The top Democratic drafter of immigration legislation was optimistic Thursday that Republicans will support the “good, strong  proposal” to reform the nation’s immigration system.

But Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who joined Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and six other lawmakers to craft the bipartisan bill, also acknowledged that he “worries” about how the group will resolve the question of whether LGBT couples should have the same protections as hetereosexual spouses in the final legislation.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., left, confers with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as the Senate Judiciary Committee meets on immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 9, 2013.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont has proposed amendments that would incorporate the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) – which would allow the foreign-born partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual U.S. citizens to apply for green card status – into the legislation. Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight have made clear that they cannot support the bill if that measure is included, although it’s not yet clear at what point it might come up for a vote.  

“This one is something, you know, I worry about all the time,” Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill, saying that the issue keeps him awake at night even though he’s a “good sleeper.”

“Our four Democratic colleagues – including myself – believe that this is not just another issue but an issue of discrimination and so how we resolve this remains to be seen,” he added.

Schumer would not say if he would vote for the amendment if Leahy introduces it.

“I would like very much to see it in the bill,” he said. “But we have to have a bill that has support to get UAFA passed. That's the conundrum. because if there's no bill, there's no UAFA either."

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 2:31 PM EDT

With the Gang of Eight’s immigration measure coming under the legislative magnifying glass this week, senators on a key committee are sharpening their red pencils in preparation to edit the 844-page bill.

The 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have proposed 300 amendments to the legislation, ranging from protections for gay couples, to border-security fixes, to efforts to dismantle the bill’s central goal of creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Friends and foes of the reform effort will push their proposals starting Thursday, when the committee begins marking up the legislation. While observers do not expect that the bill will undergo dramatic changes in the committee process -- with bipartisan proponents of reform on the panel likely to stick together to resist substantial changes to their core legislation --  the high-profile debate is sure to elevate the often-dull “markup” process to must-see TV for anyone with a dog in the immigration fight.

While Republicans proposed the lion’s share of the changes -- 194 in total from the GOP side -- some Democratic amendments will be controversial as well.

As expected, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, the panel’s chairman, proposed changes that would make the foreign-born same-sex partners of U.S. citizens eligible to apply for green cards. Many Republicans -- including key Gang of Eight author Sen. Marco Rubio -- have resisted the change, which some suggest would torpedo the entire bill by angering religious organizations and other social conservatives who have otherwise expressed support for the reform legislation.

That has prompted a prominent gay rights group to bluntly label opposition to Leahy’s proposal as “homophobia.”

“Labeling the inclusion of bi-national couples in the immigration bill as toxic is nothing more than a tired, insulting ruse designed to distract attention from their own failure to represent all Americans,” the Human Rights Campaign wrote in a statement.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images file photo

Sens. Patrick Leahy (R) and Chuck Grassley both have proposed amendments to the bipartisan immigration overhaul scheduled for markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Many of the potential legislative additions from Republicans are designed to ensure beefed-up border security, which Rubio and others have pledged to support to help woo skeptical conservatives' support for the bill.

The border-security proposals range from changes to the timeline for plan implementation to massive influxes of additional boots on the ground. An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa -- who submitted the most proposed changes with 77 total amendments -- would require the Department of Homeland Security to demonstrate “effective control” of the border for six months before undocumented immigrants become eligible to begin the process for legal status. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas submitted his own 70-page plan to step up border security and stiffen the “triggers” for the path to citizenship. Tea Party newcomer Ted Cruz -- also from Texas -- would triple the amount of federal agents currently stationed on the U.S.-Mexico border and quadruple the presence of drones and cameras.

Other proposed changes would intensify requirements for undocumented immigrants who hope to attain the bill’s new Registered Provisional Immigrant status. As written, the legislation would require individuals to pass a background check and pay back taxes and a series of fines before being eligible for legal status; some GOP amendments would increase the background check threshold, adjust the fines for inflation and aggressively enforce the bill’s existing language preventing recipients of legal status from receiving federal benefits for 10 years.

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah even proposed that undocumented immigrants should have to submit DNA as a part of their application for provisional status in order to weed out potential criminals.

Sparks are sure to fly over the amendments that would essentially gut the pillars of the bill’s delicate compromise between immigrant groups, business organizations and labor unions.

Cruz has proposed a measure that would flatly deny eligibility for citizenship to anyone who has been “willfully present” in the United States without legal status. Those rules would apply even to undocumented immigrants who have returned to their home country or to children brought to the United States illegally by their parents – those who would be eligible for the DREAM Act provisions.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of the legislation, would cap the total number of new legal permanent residents and temporary foreign workers at 30 million over a period of 10 years. He would also require the Department of Homeland Security to take into account the “likelihood” that an undocumented immigrant applying for legal status may require federal means-tested public benefits like welfare “at any point in the future.”

In a statement, Sessions said his proposed caps would preserve job opportunities for American citizens.

“This bill would authorize a dramatic surge in permanent low-skill and chain migration -- and would bring in millions more temporary foreign workers -- at a time when 90 million Americans are outside the labor force and nearly 50 million are on food stamps,” he said. “The result would be lower wages and more unemployment.”

Still more fixes are intended to focus on rooting out foreign terrorists, spurred in part by heightened concerns in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings.  

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Gang of Eight, proposed three amendments designed to address concerns about visa security and terrorism prevention. Hatch will push for the Department of Homeland Security to collect biometric data from foreigners who are leaving the country at the nation's busiest airports.

The markup begins Thursday and is likely to continue into next week.

Related stories:

• GOP spotlights border security as immigration fight looms
• Conservative group pegs cost of immigration reform at $6.3T
  

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 4:12 AM EDT

In a day of congressional testimony that once again found the Obama administration under fire, a trio of whistleblowers expressed frustration toward the government’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 assault against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and its subsequent investigation into that incident.

The diplomatic officials appeared on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to describe a hasty and chaotic response to the attack, which left four Americans – including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens – dead.

The witnesses said that the government was poorly prepared to weather the attack and was hesitant to respond, also contending that a subsequent review of the incident ordered by the State Department came up woefully short.

The testimony included new details from Gregory Hicks, a career foreign service officer who served as the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks.

He painstakingly recounted frenetic efforts to communicate between besieged individuals in Benghazi, and the governments of Libya and the United States. And he relayed the frustration of special forces who were told to stand down in Tripoli – Hicks said he did not know who gave the order – from deploying to Benghazi.

“They were furious,” Hicks told lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I will quote Lt. Col. Gibson. He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”

IN DEPTH: Official: US Special Forces team wasn't allowed to fly to Benghazi during attack

Hicks joined two other witnesses in a hearing driven primarily by Republicans, who have zealously pursued the Benghazi incident based on suspicions that President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been caught flat-footed by the attack, or worse, orchestrated a cover-up about the attack to benefit the president’s re-election bid.

At no point did Hicks or his fellow witnesses – Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya – accuse the president or Clinton of having halted forces that might have assisted besieged diplomats in Benghazi. Democrats repeatedly pointed to testimony suggesting that reinforcements would have not have arrived in time, anyway.

But Republicans seized on several morsels of information, in particular Hicks’s incredulity toward the administration’s initial explanation, voiced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of protests related to an anti-Islamic video.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said of his reaction to Rice’s appearances on a series of Sunday talk shows following the attack. He further testified that there were no indications of protests in Libya, and that at no time did they suspect that the Benghazi attack was related to protests.

Republicans also homed in on suggestions by Hicks that a top Clinton aide had reacted angrily when Hicks agreed to speak privately with GOP investigators looking into the Benghazi attack. Hicks said that Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, called him “upset” about his conversation with the GOP lawmakers.

The witnesses also expressed their misgivings about the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) findings in a subsequent investigation into the government’s response to the attacks. The ARB, the witnesses said, failed to interview senior enough leaders in the State Department.

The testimony prompted pointed responses from Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who co-authored the ARB, and allies of Clinton, the popular former secretary of state who’s seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

“I believe the Accountability Review Board did its work well,” Pickering, a coauthor of the report, said Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC. “I think the notion, quote, of ‘a cover-up’ has the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.”

And Philippe Reines, a senior aide to Clinton, told NBC News that accusations that Mills interfered in an investigation into Benghazi “completely and utterly false.”

Indeed, Democrats headed into the hearing warning against politicization of the Benghazi incident.

“I am not questioning the motives of our witnesses,” said Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, at the outset of the hearings. “I am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes.”

His admonition didn’t stop many Republicans from plowing ahead with their questions.

“It's one of great mysteries,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, of questions as to why terror response forces were not ordered into action on Sept. 11. “Here we have this expertise, we've invested heavily in it, they tabletop it, they understand it, this is exactly what they train for and they were never asked to go into action.”

But while many Republicans appeared eager to keep Benghazi alive as a political issue, not all Republicans seemed as concerned about the issue, or the Obama administration’s forthcoming.

“I’ve been able to read all the cables, I’ve seen all the films. I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi; I’m fairly satisfied,” said Sen. Bob Corker, Tenn., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on MSNBC. “I’m fairly satisfied.”

This story was originally published on Wed May 8, 2013 11:02 AM EDT

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, bidding for political redemption in a congressional race after a high-profile divorce that seemingly ended his aspirations, sought to challenge the notion that he has a problem among women voters by spending part of a visit to a small shopping street looking for, as he put it, “a woman who hates me.”

The question of Sanford's ability to win women voters, first raised by his 2009 high-profile affair and divorce, re-emerged after a recent legal dispute with his ex-wife. He further complicated matters during a debate last week, saying he had not heard his opponent when she asked a question about the affair and his use of public funds surrounding the episode.

On Saturday, after answering several questions about whether he thought a trespassing charge at his ex-wife’s home might compromise his standing with female voters, Sanford led reporters on a foray in downtown Summerville, S.C., stopping women to ask them their opinion of him, specifically referring to the question posed by a reporter for NBC News.

“No group’s vote is a monolith,” Sanford said, pointing out that he had recently received an endorsement for Tuesday’s special election from a group of Republican women who took an ad out in a local newspaper.  Sanford is running against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch to fill the South Carolina congressional seat vacated by now-Sen. Tim Scott.

Sanford also noted that during his visit to the hot dog restaurant Perfectly Frank’s, where earlier that afternoon his campaign announced the endorsement of the Tea Party Express, patrons had not brought the issue up.

When the reporter noted that he was speaking to a crowd that included some people who had gone to the restaurant specifically for the campaign event, Sanford dismissed that context as “the case of any political venue." 

“If you’re a political figure, some people, because they hear you’re going to be at some place, they’re going to show up,” he said.

Sanford then walked across the street to begin his meet-and-greet, flanked by two campaign staffers and three reporters, telling the reporter who asked the questions about his status with women that he rejected the “premise” that women wouldn’t vote for him because of his personal life.

He then indicated he wanted to seek out women who “hated” him.

“Let’s go to this woman – does she look biased?” he asked as he crossed the street, the NBC reporter walking next to him. 

As a car whizzed by, he told the reporter, “Watch out, I don’t want you to get run over. Actually I kind of do, but that’s a different story.”

After Sanford caught up with the woman he had pointed out, she told him she was a big supporter and that she would be making phone calls for him on Tuesday.

A staffer, mimicking Sanford’s tongue-in-cheek approach, suggested that the woman had been planted.

A few shops down, he stopped in a women’s consignment store to chat with two shoppers who were visiting South Carolina from Arkansas, but who had seen some of his campaign ads and signs, which they said were “beautiful.”

“You look like you’re totally capable and we wish you luck,” one of the women told him.

Laughing, Sanford pointed to the two cameras in front of him, saying, “you hear that?”

Later, Sanford visited a women’s clothing store where the shopkeeper said she knew one of Sanford’s staffers, and that the staffer “knows I’m in your corner.”

“Oh good,” the former governor said. “[But] that defeats what I’m after.”

Pointing to the NBC reporter, he continued, “We were trying to find her a woman who hates me so she can use it in her TV show. She’s with NBC National.”

As Sanford wrapped up his hourlong canvas, he came across a couple, each of whom expressed their support for him.

After indicating, as he had previously, that the NBC reporter was looking to talk to women who didn’t support him because of his marital history, the woman, Patty Hulbard, responded, “I'm not your biggest fan. What you did I don't appreciate, but that should not influence my vote necessarily.”

 “You line up ideology with my thinking, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt,” she continued. 

“I appreciate that. Thank you,” Sanford said.

Turning to NBC’s camera, he pointed and said, “That’s pretty close to what you’re looking for. We’re getting somewhere, all right.” 

This story was originally published on Sun May 5, 2013 11:57 AM EDT

Frank Thorp / NBC News

Erica Lafferty, daughter of Sandyh Hook Elementary School victim Dawn Hochsprung, attends a town hall meeting with Senator Kelly Ayotte in Warren, N.H., on Tuesday.

WARREN, N.H. – Bringing the national gun debate to a tiny New England town on Tuesday, the daughter of the slain principal of Sandy Hook Elementary confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte at the lawmaker’s first town hall meeting since she voted against expanded background checks on all commercial gun sales.

Erica Lafferty, who first met with the Republican senator in Washington earlier this month after she opposed the compromise negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was visibly angry as she spoke into the microphone at the meeting, which drew more than 100 people who came to condemn or support Ayotte’s vote.

"You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm. I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't more important than that," said Lafferty, whose mother Dawn Hochsprung was gunned down by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.

Ayotte responded at the Warren, N.H., meeting: "Erica, I, certainly let me just say -- I'm obviously so sorry."

"And, um, I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook, I understand that's what drove this whole discussion -- all of us want to make sure that doesn't happen again," Ayotte said.

More tension followed at a larger event in Tilton, N.H., later in the day.

"Let the senator finish please!" said the moderator at the Tilton event as gun control advocates shouted from the crowd and waved signs which said "demand action to end gun violence," from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group.

Ayotte is one of a handful of senators -- others include Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- who are facing withering criticism from both sides of the debate.

Gun control proponents want the Senate to reconsider new gun laws, and pro-gun rights groups want the issue kept off the table. And they’re using ads, lobbying, and organizing at events like Ayotte’s town halls to get their points across.

Keeping center stage are the Newtown families, many of whom were on Capitol Hill for the failed gun vote, who have pledged to continue the fight for new regulations on firearms.

The senator's staff were prepared for the onslaught. Ayotte defended her vote at the top of her remarks in both towns, pointing to her background as a prosecutor. “Where we are right now, my focus has been on wanting to improve our current background check system,” she said. “Frankly, we have fallen down on actually prosecuting gun crimes and violations of our current background check system.”

She said that addressing mental health and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill were important going forward.

Outside groups are focusing on Ayotte and others from swing states where polls show background checks are popular. From the TV and radio ads to these small events, both sides are mobilizing like it's a political campaign --  Bloomberg's group circulated printed signs reading "#ShameOnYou" at both town meetings, while Ayotte supporters held the kind of mass-hand-drawn signs often spotted at presidential events.

Poll data is also a focus -- and a point of contention. Some automated polls, which NBC News does not rely on, have shown surveys claiming dropping numbers for people who voted against expanding background checks.

But in the Granite State, Ayotte's supporters are pointing to a recent survey from the University of New Hampshire that shows just the opposite: high approval ratings in the wake of the vote.

Some Republican defenders in the state say that the controversy isn't real and say it won't matter in 2016, when Ayotte is up for reelection to the Senate.

"To the extent it's a controversial issue it's a manufactured one," said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the state Republican Party.

There's evidence to support the claim that some groups are using the issue to raise their profiles. In a yard nearby the Warren event, a local resident had placed a large, staked lawn sign with the handwritten message, "Thank You Senator Ayotte." Atop one corner was the Tea Party's preferred flag, the yellow snake with the words "Don't Tread On Me."

But others say it was a difficult decision that could have repercussions down the road.

"I think it was a tough vote. And it was a principled vote," said Jim Merrill, a longtime New Hampshire Republican strategist who worked on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "And I think she understood that there would be some blowback for it. Let's just remember it wasn't just Republicans who voted against it."

Ayotte is clearly feeling the pressure, refusing to answer questions from national reporters at the meetings. Aides working on the gun issue on Capitol Hill say she's made it clear that she doesn't want to vote on it again any time soon.

And the atmosphere back home was a big change from Ayotte's typical town meetings -- generally staid affairs that begin with a PowerPoint presentation on the budget. (She does a lot of them, as she's pledged to hold a town hall in each New Hampshire county.)

She stuck with the PowerPoint at Tuesday's meetings, but this time, the opening slides had statistics defending her gun vote.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America enter the office of Sen. Kelly Ayotte on April 17 in Washington, D.C.

At town halls, Ayotte typically receives notecards with the name of each questioner and their pre-submitted topic of interest. A selected moderator chooses and reads them. This time, though, that caused a stir. Right before Erica Lafferty spoke in Warren, Eric Knuffke, of Wentworth, N.H., stood and demanded to be allowed a question.

"You can't deny people the right to speak because they haven't filled out a card. I have a question," Knuffke shouted. Supporters of Ayotte shouted back at him.

As Knuffke yelled, Lafferty was sitting in the front row with her hand raised.

"Let Erica speak," said one attendee. "There's a Sandy Hook survivor here," said another.

She had submitted a question in the pile, and Ayotte made sure to let her speak. Lafferty thanked Ayotte for meeting with her the day after senators took the vote on the Manchin-Toomey before challenging her for her vote. After her exchange with Ayotte, Lafferty stood and stormed out of the town hall.

Asked afterward why she had done so, Lafferty said: "I had had enough." 

 NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:05 PM EDT

The highly anticipated debate between Republican Mark Sanford and Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District special election didn’t disappoint. Sanford accused his opponent of being a Trojan horse for House Democrats, while she accused the former governor of deserting the state for his personal satisfaction.

Both candidates were incredibly feisty at times, and the vitriol between the two in their only meeting before their May 7 faceoff to succeed now-Sen. Tim Scott, R., was palpable.

/

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford answers a question during the 1st Congressional District debate on April 29 in Charleston, S.C.

Sanford repeatedly hammered Colbert Busch — a Clemson University administrator and the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert — for the financial support she’s getting from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the House Majority PAC and donations funneled to her through ActBlue, and for accepting campaign contributions from labor groups.

Sanford’s fallback, time and again, during Monday’s debate was to tie Colbert Busch to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. When his Democratic opponent only agreed to one face-to-face encounter, Sanford took to debating a cardboard cutout of the former House Speaker on the streets last week.

“It’s not believable to me that someone gives you a million dollars and not expect something in return,” said Sanford, arguing his Democratic opponent would be a reliable vote for Pelosi.

It’s a wise strategy, given that the Lowcountry district is heavily Republican and voted 18 points in favor of GOP nominee Mitt Romney last fall.

/

Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch, left, looks at former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford as she answers a question during the 1st Congressional District debate on April 29 in Charleston, S.C.

But Sanford’s past transgressions and his recent missteps have put the outcome in jeopardy. He navigated a GOP primary despite his 2009 highly public admission of an affair with an Argentinian woman and the following spectacle which seemingly ended his political career until this attempt at a comeback.

Some reported surveys have shown Colbert Busch with a lead over Sanford but operatives on both sides believe the race remains close.

After a recent accusation of trespassing at his ex-wife’s home, national Republicans pulled their financial support from Sanford’s candidacy.

During a question on the sequester and how to slash federal spending Monday, Colbert Busch saw her chance to pounce on Sanford’s affair, and leapt at it.

“When we’re looking at fiscal responsibility,” said Colbert Busch, “it doesn’t mean you take the money we saved and leave the country for a personal purpose.”

Sanford said he didn’t hear Colbert Busch’s rebuttal and turned the question back to the sequester.

At one point in the debate, ideological stars seemed to be crossed, as Colbert Busch compared herself to former Vice President Dick Cheney, while Sanford equated his quest for redemption to that of former President Bill Clinton

On the issue of gay marriage, Colbert Busch acknowledged she was for “full equality,” calling the issue “a matter of civil rights and equal protection under the law.” And quoting the former vice president, whose daughter is openly gay, argued “Freedom is freedom for everyone.”

When he was asked about voting in favor of President Clinton's impeachment when he was asked, Sanford gave one of his most direct answers of the evening about his affair and subsequent disappearance from the state, asking  “Do you think that President Clinton should be condemned for the rest of his life based on a mistake he made in his life?”

Colbert Busch argued repeatedly that she would take pledges from no one each time Sanford said she was too cozy with congressional Democrats. Talking of her struggles as a single mother and how she rose in the business world, at the end of the debate she even promised she would donate 10 percent of her salary back to taxpayers if elected.

"I want to be very clear," Colbert Busch said forcefully at one point. "No one tells me what to do, except the people of South Carolina's 1st Congressional District."

Sanford also criticized his opponent for accepting donations from labor groups, including ones who opposed Boeing's move to Charleston because the state is a right-to-work state.

Colbert Busch said the National Labor Relations Board was wrong in opposing the Boeing move.

Sanford championed the fiscally conservative voting record he amassed during his time in Congress -- "I was in essence against earmarks before being against earmarks was cool," said Sanford -- but Colbert Busch said sometimes that came at the expense of local voters, and pointed often to his vote against funding the dredging the Port of Charleston.

One of Sanford’s earliest swipes at his opponent was over a $500 donation she had given to his first campaign for governor, deadpanning that his vote on the Port “must not have bothered her that much.”

Colbert Busch rebutted that Sanford “didn’t tell the truth...you turned around and did the opposite in supporting the Port.”

Sanford made a states' rights argument in his opposition to a federal definition of gay marriage. 

And he criticized Colbert Busch for a series of tweets that had been deleted from her campaign twitter account, including one where she said she was pro-choice. The Democrat didn’t back off her position, even in the GOP district though, arguing that such a choice was “an incredibly personal decision between a woman, her doctor, her family and her God.

Sanford said he also would have voted against the gun background check bill, proposed by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), while Colbert Busch said she supported some increased background checks.

“The Second Amendment isn’t there to shoot a duck or a deer,” said Sanford. “It’s the teeth behind every other right Americans enjoy. You need to be very careful treading upon rights that were guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.”

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:28 PM EDT

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford meets the Democrat looking to end his bid for political redemption, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, in a high-profile debate Monday evening, just one week before the May 7 special election that will send one of them to Congress.

Colbert Busch and Sanford will share a stage for their first and only debate ahead of next Tuesday's special election to fill the vacancy that occurred following then-Rep. Tim Scott's, R, appointment to the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

Mic Smith / AP

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford speaks with reporters at Hay Tire & Automotive in Mount Pleasant, S.C., on Monday, April 22, 2013.

The campaign has attracted an intense amount of coverage in the national media because of the two candidates involved. Sanford, the former governor whose term ended in ignominy following an extramarital affair that resulted in his divorce and an ethics rebuke, is seeking a chance at political redemption. Standing in his way is Colbert Busch, the Clemson University administrator whose candidacy has been aided by the fame of her brother — political satirist Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central. 

While Sanford entered the showdown with an upper hand over Colbert Busch in this traditionally Republican district, the race was thrown into turmoil in recent weeks by Jenny Sanford, the former governor's ex-wife. She filed court documents accusing Sanford of trespassing on her property, thereby reviving some of the ugly, public 2009 divorce that ended the former two-term governor's possible aspirations to run for president. 

In the days following that revelation, Democrats and their allies went on the attack with television ads attacking Sanford. Republicans, meanwhile, retreated, forcing Sanford to fend for himself in the campaign when the National Republican Congressional Committee announced it would not run ads in the race. (The most recent poll, which was conducted by automated phone interviews, suggested Colbert Busch had the advantage over Sanford; NBC News does not officially recognize those polls.) Sanford has responded to his perceived slide by casting Colbert Busch as a handmaiden of Democrats' relatively unpopular leaders in Washington. Sanford went so far as to debate a cardboard cutout of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to illustrate his point.

Still, Monday's debate might offer the candidates their best chance to affect the trajectory of the race before voters head to the poll. Perhaps in a reflection of which way things are going, Sanford's demanded more debates — that is, more opportunities to ding Colbert Busch in public. The showdown will be broadcast on C-SPAN.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:44 PM EDT

A seemingly mundane vote on Wednesday intended to help Republicans soften their image on the health care issue laid bare some of the still-raw divisions between the GOP’s pragmatists and the party’s more obstinate ideologues.

House Republican leaders were forced to pull a vote on legislation designed as a prime opportunity to fuse conservative priorities with a proposal easily grasped by voters: improving coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. Conservative lawmakers fretted that the proposal would perpetuate an element of “Obamacare,” and once again balked at supporting Republican leaders. The situation illustrated, again, the party leaders’ difficulty in managing some of the GOP’s most unruly conservatives.

Alex Wong / Getty Images file photo

House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Va., the No. 2 Republican in the House, was the chief proponent of the now-shelved legislation, which would have reallocated money from the program’s prevention fund in order to beef up the insurance pool established for high-risk patients under “Obamacare.”

“We, in the House, remain committed to putting our conservative principles first to help people first,” Cantor said at a press conference with fellow Republican leaders.

Though President Barack Obama had threatened to veto the legislation, Republicans pursued it nonetheless to notch a positive, campaign-friendly vote for House lawmakers.

But Cantor’s office, which sets the schedule for the House floor, was forced to reverse course by Wednesday afternoon, and cancel a planned vote on the legislation when it became apparent that they would lack the necessary votes to advance the bill. (Most, if not all, Democrats intended to oppose the bill, meaning GOP leaders could afford to suffer few defections in their own ranks.

“We had good conversations with our members and made a lot of solid progress,” said Erica Elliot, a spokeswoman for House Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who explained many House Republicans were set to leave town to attend the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library on Thursday.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Cantor, said: “We intend to bring the bill back up when Congress returns in May.”

The Virginia Republican’s proposal had enjoyed the high-profile support of conservative organizations like Americans for Tax Reform and Independent Women’s Voice, along with several other prominent conservative voices.

But the proposal angered conservatives, who complained that Cantor’s legislation would perpetuate an expensive part of the health reform law, and do nothing to halt the underlying legislation. The influential Club for Growth, which opposes the bill, said it would include lawmakers’ vote on its annual scorecard. Brent Bozell, a conservative figurehead who’s clashed often with the GOP establishment, dubbed the proposal “CantorCare.”

“It fixes part of Obamacare that the Democrats designed,” wrote Erick Erickson, editor of the influential conservative blog RedState. “It makes Obamacare less bad, more palatable, and more likely to stick around instead of collapsing under its own weight as Paul Ryan and others have kept saying it would.”

But the entire ordeal illustrated Republicans’ continued difficulties in finding the sweet spot between conservative consistency and the process of governing – a phenomenon within the GOP that extends well beyond Capitol Hill.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:24 PM EDT

The pro-gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, launched new radio ads Wednesday against two GOP senators who voted last week to block legislation expanding background checks for gun sales.

Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), the group founded by Giffords and her husband, unveiled new ads that accuse Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., of opposing "common sense" measures to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

The ads are significant because they represent the first real effort by a pro-gun control group to inflict some measure of political damage against its detractors following last week's bipartisan vote to block a bipartisan compromise on background checks from moving forward. ARS said it had received over 24,000 donations since the Senate vote, and would be introducing additional targets of advertising later this week.

McConnell is up for re-election in 2014, but in Republican-leaning Kentucky; he hasn't yet attracted a major Democratic opponent. Ayotte doesn't face re-election until 2016, though her race in swing-state New Hampshire will be much tougher.

Proponents of stricter gun laws are counting on public opinion -- which, right now, largely favors expanded background checks for gun sales -- to persist, and allow them to inflict some political damage on those senators who blocked the legislation.

Other groups, like Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is backed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have also vowed political retribution for lawmakers who oppose tighter gun measures.

To that end, a new Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll released Wednesday found that 47 percent of Americans were either "disappointed" or "angry" at last week's Senate vote; 39 percent said they were "relieved" or "very happy" at the largely-GOP push to block the background checks legislation.

That poll was conducted April 18-21, and has a 3.7 percent margin of error.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:04 AM EDT

As Congress wrestles with what, if anything, it can or should do about the Obama administration's use of drones to kill terrorists in Yemen and other nations, the controversy has created unusual political alliances.

At Tuesday's hearing of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution which examined President Obama’s drone policy, Sen. Al Franken, the liberal Democrat from Minnesota, noted that he's aligned with Texas conservative Republican Sen. Ted Cruz on this issue: “You know we’re in strange territory when Sen. Cruz and I have the same questions” about Obama’s drone strategy.

Meanwhile Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who’d been sharply critical of the Obama administration just a few hours earlier for its decision to not deem Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev an enemy combatant, lavished praise on Obama and his use of the unmanned aerial weapons.

“I want to applaud the Obama administration for, I think, an aggressive and responsible use of the drone program, particularly in parts of the world where we don’t have ground forces,” he told the hearing.

Cliff Owen / AP

Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., left, shakes hands with witness Farea al-Muslimi of Yemen, at the start of the hearing on drone use on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 23, 2013.

Graham said Obama was “serious” and “thoughtful” and “I think he takes his responsibility, when it comes to targeting people, in a very commander-in-chief-like way.”

While the Boston bombing and the threat of domestic terrorism has, for a week at least, shunted the drone issue out of the spotlight, some members of Congress remain uneasy about Obama’s policy of using the unmanned vehicles to kill terrorist suspects. But it seems doubtful whether their worrying will lead to actual lawmaking which would limit Obama’s powers – such as the creation of a panel of judges to review particular targeted killings or revising the 2001 congressional authorization to use force.

Indicating that it wasn’t taking the hearing all too seriously, the Obama administration did not even send a witness to explain its position – which prompted subcommittee chairman Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to say he was “disappointed.”

Durbin noted that he had voted for the 2001 authorization for use of military force, enacted a few days after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. The Obama administration cites that congressional resolution as its authority to use the drone strikes against terrorists from Pakistan to Yemen. But Durbin said, “I didn’t realize – and I don’t think that many members did – that we would be having this conversation 12 years later about Yemen, Somalia, even Pakistan. Maybe I should have been able to discern that, but I didn’t.”

The hearing about the legality of Obama’s drone policy also addressed the strategic questions of whether the drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia were alienating people in those countries and inadvertently creating support for Islamic jihadists. “I am worried we have lost the moral high ground,” said retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And a Yemini who was partly educated in the United States, Farea Al-Muslimi, told the committee that drone strikes are making Yemenis hate and fear America. “When they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time.”

Retired Air Force Col. Martha McSally, a veteran pilot who served for 22 years and who was a Republican House candidate in Arizona last year, told the committee that remotely piloted aircraft (a term she prefers to “drone”) offer advantages over other weapons: they can linger over a target area for hours and are often superior to other means of lethal force such as artillery, jet fighters, or combat troops. There’s a “very fleeting moment” when a terrorist is in a particular spot and can be targeted. “You actually have the lawyers sitting side by side with you” as the decision is made to attack the target. “You can wait until the moment you have positive identification and all the criteria have been met,” she said.

Another witness, Peter Bergen, the director of the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program, told the committee that Obama had ordered six times as many drone strikes in Pakistan as President George W. Bush did during his eight years in office. He said there was only one drone strike in Yemen under Bush; there have been 46 ordered by Obama in Yemen. 

And Bergen said it’s no longer the leaders of al Qaida or its affiliates whom Obama is targeting. “What was initially started as program to target high-level members of al Qaida has in a sense evolved – particularly in Pakistan -- into a kind of counter-insurgency air force.”

Despite the focus on the effects of the remotely piloted aircraft in places such as Yemen, inevitably the hearing reverted at points to members’ concern that a president might someday use a drone against an American citizen at home.

“We had a situation in Boston,” Franken noted, referring to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. “We had a guy holed up in a backyard in a boat. And he by all accounts had explosives and they did send a robot to go in to take off the top off the boat. But isn’t it possible that we could see a situation in which we might want to take that person out in a different way – as odd as that is for me to ask?”

Franken also asked what was the difference – once the president and his aides choose a particular terrorist to be killed – between using a remotely piloted aircraft and using another weapon?

McSally replied that a remotely piloted aircraft, or RPA, “gives you better precision with a smaller warhead.” When the United States sends in piloted jet aircraft or Special Forces, there may be greater risks. “The RPA gives us asymmetric capability where we don’t have to risk American forces – and that’s not a bad thing to not risk American forces….”

Another witness, George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin noted that “what matters is not whether we’re using a drone or a bomb or a plane -- or even a sword or dagger,” but whether the president has chosen the right target. 

But Rosa Brooks, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Obama was setting a bad example for the use of drones by leaders of other nations who want to wipe out their own political dissidents living in exile: “We have essentially handed a playbook for abuse to oppressive governments around the world,” she told Durbin.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:11 AM EDT

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that her department will help find out why last week’s Boston Marathon bombings occurred and “what more we can do to prevent attacks like this in the future…. We will learn lessons from this attack, just as we have from past instances of terrorism and violent extremism. We will apply those; we will emerge even stronger."

Napolitano told the committee that her department was aware in 2012 that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston bombing suspect killed in a shootout with police last week, had left the United States to visit Russia.

“The system pinged when he was leaving the United States,” she said. “By the time he returned… the matter had been closed,” a reference to the FBI investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, based on a tip from the Russian government.

She said, “There was a mismatch” because his name was misspelled on his Aeroflot airplane ticket. “Even with the misspelling, under our current system there are redundancies, and so the system did ping when he was leaving the United States.”

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C. asked Napolitano, “The system picked up his departure, but did not pick up him coming back -- is that correct?” She replied, “That’s my understanding.” But she repeated that by then the FBI probe had expired.

Before last week’s events, the focus of the debate on the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration bill now being considered by the committee was the supply of millions of non-citizen workers who are illegally present in the United States.

But the attacks in Boston – for which Chechen immigrant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged Monday – reminded lawmakers that immigrants can become terrorists after living in America.

Graham, one of the co-sponsors of the bipartisan immigration bill, said at Tuesday’s hearing that when some people say “there was no broader plot here, I just don’t know how in the world we know that at this early stage.” It is too soon to draw conclusions about the Boston case, Graham said.

Napolitano seemed to agree with him on that point, saying that, “This is a very active, ongoing investigation. All threads are being pulled.” 

The ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, began the hearing by referring to the Boston bombings, arguing that “our immigration system is directly related to our sovereignty and national security matters.”

He noted the some foreigners who commit terrorist acts “enter (the United States) legally and stay below the radar.”

Grassley charged that the bipartisan bill would weaken the entry-exit system “because it does not require biometric identifiers and does not deploy a biometric system to land ports.”

He also noted that the committee had heard testimony at its hearing Monday that the bipartisan bill would weaken the current asylum law. “It’s no secret that terrorists are trying to exploit the (asylum) system,” he said.

The Iowa Republican also criticized the bill for not including any provision on student visas and “improving the way we oversee schools who accept foreign nationals.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the chief Democratic sponsor of the bipartisan immigration overhaul, suggested at the committee’s hearing Monday that there’s no contradiction between tightening the scrutiny of would-be terrorist immigrants and enacting his bill.

“If there are things that come up as a result of what happened in Boston that require improvement” in his measure, Schumer said, “let’s add them to the bill.”

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:40 AM EDT

With the defeat of gun control legislation in the Senate and prospects for a grand bargain on the budget an iffy prospect at best, President Barack Obama's second-term agenda is facing an inflection point on another of his top priorities -- immigration reform.

The carefully choreographed, broad bipartisan agreement by the Senate's so-called "Gang of Eight" has been months in the making, and there are fresh concerns about its course forward in the wake of last week's terror attacks in Boston.

The marathon bombings have at least partly refocused the debate on the risk of would-be terrorists entering the United States. On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on border security, with fresh questions being asked about who is allowed into the country and why.

The same committee produced fireworks during a Monday hearing, when the panel's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., suggested that some unnamed opponents of the bipartisan immigration overhaul are using the Boston attack to sidetrack the bill. 

"Let no one be so cruel as to try to use the heinous acts of these two young men last week to derail the dreams and futures of millions of hard-working people," Leahy said.  

At one point in the hearing, ranking Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa reacted angrily to what he thought were suggestions from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that he might be using the Boston bombings to try to delay or kill the bill.

Grassley snapped, "I never said that," before being reassured the comment was not directed at him.

Reform opponents have argued that the Boston attack is one reason to at least slow down the process, but the overall impact on immigration remains uncertain.  

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky voiced such concerns in a letter to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, saying that Congress should not proceed with the bill "until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system."  

Senate aides say privately that it’s too early to tell how the aftermath of the bombings will affect pending legislation on Capitol Hill.

There’s likely to be some focus on why the FBI didn’t more carefully track bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev after he returned from a trip to Russia.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called for hearings on the subject -- but he said the problem could be with the law, not with the actions the FBI took.

On Tuesday, Napolitano is likely to face some questions that she wouldn’t have fielded prior to the attacks which killed three people and injured more than 200.

Naturalized U.S. citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose family was given asylum, was charged Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction for his alleged role in the bombings.

Among the questions Napolitano may face:

• Do the rules on granting asylum and refugee status to people need to be re-examined?
• What’s the right balance to strike between granting asylum to people who fear that they’ll be the victims of persecution in their home country and keeping out of the United States people who pose a risk of committing terrorist acts?
• Are changes needed to the avenues through which foreigners who are intent on terrorist plots enter the country, such as student visas which the Sept. 11 hijackers used?

Napolitano delivered her testimony last week before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Operations Committee before the suspects in the Boston bombings had been identified.

She told that committee last week, “We are greatly encouraged” by the bill that was introduced by the group of eight senators, led by Schumer and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., which she said “embraces the principles the president has enunciated.”

Evan Vucci / AP

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, April 18, 2013.

She said “comprehensive immigration reform will help us continue to build on” the Obama administration’s border security efforts and enable her department “to further focus existing resources on criminals, on human smugglers and traffickers and national security threats.”

But she got into a sharp exchange with McCain when he asked her why her department had no measurement or index of whether U.S. borders were being made more secure.

McCain told her, “One of the big problems we have is that you abandoned the metric of operational control and you have not given us a border security index.”

She told McCain, “There are so many ways to measure” border security and “that's a much more difficult question to answer than it is to ask.”

She added, “The notion that there's some magic number out there that answers the question, I wish I could tell you there is, but we haven't found it yet.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt and Vaughn Ververs contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:31 AM EDT