As Republican senators delay confirmation votes on several of President Barack Obama’s nominees, one of those stuck in the waiting queue is Gina McCarthy, his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

There’s more here than just the normal Washington tactical maneuvering – it reflects Senate Republicans’ strategy to use McCarthy’s nomination as leverage in forcing changes in the way the EPA operates.

And the power struggle affects Americans far beyond Washington, D.C. – whether the water they drink is clean or dirty, whether the company that employs them must comply with costly environmental regulations, or not.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

Gina McCarthy testifies before a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on her nomination to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on Capitol Hill in Washington, in this April 11, 2013 file photo.

EPA holds sway on matters ranging from “manure management systems” to pesticides to carbon dioxide emissions and its rules often get a second look by the judges of the D.C. Circuit.

Thus McCarthy’s nomination connects directly to the coming battle over the three nominees Obama announced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last week            .

That court decides the fate of many federal regulations, including those issued by the EPA. Now divided between four judges appointed by Republican presidents and four appointed by Democratic presidents, the membership of the D.C. Circuit court to some degree determines the EPA’s impact on businesses and individuals.

Even as Republicans are complaining that EPA’s regulations are too pervasive and heavy-handed, some congressional Democrats are complaining that the executive branch is delaying environmental regulations. A group of Senate and House Democrats sent a letter Thursday to Sylvia Matthews Burwell, the new director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), complaining about delays in OMB’s approval of EPA actions such as its guidance identifying waters protected by the Clean Water Act, which has been under OMB review for 470 days.

When the EPA started under President Richard Nixon in 1970 it had 4,000 employees and an annual budget of $1 billion; today it has nearly 18,000 employees and a budget of $8.5 billion, but the annual cost of compliance with its regulations is greater than $8.5 billion. How much greater is a topic contested between environmentalists and business groups.

“I doubt anyone associated with the creation of EPA expected it to have the far-reaching powers it has now, and certainly not Nixon,” said University of Ohio historian Paul Milazzo, an environmental policy expert who has written a book on the development of the Clean Water Act. “Regulating greenhouse gases? Not in their wildest dreams,” he said. 

He said EPA’s reach has expanded since its creation partly due to subsequent legislation passed by Congress and due to rulings issued by federal courts.  The court rulings, in particular, he said, “are crucial to understanding how the mandate for the EPA expanded in the multitude of endeavors it came to oversee: air and water quality, solid wastes, toxics and nuclear, etc.”

On the day the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to approve McCarthy’s nomination, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the panel, accused the EPA of having “a pretty dismal transparency record” – including what he called “unresponsiveness” to requests from members of Congress “for the underlying research data behind crucial EPA regulations.”

Vitter also accused the EPA of using “completely inadequate, in some cases, laughable economic analyses that don’t begin to account for full costs or benefits” of EPA rules.

But citing some progress in getting information from EPA, Vitter set out a schedule for additional progress in disclosure from EPA; if his requests are met, he said he’d allow McCarthy’s nomination to be voted on, without any 60-vote threshold.

Among his requests are for EPA to convene an outside panel of economic experts “with significant private sector experience” in economic modeling to assess EPA regulations.

In a concern also raised by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Vitter accused the EPA of settling lawsuits mounted by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) “behind closed doors which advance an environmental left agenda.”

John Walke, an NRDC attorney who once worked at EPA, disputed the Chamber’s allegations about “sue and settle,” calling them “absolutely unsubstantiated.”

He said even in cases where the EPA reaches a deal to settle a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club, the resulting proposed regulations must be open to public comments by outside groups, firms and industries.

Walke said that in return for not blocking McCarthy’s nomination, Vitter and the Republican are making “demands that the agency change the way it enforces the law and carries out environmental programs. They are demands the EPA cannot and will not give ground on – which is why we have this continuing stalemate backed in effect by the threat of a filibuster.”

He added, “It impedes the operation of EPA if a politically appointed administrator (McCarthy) is not running the agency….The agency has never gone this long without having a confirmed EPA administrator and that means there are necessarily decisions that are awaiting her confirmation.”

He added, “It impedes the operation of EPA if a politically appointed administrator (McCarthy) is not running the agency….The agency has never gone this long without having a confirmed EPA administrator and that means there are necessarily decisions that are awaiting her confirmation.”

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:21 PM EDT

GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire will support the comprehensive immigration bill drafted by the bipartisan "Gang of Eight," she said Sunday, saying the legislation offers a "tough but fair" path to citizenship for the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.  

"This is a thoughtful bipartisan solution to a tough problem," she said on CBS's Face the Nation. "And so that’s why I’m going to support it.”

An additional Republican vote is welcome news for proponents of the bill, which was drafted by a bipartisan group of eight senators and will be debated on the Senate floor starting this week. 

The bill will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. 

Ayotte joins the four Republican members of the Gang of Eight who are pushing for passage, although Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has suggested that he will only support the final legislation if more border security measures are written into the bill. 

In an op-ed on her Senate website, Ayotte said she will back amendments to beef up border security. 

"Consistent with my priorities, the legislation includes more border agents, more fencing, and better surveillance technology," she wrote. "And during the upcoming debate, I will support strengthening the legislation's border security measures even further."

This story was originally published on Sun Jun 9, 2013 11:18 AM EDT

Lawmakers on both sides of a burgeoning debate over counterterrorism practices agree: Americans just don't know how carefully the government is monitoring their words and deeds in the name of national security.

Revelations this week that the National Security Agency has culled hoards of "meta-data" from domestic phone records and international internet communications has alarmed civil libertarians in both parties, while more hawkish Democrats and Republicans have joined together to defend the NSA's practices. 

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

The one area on which both sides agree is that most Americans don't have a full sense of just how wide-sweeping the government's activities have been in its pursuit of national security threats.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican defender of the programs, said Americans aren't aware of many of the government's anti-terrorist practices. 

"I don't think they know a lot of things that the government is doing in our effort [to counter terrorism]," he said Sunday on CNN. 

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., a critic of the NSA methods who was aware of them as a member of the Senate's intelligence panel, said the same thing. 

"My main concern is Americans don't know the extent to which they are being surveilled," Udall said Sunday. 

The uproar over the NSA's practices has prompted renewed debate over what constraints should be placed upon the government in its intelligence and national security practices, more than a decade past the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that led to the growth of most modern intelligence practices. 

Udall said Sunday on ABC that he would like for Congress to revisit the PATRIOT Act, the law first enacted under President George W. Bush that gives the government wider latitude in pursuing terror suspects. That law has been renewed under President Barack Obama, and it gives the government some of the powers detailed in this week's reporting about the NSA.

"We hear this term 'meta-data,' which has to do with when you make calls, where you make calls to, who you're talking to," Udall said. "I think that's private information, and I think if the government is gathering that, the American people ought to know it, we ought to have a discussion about it, and frankly, I think we ought to reopen the Patriot Act and put some limits on the amount of data that the National Security Administration is collecting."

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a critic of many of the administration's national security practices and a Republicans with designs on the White House in 2016, suggested he might look to challenge the NSA snooping in court. 

"That is unconstitutional, it invades our privacy, and I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at a Supreme Court level," he said on "Fox News Sunday" of the NSA's collection of phone data. "I'm going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies — ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. If we get 10 million Americans saying we don't want our phone records looked at, then maybe somebody will wake up and things will change in Washington."

But defenders of the programs from both parties countered that the programs were carefully monitored already by both Congress and the courts, and struck a reasonable balance between civil liberties and pursuing terrorists.

"It's a careful balance between individual liberties and responsibilities," McCain said. "I believe that the FISA court system is an appropriate way of reviewing some of these policies."

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Calif., the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she would seek ways to add more transparency to the government's anti-terror activities. 

"We have had lots of hearings on this," she said on ABC. "I'm open to doing a hearing every month, if that's necessary, and I'm open to doing an open [public] hearing."

She added, though, that many of the counter-terrorism were so sensitive, that there would necessarily be limits to the extent which lawmakers can discuss these programs in public.

This story was originally published on Sun Jun 9, 2013 10:45 AM EDT

Aaaand they’re off. 

Senators began a preliminary discussion of a comprehensive immigration bill Friday, kicking off what will be a weeks-long tussle over the first sweeping attempt to overhaul the nation’s immigration system since 2007. 

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeated Friday morning that he wants a final vote on the legislation before the Senate recesses for the July 4 holiday. 

“It is gratifying to see the momentum behind this package of commonsense reforms, which will make our country safer and help 11 million undocumented immigrants get right with the law,” Reid said of the bill, which was written by a bipartisan group of eight senators and passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a 13-5 vote last month. 

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who is leading opposition to the Gang of Eight bill, argued on the Senate floor that the law would provide “amnesty” to reward law breakers, exacerbate joblessness  and prompt more waves of illegal immigration. 

“The legislation that’s been offered by the Gang of Eight says they’ve fixed it, don’t worry! We’ve taken care of all that is needed!” Sessions said during more than two hours of argument against the bill on the Senate floor Friday morning. “Well, it won’t do that. That’s the problem. It will definitely give amnesty today.”

Sessions was joined by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who was initially involved in negotiations to help draft the bill but has become one of its vocal opponents.

“This is not the bill to fix our immigration system,” Lee said. ‘I want to pass immigration reform, I want to debate immigration reform and that is exactly why we should not proceed to the Gang of Eight bill.”   

“We’re being presented with a choice between the Gang of Eight bill or nothing,”  he added. “Common sense, recent history and the ongoing legislative process of the House of Representatives confirm that that is a false choice.”

An initial vote Tuesday afternoon -- to officially proceed to debate on the bill --  will offer a preliminary measure of the most rigid opposition to the bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will not try to block the legislation from coming to the floor.

Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who shepherded the legislation through the Senate Judiciary Committee, admonished the “small minority” who oppose formally beginning debate on the bill.

“This is not a time to have a tiny handful stop a debate,” he said.

Next week, lawmakers are expected to begin the process of offering changes to the legislation, with Republicans planning to zero in on attempts to stiffen border security and enforcement.  

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida -- a key drafter of the legislation who says he’s trying to woo more conservatives to support the bill --  has said that the it cannot pass without “a serious and real border security measure.”  

He’s pledged to work with other lawmakers to introduce changes that would make the bill more palatable to conservatives -- especially in the Republican-controlled House -- but Democratic backers will fight proposals that could delay the implementation of the bill’s centerpiece “path to citizenship.”

Rubio’s office has also been supportive of an effort by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would put in place more stringent security  “triggers” that must be met before undocumented immigrants with provisional legal status can apply for green cards. Senate Democrats say that’s a non-starter. 

This story was originally published on Fri Jun 7, 2013 12:48 PM EDT

In the storm that blew up Thursday over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing a subpoena of telecom data from Verizon, the resulting alliances made for some strange bedfellows with ideologies clashing, at times, with party labels.

Libertarian favorite Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., stood with liberal Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Jon Tester of Montana in criticizing the court-approved gathering of the telecom data. “Can the FBI or the NSA really claim that they need data scooped up on tens of millions of Americans?” Merkley asked.

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stood with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California in defending the collection of telecom data.

“This program has strong restrictions on it,” Feinstein -- who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- assured NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “The data are just phone numbers and trunk lines; there's no content. It is put behind a wall. The only way it can be used is if there is strict scrutiny -- reasonable, articulable knowledge that this can connect to a terrorist attack, either under way or under planning or some conspiracy.”

But Paul portrayed the collection of telephone data as “an astounding assault on the Constitution. After revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted political dissidents and the Justice Department seized reporters' phone records, it would appear that this Administration has now sunk to a new low.”

Paul -- a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 -- noted that he’d offered an amendment last year that would have attached Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But it was defeated -- and in fact got only 12 votes.

That vote revealed the way terrorism can alter the political lineup; only two other GOP senators supported Paul on his amendment: Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada. The majority of the support came from Democrats -- nine lawmakers, including Merkley and Tester -- voted for Paul’s amendment.

On terrorism policies, Paul appears to be a minority within his own party.

On issues like abortion, gun control or “Obamacare,” Democrats Merkley and Feinstein have voted the same -- and on the opposite side from Paul. But on the collection of telephone data the Democrats clash.

Terrorism policies have a way of the jarring the usual left-versus-right categories: instead, it’s libertarian mistrust of executive power (Merkley and Paul) versus a willingness to allow extraordinary steps to defeat and deter terrorists (Graham and Feinstein).

This extends to the issue of using drones overseas against terrorist suspects. Referring to conservative Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Democrat Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota noted in April that “You know we’re in strange territory when Sen. Cruz and I have the same questions” about President Barack Obama’s drone strategy.

If Paul does indeed make his bid for the Republican nomination, it will be an opportunity -- 12 years after the Sept. 11 attacks -- to test how voters nationally reassess policies that were launched in the aftermath of that day of terror.

Related stories:

• 'Critical tool'? Top lawmakers defend NSA snooping on Verizon phone records
• Obama continues, extends some Bush terrorism policies
• Phone records story raises big questions for Obama

This story was originally published on Thu Jun 6, 2013 5:28 PM EDT

As the Senate prepares to begin debate on immigration reform, advocates for the legislation are pointing to yet more data showing that Republicans stand to make political strides if they are perceived as embracing the new law.

According to a new survey released Thursday by polling group Latino Decisions and pro-reform group America’s Voice, 45 percent of Latino registered voters say they would be more likely to support a Republican candidate in the future if the party takes “a leadership role” in passing a comprehensive reform bill, a stable finding from a similar survey in March.

There is “huge potential to move and swing the Latino vote based on this issue,” said Latino Decisions pollster Matt Barreto in a conference call with reporters Thursday.

The survey also showed that while Latinos have a less favorable opinion of the GOP than their Democratic counterparts, Republicans and Democrats will both be on the hook if the legislation fails.

Asked which party will be “most responsible” if the bill is not passed, nearly half of respondents said both parties will be to blame. Thirty-nine percent said only Republicans would be responsible, while just 9 percent said only Democrats.

Proponents have reiterated that they will push to keep out changes to a bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate that would stiffen border security requirements – including an amendment proposed by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and crafted with the backing of original Gang of Eight member Marco Rubio.

“Do I think that the Senate immigration bill can pass the Senate by the end of June by a 2-1 margin? Yes,” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice. “Do I think that John Cornyn is the key to getting there? No.”

“I think he’s being mischievous, devious and destructive,” he added.  

The Senate is expected to begin initial debate on the bipartisan immigration bill Friday, and will vote on bringing the bill to the floor next week.

The new data also comes as House Republicans passed a measure sponsored by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would end the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to delay deportation of young undocumented immigrants and other “low-priority” individuals who are in the country illegally. Reform advocates said the amendment, which only six Republican members opposed in the 224-201 vote, amounts to the forced deportation of DREAMers – immigrants who came to the country as children.

That’s the wrong track for the party’s political future, reform proponents said.

“When uncontrolled, House Republicans are willing to destroy the lives of DREAMers in a play to a dwindling base of anti-immigrant Republican primary voters,” Ana Avendano, the director of immigration at the AFL-CIO, said in a statement. “We hope and expect that the leadership of the Republican party will understand that this is not only abhorrent policy but suicidal politics.”

That’s in part because of data showing that as many as two-thirds of respondents in the Latino Decisions poll know an undocumented immigrant personally, advocates said.

“This issue is about family and community,” said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, director of immigration policy for the National Council of La Raza. “It is deeply personal.”

The poll interviewed 500 registered Latino voters between May 25 and June 1. The margin of error was +/- 4.4 percent.

This story was originally published on Thu Jun 6, 2013 3:28 PM EDT

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced Thursday he will appoint the state’s Republican attorney general Jeffrey Chiesa to serve as an interim senator to succeed the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

Chiesa, a longtime Christie aide and former federal prosecutor, will not run for the October special election Christie has set, leaving a wide-open GOP field and a growing Democratic primary for the seat. 

Since Christie’s Tuesday announcement that he would call for a special election, the governor has been criticized by both parties for making a shrewd political calculus in picking the October date, with detractors arguing Christie didn’t want a competitive Senate race concurrent with his own re-election bid. 

While Christie is heavily favored over Democrat Barbara Buono, many believe that Christie didn’t want to endanger a crushing margin, helping him make a case for a possible 2016 presidential bid that he’s won big in a solidly blue state. Christie has argued he set the date as early as possible to give New Jersey voters a voice, and defended even the $24 million it will cost to hold another vote just three weeks before the state’s regularly scheduled general election. 

The choice is a safe pick as Christie looked to a longtime confidante and friend to fill the seat for the next four months. Christie has known Chiesa since the 1990s, when the two worked at a law firm together. Chiesa would go on to serve in the U.S. Attorney’s office, and later was Christie’s chief counsel as governor and managed his transition team before Christie appointed him as attorney general in 2012, when he was confirmed  unanimously by the state senate.

“I only have these chances because of the governor,” Chiesa said at a press conference announcing his nomination, saying the governor had first met with him about the position on Monday and, after discussing it with his family, accepted via text message.

Christie praised Chiesa as a man of integrity, saying there were “very few people in my life I know better than Jeff.” 

Chiesa will head to Washington on Monday to assume his duties, and admitted he’s a novice to the legislative process, but that he’s looking forward to learning from other lawmakers.

“These issues are new to me and the details are new to me,” said Chiesa. “I will try to contribute in any way that I can.” 

On the issue of immigration, he did note that border security was an important issue to him, something that’s been a lynchpin as a bipartisan compromise moves through the Senate. 

Chiesa said he’s a “conservative Republican, generally speaking,” but like Christie, he’s supported some policies that could irk some on the right. When he was sworn into office, Chiesa said he would defend the state’s civil union laws as constitutional. Chiesa has also enforced the state’s gun buy-back program.

With Chiesa not seeking a full term though, the field to succeed Lautenberg becomes even more murky, especially on the Republican side. Former Bogota mayor and conservative activist Steve Lonegan, who now directs the New Jersey chapter of Americans for Prosperity and ran against Christie in the 2009 gubernatorial primary, became the first to announce his candidacy on Wednesday.

At the press conference announcing Chiesa, Christie seemed to brush aside his past squabbles with his former primary opponent, but said he wouldn’t speculate on the field on either side.

“Steve hasn’t been a sharp critic of mine,” said Christie. “We’ve agreed of much more than we’ve disagreed on.”

Among Democrats, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who was already running in 2014, and Reps. Frank Pallone and Rush Holt have all made moves to run. Booker still has an edge, but Pallone has a $3.7 million war chest that can’t be ignored. Booker had $1.6 million in his Senate campaign account at the end of March, while Holt has about $800,000 in his House campaign fund.

With the compressed time frame Christie set, candidates only have until Monday at 4 p.m. to submit 1,000 signatures. Christie brushed aside criticism that was too quick a turnaround, saying viable candidates should be able to get those signatures easily.

“You think it’s hard to get 1,000 signatures, wait until you try to get one million votes,” Christie laughed.  

“People should have the right to make a choice,” Christie said, underscoring again that he felt a primary process and election was the right move, and he blamed the state’s seemingly contradictory statues for the ensuing confusion.

“It’s the fault of legislature for setting up less than clear guidance,” said Christie. 

This story was originally published on Thu Jun 6, 2013 1:38 PM EDT

As lawmakers paused Wednesday to remember Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Vice President Joe Biden eulogized the late New Jersey lawmaker as a man who “worked like hell” on behalf of the American people – and who loved both the Senate and Amtrak almost as much as Biden himself. 

“Like me, he loved the Senate,” Biden said of the late senator, who died Monday at the age of 89. “Because he saw it as the place where he could do more – with the financial success he had, all the philanthropy he had, the influence he had in the community – he believed, and he was right, there was no place he could do as much to impact the people that he cared about than the United States Senate.”

Lautenberg was the oldest member of the Senate and the last World War II veteran to serve in the chamber. During almost 30 years on Capitol Hill, he authored drunk driving laws, passed legislation to ban smoking on airplanes, fought for public transit and worked to curb gun violence.

Seth Wenig / AP

The casket containing the body of U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg is carried into the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Wednesday, June 5, 2013.

On Wednesday afternoon, Lautenberg’s casket will be transported to the New Jersey train station that bears his name and will travel to Washington, D.C. on an Amtrak train. There, it will lie in repose in the United States Capitol in the Lincoln Catafalque -- built for the coffin of Abraham Lincoln --  before his burial Friday at Arlington National Cemetery.

Biden, who was serving his second term when Lautenberg was first elected in 1982, said he advised him to run for re-election before the ailing lawmaker announced in February that he would not seek re-election in 2014 due to his failing health. 

In their remarks earlier in the services, Lautenberg’s children indicated that their father regretted the decision to announce his coming retirement and wished that he could “take the whole thing back” as recently as a few weeks before his death.

“Your dad never quit,” Biden told them.  “He never quit anything. He never gave up. He never gave in.”

Noting that both men loved the trains that run along the East Coast corridor, Biden at one point recalled running at break-neck speed for the train he took every day, only to be told by Amtrak staff that “don’t worry, you’re OK, we’re holding it for Lautenberg.”

Biden also won prolonged laughter for his opening comment on speaking after hours of emotional tributes from Lautenberg’s former colleagues – including former senator and secretary of State Hillary Clinton – and family members.

“If there’s a definition of redundant, I’m it,” he remarked.

A contingent of former and current senators and staff members were also on hand for the ceremony, as were New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker – who coveted Lautenberg’s seat even before the octogenarian senator announced his expected retirement.

Calling him “a steadfast champion of women’s rights and opportunities,” Clinton said Lautenberg was considered an honorary member of the Senate Women’s Caucus.

“He loved and he was loved,” Clinton said after lauding his accomplishments in defense of the nation’s environment, veterans and children.  “And after all, that’s what makes a great life.”

Sen. Robert Menendez, now New Jersey’s senior senator, called his departed colleague “one of the most tenacious men I have ever met” and joked about Lautenberg’s love for pop superstar Lady Gaga, whose concerts he attended both for a political fundraiser and for his 86th birthday celebration.

“Bonnie, I’m sure you know he loved you dearly,” he told Lautenberg’s widow. “Even Lady Gaga couldn’t lift a finger to you.”

Seventeen members of the Senate were listed as honorary pallbearers for the departed senator and the upper chamber was not in session Wednesday as members paused to remember their colleague.

Lautenberg is survived by his wife, six children and 13 grandchildren.

Wondering how he would go on without his dad, son Josh Lautenberg said his father would have advised the family “to move forward without hesitation, run the stairs, walk fast and grab a hot dog on the way." 

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 5, 2013 2:14 PM EDT

The fiscal news in recent days has been good – last Friday the Medicare trustees pushed back by two years the insolvency date for the program’s hospital insurance fund. And there’s been a robust increase in federal tax revenues in the past 12 months.

But some fiscal policy experts fear that the news may be so good that it is undermining a sense of urgency in Congress on finding a long-term balance between outlays and revenue, , setting up a potential scenario where big decisions about fixing entitlement programs get even harder for politicians and more controversial for Americans.

One of the Medicare and Social Security public trustees, Charles Blahous, warned at a panel discussion in Washington Tuesday, “By any measure we are now very, very late in the game when it comes to dealing with the Social Security shortfall. And in my view we do not have the requisite sense of urgency that we should — given how serious things have become.”

The trustees reported Friday that the combined Social Security trust funds will exhaust their assets in 2033, but that the disability fund will be depleted in only three years, by 2016.

Blahous and others warn that the longer Congress waits to fix the long-term mismatch between future revenues and the benefits that have been promised to retirees, the disabled, and the elderly, the more excruciating the decisions to cut benefits and raise taxes will be.

The painful 1983 Social Security reforms — which included delaying cost-of-living increases, raising the retirement age, and other measures — were only “a little bit more than half as severe as what we’d have to do today if we want to balance Social Security for the next 75 years, Blahous said. 

"We’re basically in uncharted waters at this point. We don’t know whether our political system can forge an agreement to close a shortfall that is as large as Social Security’s has already become,” he added.

For now, Senate Democrats are focused on their attempt to convene a conference committee with House members on the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2014.

That conference, if it ever occurs, might lead to an accord to raise the government’s borrowing limit before it is reached in late summer or early fall. It might also lead to a deal on taxes and entitlements. And under what are called budget reconcilation rules, measures can pass in the Senate wih a simple majority and cannot be filibustered.

With no sense of impeding fiscal crisis, Republicans seem in no hurry to agree to that conference.

For weeks, conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., have objected to Democratic motions to convene a budget conference committee.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, conducts a TV news interview on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 6, 2013.

“All of us have said the same thing: take the debt ceiling off the table and we’ll go to conference,” Cruz told reporters before the Senate broke for its week recess. “This is a fight over whether the United States raises the debt ceiling trillions of dollars with no (spending) reforms whatsoever.”

In the short run there are reasons for optimism about the economy and the government’s finances.

Income tax and payroll tax revenues are up 16 percent so far this fiscal year compared to last year. The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that the deficit this year — at 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was more than 10 percent of GDP.

“The good news is that in existing circumstances the deficit will be reduced over a ten-year period somewhere between $3.6 and $3.8 trillion,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., noted Tuesday at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. “The bad news is … that we’re going to have a crisis again come this fall, just like we had in 2011 over the raising of the debt ceiling."

Referring to the unresolved questions about tax reform, entitlement reform, this year’s budget and the annual spending bills, as well as the debt limit, Nelson said, “Everything is going to come crashing in, in my opinion, this fall whenever we reach that limit on the debt ceiling.”

The star witness at the hearing, former Treasury Secretary and economist Lawrence Summers, offered some economic bullishness: “I am as optimistic — probably more optimistic — about the future for the U.S. economy than I have been at any time in the last 15 years…. There is a real prospect of accelerated growth as we move to the end of this year and to 2014 and 2015.”

And yet Summers delivered a mixed message, warning about the still high unemployment rate, zero interest rates which can’t be cut further, and a weak global economy.

Referring to the spending reductions, or sequester, in the 2011 Budget Control Act, Summers said that spending cuts which reduce consumer demand would hurt economic growth and “may even be counterproductive in terms of reducing (federal) debt burdens -- because slower economic growth leads both to larger deficits and to a lower level of GDP, and therefore a higher debt-to-GDP ratio. This is not the time for austerity or further cutbacks.”

The sequester mostly exempts entitlement spending — the larger part of the federal budget — so its full force falls on discretionary outlays, the smaller part of the budget. Not only are defense outlays cut, but also investments that may lead to future growth and innovation — such as federal grants to biologists, geneticists, and other researchers.

Summers’ testimony aligned with the Democratic message that Congress must replace the sequester with a mix of tax increases and other spending cuts and must unleash a new round of stimulus spending.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Patty Murray, D- Wash., said the point of her panel's hearing had been to raise the question of “are we impacting our long-term growth by putting all of our cuts on discretionary spending? That’s a huge difference between the House and the Senate that’s very real.”

Despite the news from the Medicare trustees on insolvency pushed back to 2026, Murray said, “the long-term questions remain on both taxes and on entitlements. And we have to have that discussion, but we can’t do any of it until we get to conference.”

She added that Democrats have “a concern that the Republicans are going to drag us into a debate over the debt ceiling that will hurt our very fragile economy.”

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 5, 2013 12:45 PM EDT

Four opponents of the Gang of Eight immigration bill are keeping up their pressure as the full Senate prepares to consider the legislation next week, telling colleagues in a letter Tuesday that the bill “will leave our borders unsecure and our immigration system deeply dysfunctional.”

The letter is signed by four Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee  - Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa – who, along with Texas Sen. John Cornyn, voted against the bill as amended by the 18-member panel last month.   (Cornyn was not a signer of the circulated letter.)  

The four lawmakers have been pushing hard against the bipartisan compromise legislation, arguing that its central tenets were “predicated on a deal struck” before the Judiciary panel began the process of amending it.  The bill’s supporters did accept over 140 changes to the bill – many proposed by Republicans – but rejected proposals from both parties that they said would have disrupted the legislation’s delicate compromises between stakeholders like unions, business and immigrant rights groups. 

“The last thing this country needs right now is another 1,000-plus page bill that, like Obamacare, was negotiated behind closed doors with special interests,” the four senators wrote. “We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to grow and fester.” 

The legislation is expected to be considered on the Senate floor beginning next week, where senators on both sides of the aisle will continue to propose changes to it.

While some Republicans argue that the Gang of Eight bill should be heavily overhauled or defeated, others who helped negotiate the legislation warn of the policy and political consequences of opposing reforms to address the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Gang of Eight, told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday that the GOP is "toast" in the next presidential election if the party is blamed for the effort's failure. 

"From our party's point of view, if this thing falls apart and we get blamed because we're not practical, we created border security mechanisms that were unachievable, we tried to change the structure in a dramatic way and we get the blame, we're toast in 2016," he said. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 4, 2013 2:24 PM EDT

Setting the stage for what is likely to be a months-long struggle with Senate Republicans, President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated two attorneys and a judge to fill the vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – considered to be the nation’s second-most powerful court since so many federal regulations are litigated before that court.

Accusing Senate Republicans of obstructing his judicial nominees with “blatant” political maneuvers, Obama called for an up-or-down vote on the three. “The Senate is tasked with providing advice and consent,” the president said in remarks at the White House. “They can approve a president’s nominee or they can reject  president’s nominee. But they have a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation.”

Noting that his first-term nominees overall waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of former President George W. Bush, Obama said, “time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay, and even block, qualified nominees from coming to a full vote.” 

“I recognize that neither party has a perfect track record here,” Obama said but added, “what’s happening now is unprecedented.  For the good of the American people it has to stop.”

Obama’s picks for the D.C. Court of Appeals are:

• Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now teaches at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington;
• Patricia Ann Millett, an appellate lawyer who has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. Millett served in the Justice Department for years before joining a law firm in Washington.
• Judge Robert Wilkins, a federal trial court judge in Washington and a former public defender.

Last month, the Senate unanimously confirmed Sri Srinivasan, Obama’s nominee to the D.C. Circuit, and with eight active-duty judges, some Republicans argue the court now has enough judges to handle its workload.

In March, Caitlin Halligan, another Obama nominee to the court, withdrew after Senate Republicans blocked her from a getting a confirmation vote. The National Rifle Association opposed Halligan due to her involvement while Solicitor General for the state of New York in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers.

Prior to the Srinivasan confirmation vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “You have a majority on that court that is wreaking havoc with the country,” Reid adding that with further GOP delays perhaps the judges on that court will issue more opinions in the next couple of weeks favorable to the Republicans – as that court did in January when it ruled that Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional.

Commenting Monday on reports that Obama would nominate three people to fill the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, Sen. Charles Grassley, R- Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda. No matter how you slice it, the D.C. Circuit ranks last, or almost last, in nearly every category that measures workload.”

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 4, 2013 10:48 AM EDT

What Chris Christie is thinking… Announcement for scheduling a special election for Lautenberg’s Senate seat could come as early as today… Christie’s list of names for an interim Senate pick… A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13?... Obama to begin public fight over judges at 10:30 am ET Rose Garden ceremony… House holds another IRS hearing at 10:00 am ET… Senate looks into military sexual assaults… New NBC/WSJ poll comes out first thing tomorrow morning… And Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Voters head to the polls in Missouri to replace ex-Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).

*** What Chris Christie is thinking: A day after Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) passed away, the conversation now turns to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) pick to temporarily fill the Senate seat. And it’s an upcoming move that has political implications -- both in the state and nationally, and for this year, 2014, and possibly 2016. According to Republicans familiar with the process, the first issue is how long the interim pick would serve with the scheduling of a special election. Expect Christie to announce his intention of how to proceed regarding the special election timing in the next few days, and maybe as early as today. The reason: The law appears to be murky, with conflicting statutes on the books. Had Lautenberg died a month ago, the law would have been clear about holding a special election this year. Had Lautenberg passed away next month, the law would have been clear about waiting until Nov. 2014. For now, according to these Republican sources, Christie is operating on a 2013 timeline. So that means primaries in August and a general election either in October or simultaneously with the gubernatorial race in November. The strictest reading of the law, per these Republicans, suggests October for the general -- which would keep the Senate special separated from Christie’s re-election contest. But holding an October special would also cost the state money. 

Jeff Zelevansky / Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images file

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at a groundbreaking ceremony at Essex County Community College on May 7, 2013 in Newark, N.J.

*** A complicated matter: Obviously, holding a senate race at the same time as his re-election complicates Christie’s efforts to run up the score in his re-election and it could even put his re-election at real risk. But wasting money on an election just weeks before a regularly scheduled one is not exactly the most fiscally conservative thing to do. The perfect REPUBLICAN solution for Christie would be to wait unti,l 2014 but his folks believe that reading of the law would never hold up in the state courts and he’d be ordered to hold a 2013 election.

*** Christie’s list of names for an interim pick: The Republicans close to this process assume that no matter how Christie interprets the law regarding the special election, someone will sue and get courts to clarify. And that’s why Christie wants to set things in motion ASAP -- to speed up the legal process for anyone wanting to challenge his reading of the law. As for candidates the governor might appoint to temporarily fill the Senate seat before the special election, Christie’s first choice is former Gov. Tom Kean Sr. (R); in fact, we understand the two men will meet soon about it.  Kean Sr. is in a tier all by himself. The next tier of potential appointees includes Kean’s son, Tom Kean Jr. (whom Bob Menendez beat in ’06, 53%-44%) Joe Kyrillos (whom Menendez thumped in ’12), and the state’s current lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno. Christie potentially picking Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) is possible -- if he would be willing to give up his safe congressional seat, which is unlikely. And LoBiondo is thought of as the only serious GOP member of Congress on short list. One other thing: Christie would prefer this interim pick run in the special election, so Kean Sr. agreeing to hold the seat but pass on a run IS NOT Christie’s preference.

*** A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13? What's interesting about the likely quick special election is that it doesn't preclude the 2014 race -- that is, you’ll have a special Senate election this year and then another race for the seat in 2014. But this also means that Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who’s widely assumed to jump into this special election, would probably face a primary fight now from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ).Why? Well, Pallone can run for the Senate seat in 2013 without risking his House seat. So it’s a free shot for the Democratic congressman. Of course, the state party could decide against holding a party primary and choose the nominee at a convention of sorts. There will be national pressure on New Jersey Democrats to rally around Booker, whether Pallone likes that or not

*** Obama begins public fight over judges: At 10:30 am from the White House Rose Garden today, President Obama will do something we don’t remember seeing him do before -- announcing judicial picks to the public (other than ones to the Supreme Court). Per the Washington Post, the president will nominate “two female lawyers and an African American federal judge Tuesday to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” They are “veteran appellate lawyer Patricia A. Millett; Georgetown University Law Center professor Cornelia ­T. L. Pillard; and Robert L. Wilkins, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made.” Obama has been criticized by many Democrats publicly and privately for not making a bigger public push for his judicial nominations. Yet by nominating three appellate picks at once -- after Republicans filibustered a previous nominee, Caitlin Halligan -- Obama “will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees,” as the New York Times wrote last week. One additional thing to keep in mind: If Obama is to wage a battle over judges, it has to come in the next 18 months. Why? After 2014, it’s likely there will be fewer Senate Democrats and maybe even a GOP-controlled Senate.

*** House holds another IRS hearing: Another day, another congressional hearing looking into the controversies surrounding the Internal Revenue Service. At 10:00 am ET, the House Ways and Means Committee holds a hearing featuring groups who were targeted in their application for tax-exempt status because of their conservative-sounding names. The groups include the Laurens County Tea Party, Wetumpka Tea Party, San Fernando Valley Patriots, and Linchpins of Liberty. This comes one day after the new acting IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, testified on the Hill, vowing “to work quickly and with the cooperation of Congress to implement reforms to the tax agency,” NBC’s Mike O’Brien reported yesterday. 

*** Senate looks into military sexual assaults: Also on Capitol Hill today, the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing at 9:30 am ET to discuss pending legislation on sexual assaults in the military. As NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski noted on “TODAY” this morning, the hearing comes after Defense officials confirmed three Naval Academy football players who are under investigation for allegedly assaulting an unconscious female midshipman at a party last year. The victim's attorney claims that when her client reported the incident, she was disciplined for drinking but the three football players went unpunished and were permitted to play out the season.

*** NBC/WSJ poll coming out! How does the public view American institutions like the military and IRS after these recent stories? They have damaged President Obama’s political standing? We’ll be releasing a brand-new NBC/WSJ poll on these subjects and more first thing tomorrow morning.

*** Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Lastly today, Missouri voters go to the polls to fill the congressional seat vacated by former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO). Jessica Taylor writes: “Republican state Rep. Jason Smith is the overwhelming favorite to succeed former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in a little-noticed special election in the expansive southeastern rural Missouri district. Emerson resigned earlier this year to take a job as CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Smith faces fellow Democratic state Rep. Steve Hodges on the ballot, along with two other minor party candidates. But the overwhelming GOP tilt of the conservative district (Mitt Romney wont the district by 34 points) makes him essentially a lock for Tuesday’s special election.”

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower