the coming weeks. Rubio is calling for a broader scope to give Obama and the next commander in chief wide latitude to wage war. And he’s not ruling out sending in ground troops, saying that ISIL “can only be defeated by confronting them on the ground.” “The question is who should have the predominant share of that effort,” Rubio said. “It’s my opinion that the predominant share of the ground effort should fall on local governments” like Turkey and Jordan. The U.S., he said, should provide logistical, air and intelligence support with a “limited number” of U.S. special forces on the ground. He wouldn’t put a number on the amount of troops to send into conflict, saying such a proposal should be made by military commanders on the ground. “There is no magic number,” Rubio said.

non

House, Senate on DHS impasse: 'After you' Three weeks before the Department of Homeland Security’s funding runs out, Congress is skipping town for a long weekend — and GOP leaders in both chambers are pointing fingers at each other on who must find a way out of the logjam. Some on the Hill are predicting a “prolonged fight” that may drag on even after the Feb. 27 funding deadline — a date that Republican leaders insisted on setting but have no clue how to meet. Story Continued Below The House has passed a DHS bill that would gut President Barack Obama’s immigration policies and wants Senate Republicans to muscle it through the upper chamber. But that’s impossible because of unanimous opposition from Democrats, who filibustered the House bill on Thursday for the third time this week. Now Senate Republicans argue they’ve done all they can. It’s time, they say, for the House to send something else over. “If we’re unsuccessful getting something passed here then I think, probably, the next move’s over to the House,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas.) said. Spending bills typically originate in the House. But House Speaker John Boehner sees a different solution: the Senate putting together its own proposal to undo the jam. Still, the Ohio Republican admits he has no earthly idea what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to do with the House’s bill, now that Democrats have stopped it in its tracks. “He’s got a tough job,” Boehner said. “He’s got a tough job over there, I got a tough job over here. God bless him and good luck.” Meanwhile, neither the House nor Senate will vote on Friday, and they both plan to be in recess the entire week of Feb. 16. The stalemate between the two GOP-led chambers was all the talk of a nearly two-hour long Senate Republican meeting on Thursday that boiled over with frustrations about Congress’ predicament. Many of the senators concluded that it’s up to the House to figure out what legislation can pass both chambers — because blowing this Congress’s first major deadline is unacceptable, especially given recent terrorist attacks and the terrible optics of lawmakers failing to pay for the nation’s premier anti-terrorism department. “After Charlie Hebdo and the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot, we’ve got to find a way to fund DHS,” said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). “We’ll let the speaker work out where the votes are. Because he’s got to herd 218 cats.” But no bill that the House sends to the Senate will be acceptable to Democrats if it includes any immigration riders, so Republican senators are prepared for a lengthy fight that may take the matter all the way to the Feb. 27 deadline. And right before the deadline, senators privately say, they expect enough bipartisan support to push through a short-term funding bill that is free of immigration riders but merely postpones the final decision. That could drag the immigration fight well into Republicans’ first year controlling both chambers of Congress since 2006. “We’re going to be doing this for a while,” said one senator after leaving the private meeting. There’s at least agreement on that. One House Republican source said, “There needs to be a sustained fight to make it clear Democrats aren’t willing to put any limitations on illegal immigrants in this country.” “You’re looking at a prolonged fight,” the source said. “Where we’re going to be doing one-month bills.” Indeed an eventual short-term funding bill is looking more and more likely given that right now there’s no Plan B and no fallback in the offing. And Boehner does not seem inclined to put together another DHS proposal that tries to thread the needle on his conference’s outrage on immigration. “Senator McConnell is trying to win the fight that we won in the House,” Boehner said. “The House fought this fight, we won this fight. Now it’s time for Senate Democrats to work with Senate Republicans to stop the president’s unilateral actions with regards to immigration.” Except that isn’t going to happen. Senate Democrats say they will accept only a clean funding bill with no immigration riders. They insist that they will block anything else the House sends over that infringes on Obama’s immigration policies. Indeed, though they said funding DHS was gravely important, Democrats are eager to highlight the GOP’s divisions. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recited quotes from GOP lawmakers that highlighted the Republican turmoil, including a quip from Arizona Sen. John McCain: “Is that the definition of insanity, voting on the same bill over and over again?” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the Republican strategy is “to put a gun to the president’s head and say, ‘Blink.’” “But no one’s blinking,” he said. McConnell is now mulling one more floor vote on the House’s bill to prove to House Republicans that the fourth attempt won’t be any more effective than the first. But some Republican senators have had it with endlessly taking the same ill-fated vote. Asked what GOP leaders’ current direction is, McCain replied: “I’m not exactly sure.” “This is the third time we’ve demonstrated that there’s not 60 votes,” McCain said. “It would be a very serious error if we allow the DHS to not be funded, because we have significant threats to our security.” In Thursday’s Republican lunch, some senators suggested that the House could take up a proposal from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would leave in place Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, which eased the deportation threat for so-called DREAMers, and focus instead on a broader immigration action that the president took in 2014. But Democrats quickly dismissed that plan — revealing a lack of flexibility that is frustrating many Republicans, who say Democrats have got to come off the sidelines or face the blame for a DHS shutdown. “The Democrats are in the all-or-nothing mode. The people that play that game usually lose,” said a steamed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Can you imagine if Ted Cruz were saying this: ‘All or nothing?’ Y’all would be all over him. You need to be all over them.” But Democrats said this line of thinking is simply a deflection of the GOP’s responsibilities as the majority. “The Republicans have realized their strategy is not going to work,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Manu Raju contributed to this report.

non

Obama's war proposal draws fire Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill pined for months to get a chance to approve President Barack Obama’s war against ISIL. On Wednesday, they finally got their wish. But now the onus is on Congress to show the world it’s united behind the U.S. entanglement with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — and the early returns weren’t pretty, as Obama’s proposal drew fire from both parties. Story Continued Below The administration’s sales job with Democrats has gotten off to a rocky start, with lawmakers in both chambers blasting the White House’s proposed war authorization text for not putting stricter limits on ground combat. Meanwhile, Republicans say the White House is seeking to constrain Obama’s ability to react to an evolving war and continue to question whether he has a strategy to take out the Islamic militants. The divisions formed within hours of the White House’s request landing on Capitol Hill, raising questions about whether Congress will be able to pass anything. “I am worried that we won’t get an AUMF [authorization for use of military force],” one Democratic senator concluded after listening to the early sniping. If the bill fails, the administration could continue its existing military operations under the 2001 congressional authorization that has been used to justify anti-terror operations across the globe. But it would risk sending a confusing signal to both allies and adversaries about the depth of the United States’ commitment to taking on terrorism, less than 14 years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Concerns about that possibility are bipartisan. “There’s so little give-and-take,” a GOP senator griped. “We’re still just having staring contests at each other. That’s why I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t get an AUMF passed.” Despite the grumbling from both parties, Obama said Wednesday afternoon that he was “optimistic” Congress would forge a bipartisan authorization measure and pass it. He underscored the high stakes by emphasizing that the world is watching Congress. “I’m optimistic it can win strong bipartisan support and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission,” Obama said. The president has been bombing ISIL for six months and can continue to do so if Congress does nothing, so key lawmakers are in no hurry to pass something. The private message from Republican leaders and committee chairmen is a deliberative approach that keeps the spotlight on Obama to explain a broad military strategy and bring reluctant Democrats on board. And given the bipartisan criticisms, whatever Congress takes up is almost sure to break from the version Obama submitted Wednesday, which would expire after three years, repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization and prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” But the man in the middle of it all, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), is saying little about how he will shape Congress’ first war vote in a dozen years. The Senate Foreign Relations chairman declined to take a position on any of the ground-troops language that’s become so contentious this week, or any other particular provision of the White House draft. Instead, he’s concentrating on getting the administration to publicly articulate in fine detail how the United States can wipe out ISIL. Corker is set to hold hearings on the authorization in less than two weeks, preparing to haul in Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and other top military officials to talk about the United States’ tactics. Though he will ultimately write a force authorization to get a committee vote and send it to the Senate floor, Corker said the “bigger issue” is for Republicans to tease out Obama’s strategy in the hearings. “The language is interesting, but what’s of paramount importance is them being able to lay out a way forward that is sensible and that people believe could be successful,” Corker said. “I hope they would not have sent it over until they were in a position to be able do that.” In the interim, Corker is urging his colleagues to stay away from taking hard positions on the AUMF. But that’s not happening. In fact, as Corker prepared to give a joint presentation Wednesday afternoon to Senate Republicans, the other presenter was breathing fire after reviewing Obama’s request. Asked what he would tell his Senate GOP colleagues in the closed caucus meeting, Sen. John McCain of Arizona said his message would be that Syrian President Bashar Assad is “a very happy man today” given that the AUMF doesn’t target him. “We are training young men in Saudi Arabia as we speak to fight Assad, spending American taxpayer dollars to do that,” McCain said. “And they will go into Syria to be barrel-bombed by Bashar Assad and we won’t prevent it from happening. That’s immoral.” Obama’s request wasn’t getting a much better reception on the Democratic side in the House. Democrats groused that the White House spent only 30 minutes making its case and that Obama wasn’t asking for repeal of the 2001 authorization that permitted the war in Afghanistan. White House Counsel Neil Eggleston faced a number of critical Democrats as he tried to whip up support for the AUMF: Reps. Mike Capuano of Massachusetts, Charles Rangel of New York, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Adam Schiff of California. Schiff called the White House’s language “very ambiguous for ground forces,” especially in its implications for how the next president could use it. Eggleston responded that the president’s language is written to ensure that Iraqis, not Americans, are fighting on the ground, according to a source in the room. Though Republicans control Congress, Democrats are determined to tilt the debate by showing party unity. “There are concerns with the breadth of the resolution proposed by the administration. Our power to influence that will be heavily determined by our ability to stay together,” Schiff said late Wednesday. Speaking to congressional Democrats’ concerns, Obama argued in a short address from the Roosevelt Room that the draft proposal would help the U.S. defeat ISIL while keeping it out of another “prolonged ground war in the Middle East.” “It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq,” Obama said. “At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and a number of Senate Republicans have opposite priorities and seem certain to push for further loosening of the language on ground troops — and they are positioned to win, given that Republicans now run Congress. But they will need at least six Democrats to help them pass any AUMF in the Senate. And the entire point of the exercise is for both parties to show approval for Obama’s ongoing war. A failed vote or Congress ultimately shirking a roll call is also within the realm of possibility, given what happened to Obama’s doomed 2013 request for approval to strike Syria, as well as the Iraq War votes that still haunt Congress. Lawmakers who have begged for Congress to take a position hope they don’t have to shame congressional leaders into moving forward on a vote that makes many lawmakers uneasy. “If we’re going to ask people to risk their lives — and they’re risking them every day — then we ought to do our job,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). It “strikes me as the height of public immorality to duck a question like this.” Yet some Republicans contend that doing nothing might make more sense than what the president presented Wednesday. “My goal is to do no harm to the war effort. Harm to the war effort would be passing an AUMF that restricts our ability to win and destroy ISIL,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “The harm is to embrace a strategy with no chance of success.” After his party’s 45-minute closed-door caucus, Corker seemed unmoved by bipartisan complaints about the White House’s AUMF. The debate is just starting, he said, and no one’s “hair is on fire over this.”

non

Aaron Schock’s office reviewing his travel reimbursements Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock is beginning an internal review to discover whether he complied with House rules covering reimbursement for official travel. This review comes after POLITICO raised questions Tuesday about tens of thousands of dollars he has received from his official account for use of his personal vehicle on official duty. “Congressman Schock and his team have a well-deserved reputation for constituent service,” a statement from his office said. “This is due to extensive travel throughout the district which is 205 towns and 19 counties. The Congressman’s staff has access to his vehicle so it is used frequently when he is both in and out of the district. For example, this weekend over 800 miles were driven crisscrossing the district for events. Congressman Schock takes his compliance responsibilities seriously and procedures concerning this issue will be reviewed to determine whether they can improved.” Schock regularly received monthly $1,000 checks out of his members representational allowance to cover the mileage he reported incurring on his personal vehicle. He was reporting that his car was driven upwards of 2,000 miles each month. Story Continued Below POLITICO reported Monday that Schock was spending heavily on luxury hotels, private jets and a personal photographer.

non

John Boehner: ‘Too early to predict’ fate of Obama’s war request House Speaker John Boehner says it’s “too early to predict” whether Congress will approve President Barack Obama’s proposal to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. “The president is asking for less authority than he has today under previous authorizations. I don’t think that’s smart. We need a robust strategy to take on ISIL,” the Ohio Republican told Chris Wallace in an interview aired on “Fox News Sunday.” “No one has seen one from this White House yet.” Story Continued Below “In addition to a robust strategy,” the speaker added, “I think we need to have a robust authorization, and I don’t believe that what the president’s said here gives him the flexibility or the authority to take on this enemy and to win. And so I look at the submission by the president as the beginning of the process.” “We’re going to have a big debate,” Boehner predicted. “To do this correctly, I think we need to have bipartisan support on both sides of the Capitol.” Boehner, who took office in 1991, said his first vote in Congress was authorizing President George H.W. Bush to push Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Last week, Obama asked Congress to approve military action against ISIL that would not allow “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” vowing the terrorist group “is going to lose.” Boehner says bipartisan discussions to strengthen the president’s actions are necessary before any final approval. “He says the threat is being diminished. The fact is, ISIL continues to gain new territory,” Boehner said.

non

Obama calls Benjamin Netanyahu President Obama on Thursday called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him for his party's success in the Israeli elections earlier this week. According to the White House, Mr. Obama stressed the importance the U.S. places on our close military, intelligence, and security cooperation with Israel, "which reflects the deep and abiding partnership between both countries." The two leaders agree to "continue consultations," the White House said, on a range of issues, including finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."The President reaffirmed the United States' long-standing commitment to a two-state solution that results in a secure Israel alongside a sovereign and viable Palestine," the White House statement said. Earlier in the day, Netanyahu said in an interview with NBC that he still supported a two-state solution under certain terms -- even though he campaigned against it.Mr. Obama also reiterated to the Israeli leader that the U.S. is still focused on reaching a deal with Iran to curb its nuclear program.

non

House GOP leaders to subcommittee chairs: Vote with us or step down House Republicans are continuing to threaten the rebels within their ranks. At least three committee chairmen have issued formal warnings to subcommittee chairmen that lawmakers planning to vote against procedural motions on the House floor should give up their posts — the third time in just six weeks that Republican leaders have made it known they will not tolerate members stepping out of line. Story Continued Below House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway of Texas, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce of California have all warned their subcommittee chairs that voting against rules while occupying the coveted positions will not be accepted, according to lawmakers familiar with the discussions. Bishop said his Wednesday night warning was part of a larger discussion on how he wants his committee to run, including how bills and amendments will be introduced. “On a procedural issue, especially a rule, if you feel strong enough against something, you should also feel strong enough to remove yourself from the situation in which you would be a distraction to what we are trying to do on the committee,” Bishop said. The Republican leadership team, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), did not issue a directive to its chairmen to punish members who vote against procedural motions. However, sources said GOP leadership made clear to all full committee chairmen that there is an expectation that subcommittee chairs will vote with Republicans on rules. The warning does not automatically come with a punishment if subcommittee chairmen vote against rules, sources stressed, but it’s yet another sign that Boehner and his allies are looking to bring the rank and file into line after a series of close votes on budgets and appropriations bills in the previous Congress. Already this year, the Ohio Republican stripped committee spots from two lawmakers who challenged his speakership in early January. Reps. Richard Nugent and Daniel Webster, both of Florida, were removed from the Rules Committee — a panel appointed exclusively at Boehner’s direction — after Webster launched a challenge for the top spot in the House and Nugent backed him. In a second move, Republican Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana told whips that any lawmaker serving on the team would be expected to fall in line on rules and speaker votes. In response, Reps. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina both gave notice that they no longer wanted to be part of the leadership operation. Procedural motions are important for the majority party as it allows the House to proceed to debate and vote on the underlying legislation. These moves come as at least two dozen Republicans formed a splinter caucus designed to advance a conservative direction in the House. The House Freedom Caucus has pledged to work with Republican leaders, but lawmakers involved with forming the group said its members would be willing to vote against a rule or procedural vote as a bloc if they are left out of discussions on legislation. It would take around 28 members to derail a rules vote. A Republican lawmaker who attended the closed-door meeting with Bishop said members of the new conservative caucus feel as if the committee announcement is a reaction to the group’s growing influence. “He said that if you’re going to vote against a procedural motion you might as well resign prior to doing so, there was no discussion about it,” the lawmaker said. “This is something completely new. I think they see that [the Freedom Caucus] is a very potent weapon we can use.” Royce’s office said the chairman had not held a conversation with members. Conaway’s office declined to comment. “The whip team meetings are private meetings and the chairman will not discuss conversations that take place during these meetings,” said a spokesperson for the Agriculture Committee.

non

White House war sales pitch runs into flak on Hill President Barack Obama’s vision for approving the war against ISIL has come to Capitol Hill — and neither party is happy with the results. A White House sales pitch for its proposed use-of-force language ran into skepticism Tuesday from Senate Democrats, who want tighter limits on Obama’s ability to send ground troops into combat and a repeal of Congress’ original 2001 approval of the war on terror. But making those changes could provoke trouble with hawkish Republicans, some of whom want no restrictions on the president’s ability to deploy troops against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Story Continued Below The debate played out amid continuing international outrage over ISIL’s brutal killings of hostages, and on the same day that the U.S. announced it had confirmed the death of 26-year-old American aid worker Kayla Mueller in the terror group’s custody. “There remain very grave questions that have yet to be resolved,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said after a meeting among the Senate’s 46 Democratic Caucus members, White House chief counsel Neil Eggleston and chief of staff Denis McDonough about the still-unreleased war authorization language. “I have yet to be convinced. We’re all consulting at this point with each other, generally struggling for a consensus.” Democrats overall were receptive to the administration’s concepts for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, which would include a three-year limit to the war against ISIL, a ban on “enduring” ground combat operations and a repeal of the 2002 congressional approval of the Iraq War. But several Democrats also asked the White House’s top lawyer to consider prohibiting almost all use of ground troops and repealing the 2001 war authorization. The closed-door caucus lunch was punctuated by several bursts of applause, and participants did not describe it as heated. But senators leaving the powwow said the White House has work to do as it prepares to send final legislative language to the Hill this week after getting briefed on the administration’s military authorization “concepts.” Meanwhile, Republicans are divided over how far a congressional war approval should go. That topic dominated a GOP lunch Tuesday where Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) led a long discussion about the authorization. The White House’s proposal, as described by senators and aides, is “defensive in nature” and likely to prohibit “enduring offensive ground operations” against ISIL, will have no geographic limitations and will repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization. The language would also expire after three years to allow the next president to directly weigh in on the efficacy of combat operations against the Islamic militants. The language reflects the military-force proposal that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats offered in December, although the new version tilts the troop language toward the views of the Republicans who now control the Senate. After Tuesday’s White House briefing, several Democrats said the language prohibiting “enduring offensive ground operations” was too loose. “For many of us, it’s going to be tough to swallow a restriction on ground troops that doesn’t seem to be much of a restriction at all,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said. “I have no doubt that President Obama is going to maintain his commitment to keep ground troops out of the Middle East, but my worry is that this version of the AUMF will allow for the next president to repeat the mistakes of the past.” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said he, too, had “serious concerns” about the ground troops language. “It’s a little too broad,” Heinrich said in an interview. “I don’t think that’s their intention, but I think there’s a potential for abuse there that I’d very much like to see narrowed.” Several Democrats also complained that the proposal would not repeal the broadly written 2001 war authorization, which both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have used to justify the fights against al Qaeda affiliates across the globe, and which Obama has used for attacks on ISIL. The old, Democratically run Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s December war authorization included an end to the 2001 approval. The absence of that language in the current White House proposal is raising plenty of Democratic eyebrows. “There was a lot of dialogue about that 2001 [AUMF]. ‘Why haven’t we done anything there, why don’t we put a three-year sunset? It shouldn’t be indefinite,’” said Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, describing the “very strong” language several of his colleagues had used. Senators said Eggleston did not indicate whether the White House will consider including Democrats’ request to sunset the 2001 operation after three years, which would force the next president to find new language to underwrite the broader war on terror. The administration is still using the 2001 authorization to hold some detainees at Guantanamo Bay and justify strikes on terrorists in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Libya — and getting rid of it could cause GOP concerns. In contrast, Republicans say the ground troop language in the new war authorization doesn’t offer the president enough leeway. The White House will be unable to satisfy both hawkish Republicans and liberal doves, but somehow must thread a needle through the center of both parties to get to 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House. It’s not clear if the current proposal does that. Not even the Two Amigos are on the same page about the White House’s proposed ban on “enduring offensive ground operations.” “That would be unacceptable to me,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.). “Any curtailment of the president’s ability as commander in chief I would not support. … I don’t care about this president — I care about future presidents.” But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of McCain’s closest allies on national security, said he does not have a problem with the White House’s language on ground troops. “The language ‘no enduring offensive capabilities’ is fine with me,” said Graham, who had gotten a briefing from the White House counsel Tuesday morning. “I’m not going in to hold the territory. I’m trying to help the local forces go in and take it back and let them hold.” Instead, Graham said he opposes the White House draft because the Syrian rebel fighters being trained to battle ISIL would get no protection from the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “I think the authorization is fine for Iraq,” he said. “It makes sense for Iraq. I think it’s fine everywhere except with the ability to protect the ground force from Assad’s air campaign.” The meeting with Senate Democrats on Tuesday was the first public effort by the White House to court Capitol Hill on the AUMF, though a broad outreach has been quietly underway for months. The congressional deliberations continued on Tuesday evening, as Eggleston huddled with House Democratic leaders. On Wednesday afternoon Corker will convene a special Senate GOP caucus meeting about the AUMF and a draft could arrive as soon as Wednesday, though administration officials and lawmakers have declined to set a firm deadline. Corker, a major subject of the White House’s Hill outreach efforts, will lead hearings on the war proposal and eventually put it to a committee vote after next week’s congressional recess. He made it clear that the AUMF will be subject to amendments as it goes through committee, which means whatever emerges could be quite different from what the White House was shopping Tuesday. “What they’re sending over is the starting point,” Corker said. “This is one of the most important issues any senator will ever deal with.”

non

Air Force One charm offensive takes off One of the least back-slapping presidents in recent memory may have finally found a way to bond with lawmakers — by treating them to the most exclusive upgrade in air travel. Since his party took brutal losses in the November elections, President Barack Obama has invited nearly 20 members of Congress to fly with him on Air Force One to state visits in India and Saudi Arabia, to Tennessee for the announcement of his free community college initiative, and to Nevada to promote his latest sweeping moves on immigration. Story Continued Below Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander used last month’s flight to his home state of Tennessee to bend the president’s ear on changes to No Child Left Behind. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was flying on Air Force One to Saudi Arabia when she cajoled Obama into killing his plan to tax college savings plans. And this kind of airborne presidential face time is happening more and more, part of a White House schmooze offensive aimed at both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. While lawmakers have flown on the president’s Boeing 747 throughout his presidency, the White House says the focus on the flights has increased since the midterms. The directive came from Obama himself, a White House official said. Even when no major decisions come from the airborne jaunts, lawmakers say they yield dividends. “I’m not one of those kind of guys needing to shoot the breeze, or needing to be felt important,” said Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who joined Obama for the recent trip with Alexander. “That’s not something that is necessary, but when it’s appropriate we can have a conversation on a trip like that.” Republicans haven’t always been so willing to ride along with the president. No Republican congressmen flew with Obama on the plane from September 2011 until February 2013, as POLITICO has previously reported. And the 2013 trip brought some conservative flak for Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who flew with Obama to an appearance in Newport News where the president criticized the sequestration budget cuts — prompting anti-tax activist Grover Norquist to slam Rigell as a “very cheap date.” But now Republicans are openly willing to talk about how they are using the time on the plane with Obama. “It gave me an opportunity to talk to him about our major objectives for our committee, which are to fix No Child Left Behind, deregulate higher education and precision medicine,” Alexander said after the January trek to Knoxville. The trip led to “further conversations” with Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, said Alexander, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Using the world’s most famous plane to build relationships with lawmakers is a shift for Obama, who is not known as a schmoozer. Democrats and Republicans alike have long complained that they don’t get invited enough to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and that Obama rarely calls unless he needs something. For Obama, the often hourslong flights offer a rare opportunity to get to know lawmakers in a more relaxed environment, where reporters aren’t in the room — and where the plane’s confines offer no escape. But now, with Congress under total GOP control, Obama is going to need new allies as he looks to cut deals with Republicans and get Democrats on board for issues like trade. So far, Congress and the president have gotten off to a rocky start this year, with the White House issuing a flurry of veto threats while Republicans push for the Keystone XL pipeline and try to undercut his immigration policies. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has also ridden with Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, called it a “positive” step that Obama is looking to include more lawmakers on Air Force One trips. The Michigan Democrat helped organize a delegation of lawmakers to attend an event where Obama promoted passage of the farm bill in 2014. “It’s always good, because we’re all rushing around, to have a little bit of extra time to actually relax and talk in a more informal way,” Stabenow said. The travel initiative is so important that Obama has deputized White House legislative affairs director Katie Fallon as the point person. “The president believes engaging members of Congress in the course of travel around the country can be helpful, especially when working on shared goals like immigration reform and making college more accessible for all Americans, or visiting our allies in travels around the world,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. In January, Obama invited Alexander, Corker and Republican Tennessee Rep. John Duncan to join him in Knoxville for the announcement of his proposal to offer students two free years of community college, along with the launch of a manufacturing hub. During the trip, Obama came to the back of the plane and lunched with the lawmakers. Most recently, four Democrats — Pelosi, California Rep. Ami Bera, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner and New York Rep. Joe Crowley — flew with Obama to India and Saudi Arabia, where he offered condolences for the death of King Abdullah. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) also joined the delegation after flying separately. It was during the India-to-Saudi leg of the trip that Pelosi successfully lobbied Obama to scuttle his proposal to tax the college savings plans known as 529s. But the trip also included more informal discussions. Bera, the only Indian-American in Congress, said Obama came to the back of the plane multiple times to talk with the lawmakers. “He was very relaxed,” Bera said. “We talked about the trip, what the goals for the trip were. … It gives him an opportunity to get to know members as Congress as well.” Still, the president hasn’t been shy about using the power of the plane for a partisan victory lap. He shuttled eight Democratic lawmakers and other advocates to Las Vegas in November to preview his newest executive actions on immigration, which include steps to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Dina Titus from the Nevada delegation were joined by Pelosi and immigration reform proponents Reps. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico and Xavier Becerra of California. Then-Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada, who had just lost his reelection bid, was also part of the delegation. The experience wasn’t lost on Titus, who talked with Obama about how it would affect her district. “The president came back and talked to us several times during the flight, and then when you get there and you walk off it’s just kind of a thrill and it’s very nice because people at home seeing you doing that,” Titus said. “They share your excitement.”

non

Senate frozen amid DHS fight The GOP-controlled Senate is looking a lot like last year’s Democratic Senate: failed procedural votes, short and fruitless workweeks and prolonged periods of inactivity on the floor. The reason: The stubborn impasse on Homeland Security funding has sapped the chamber’s ability to do much else for the past two weeks, aside from some small-bore legislation. And as lawmakers skip town for a 10-day recess, some Republicans worry that the fight could drag on far past the Feb. 27 shutdown deadline — particularly if Congress ends up passing a short-term funding Band-Aid that merely sets up another cliff. Story Continued Below Many in the Capitol see a short-term extension as the most likely solution to keeping the Department of Homeland Security’s funding from running out at the end of the month, especially with the chambers deadlocked on language that would roll back President Barack Obama’s immigration policies. But Senate Republicans are already expressing frustration that they’ve wasted too much time trying to appease their House counterparts by voting repeatedly on the same doomed DHS bill, which Democrats have filibustered three times. High-ranking GOP senators are sending a warning flare to the House: The only thing worse than missing the first deadline of the year would be fighting this battle all over again in March or April. “We’ve got to get off this. We’ve got to get it behind us. We have to at some point bring it to closure,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican. A short-term DHS funding deal “would be a bad outcome for the Senate just in terms of us being to do other things. … If we have to do a short-term extension, we’ve got to revisit this. The next time it comes over, it will take another couple weeks.” The partisan stalemate is also undermining Republicans’ attempts to show they can run Congress effectively as they head into a tough fight to keep the Senate in 2016. “This battle should be ended,” said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who wants a DHS funding bill with none of the immigration riders that the House attached to its version in January. “When we were given the honor of the majority, we have to govern wisely. Shutdowns are not wise policy for key national security-related departments.” Asked for his solution to the stalemate, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) responded: “Take the same time we’re doing this and pass an immigration bill. That’s what I want.” “We could be doing a lot of things,” added Flake, who had helped broker a deal for comprehensive immigration reform that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) spurned in the last Congress. But other ideas for resolving the standoff are in short supply. House conservatives on Thursday floated a lead trial balloon calling for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to gut the Senate’s legislative filibuster, which Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) had to awkwardly shoot down at a joint House and Senate Republican news conference. Instead, McConnell is setting up a fourth failed vote on the thrice-filibustered House bill after members return on Feb. 23. Though House and Senate lawmakers in both parties despise the idea of a short-term extension, continually relitigating the funding fight would be particularly painful for Senate Republicans, both functionally and politically. It took McConnell a month to pass the Keystone XL pipeline bill because of his desire to allow an open amendment process, so any short-term DHS bill would serve only to further delay Republican priorities like Obamacare repeal, tax reform and new trade deals. Republicans also don’t want to add anything else to their already full plate of deadlines, especially in the Senate, where one lawmaker can cause days of delays for legislation. And after Feb. 27, the deadlines come fast: By March 31, Medicare providers face steep cuts in their payments unless Congress passes a law to head them off. Then transportation funding runs out in May, and in June some portions of the Patriot Act expire. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans aim to pass a budget this spring and begin writing appropriations bills for each arm of government — contentious debates that will take lots of time. And raising the debt ceiling looms in the summer or fall. With that workload in mind, a CR that creates another Homeland Security deadline is not on the top of Republicans’ wish list. “It only postpones the problem. It just kicks the can down the road,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “Another cliff. It doesn’t solve anything.” Though the GOP Senate has looked much like its gridlocked Democratic predecessor, party leaders have emphasized that February’s stalemate does not mean a revival of the do-nothing Senate. This month, the Senate confirmed a new defense secretary and drug czar and passed bills aimed at preventing suicide among veterans and aiding victims of child pornography. None of those required much debate — and all but the confirmation of defense secretary nominee Ash Carter passed unanimously. Yet even within the Republican caucus there’s been turbulence about the multitasking, even on those less contentious items. Some conservatives argue that the Senate should do nothing but let Democrats sit on the obstructionist hot seat, an argument that has not gained much traction as most Republicans try to look past the DHS battle. “I don’t think we should shut the place down,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who has big plans for tax reform and trade. “We’ve got to continue to do our work and not get distracted.” Republican leaders admit that the chamber hasn’t been the paragon of legislative debate that it was when the Senate was taking scores of amendments on Keystone last month. But if anyone’s to blame for the lack of movement on major legislation this month, Republican say, it’s Democrats who won’t let the Senate debate the House’s immigration-DHS package. “It is frustrating that the Democrats have filibustered the bill,” said Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas. “This is the kind of dysfunction that voters repudiated in November. And to sort of fall back into these same bad habits is a little frustrating. But I think its just a temporary bump in the road.”

non

White House aggressively courts Hill on war with ISIL Seeking to avoid a repeat of its disastrous push to approve military strikes on Syria in 2013, the White House is ramping up its outreach with lawmakers ahead of Capitol Hill’s imminent debate over whether to authorize the ongoing military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. With Congress expecting a draft Authorization of the Use of Military Force this week, President Barack Obama and other top national security officials are courting a broad bipartisan swath of lawmakers and Hill staffers to ensure that Congress and the White House can begin the politically perilous task at least partly in sync. The draft is likely to bear imprints from an extended back-and-forth between the White House and lawmakers, sources said, though that’s no guarantee that Capitol Hill will approve a new military conflict. Story Continued Below The debate over the new measure could last for weeks, possibly months, said lawmakers and administration officials. The White House hopes to ensure that the Republicans who control Congress aren’t blindsided by Obama’s draft military force resolution, especially after lawmakers in both parties balked at both his 2013 request for approval to attack Syria and a Democratic-led 2014 authorization against ISIL. The White House legislative office, led by Katie Beirne Fallon, has been quietly holding meetings with GOP and Democratic lawmakers, chiefs of staff for key players and aides to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). Also involved in the discussions for the Obama administration are Secretary of State John Kerry; White House counsel Neil Eggleston; Lisa Monaco, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism; National Security Adviser Susan Rice; Assistant Deputy National Security Adviser Avril Haines; and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, said a source familiar with the outreach. Eggleston is expected to attend the Senate Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday. Additional meetings with GOP senators are also being put together, said a source familiar with the White House’s outreach efforts. White House officials say the text of the AUMF is still under review, and they will not finalize a draft proposal until they have consulted with as wide a group of lawmakers as possible. White House officials have told reporters that the AUMF is expected on the Hill by Wednesday, although that remains fluid depending on the state of consultations with lawmakers. “On the whole, the consultations have been productive and well-received,” said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Even members who have expressed some disagreement with the administration’s approach have noted they appreciate the thoughtful and constructive way in which the White House has gone about seeking their input and engaging in a meaningful discussion on specific aspects of the language.” The source added: “Furthermore, consultations are ongoing with additional Republicans and Democrats, and we have worked hard to accommodate various scheduling challenges of members, as well. The final text of the AUMF and timing for delivery will not be locked until we are able to complete these robust consultations and consider all of the feedback we have received.” Obama must thread the needle on a new war resolution: Democrats are antsy about anything that could lead to U.S. combat troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria, while hawkish Republicans are already pushing back against language that would restrict Obama from responding to an evolving conflict in a volatile yet critical region. How to write language that would allow ground troops in only specific circumstances, like personnel rescue, will be a major pivot point for an AUMF’s path to a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate. The state of the Iran nuclear negotiations is another factor playing into the Islamic State debate. A number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been critical of how Obama and Kerry have handled the multilateral discussions over Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned address to a joint session of Congress next month has caused a huge uproar. On the Islamic State, the White House and lawmakers want to find a consensus to demonstrate American resolve in the face of a growing threat to stability in the Middle East, as well as to U.S. allies like Jordan and Iraq. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has been a focus of the administration’s outreach. The White House was already courting him aggressively even when he was in the minority, thanks to his disposition toward deal making, but he’s getting even more attention now. Corker rode on Air Force One with Obama last month and chewed over his own Iran policy during breakfast with Vice President Joe Biden in late January, and Corker has extensively discussed the war with top administration officials. “We’ve always been pretty engaged with them,” Corker said. “We are setting the agenda. I think that just automatically causes there to be a little more engagement.” Expecting an AUMF draft within days, Corker will call hearings as soon as he receives a blueprint from the White House. He indicated he will give it plenty of scrutiny, declining to say whether he’d back the AUMF as soon as it’s released. Asked if he’s spoken with Obama about the matter, Corker said: “Of course, I traveled with the president to Tennessee, we talked about a lot of things. I’ve been able to adequately express myself.” White House officials have also concentrated on the Foreign Relations rankand file, sending lawyers, legislative affairs staffers and National Security Council personnel to meet with lawmakers and their staffs. Also receiving special attention: Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking member of the panel and an outspoken critic of Obama’s handling of Cuba and Iran. In the House, Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the chairman and ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, have also been contacted repeatedly by administration officials. “They’ve been pretty good about communicating their priorities,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who voted against the 2013 Syria AUMF in the Foreign Relations Committee. “I feel like no lack of attention on discussions around the AUMF.” Clearing Corker’s panel will be a major accomplishment for the White House given that senators in both parties balked at authorizing military strikes against Syria in 2013 and rejected the committee’s resolution from December 2014, which never received a vote in the full Senate. That measure would have provided a three-year authorization of force that prohibited ground troops except for certain circumstances. It would also have sunsetted the 2001 authorization used to justify war in Afghanistan — along with the ongoing bombing campaign against ISIL that began in August. Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior member of Foreign Relations, has met with Obama’s legal team to hear the outlines of what the administration is mulling over, though Cardin did not see a paper draft. In those meetings, the Maryland Democrat urged the administration to submit a draft to Congress that largely mirrors what the committee passed two months ago and seeks to avoid getting the U.S. stuck in a protracted conflict that lawmakers could come to regret supporting. “I would hope that the president would come in where we were at in committee,” Cardin said. “We should be very careful as to what we authorize with current needs to the military … and not try to give a broad authorization that could be used many years from now.” Cardin said Republicans may be more willing this year to approve a time-limited force resolution if the language comes directly from the president, rather than Senate Democrats. Cardin’s conversations with other committee lawmakers show what appears to be “a real desire to get an authorization to the president,” he said. But Republicans are already setting their terms of debate. Though Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is no longer on Foreign Relations, his support will be key for any AUMF. He was one of three Republicans who helped muscle the 2013 force resolution against Syria through the committee, along with Corker and Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona. “To constrain the commander in chief under certain parameters in my view is a violation of the Constitution, which calls for the president of the United States to be commander in chief,” McCain said. “It would be a terribly dangerous precedent if we were somehow curtailing the kind of operations he can engage in.” But Democrats are likely to fixate on the prohibition against ground troops and on ensuring Congress does not pass another open-ended resolution. Kerry laid out that he could support Democrats’ desire to limit an AUMF to three years, but has argued against geographic restraints or any combat prohibitions. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is involved in these discussions for the House Democratic Caucus, said his colleagues are not going to give Obama — or any president — a “blank check.” “Yes, the White House is reaching out,” Van Hollen said. “I’ve had conversations with folks on the National Security Council. I know they’ve reached out to others, especially those folks that have expressed an interest in the past, which is most members of Congress. I know they’re listening.” Van Hollen, though, warned, “There’s this tension between those who want to give the executive [branch] a blank check, and those who want to place limits on war-making power, especially with respect to the deployment of American ground troops. “At the end of the day, this may be a needle that’s impossible to thread,” the Maryland Democrat cautioned.

non

Barack Obama: Get rid of ‘routine use’ of legislative filibuster President Barack Obama wants to eliminate “routine use” of the legislative filibuster. Just don’t tell that to Senate Democrats. Even as his party’s senators are preparing to mount their fourth filibuster in about a week on the GOP’s Homeland Security bill if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) forces another vote, Obama suggested in an interview with Vox that disarming that legislative weapon is “probably the one thing that we could change without a constitutional amendment that would make a difference” in how Capitol Hill operates. Story Continued Below The way the filibuster is used “almost ensures greater gridlock and less clarity in terms of the positions of the parties. There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires it,” Obama said in the interview published Monday, in response to a question about how to govern during increasing polarization. “The filibuster in this modern age probably just torques it too far in the direction of a majority party not being able to govern effectively and move forward its platform,” he added. The White House declined further comment Monday. Democrats have vowed to be far more selective with the legislative filibuster than Republicans were during their eight years in the minority, pointing to the agreements they’ve made this year on amendment votes and swift consideration of a pair of noncontroversial bills. Any senator can hold up the Senate and require 60 votes for legislation to advance, a practice that became increasingly popular among Republicans during Obama’s presidency. But the 46 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus are wielding the filibuster too, slowing progress on the Keystone XL pipeline in January and vowing this month to reject any Homeland Security bill that contains riders attacking Obama’s immigration policies. They say they will debate immigration, but only separately from the funding bill. “We don’t see ourselves as filibustering,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). “We’re not just stopping things to stop it. We feel that we’re actually being constructive.” In the interview with Vox, Obama reminisced about the first two years of his presidency when Democrats held the House and for a time had 60 votes in the Senate — which for a few months gave the filibuster far less impact than it’s had since then. “My first two years in office when I had a Democratic majority and Democratic House and Democratic Senate, we were as productive as any time since Lyndon Johnson,” Obama said. “And when the majority went away, stuff got blocked.” The Senate’s former Democratic majority abolished the filibuster for almost all nominations in 2013, and some Republicans are now proposing to gut it for nominations to the Supreme Court — but there is no serious effort in either party to eliminate the filibuster on legislation.

non

Rep. Blake Farenthold denies many of former press aide’s accusations Texas GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold has denied most of the salacious accusations lodged against him by a former press aide who is suing him over her firing. But Farenthold did admit that he was propositioned by a woman to be part of a “threesome.” And House lawyers acting on Farenthold’s behalf acknowledged in a Thursday court filing that some of his aides “occasionally joked that Rep. Farenthold finds redheads attractive, but denies the allegation and implication that this was a source for, or cause of, concern for any staffer.” Story Continued Below These revelations about Farenthold have been disclosed as part of his defense against a lawsuit brought by Lauren Greene, his former communications director, for gender discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, and improperly retaliating against Greene after she complained. Greene worked in Farenthold’s office from Jan. 2013 to July 2014, according to congressional payroll records. Among her other claims, Greene asserted that Farenthold told her he was “estranged from his wife and had not had sex with her in years,” drank heavily, and told another staffer that he fantasized about Greene. Farenthold admitted that he and his chief of staff, Bob Haueter, as well as another female aide, were concerned that Greene’s “flimsy clothing” was revealing but denied that he said to another staffer that it was acceptable for Greene to wear such outfits. Farenthold’s congressional lawyers said in their response to Greene’s lawsuit that she was “informed of the decision to terminate her employment the day after [Greene] failed to report to work and appear for multiple media events.” Farenthold’s defense team also asserted that because of Greene’s “inadequate job performance as Communications Director, Rep. Farenthold, Mr. Haueter, and other [staffers] were forced to perform a significant amount of [Greene’s] work for her.” Farenthold’s congressional lawyers said Greene’s lawsuit was too vague and that Greene failed to properly engage in mediation and counseling required under the Congressional Accountability Act, which placed lawmakers under the same workplace regulations as other employers. In addition, the House lawyers raised the prospect that Farenthold may use the “Speech or Debate Clause” as a defense to fend off some accusations. Under that constitutional clause, lawmakers and aides cannot face legal action for legitimate legislative activities, although its use in employment discrimination cases has long been controversial.

non

Wisconsin GOP hits Tammy Baldwin with ethics complaint Wisconsin Republicans are determined to make a long-simmering local news story about Sen. Tammy Baldwin stick, filing an ethics complaint in hopes of leaving a black mark on the freshman Democrat’s first term. The state GOP issued a complaint Thursday to the Senate Ethics Committee that alleges Baldwin offered a former employee a severance package not to talk about her office’s bungled response to opioid problems at a Veterans Affairs facility in Tomah, Wisconsin, which state investigators have linked to at least one death. Story Continued Below The former Baldwin aide, Marquette Baylor, was terminated last month following allegations that Baldwin’s office knew about an inspector general report of loose prescription practices last summer and did not immediately act on them, according to a series of reports by USA Today and local media. That report, however, did not find “any conclusive evidence” of illegal practice, though it raised “serious concerns” about the facility. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel also reported that Baylor was offered severance pay to keep a lid on the mishandling of the Tomah VA’s issues, but declined. The Wisconsin GOP alleged Thursday that Baldwin is involved in a “massive cover-up” and that offering severance money to Baylor while she was no longer employed by the Senate was improper. “Tammy Baldwin wrongly appropriated taxpayer funds to compensate a Senate employee who would not have performed official government duties while also fraudulently offering a contract to silence a former employee in order to save Baldwin’s career,” Joe Fadness, the executive director of the state Republican Party, wrote in the complaint. Baldwin has retained Marc Elias, a major power player in Democratic politics, as counsel to deal with the fallout over Baylor’s termination and the Tomah VA facility. Elias said in an emailed statement that GOP’s complaint is “nothing more than a political stunt.” “This is a frivolous allegation wholly without merit,” Elias said. “It is unfortunate that the Republican Party has made the choice to play partisan politics with the serious and tragic issues facing the VA and our veterans.” The GOP’s request for an investigation now goes to the secretive Ethics Committee, which rarely makes a peep about ongoing probes until the matters have been fully reviewed. The committee is now chaired by a Republican for the first time in years, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). Baylor stopped working for Baldwin as deputy state director in January, according to congressional database Legistorm. Elias told Wisconsin media that Baylor was fired for “her long-term performance on a range of issues” and that Baylor’s “handling of the problems at the Tomah VA was only one of those issues.” Baldwin’s office also provided POLITICO with a detailed timeline of Baldwin’s requests for investigations into the Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center’s practice of providing drug prescriptions for veterans in active treatment for substance abuse. It says she first raised the issue with the Tomah facility’s director on April 7, raised an anonymous constituent’s concerns with treatment practices on June 25, requested inspector general reports on Aug. 11 and last month asked for Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald to take “immediate action to address the extremely troubling reports of improper opiate prescribing practices” at Tomah.

non

Feb. 26 committee vote set for Loretta Lynch nomination The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a Feb. 26 vote for Loretta Lynch to become the next attorney general, but when the full Senate could take up her nomination is still up in the air. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent out a formal notice on Thursday setting the time for Lynch’s vote. Several Republicans on the panel, including Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona, have signaled they support Lynch or are open to voting for her to replace Attorney General Eric Holder, which would allow her nomination to clear the Judiciary Committee. Story Continued Below However, a number of GOP senators — such as Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama — have suggested filibustering her nomination on the floor unless President Barack Obama reverses course on his executive actions on immigration. With other Republicans opposed to preventing a vote on the first black female nominee for attorney general, and all 46 Democrats supporting the Lynch nomination, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) may be forced to file a cloture motion to end a GOP filibuster. That move would delight Democrats as much as it would outrage conservative outside groups opposed to Obama’s immigration policies.

non

Bob Packwood hailed for tax revamp, scandal sidestepped What happens when a formerly disgraced senator is called as an expert at his old committee? Nobody mentions it. Story Continued Below That’s what happened on Tuesday, when former Senate Finance Chairman Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) came to his old stomping ground to talk about how he helped overhaul the tax code in 1986. “We are trying to learn everything we can about 1986 and how they did it and he was a tremendous leader at that time,” said Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) as he entered the hearing room. “I believe in redemption. I believe that you don’t judge people for mistakes made in the past, you judge them for what they are today and frankly he did a terrific job of working on tax reform.” But between 1986 and today, Packwood became persona non grata in the Senate. In 1995 the Ethics Committee, then chaired by current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), voted to recommend the venerated Packwood be expelled after considering more than 10,000 pages of evidence and allegations from at least 17 women that the former Finance chairman had forcibly kissed, groped or otherwise harassed them. For his part, Packwood said it felt good to be back. “It seemed like any other hearing that I participated in,” he said after the hearing, when asked if he thought he was treated well. He said it was his first time to be asked to the Senate to testify. He works now as a lobbyist and said he talks to several members of the committee lobbying for a major Medicare provider. The panel also has oversight over health issues. After the controversy, Packwood, now 82, has been used as shorthand for a Washington culture where harassment was accepted and ignored. Just last year McConnell used the case against Packwood to defend his record for women in the Senate. “The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a member of my party, had a case before the Senate Ethics Committee with regard to sexual harassment. In those days 20 years ago much of this was never taken seriously by anyone,” McConnell said at the time. “After investigating the case and bringing together all of the evidence, I moved to expel him from the Senate. And with the Senate on the verge of expelling him, he decided to resign.” McConnell used his vote on Packwood as evidence there was no such thing as a Republican war on women. The choice to call him as an expert Tuesday reopened that old fight. Jess McIntosh, vice president of communications for EMILY’s list, a fundraising organization for female Democrats, suggested that the choice to celebrate Packwood in the committee is part of the same gender-deaf culture that led Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to shush a female reporter during a televised interview. “So Rand Paul wants the woman interviewing him to calm down and shhh, but he’s going to sit with his colleagues and listen attentively to Bob Packwood,” McIntosh said in an email. “2015 is off to an awesome start for Senate Republicans.” Packwood did little to dispel that message, at one point referring to the Senate as “a small fraternity.” The sex scandal that ended Packwood’s career and became a parable on the campaign trail was dismissed as an unrelated, unfair question on Tuesday. Inside the Finance Committee, Packwood wasn’t a man discredited; he was once again an expert and political genius. Packwood, who read journal entries from 1986 as part of his testimony, gave members personal advice on the dangers and politics of reform. He broke down the challenges of a value added tax and the need to rebuff special interests in the name of a simpler, fairer tax code. Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), who served with Packwood on the committee, said that’s exactly how it should be. People should be judged on what they accomplished in government, not on the foibles of their personal lives, he said in an interview. Every few years Washington is forced to decide how to assess the careers and lives of revered legislators whose personal lives have been marred by scandal. Simpson said if you can’t divide the two, you’d never learn important lessons. “If that’s the case we never should have listened to anything that Ted Kennedy said,” he said. “Forget Clinton, forget the people, whatever they’ve done before, what does that have to do with their brains and their intellect?” It was a message shared by Republicans on the committee. “That’s got nothing to do with it,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who served on the committee under Packwood. “We’ve brought in people from prison to testify; he’s never been to prison.” Grassley, like most other Republicans on the panel, said Packwood had experience to share and they didn’t see how his conduct had any bearing on the conversation. “Everybody makes mistakes, some people make bad mistakes, some people recover from them, some people don’t; it depends on how they handle themselves after the mistake,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “I know of no reason why he shouldn’t be testifying this morning on taxes and the ‘86 tax act.” The question wasn’t so easy for Democrats. Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the committee and Packwood’s successor in Oregon after his resignation, would not address the question directly; he only made clear that Packwood wasn’t his choice. “Sen. [Bill] Bradley was our witness,” Wyden said. “The Republicans chose Sen. Packwood and the two are going to talk about bipartisanship.” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, (D-Mich.), one of only two women on the committee, would only say she was surprised. “I think it was an unusual choice,” she said. “I wasn’t serving when he was here but I was surprised.” Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who served on the Ethics Committee during the 1995 investigation, joked that as long as he wasn’t called to testify about “an internship program” it wasn’t her business. “I’ll leave that to the Finance Committee, but it would not have been my first choice,” she said. “He was expelled from the Senate for conduct unbecoming of a senator involving underage girls.”

non

Obama administration looks for new peace playbook after Netanyahu victory Senior Obama administration officials said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to abandon a two-state solution, which he had formally endorsed in 2009, injects a new and unwelcome reality in the pursuit of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.Netanyahu's new position, which he declared in the final days of a fiercely fought reelection campaign, could even prompt significant changes in U.S. policy. The officials said President Obama has instructed top advisers to pursue alternatives to the long-standing policy of allowing Israel and the Palestinians to pursue a two-state solution through face-to-face negotiations.One possibility is that the administration could endorse -- or simply not object to -- international moves to recognize a Palestinian state. The "likely outcome" of the policy review, officials said, could be the administration's acceptance of a United Nations Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state.In the past, the White House collaborated with Israel to block such a resolution. But White House frustration over Netanyahu's decision to walk away from a two-state solution and his continued construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank have led Obama officials to reconsider their options. European governments have been especially critical of new Israeli settlements, and the White House has found it increasingly difficult to mute that criticism or short-circuit Security Council consideration of recognizing a Palestinian state.It has generally succeeded on both fronts, but pressure has been building, and Netanyahu's abandonment of the idea of Palestinian statehood have made the stasis more difficult to sustain. In the heat of his re-election campaign, Netanyahu said there would be no Palestinian state if he was re-elected.While it's possible he could soften that position once he forms a coalition government, White House officials are doubtful. They anticipate Netanyahu will build the foundation of his new government with support from right-wing parties and other factions supportive of new Jewish settlements and hostile to a Palestinian state. "We have constantly argued against so-called short cuts to a Palestinian state," said one top official. "We defended that by saying the Israel and the Palestinians were committed to a two-state solution. Now, that is much harder to defend. This screws up the peace process." President Obama will telephone Netanyahu in the coming days to offer his congratulations on his victory, while administration officials closely monitor his efforts to build a coalition government.

non

Congressman's spending brings Schock and awe He charters private planes and employs a personal photographer. In Aspen, Colorado, he stays at the Little Nell, a five-star resort near the ski slopes. In Las Vegas, he prefers the pricey Wynn hotel. While in Vail, Colorado, and San Francisco, it’s the Four Seasons. In Miami Beach, he’s sampled the Delano, Fontainebleau and the exclusive Soho Beach House. And in Beverly Hills, California, he’s tried both the Peninsula and the Beverly Wilshire. Illinois GOP Rep. Aaron Schock raises a lot of money, for himself and other Republicans — he had $3.2 million in the bank at the end of December. And through his web of campaign committees, the 33-year-old lawmaker also spends lavishly. Story Continued Below Schock’s spending, which was always a subject of internal GOP chatter, has come under scrutiny since The Washington Post revealed last week that he had his Capitol Hill office redecorated to resemble “Downton Abbey.” In addition to staying at expensive hotels, Schock also has spent more than $90,000 in campaign dollars on private air charters, an unusually high sum for a rank-and-file member of the House. His allies say it’s necessary so he can quickly hop between Republican districts across the country. House financial records also show that he has spent thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on private planes, which his office says helps him get around his Illinois district. Schock’s campaign has also purchased a $74,000 Chevrolet Tahoe to help get him around back home in Illinois, in addition to a $27,000 Ford. To keep track of all his comings and goings, Schock has hired a personal photographer. Jonathon Link, a former Dallas-area wedding photographer, now snaps shots for Schock, and both his campaign and taxpayers pick up the bill. To pay for all of this, Schock is constantly fundraising, and he has repeatedly attended high-profile events. On Jan. 31, 2014, Schock cut a check to the NFL for more than $10,000 to cover the cost of Super Bowl tickets. In April 2013, Schock spent $3,320 on tickets to the CMA Country Music Awards. Instead of holding fundraisers at golf courses — as dozens of other Republicans do — Schock insiders say he prefers sporting and music events. And to keep track of this burgeoning political operation, Schock has spent more than $200,000 on lawyers since 2011, including $91,369 in the past two years. He has come under the scrutiny of the Office of Congressional Ethics for allegedly soliciting a contribution for a super PAC above the legal limits. Schock has denied any wrongdoing. The campaign filings — analyzed by POLITICO — help illustrate a pattern of aggressive spending by Schock. The issue was first raised by the Post, which reported his office had been decorated in the theme of “Downton Abbey,” the British drama about early-20th-century English aristocrats, complete with red-painted walls, an elaborate mirror and a “gold-colored wall sconce with black candle.” USA Today then disclosed that Schock had previously shelled out “tens of thousands” in taxpayer dollars on office renovations, leather furniture and amenities like granite countertops. Schock later said he would personally cover the cost of his “Downton Abbey” renovation. Ben Cole, one of his top advisers, also resigned last week after it was revealed he had made controversial remarks about black people on Facebook. Speaking in Peoria on Friday, Schock said the office renovation has made him “the punching bag” for the press. “I’m the same person today that I was seven years ago when I was elected,” Schock insisted. “But when you’re in this environment, all is fair.” None of this spending is illegal. Lawmakers are free to spend their political money as they wish, as long as they are not enriching themselves. And Schock, in an email, defended his spending. He said his cars “are used more often by the campaign than him personally, for such activities as distributing campaign yard signs, driving folks to parades, helping transport larger signs, etc.” The pricey hotels are all “campaign-related expenses,” his office said. And Schock aides defended employing a full-time photographer; “what is spent on photographers is in line with what is raised as a result.” “Rep. Schock has been consistently named one of the top fundraisers for the Republican Party,” a spokesman said in a statement. “Last year alone he was one of the top five fundraisers for the party in the House. Rep. Schock raised $2 million personally for the [National Republican Congressional Committee] last year, $15.2 million for the March Dinner and gave out half a million from his leadership PAC to other Members and Congressional candidates, obviously to raise that amount of money, he must spend resources as well and incur overhead costs. These trips are for fundraising events around the country or campaigning for other candidates. For example, in the month of October, he went to 40 different congressional districts.” The hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees are “a matter of business practice to ensure he is in compliance with all applicable federal laws,” the statement added. Schock certainly wants to be a high-profile player in Washington and back home in Illinois. The ambitious Republican was elected at 27, and six years later, he has a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He has eyed statewide office and once toyed with challenging NRCC Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon. He is a prodigious fundraiser, and pulled in $2.5 million from 2013 to 2014, and has given and raised a total of $2 million to the NRCC last year. Schock also funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars to his Republican colleagues, helping them win reelection and netting him political chits. In 2014, Republican leaders tapped Schock to chair the NRCC’s March Dinner, the organization’s biggest fundraiser of the year. He raised more than $15 million for that event, setting a record. But Schock has been equally well known for showing off his enviable lifestyle on social media. His Instagram account details his globetrotting, including surfing in Hawaii and meeting the pope. He posted a photo of his hang gliding in the Andes with the caption, “serenity in the skies of Mendoza.” When Schock’s in Washington, his campaign accounts show that he spends money at a roster of typical D.C. fundraising spots including Fiola, Ristorante Tosca, the Capital Grille and Joe’s Seafood, Prime Steak & Stone Crab. He’s dropped tens of thousands of dollars at pricey hotels and restaurants in Miami, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York, Vail and Aspen. In one trip to Las Vegas, he spent $5,000 at the Wynn. He also cut checks to the Four Seasons Hotel in San Francisco, Vail and Washington. Schock has also taken several privately funded trips, according to the website LegiStorm, which tracks these expeditions. Schock went to India — Bangalore and New Delhi — during 2013, with an aide. He flew business class and stayed in the Taj Hotel, according to a filing. The trip cost more than $10,000, and was paid for by the National Indian American Public Policy Corp. He also has taken privately funded trips to Havana; Barcelona, Spain; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Tel Aviv, Israel; and Turkey, according to trip records.

non

Barack Obama taps Joseph Clancy as Secret Service chief President Barack Obama has tapped a close confidant as the new permanent head of the Secret Service, despite repeated demands by members of Congress for fresh blood atop the troubled agency. Joseph Clancy has served as the agency’s acting director since October, when Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson tapped him after a series of embarrassing fumbles involving the First Family’s security forced the agency to replace the bulk of its senior staff. Story Continued Below “Ultimately, Joe Clancy struck the right balance of familiarity with the Secret Service and its missions, respect from within the workforce, and a demonstrated determination to make hard choices and foster needed change,” Johnson said in a statement Wednesday. But some congressional Republicans immediately criticized the pick, saying an administration insider is not what the agency needs. In December, an independent panel examining the Secret Service’s missteps recommended that its next chief be “a strong leader from outside the agency … who can drive cultural change in the organization.” “It is disappointing the president ignored the recommendation from the independent panel, appointed by Secretary Johnson, to select a director from outside the Secret Service,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement Wednesday. “The panel made it crystal clear that only a director from outside the agency would meet the needs of the agency today – someone with a fresh perspective, free from allegiances and without ties to what has consistently been described as a ‘good old boys network.’” Chaffetz, a leading critic of the Secret Service, added: “The good men and women of the Secret Service are screaming for a fresh start.“ Michigan Republican Rep. Tim Walberg called Clancy a “discouraging” selection. “As an independent panel recommended, restoring the Secret Service requires an outsider with a fresh approach and without ties to prior leadership,” he said. “While I wish Director Clancy well, it’s still discouraging to see President Obama ignore this advice from the panel for an agency in desperate need of reform.” But House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) praised the pick. He noted that when Clancy testified before the committee in 2014, he had “pledged to address the department’s past failures and work to ensure that the hardworking officers and agents of the Secret Service have all the resources and training necessary to carry out their core function of protecting the president, vice president, and other dignitaries.” Rep. Elijah Cummings, the Oversight Committee’s top Democrat, also cheered Clancy’s selection. “Joe Clancy has taken strong action over the past several months to begin righting the ship at the Secret Service, he has been extremely responsive to Congress, and his decisive leadership has already resulted in major changes,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement. Clancy, 58, who retired in 2011 after 27 years in the Secret Service, took over after his predecessor, Julia Pierson, resigned amid a rough patch for the agency — including an instance in which a man jumped the White House fence and made it through the front door. In another incident, an armed man briefly shared an elevator ride with the president. Other problems for the agency stretched back to the 2012 prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia. Immediately before returning to the Secret Service last fall, Clancy was executive director of cable security at Comcast Corp. He’s received generally positive reviews from Congress during his five-month stint as acting director, forcing a number of senior officials to resign or retire their top posts and working with congressional Republicans who are probing the agency. Despite criticizing the selection, Chaffetz spoke with Clancy on Wednesday to offer his congratulations. Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had informed Chaffetz of Obama’s choice. Before beginning his career in the Secret Service, Clancy was a high school teacher in Philadelphia and coached football and basketball. He graduated from Villanova University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and criminal justice.

non

Senate GOP low on Homeland Security options Senate Republicans are running low on options on funding for the Department of Homeland Security – staying tangled in a messy fight over President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration as time runs short before the Feb. 27 deadline. GOP senators on Monday were open to a potential stopgap measure for DHS funding that would buy lawmakers time should the deadline come and go with no resolution. And they also began deferring to their colleagues in the House to see if lawmakers there could devise a Plan B to get Republicans out of their DHS jam. Story Continued Below “I think we have to figure out what the House’s next play probably is at this point,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the third-ranking Senate Republican. Signaling that yet another vote on the House version of the DHS bill was unlikely, Thune added: “At some point, we have to figure out the next iteration of this big discussion.” Senate Democrats blocked the DHS funding bill from being considered on the floor three times last week, protesting provisions in the legislation that would unravel President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration – drawing criticisms from Republicans who say they can’t change the bill more to the Democrats’ liking unless the minority party allows the chamber to take it up. But Democrats – who are demanding a so-called clean funding bill free of the immigration riders – won’t even allow the legislation to be considered. That has left Republicans in a bind over how they can proceed on the must-pass bill. Meanwhile, House Republicans have repeatedly stressed that they have already done their job and it was up to the Senate to come up with legislation that can pass their chamber. “The House has already moved a bill,” Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Monday night. Thune also left the option of a short-term continuing resolution on the table, telling reporters on Monday that it is “always” a possibility. Other Senate Republican leaders have said they don’t want a stopgap measure since it only delays a standoff for a short period – although several top House Republicans privately have suggested that it may be the only outcome. Senate Republican leadership aides said little Monday about their next step on DHS funding, saying that members were discussing their options. Senior aides for Senate Democrats, who have aggressively pushed their Republican counterparts on a clean funding bill free of immigration riders, were non-committal Monday on a potential stopgap spending measure. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has said a short-term funding bill ties his department’s hands and has urged Congress to pass an appropriations bill for the rest of the fiscal year that doesn’t include provisions to override Obama’s immigration actions. “I just don’t know,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Monday when asked about a solution to the DHS stalemate. “We’ll have to work from the House and see what can be done.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also said he would back a short-term continuing resolution to keep DHS funded, but said that wasn’t the preferred option. “All I can say is, they’re united behind the idea that they support the president’s executive action more than they support DHS. They’ll lose here,” Graham said of Democrats. “What they’re doing is supporting an executive overreach that is not gonna go down with the American people.”

non

Dems blast House GOP subpoena rules change Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents. In a letter shared with POLITICO, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office. Story Continued Below Sixteen Democrats, all ranking members of House committees, accused Republicans of attempting to create Darrell Issa-like committee structures, referring to the former Oversight and Government Reform chairman who was criticized by Democrats for his dogged probes into the White House. “For decades, responsible committee chairmen—both Democratic and Republican—recognized that the coercive power of subpoenas should be used only as a last resort, and they obtained the concurrence of the ranking member or called a committee vote before issuing subpoenas,” the lawmakers wrote on Tuesday. Letter-singers include Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight and Benghazi committees, Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the ranking member on Ways and Means panel, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on Energy and Commerce Committee, and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Budget Committee’s top Democrat. Cummings has been leading the charge against what Democrats argue is Republican over-reach into the Obama administration. He and Issa infamously quarreled over the California Republican’s investigation in the Internal Revenue Service and the Fast and Furious gun-running controversy. Recently Cummings has sparred with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House’s Benghazi Committee over how the GOP lawmakers governing the panel failed to include Democrats in key interviews with witnesses. Cummings has also clashed with Issa’ successor, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) over the rules for the Oversight panel. In January, Republicans moved to give a number of key committees, including the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Judiciary Committee and the Financial Services Committee new subpoena powers. A handful of other committees also considered changing their governing rules. For a number of panels, rule change would eliminate long-standing requirements that the chairmen either consult or get consent from the minority party before issuing subpoenas for testimony and documents or hold a majority vote. The committees who saw rule changes include panels with oversight into controversial Obama policies like the Dodd-Frank financial regulations law, immigration and Obamacare. “This year House Republicans are changing the rules to give some chairmen unfettered authority to issue subpoenas unilaterally, adopting an abusive model embraced only by Senator Joe McCarthy, former Rep. Dan Burton, and Rep. Darrell Issa,” the lawmakers wrote. “To their credit, some well-functioning committees, such as the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Veterans Affairs, did not expand subpoena power for their chairmen.” At the time, Republican defended the rule change as necessary to effectively investigate the Obama administration. “The Obama administration has employed unprecedented delay tactics and in many cases an outright refusal to comply with legitimate committee oversight requests, which is why committees sought the deposition authority and are using the existing rules to give committee chairs greater latitude in issuing subpoenas,” said Doug Andres, then a spokesman for the House Rules Committee.

non

Conservatives: Let Democrats take DHS off the cliff A faction of House and Senate conservatives is pushing Republican leaders to take the battle over the Homeland Security Department to the brink, arguing the party would win the public relations war with Democrats if a standoff over immigration led to a shutdown of the agency. The closed-door debate picked up new urgency in the Capitol on Wednesday, with House and Senate GOP leaders in an awkward public impasse over the issue — just a month after they assumed complete control of Congress and with two weeks before funding runs out for the department. Story Continued Below Conservative hard-liners are arguing they have a stronger political hand now than they did in 2013, when a fight over Obamacare led to a 16-day government shutdown and a backlash against Republicans. This time, conservatives say, Democrats are in a politically untenable position, given their refusal to begin Senate debate over the funding bill because it includes provisions aimed at gutting Barack Obama’s unilateral immigration actions. Democrats, they say, would ultimately capitulate after DHS shuts down. The immigration matter was debated privately at a Republican lunch Wednesday in the Senate’s Mansfield Room, with leading conservatives, such as Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, asserting that Democrats would be the political losers if a DHS shutdown occurs, several senators said. Other immigration hard-liners, like Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Bill Flores (R-Texas), also argued Wednesday their party would be in a stronger political position if Congress fails to meet the Feb. 27 funding deadline. And a prominent Republican and top Senate GOP political strategist — Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker — made a similar case. In an interview, Wicker said the latest battle over immigration is “far different” from the 2013 shutdown given that this fight is over a single agency — rather than the entire government — and that Democrats would incur a political backlash because of their refusal to even debate the matter. “I have not been one to wave the bloody shirt very often in my 20-plus years in the Congress,” said Wicker, a former House member who now runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “But on this issue, Republicans are funding the government, and our Democratic colleagues are refusing to even get to the issue — even to show their voters back home where they stand.” But other GOP leaders are skeptical, including Wicker’s House counterpart, Oregon’s Greg Walden, who runs the House GOP campaign committee. “I don’t think we win that debate in the press; we don’t for a lot of reasons,” Walden said. “Some people think we can. I’m not one of them. Just because the American people expect us to come here and get our job done and get our work done, and work out our differences — and especially in the area of national security.” The push by conservatives underscores the tricky political position of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who are trying to balance the demands of the GOP base to fight Obama’s immigration policies as well as their promises to run Washington without any more fiscal crises. The House began the fight last month, amending the $39.7 billion must-pass DHS spending bill with provisions that would block Obama’s 2014 and 2012 decisions to defer deportations and provide work permits for up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. But last week, Senate Democrats filibustered three attempts to debate the House plan, demanding a “clean” bill free of immigration riders. That has left McConnell and Boehner in a quandary, with each leader calling on the other to take the next step. Both men recognize the steep limits they face in their respective chambers: Boehner doesn’t believe he can secure the 218 votes to pass a clean funding bill. And McConnell can’t win Democratic support for anything other than a bill silent on immigration, leaving him at least six votes shy of breaking a filibuster. “Both of us have our own math challenges,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) after his caucus’ lunch, which House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) attended. Asked if Republicans could win the political battle if DHS shuts down, Cornyn said emphatically, “There will be no shutdown.” With threats from abroad growing, many Republicans worry about any DHS shutdown, even if they disagree with Obama on immigration. Sen. Mark Kirk, a blue-state Republican facing a potentially tough reelection in Illinois next year, came out Wednesday for a clean funding bill, saying, “As the governing party, we should govern.” At the lunch, which was led by the Senate’s conservative Steering Committee, which is chaired by Utah Sen. Mike Lee, senators discussed a range of options to disentangle them from the mess, but came to no resolution. McConnell, known to keep his cards close to his vest, signaled little about the party’s next steps. Senators later said that some floated the idea of simply voting on a resolution of disapproval against Obama’s actions; others said the House should send over a bill that attacks only the president’s 2014 policies, not his 2012 move to defer deportations of young people brought to the country illegally; and some proposed a short-term continuing resolution if the parties are at an impasse by month’s end. Some even suggested scrapping next week’s Presidents Day recess. If there’s no deal, Sessions argued, Republicans shouldn’t be afraid of the political consequences from a potential shutdown. “The Democrats are refusing to pass the bill that fully funds Homeland Security,” Sessions said in an interview. “I don’t see how it’s possible they can blame the Republicans for not funding Homeland Security when they filibustered the bill that would fund it.” Asked about the political ramifications for blowing past the deadline, Sessions said: “I’m not worried about that. We just need to be more coherent in our message. And a little more effective. … I think the Republicans are right on policy, right on the law, and they are right on congressional powers.” Flores, the chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said there would be “no” blowback for the GOP if the party fails to meet the Feb. 27 deadline. “Because clearly, we did our job,” Flores said. “And the Senate Republicans are trying to do their job and you got a bunch of Democrats blocking it.” Some conservatives argue that the DHS would still be able to operate given that a shutdown would prompt furloughs only of employees deemed “non-essential,” ensuring key security personnel would still be on the job. “I think the president is going to have to compromise at some point,” said Michigan Rep. Justin Amash. King, a leading foe of a comprehensive immigration overhaul, said Democrats would find it much harder to oppose the House plan on Feb. 28, a day after a shutdown would occur. “This is an entirely different debate than funding the subsidy for somebody’s Obamacare,” King said Wednesday. “This is about whether Congress writes the laws, or whether the president writes the laws. There’s no precedent for the president to point to, even his own rhetoric, they are buried in this debate, and the more the public learns, the more they’re going to lose.” Even with little time left, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) brushed off the idea of a shutdown over the matter. “There’s still plenty of time to solve this,” McCarthy said in an interview Wednesday. “We want to get it solved by the deadline — that’s why we went early. The Senate’s gotta be able to do something. They seem to act faster when the timeline gets shorter.

non

Johnson: A stopgap bill not enough for DHS Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson tried again Tuesday to pressure lawmakers into approving funding for his department, warning that there would be no money to pay for enhanced border-security efforts if Congress resorts to just a stopgap bill. Johnson said Homeland Security, the only federal department now running on a short-term funding measure, is “constrained” by the limits of a stopgap bill to improve security on the southern border and to maintain the boost in resources to deal with the consequences of last summer’s border crisis. Story Continued Below “Border security is not free,” Johnson said Tuesday. “The men and women of DHS need a partner in Congress to fund their efforts. Time is running out.” For instance, Johnson said DHS can’t make specific investments in border security, such as upgrading “obsolete” surveillance systems in the Rio Grande area. DHS also cannot invest in measures that would help it better analyze geospatial intelligence, which aids officials in identifying illegal border crossings. In recent days, Johnson has focused on different parts of his sprawling agency to highlight the fallout if DHS stayed on a short-term funding bill. Last week, he said his department would not be able to fund new non-disaster grants to state and local governments. He also warned on Sunday that letting funding lapse would mean that about 30,000 DHS workers – out of a total workforce of roughly 230,000 – would be furloughed. Yet, despite Johnson’s efforts, Congress remains stalled on DHS funding, which runs dry after Feb. 27. Republicans, who want to block funding for President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration through the must-pass spending bill, have stalled in their efforts in the Senate – where Democrats have repeatedly filibustered the funding measure.

non

Martin Dempsey’s big win Congress may not vote for months on President Barack Obama’s request to authorize the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but the political battle already has one clear winner: Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. While both Democrats and Republicans expressed strong reservations about the proposal Obama sent to the Hill on Wednesday, raising questions about whether it will pass, the nation’s top uniformed leader appeared to get nearly everything he wanted. Story Continued Below Dempsey said he wanted “flexibility” in operating against ISIL — Obama made clear he’d provide “flexibility.” By contrast, there were many tense moments between Obama and Dempsey last fall, when the general caused discomfort in the White House by making clear in congressional testimony that a strict no-boots-on-the-ground pledge might not hold. Local commanders might need to send out Joint Terminal Attack Controllers— troops who specialize in directing friendly airstrikes onto targets close at hand— special operators or other forces in order to best help the Iraqis, he said. Dempsey’s comments at the time forced White House spokesman Josh Earnest to restate the president’s firm position: Obama “does not believe that it would be in the best interest of our national security to deploy American ground troops in a combat role in Iraq and Syria.” The language the White House is asking for now would leave the military a lot of room to maneuver on the ground. The draft AUMF says only that it “does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.” That could allow the Pentagon to use U.S. forces freely in what it might define as limited operations — or in operations not strictly defined as “combat.” That dispute — what constitutes “combat?” — and others are among the knife fights that members of Congress expect to have as they decide when or whether to vote on an AUMF. Dempsey conducted a months-long campaign to secure the language he wanted. He staked out a position months ago that he’d reserve the right to recommend sending JTACs into combat along with Iraqi troops when they eventually take the offense against ISIL. On Wednesday, in his letter to Congress, Obama appeared to echo Dempsey’s views: “[The AUMF would] authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.” About the only point on which Dempsey and Obama publicly disagreed was a “sunset” for the authorization. Dempsey said none was necessary. But Obama’s AUMF as proposed would close in three years — although he downplayed that deadline in announcing it at the White House. “It is not a timetable,” Obama said. “It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period. What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president’s term. It’s conceivable that the mission is completed earlier. It’s conceivable that after deliberation, debate and evaluation, that there are additional tasks to be carried out in this area. And the people’s representatives, with a new president, should be able to have that discussion.” A spokesman for Dempsey on Thursday declined to detail his discussions with Obama or Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, except to say he “had the opportunity to provide his best military advice.” He’ll have more opportunities to speak out as the congressional committees convene their hearings about the AUMF. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) both want to bring Dempsey up to the Hill to talk about what Congress should authorize. So far, Republicans are not pleased. They want even more latitude for the military than Dempsey managed to get — fewer restrictions on what commanders, or a future president, could do in prosecuting the war. “I don’t think any real individual who understands the military situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria could possibly support such nonsense,” McCain said Thursday. U.S.-trained proxy forces can’t do the job alone against ISIL, McCain warns. Specifically, it’s only a matter of time before American-backed “moderate” troops in Syria get into direct contact with the military loyal to President Bashar Assad. Without robust U.S. support, McCain argues, Assad would crush them. Another outspoken hawk, McCain’s ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), suggested that whoever authored Obama’s proposal would be in for a rude reception. “If somebody in the Pentagon thought of this, they should be fired,” he said. Although Hagel accompanied Obama on Wednesday for his statement about the AUMF at the White House, ISIL is no longer his problem — the Senate confirmed Ash Carter to replace him on Thursday. Even before that, defense officials have mostly tried to stay out of the crossfire. Hagel issued a statement echoing Dempsey’s call for Congress to impose no restrictions, but for a military that has already been fighting ISIL since last summer, the debate in Congress is mostly academic. Some members of Congress indicated they were aware of that. The request for a new AUMF “is a political move, and I think the Pentagon sees it as such,” Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), a senior member of House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview. “No one at the Pentagon likes military action to be politicized.” Thousands of American troops are deploying to Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to train what Obama called “partner forces” — Iraqi and Kurdish regulars and “moderate” Syrian opposition fighters. Meanwhile, U.S. and allied warplanes continue to fly dozens of airstrikes per day. Defense officials say the campaign is going well, but that progress is difficult to quantify and ISIL’s successful propaganda means it continues to recruit scores of fighters within the Middle East and from the West. With no end in sight and no yardstick for progress, many Democrats have proven just as resistant as Republicans to Obama’s proposal, but for the exact opposite reason. “Members of Congress can’t vote on good intentions,” Maryland Democrat Rep. Chris Van Hollen told CNN. “We’re voting on what’s on the page.” For Van Hollen and other Democrats, there’s too much on the page. They do not want to keep the 2001 AUMF — which Obama’s proposal would not affect — nor do they want to risk a repeat of the Iraq invasion. “I have no doubt that President Obama is going to maintain his commitment to keep ground troops out of the Middle East, but my worry is that this version of the AUMF will allow for the next president to repeat the mistakes of the past,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters this week. Liberal groups call Obama’s proposal dangerous. “Congress must not abdicate its responsibility to oversee U.S. war-making by giving the president a blank check to pursue multiple years of war, in Iraq, Syria, or any nation, against an open-ended array of possible targets,” said Jo Comerford of MoveOn.org. “And it certainly must not allow the president to leave open the real possibility of deploying U.S. ground troops, as the proposed AUMF does.”

non

DOJ squelches request for video in immigration case The Justice Department said Thursday that it will block video recordings of next month’s closing arguments in a Seattle court case that addresses the rights of child migrants to legal counsel in deportation proceedings. A DOJ spokesperson said the prohibition is only intended to protect the privacy of the 11 minors who are the plaintiffs in the suit against Attorney General Eric Holder and other top administration officials. But just last September, DOJ allowed the videotaping of oral arguments in the same case, and lawyers for the children have never raised such a privacy objection. Story Continued Below POLITICO had requested the March video under a court-sanctioned program in Seattle. The court had earlier approved a video recording of the September hearing in response to a request from POLITICO as part of the publication’s coverage of the child migrant debate. The decision by DOJ to object on this round comes as newly released government data Thursday show that 88 percent of the 3,215 children ordered removed from the U.S. in the last five months of 2014 were without counsel. Critics of the administration said Justice’s new objections to any video recording were self-serving and appear designed to lower the profile of a case that has become increasingly politically sensitive for the administration. In an emailed statement, Ahilan Arulanantham, a California-based American Civil Liberties Union attorney who has played a lead role in the Seattle case said: “The government’s assertion that it is acting in the privacy interests of the children it is trying to deport without representation is hard to take seriously.” “The privacy of all of our clients is more than adequately protected by the procedures already put in place by the Plaintiffs themselves as well as the Court, including most obviously the fact that every child involved has been named only by his or her initials,” he said. “The government’s real concern likely arises from the fact that a widely-disseminated video of the hearing will make it easier to hold Immigration Judges and prosecutors accountable for the statements the government makes on their behalf.” POLITICO’s requests for the videos have been through the federal Cameras in Courts program, which allows recordings of some civil proceedings, although the presiding judge enjoys broad discretion to review a video before it appears on a website for the courts. Authorized by the Judicial Conference in 2010, the three-year pilot program began in June 2011, and the 14 courts that participate include Seattle’s U.S. District Court. The authorization was extended into 2015, and the recordings can be an immense help to out-of-state reporters trying to keep abreast of proceedings without incurring big travel or transcript costs. POLITICO made a request in August for a recording of the Sept. 3 hearing. The Seattle court quickly cleared that request, and a link to the video was posted on the uscourts.gov website available to all reporters and the public. When a POLITICO reporter requested the same sort of video for the March 6 arguments, the court processed the application again but then responded with a notice that one of the parties had objected. The offices of the clerk in Seattle and presiding U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly declined to comment, saying they were obliged not to identify who had objected. But when pressed, officials at DOJ acknowledged that the department had exercised its right to veto the recording. DOJ’s explanation is that it fears that in the course of the March hearing too much may spill out about the identities of the children, each of whom is listed in court documents only by initials, age and the Central American nation of origin. It argues that if this information is made easily accessible to the public through the video, it could compromise the privacy of many of the children who are seeking asylum. “We opposed having the hearing videotaped because this case involves many minors seeking asylum,” a department spokesperson said. “The last time the department was not aware that the discussion of individual cases is critical to that process and the court delves deeply into those facts and the video was made easily accessible on the court’s website, which may compromise the privacy protections for individual asylum cases.” The Justice attorneys had apparently assumed that the video in September would be a temporary live-stream, not a more lasting record available to the public. But in fact, the design of the Cameras in Courts program builds in protections against a live video, and as the presiding judge, Zilly is empowered to review the recording — and potentially edit out any sensitive material — before it’s posted. According to the program guidelines, “a presiding judge may refuse, limit, or terminate the recording of an entire case, portions thereof, or testimony of particular witnesses: in the interests of justice; to protect the rights of the parties, and witnesses, and the dignity of the court, or for any reason considered necessary or appropriate by the presiding judge.” Asylum proceedings are presumed to be more closed-door than other immigration hearings because there may be testimony about threats and individuals back in the person’s native country. But veteran attorneys said there is no reason that the particulars of a child’s asylum need come up amid the legal arguments slated for the March hearing. But the political sensitivity of the lawsuit is real and has grown since it was filed July 9. The court fight has brought out splits in the administration over the best policy toward the thousands of unaccompanied children who crossed the Southwest border last spring and early summer. Arulanantham and fellow immigrant-rights attorney Matt Adams of Seattle argue that without legal counsel, the child migrants — many of whom are young and have little command of English — are being denied due process in the immigration courts, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Holder himself is on record telling the last Congress that it is “inexcusable” for young children to “have immigration decisions made on their behalf, against them, whatever and they’re not represented by counsel. That’s simply not who we are as a nation.” Yet the administration ordered immigration judges last summer to quickly arraign the new arrivals, and from mid-July to Oct. 21 they held an average of more than 800 “master calendar” hearings per week for the children. Many received continuances to try to find lawyers, but government records show a consistent pattern that those without counsel fare worse. In that same three-month period, 94 percent of the 1,542 removal orders fell on children without attorneys. The new data that the Executive Office of Immigration Review released to POLITICO on Thursday add two more months of experience, but the numbers show the situation has improved only marginally. The Sept. 3 hearing came in the midst of the early surge in arraignments. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Leon Fresco painted a dire picture of what would result if Zilly granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring every child to have counsel in any deportation proceeding. “That would create a magnet effect that the United States is not prepared to handle,” Fresco said. “That is free education for all those children being funded by localities and the states. That is whatever medical claims those children need plus an insecure border because you have now sent the message internationally that no one here is going to be removed.” In the same hearing, Fresco denied that the administration intended to create “rocket dockets” for the children. “If the kid cannot find a lawyer, the immigration judge can continue the case as many times as the immigration judge wants without penalty to the immigration judge. … There are no case completion goals for minors in that situation.” Fresco succeeded in defeating the injunction request. But his words took on a life of their own as the video was circulated among legal service providers to urge immigration judges to slow down in cases where a child lacked counsel. “The statements that the government made in court, which were the basis for the court denying the preliminary injunction, were then used to hold immigration judges accountable to what the government had actually said,” Arulanantham said in a telephone interview. “A video makes it harder for there to be a gap between what the government represents to the court and the reality for children facing deportation.”

non

Marco Rubio falsely accused Marco Rubio didn’t actually call for his party to surrender to President Barack Obama’s immigration strategy Wednesday — but the recriminations were quick for the GOP senator anyway. “Rubio Folds” blared the headline on the Drudge Report, linking to a newspaper story that suggested the Florida senator was running away from the Republican strategy of tying immigration riders to a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security. Story Continued Below Except the GOP senator didn’t explicitly say that during a press gaggle Wednesday in Las Vegas, according to a transcript provided by his office. Like some other Senate Republicans, the likely GOP presidential hopeful admitted that his party’s strategy had little hope of succeeding, and he reiterated GOP leadership’s position that the party cannot blow its first major legislative deadline and let DHS funding lapse on Feb. 27. But he didn’t call for Republicans leaders to pass a clean DHS bill — stripped of immigration language — as Democrats are demanding. Regardless, a couple of headlines later the story had spread like wildfire, from Las Vegas to Florida to Drudge and The Huffington Post. So Rubio’s chief spokesman, Alex Conant, shot down any notion that Rubio was joining Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and calling for leadership to proceed to a bill with no riders. The media narrative was wrong, his aides said. “Senator Rubio does not support a clean DHS funding bill that does not repeal the president’s unconstitutional executive order on immigration,” Conant wrote in an email. According to the transcript, Rubio told reporters what anyone on Capitol Hill has seen firsthand: The House-passed bill funding DHS and blocking President Barack Obama’s immigration policies can’t pass the Senate due to a Democratic filibuster. And Obama would veto it, anyway. “We have to fund Homeland Security,” Rubio said. “Look, I’m in favor of any measure that has a chance of succeeding that could stop the new order, but the truth of the matter is the president’s not going to sign it, and we don’t have the votes to pass it in the Senate. We can’t let Homeland Security shut down.” Rubio didn’t suggest how exactly Congress could try to avert a shutdown next week. But House and Senate Republican leaders haven’t laid out a clear strategy on that front either. Rubio’s remarks echo his party leadership. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has scheduled a fourth doomed vote on the House bill for next week but has conceded that the Senate is “stuck” on it. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas has repeatedly said in interviews that there will be no shutdown. And almost every Republican has repeatedly blamed Democrats for the impasse, just as Rubio did on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, so far the Democrats refuse to give us the votes necessary to go on the bill,” Rubio said. “By the rules of the Senate, you need 60 [votes] to begin debate and without the 60 votes to begin debate, they won’t even give us the 60 votes to begin debate on the topic.”

non

Kevin McCarthy's policy director stepping down Neil Bradley, the top policy adviser to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), is leaving Capitol Hill after nearly two decades working for GOP lawmakers. Bradley will be replaced by Barrett Karr, who now works as the principal for government affairs at the Carlyle Group. Karr was previously staff director at the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and she served in the White House legislative affairs office for four years under former President George W. Bush. Story Continued Below Bradley, who is highly respected by Republicans on both sides of the Capitol, began working as intern for then-Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) in 1995 while still a freshman at Georgetown University. Bradley took all his classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays so he could work for Coburn the other three days of the week. Bradley stayed with Coburn through his time at Georgetown, then went to work for former Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). Shadegg was serving as the chairman of the Conservative Action Team, the forerunner to today’s influential Republican Study Committee. Bradley stayed with the RSC under former Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) when she ran the group. In 2004, Bradley moved into leadership after being appointed policy director under then-Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). He held the same post under former Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and then moved to McCarthy’s office following Cantor’s defeat. “For two decades, Neil Bradley has served the people’s House with distinction,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Neil’s rise from part-time intern to senior aide in multiple leadership offices is the product of his unmatched work ethic, integrity and intelligence. For as long I’ve known Neil, I’ve valued his unrelenting enthusiasm for commonsense conservative policy solutions and his dedication to public service.” Bradley recalled once drafting 200 amendments for Coburn to try to derail some spending bills, saying that “we didn’t know we weren’t supposed to do that.” In and out of leadership, Bradley has been involved in almost every major policy debate of the past decade-plus, including the 2001 Bush tax cuts, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Part D expansion, the 2008 TARP program, and budget and spending fights with President Barack Obama. Bradley has not announced his next job yet. In hiring Karr as Bradley’s replacement, McCarthy is tapping a seasoned Hill and executive-branch veteran. “Barrett already has a distinguished record in public policy having served in multiple senior roles at the White House and on Capitol Hill,” McCarthy said of his new policy director. “I look forward to her contributions to the House Republican Conference and in helping to advance our American Opportunity Agenda.” Originally hailing from Fort Worth, Texas, Karr spent nine years on Capitol Hill working for Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), including four years as Granger’s top aide. Karr graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Texas Christian University and later received a master’s in legislative affairs from George Washington University.

non

Benjamin Netanyahu insists he supports "realistic" two-state solution Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday insisted that he supports a "realistic two-state solution" between Israel and Palestine, even though he abandoned his support for a two-state solution in the final days of his hard-fought re-election campaign. "I haven't changed my policy," Netanyahu said in an interview with NBC News, specifying that he has since 2009 embraced the concept of a "demilitarized" Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. "What has changed is the reality," he said. "I want a sustainable, peaceful, two-state solution, but for that, circumstances have to change." The Israeli leader said that Palestinian Authority leaderMahmoud Abbas must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, abandon their pact with Hamas, and "engage in genuine negotiations with Israel for an achievable peace."He added, "We also have to make sure that we don't have ISIS coming into that territory, it's only two dozen miles away from our borders, it's thousands of miles away from yours." During his campaign, Netanyahu said, "I was talking about what is achievable and what is not achievable... You have to have real negotiations with people who are committed to peace." Netanyahu's insistence that he could support a two-state solution comes hours after the White House signaled that his opposition to a two-state solution could prompt a significant shift in U.S. policy. For instance, the U.S. could accept a United Nations Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state, CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett reports. Netanyahu said Thursday that a vote for Palestinian statehood would create "a terrorist state." "Iran says that they will arm the West Bank the way they armed Gaza," he said decrying recent rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza. "We need the conditions of a recognition of Jewish state and real security in order to have a realistic two-state solution," he said.

non

Kaine sees W.H. moving soon to authorize force against ISIL Sen. Tim Kaine said on Sunday the White House will soon send to Congress legislation to authorize the use of military force in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Virginia Democrat, who has very vocal in calling for such authorization, said he believes the administration’s proposal will have “strong support” in the House and Senate. Story Continued Below Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he wants an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that would allow for U.S. combat troops only “in limited circumstances.” The senator criticized both the White House and Congress for failing to prioritize a formal authorization in the months after the administration’s airstrike campaign against ISIL. “If we’re going to ask people to risk their lives, then Congress ought to do our job and put our thumbprints on this mission,” Kaine said. The senator has been particularly tough on the administration on the issue after President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, which the senator said didn’t outline enough of what the White House wanted in an authorization. In the past, Kaine has argued that allowing the president to act militarily without an AUMF means “Capitol Hill is embracing the policy of preemptive war.”

non

Homeland Security fight goes into crunch time Late Monday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will force the fourth vote in three weeks on a bill to fund the massive agency that protects Americans from terrorists, floods and incursions across the borders. Senate Democrats will almost certainly block it again. And after that, all of McConnell’s options become messy, with just four days left to avoid a partial government shutdown that some senior GOP lawmakers and aides now consider nearly unavoidable. Story Continued Below The Kentucky Republican could cave to Democrats’ demands and abandon the GOP’s attempt to tie the Department of Homeland Security’s funding to an attack on President Barack Obama’s immigration policies. But pushing through a short-term continuing resolution for DHS would bring howls from the right, postpone the immigration showdown for only a couple of weeks or months, and most likely fail in the House. McConnell would gain nothing even if he could pass such a CR, which is far from a sure thing. Or, as some conservatives outside the Senate want, McConnell could employ the “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster on legislation, allowing Republicans to pass the $39.7 billion DHS bill with a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than 60. But that would mean destroying the Senate traditions he’s vowed so loudly over the years to protect — and Obama would still veto the bill. Or McConnell could keep bringing the same House-passed GOP bill up for more votes, seeking to break the filibuster, or hope Democrats will reach for a deal before the clock runs out at midnight Friday. But Obama’s party, convinced that voters will blame Republicans if DHS shuts down, is clearly relishing having the upper hand. The president is traveling to Miami on Wednesday for an immigration-related event to be broadcast on MSNBC, essentially goading conservatives to keep pushing for a shutdown over the issue — a move that one Senate GOP insider likened to throwing a “can of gasoline” on the fire. McConnell, known for keeping even his inner circle in the dark about his thinking, isn’t tipping his hand so far on what he’ll do past Monday. No announcements are expected before Tuesday afternoon, when Senate Republicans and Democrats will huddle behind closed doors at their regularly scheduled policy luncheons. But the upshot is this: Less than two months after taking charge of the Senate and vowing to avoid shutdowns, McConnell may be about to preside over the second one in 18 months for the sprawling DHS. That would send 30,000 employees home immediately and force 200,000 more to toil without paychecks until the impasse is cleared — potentially a huge blow to what Republicans had billed as their New American Congress. Polls indicate that Republicans would take more of the blame for a DHS shutdown than Obama and the Democrats. With control of the Senate up for grabs in 2016, it’s not a path McConnell will want to take. Yet it’s not at all clear how he can avoid it. And he’s not getting much public help from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who says the House has done its part to pass a DHS bill and that it’s up to the Senate to do something. One GOP strategy is to try to shift the blame to the Democrats for their repeated filibusters, pointing out that Obama’s party refuses to even debate changes to the Homeland Security bill. “The only thing I would point out is that the only way we can amend the bill is if we get on it,” said Don Stewart, McConnell’s spokesman. “So far, Democrats haven’t chosen to do that.” When asked what McConnell would do following Monday’s vote, Stewart said the GOP leader “is hoping Democrats will start the process” of seeking a way out of the standoff. But Senate Democrats — with Obama’s blessing — have few incentives to yield. Either Republicans give up their fight to undo the executive actions in which Obama eased the deportation threat for several million undocumented immigrants — a move that would be anathema to the conservative base — or the shutdown plays to the Democratic argument that the GOP is not serious about governing.

non

Ron DeSantis, Jeff Duncan quit House whip team Two members of the House Republicans’ elite vote-counting operation have quit. Reps. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina both gave notice that they no longer wanted to be part of the leadership operation, according to more than a half-dozen GOP sources. Story Continued Below Their departures come as Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 3 House Republican, told members of the whip team that they would be kicked off if they voted against procedural motions. The move was designed to solidify control of the Republican conference. DeSantis and Duncan told Scalise that they were leaving the team before he made the announcement, according to one GOP source. “This happens every new Congress, people come and go,” the source said. “It was very conciliatory.” Procedural motions are important for the majority party because they allow lawmakers to proceed to debate and vote on the underlying legislation. Lawmakers are still allowed to remain on the whip team even if they vote against the underlying bill. However, leadership has decided to play hardball against them on rules, setting up the various procedural motions GOP leaders use to control the floor. Scalise’s spokeswoman declined to comment. DeSantis’ and Duncan’s offices declined to comment. House Republicans have had trouble passing the rule on some controversial pieces of legislation. For instance, in 2014 the procedural motion that kept the government funded for a year passed only narrowly. DeSantis and Duncan are both members of the recently formed House Freedom Caucus, which conservatives formed as an alternative group to pressure leadership to advance more rightward legislation.

non

Pai embraces chief critic role on net neutrality The toughest critic of the FCC’s new net neutrality rules isn’t marching outside the building waving a sign. He’s sitting at a desk in the agency’s D.C. headquarters. GOP Commissioner Ajit Pai is taking the lead in crafting and articulating the conservative argument against Democratic Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan, which represents one of the most sweeping efforts to regulate communications in the agency’s history. A Kansas-raised lawyer and onetime aide to former Sen. Sam Brownback, Pai was Mitch McConnell’s choice for a Republican seat on the Federal Communications Commission back in 2011. Now he’s seizing the spotlight as the chief agitator against the net neutrality order. With Wheeler’s proposal to ban blocking or slowing of Web traffic headed for an agency vote on Feb. 26, Pai is slamming the rules as a shift toward government control over the Internet. He’s repeatedly taken his message to cable TV and Twitter — criticizing the chairman’s plan in unusually blunt and broad terms. Story Continued Below “I’ve not been shy about expressing my views on a great many subjects,” Pai said in an interview in his office at FCC headquarters in Washington. “I’ve done my best to make sure that my views are expressed, whether through the spoken word or the pen.” Conspicuously visible on Pai’s desk is Wheeler’s net neutrality proposal, which has been circulated among the FCC commissioners but not released to the public. Pai has repeatedly wielded the bulky document as a prop in media appearances to condemn Wheeler’s plan and to needle the chairman for refusing to publish the text ahead of the FCC’s vote. “Nobody’s ever done the things he has — pulling out all the stops and using all the tricks he does,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge, a public interest group that supports the net neutrality plan. “He’s very much like Justice [Antonin] Scalia in terms of being a standard-bearer for a particular philosophical and ideological view that has a consistent, albeit very narrow, view.” Born to Indian immigrant parents, Pai grew up in the small town of Parsons, Kansas. Along with working as a staffer for Brownback, he did stints in the FCC general counsel’s office and the Justice Department. With the backing of McConnell, President Barack Obama nominated Pai for an open Republican seat on the commission in 2011. (The White House traditionally defers to the minority party for its designated slots at the FCC.) Since taking office, Pai has been a reliable economic conservative, railing against commission overreach and warning about government intrusion into the marketplace. He’s often in lock step on telecom policy issues with the Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Reps. Fred Upton (Mich.) and Greg Walden (Ore.). And he enjoys the support of conservative think tanks like the Phoenix Center, the Free State Foundation and TechFreedom. Now, with Wheeler’s plan to regulate broadband like a utility making headlines, Pai is hammering home the message that burdensome rules could lead to higher consumer broadband prices, harm online innovation and be a boon for trial lawyers. While Wheeler’s office declined to comment for this story, current and former Democratic FCC aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity, blame Pai for creating an atmosphere of partisan distrust at the commission. They say he often plays fast and loose with the facts just to score a political point. “He’s more interested in grandstanding than getting something done,” said one former staffer. “He’s always saying we won’t negotiate with him — that we won’t compromise, but when his idea of compromise is to gut the order, than why even negotiate?” Some at the commission also chafe at Pai’s efforts to portray himself as an everyman fighting for the little guy. Wheeler has taken hits for being a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist, but Pai — they point out — once worked for Verizon and stakes out positions that tend to favor the big telecom companies. Pai denies he’s simply a show horse and says he’s someone who’s willing to put in hard work. “The proof is in the pudding,” he said. “Look at my position over the past few years.” Pai said he’s taken the lead on a number of important issues at the commission, including a task force to examine the nation’s ongoing transition to digital phone networks and an update of wireless infrastructure rules. “Even in those areas where I have been on the other side of the majority, we’ve gotten results whether you like them or not,” he said. Pai insists his criticisms are not personal and he’s not trying to rile the chairman, but there is a discernible animosity in the relationship that shows up in FCC open meetings, with Wheeler often staring darts at Pai as the Republican attempts to eviscerate the chairman’s ideas. FCC commissioners who are not in the majority have often been viewed as inside-the-Beltway Rodney Dangerfields, firing off a punch line here and there but getting little respect on the major issues. But Pai has shown a flair for the big stage of Washington — and displayed a special talent for finding and exploiting weak spots in Wheeler’s major initiatives. In one recent example, he pumped up controversy over the FCC’s recently completed $45 billion airwaves auction, saying satellite TV giant DISH Network’s partnership with smaller companies to claim $3 billion in auction credits made a “mockery” of the discount program. The chairman’s office responded that Pai voted for the very auction rules he criticized. In another skirmish last year, Pai seized on FCC plans to conduct a study on newsroom activities, which included asking TV stations how they determine what stories to cover. He penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed saying the government has no place in the nation’s newsrooms — helping to turn the issue into a major public relations headache for the agency. The FCC later canceled the study. Pai isn’t likely to achieve that same disruption in the case of the net neutrality rules, which are expected to clear the FCC on a 3-2 party-line vote. But he’s clearly using the debate to advance his philosophy — and stature. “The role of a minority commissioner is to present the ideas of the loyal opposition,” he said. “To represent the views of those opposed to the majority and to provide a road map to the courts, the Congress and the American public to see a different point of view.”

non