Addressing graduates at a historically black college in Maryland Friday, First Lady Michelle Obama urged students to “be an example of excellence to the next generation” in a time when popular culture dominates the ambitions of young African-Americans.   

In an address at Bowie State University, Mrs. Obama told graduates to bear the goals of the university’s founders in mind by highlighting the role of education in the black community. 

Citing the high dropout rates of African-American students, Mrs. Obama lamented that--  despite their ancestors’ fights to ensure that African Americans have access to education -- too many young people still “can’t be bothered.” 

“Instead of dreaming of being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they’re fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper,” she said. 

Obama said that graduates can serve as an example by rebutting voices within the black community who stigmatize education. 

“Please reject the slander that says a black child with a book is trying to act white,” she said. 

This story was originally published on Fri May 17, 2013 2:18 PM EDT

It hasn’t been a fun week in the West Wing, but President Barack Obama insisted Friday that his focus remains on job creation despite Washington’s tendency to get “distracted”  by political battles. 

“I know it can seem frustrating sometimes when it seems like Washington’s priorities aren’t your priorities,” he said at a manufacturing plant in Baltimore, Md.  “I know it all seems like folks down there are more concerned with their jobs than with yours. Others may get distracted by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by but the middle class will always be my Number One focus, period.” 

The president’s remarks at Ellicott Dredges, a manufacturer of equipment used for infrastructure projects, came at the end of a week that saw the White House buffeted by competing scandals. On Wednesday, the administration released 100 pages of emails to try to stem controversy over alleged tinkering with official talking points in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack; also on Wednesday, in a last-minute statement to the press, Obama harshly reprimanded IRS officials and announced the resignation of the agency’s acting director after revelations that its staff targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny. 

But Obama’s message Friday was one of a bright future for a nation still scarred from the 2008 economic downturn. 

“You might not know it if you were just watching the news, and you’re exposed to all the partisan battles and brinksmanship in Washington, but the truth is there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic about where this country is headed,” he said. 

The president also announced Friday that he has signed a Presidential Memorandum that will help cut down wait times to begin federal infrastructure projects by overhauling the permitting system. 

Obama urged workers in attendance to keep the pressure on lawmakers in Washington to keep working towards more job creation.   

“Sometimes our leadership isn’t focused where we need to be focused,” he said. “And that’s where you come in.”

This story was originally published on Fri May 17, 2013 2:00 PM EDT

Kicking off his latest jobs tour at a high school in Texas, President Barack Obama told students that making quality education affordable and accessible was a key ingredient to jump-starting the U.S. economy.

Speaking at Manor New Technology High School in Austin to 400 students and teachers, Obama praised the school’s innovative education approaches, saying that both superior education and more policies to help the middle class were key to creating good jobs and attracting skilled workers.

“Thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, we’ve cleared away the rubble of the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes,” said Obama, “We’re poised for progress.”

To “reignite the true engine of middle-class growth,” the president said, the country has to become a magnet for good jobs, help people develop the education and skills for the jobs, and ensure workers can “achieve a decent living.”

With a veiled jab at inaction in Congress, Obama said where he could, he was “just going to go ahead and take actions on my own” and later today would be issuing executive orders “that I'm convinced will spur innovation and help businesses create more jobs.”

Those two executive orders, first laid out in the president’s State of the Union address, will focus on strengthening manufacturing and ensuring government data is available in machine-readable formats.

Obama praised Manor Tech for the way it is working to equip its students. The school, focused on preparing students for STEM careers in science and mathematics, selects students each year through a blind lottery, and has won plaudits for its academic success since its opening in 2007.

The president pointed out how students had been putting their knowledge to work, pointing out projects he saw on his tour of the school, including building musical instruments from mathematics equations and the use of robots and other technology.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama greets students after speaking on the economy and job creation after touring Manor New Technology High School in Manor, Texas, May 9, 2013.

And, according to the president, too much public speaking can never be a bad thing. “While most high school students in America give a handful of speeches by the time they graduate,” he noted, “a student at this school might give as many as 200.”

Obama joked, “That’s a lot of speeches. I can relate.”

But, the president pointed out, one reason the school has been a success is that it has been available to all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

 “The majority of students in Manor don’t come from wealth or privilege,” Obama said, noting the success the school had not only in keeping its students in school but helping them attend college.

“Folks around here are doing something right,” Obama added, “and I think the rest of the country can learn from what you’re doing -- because I’ve always believed that the best ideas usually don't start in Washington, they trickle up to Washington.  So I’ve come to listen and learn and highlight some of the good work that's being done.”

“There are too many kids in America who are not getting the same kinds of opportunity through no fault of their own,” said Obama. “We can do better than that. Every young person in America deserves a world class education. We’ve got an obligation to give it to them.”

“We’re not just a collection of individuals, we’re one American family,” said the president. “If we follow Manor's example, if we give every child the chance to climb new ladders of opportunity, if we equip every American with the skills and education they need to succeed in the jobs of the future, if we make sure that hard work pays off and responsibility's rewarded, if we fight to keep America a place where you can make it if you try, then you're not just going to be the ones that prosper, we'll all prosper, and together we'll write the next chapter in America's great history.”

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 5:37 PM EDT

At the White House Thursday, President Obama announced that he is nominating Chicago real estate investor Penny Pritzker to head the Commerce Department. 

 “Penny is one of our country’s most distinguished business leaders—she’s got more than 25 years of management experience in industries including real estate, finance, and hospitality,” Obama said. “She’s built companies from ground up and she knows from experience that no government program alone can take the place of a great entrepreneur.”

Noting that Thursday is Pritzker’s birthday, Obama joked, “For your birthday present, you get to go through (Senate) confirmation.”

Obama also announced that he is nominating Mike Froman to be the chief U.S. trade negotiator. Froman was a Harvard Law School classmate of Obama and the president said “he was much smarter than me then – he continues to be smarter than me now.”

Froman is now Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs. He served in the Clinton administration as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's chief of staff and later worked with Rubin at Citigroup.

The Commerce Department has been without a secretary since John Bryson resigned nearly a year ago and has been run by Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank, an economist and former university professor.

Pritzker was the national co-chair of the Obama campaign last year and was National Finance Chair of the 2008 Obama for president campaign. She has served on Obama’s Council for Jobs and Competitiveness and on his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  She also is on the board of Hyatt Hotels Corporation. She's past chairman of TransUnion, a financial services information company.

Pritzker has played a crucial role in Obama’s career.

Charles Dharapak / AP

President Barack Obama speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, May 2, 2013, where he announced he will nominate Penny Pritzker, as Commerce Secretary.

When he was struggling in 2004 to raise money for a Senate campaign, Obama was able to win over Pritzker, the first of the big fundraisers for his Senate bid. David Mendell wrote in his book, “From Promise to Power,” “With Penny Pritzker on board, other influential Chicago-based Democrats and philanthropists soon followed suit.” 

Obama’s Senate victory party was held at the Chicago Hyatt Regency, owned by the Pritzker family. If confirmed by the Senate, Pritzker would be the wealthiest Cabinet member, with a net worth of $1.85 billion.

Presidents have often appointed their political operatives and allies to the job: George W. Bush named his friend Texas oil man Don Evans to the position, Bill Clinton appointed campaign aide Mickey Kantor and former Democratic National Committee chairman Ron Brown to the post, while Franklin Roosevelt installed his chief political operative Harry Hopkins as Commerce secretary.

The Commerce Department, with 45,000 employees and an annual budget of about $8 billion, has a broad and somewhat random portfolio including one of the federal government’s economic data collection agencies, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, as well as the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration – which includes the National Weather Service -- the Bureau of the Census, and other agencies.

NBC News Deputy Political Editor Domenico Montanaro contributed to this story

Recommended Stories

• First Thoughts: It takes two
• Obama to Mexico: Immigration, drug violence, trade on agenda

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 10:21 AM EDT

The House overwhelmingly passed a bill on Friday to give the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flexibility to defray spending cuts from its budget as part of the sequester, allowing the agency to restore furloughed air traffic controllers whose absences had spurred nationwide flight delays.

The House moved quickly late Friday morning to follow the lead of the Senate, which unanimously approved legislation late Thursday evening to give the secretary of transportation increased authority to transfer funds from its existing budget to restore furloughed air traffic controllers.

The legislation heads to the White House next for President Barack Obama's signature. White House press secretary Jay Carney said at his press briefing on Friday that Obama would sign the legislation.

Though some House Democrats griped on Friday that the air traffic controller furloughs should provide the impetus for Congress to address all of the cuts prescribed by the sequester, the House easily cleared the two-thirds procedural threshold it needed to approve the FAA patch. 

The sequester, a series of $85 billion in automatic spending cuts applied across all government agencies, started on March 1. It was an outgrowth of the 2011 agreement between Congress and the Obama administration to raise the debt ceiling, and only took effect because of their subsequent inability to reach an alternative fiscal agreement.

Recommended stories: 

• First Thoughts: No good options when it comes to Syria
• Will Paul Ryan take immigration reform to the finish line in the House?
• House Chairman will introduce immigration bills this week

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:13 PM EDT

Capitol Hill Republicans were downright giddy earlier this year when they forced Senate Democrats into agreeing to pass a formal budget resolution for the first time in four years.

Now Senate Democrats are trying to turn the tables on Republicans, demanding that the GOP allow the budget process to move forward by naming negotiators to hammer out a formal budget accord with the House.

T.J. Kirkpatrick / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sought Tuesday morning to name 12 senators -- seven Democrats, five Republicans -- to a formal legislative "conference," the process which takes place when the House and Senate pass different versions of the same measure (in this case, a budget resolution).

"They're no longer interested in regular order, even though they preached that for years," said Reid, referring to the slow-moving, formal legislative management process for which many Republican leaders have clamored. "They don't want to go to conference and work things out. They don't even want to name conferees."

Reid added: "It seems House Republicans don't want to be seen discussing even the possibility of compromise with Democrats, for fear that there will be a Tea Party revolt."

Republicans counter that moving toward a former conference process usually involves some level of pre-negotiation that lays the groundwork for an eventual agreement.

"To go to conference right now strikes us as not making much sense," explained Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., following a lunch with fellow Republicans.

And while House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, described ongoing conversations between his chief budgetary lieutenant, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., the speaker echoed McConnell in resisting a conference.

Although budget resolutions are often a political exercise -- more often, they represent the priorities of a party than any serious attempt at governing -- Democrats are now trying to seize the initiative on the topic.

House Republicans for years pummeled the Senate Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget, pointing to the lack of one as a sign of fiscal recklessness. (Reid has said there was no need to pass an overarching budget, given the various fiscal agreements that govern spending levels.)

The House GOP's canard earlier this year, in which they tied a three-month extension in the debt limit to the Senate passing a budget (or endure a pay forfeiture otherwise), was designed to exploit that very lack of a budget.

Democrats are now trying to turn that political maneuvering back against Republicans.

"If the Republicans are serious about reducing the deficit, we need to get to work -- get to work sooner, rather than later," Reid said.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:45 PM EDT

Jason Reed / Reuters

Members of the Senate's "Gang on Eight" are pictured during a news briefing on Capitol Hill, April 18, 2013. The senators (L-R) Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., John McCain, R-Ariz., Bob Menendez, D-N.J., Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who crafted comprehensive legislation to overhaul the immigration system went to great lengths to balance the competing priorities of dozens of interest groups in an 844-page bill.

With dueling press conferences, fact-checking wars and talk radio bonanzas, the fight over immigration reform seemed to finally begin in earnest on Thursday as the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” formally presented their compromise legislation to overhaul the way immigrants come to live and work in the United States.

Appearing alongside allies from tax cut advocate Grover Norquist to AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, the legislators – four Republicans and four Democrats – formally unveiled their long-awaited proposal with promises of an open amendment process and pugnacious pledges to beat those would defeat it outright.

“I believe that this is ours to lose,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York and one of the chief authors of the legislation.

The lawmakers emphasized their plan includes border security plans that must be operational before full legalization for undocumented immigrants can proceed – an important criteria for many Republicans – as well as a path to citizenship with stringent requirements.

“This is a long pathway, it’s a tough pathway, but it’s an achievable pathway,” said Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. 

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina offered an opening salvo to opponents already working to gut the legislation, as they did during a similar effort that collapsed in 2007.

“I’m going to fight for this bill,” he said.  “If you’ve got a better idea, bring it on. But if you want to kill it, we’re going to have a talk about that.” 

Lawmakers acknowledged that the process ahead for the bill will be an arduous one; others outside the group will begin the process of attempting to amend the bill later this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee and later on the Senate floor. 

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said that the group invites amendments to the legislation but will oppose “poison pill” amendments designed to gut the bill’s chances for passage. 

“We are committed to good changes in the bill,” he said. “This is not a final product. It’s not engraved in golden tablets. But we are also committed to vote against amendments or proposals or changes that would kill the bill. And there’s a difference there.” 

The group’s 844-page proposal creates the opportunity for qualified undocumented immigrants to apply for “Registered Provisional Immigrant” status – allowing them to live, travel and work legally in the United States – for a period of 10 years before becoming eligible to earn a green card; it also puts in place border security and employment verification “triggers” that must be met before that legalization process begins. The law also reorients the backlogged legal immigration system to favor more employment-based visas. 

The measure has buy-in from powerful players. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and high-tech companies like the provisions for more foreign workers, while advocates from the evangelical community believe its treatment of immigrants fulfills Biblical directives. Immigrant groups say the legislation will repair a long-broken system, and labor unions are optimistic about the citizenship provisions. After their bruising 2012 election loss, many GOP political professionals say the embrace of comprehensive reform is a political necessity.

Gesturing to the ideologically diverse crowd of reform advocates on stage behind him, Graham joked during the press conference that “we’re either going to get a bill or have a hell of a fight.” 

Proponents of reform are publicly and privately optimistic that the stars have finally aligned for their cause.  But, recalling the dissolution of a similar effort in 2007 under crushing pressure from opponents, they are also preparing for a bruising fight. 

As the Gang of Eight members were presenting the bill, opponents on the Hill were holding a dueling media briefing to decry it as an “amnesty before enforcement” plan that would endanger public safety. 

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading Senate opponent of the reform effort,  and Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana argued that the bill is tantamount to “amnesty” that will foster a new wave of illegal immigration while borders go unprotected.

“You have not gotten the full story, the correct story, on this issue,” Sessions said. 

Key negotiator and high-profile conservative Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has launched a one-man media blitz to assuage the concerns of skeptical Republicans, with an aggressive schedule of interviews with talk radio hosts like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. 

 Rubio's office has also created a web site to address misinformation about the bill, like one rumor alleging that the legislative text contained a provision to give free phones to illegal immigrants. 

 In an interview with Limbaugh Thursday, Rubio emphasized the legislation’s “triggers” and argued that a stringently-regulated legalization process for undocumented immigrants will be a “vast improvement” over an existing system.

 He echoed that point during the press conference, with an appeal directly to “those who helped elect me in 2010.”

 "We all wish we didn’t have this problem but we do and we have to fix it," he said. "Because leave things the way they are, that’s the real amnesty.”  

Rubio’s involvement in the fragile negotiations was seen as key by proponents who believe his ability to bring conservatives to the table will be crucial to securing overwhelming support in the Senate.

Joking as he took the podium at the press conference, Rubio wryly nodded to past angst that he would walk away from the Gang of Eight talks.

“Actually, I changed my mind,” he cracked.

A grinning Schumer snapped back: “Not again! Once is enough.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed. 

It’s not yet been two months since the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester went into effect, but some members of Congress are already unhappy with the results.  

Congress passed those cuts in the Budget Control Act two summers ago as a fallback plan, hoping to spark a deal to control the national debt.  But that idea backfired and the fallback plan became operative.

The sequester exempts most entitlement benefits, and thus falls almost entirely on the discretionary, or annually appropriated, programs, from national parks to airport control towers.

Congressional Democrats keep hoping that the budget bargain that wasn’t reached in 2011 will somehow be found this year which would allow the sequester to be cancelled.

But at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee Wednesday, ranking Republican member Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma assured the witness, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, that the sequester “is going to stay.”

He added after the hearing, “That money is not coming back…. There isn’t going to be a Republican who’s going to vote to take that spending reduction away.” (Coburn voted against the Budget Control Act.)

He added “As stupid as the sequester is, and how we did it, the benefit of the sequester is that it’s causing everybody to re-think everything, what’s important, what’s not, what a priority, what’s not.”

Kevin Lamarque / REUTERS

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano speaks about the effects of the sequester from the White House in Washington February 25, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

And in her testimony on the Department of Homeland Security’s spending request for the new fiscal year, Napolitano did not say that the sequester is forcing her department to jeopardize public safety by, for example, skimping on border patrols. She did tell senators that the more than $3 billion in cuts having to be absorbed in just six months was “having significant effects.” The cuts “will affect operations in the short and long term.” She pledged to “do everything we can to minimize the impacts on our core mission and our employees.”

A high-profile sequester casualty – control towers at smaller airports – was the focus of Tuesday’s Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing featuring Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administrator Michael Huerta.

Spending cuts have led the FAA schedule the closing of 149 air traffic control towers across the nation. But please, not in my state, both Republican and Democratic senators told Huerta.

“Why close Nashua's tower? I certainly don't want you to close Lebanon's too, but it seems a little arbitrary to me,” complained Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R- N.H., referring to the FAA’s decision to close an airport tower in Nashua, Ayotte’s home town but to keep one in Lebanon, N.H., which gets less traffic, operating.

Huerta explained some of the arcane points of airport funding and then told Ayotte that Nashua was a tower that fell below the FAA’s measure of 150,000 annual operations and 10,000 commercial operations. So it will lose its federal funding.

Ayotte was one of the 26 senators voted against the sequester in 2011 but Sen. Mark Pryor, D- Ark, one of the 74 who voted for it and who is up for re-election next year, also complained to Huerta at Tuesday’s hearing about the closing of the tower at the Texarkana airport.

Huerta explained to Pryor that all but one of the 149 towers FAA will close in June is already closed “for a significant portion of every day. And so, they have existing rules of how they operate in a non-towered capacity. And therefore, when they convert to 24-hour non-towered operations, they simply revert to those rules.” Huerta added later “We’re not doing anything that is not safe.” But he said, “in order to maintain the highest levels of safety, what you sacrifice is efficiency.”

He’ll need to furlough 47,000 FAA employees for up to 11 days between April 21 and Sept. 30 and as a result, at the largest hub airports travelers will undergo up to 90-minute delays during the peak travel periods. But he said, “As we to undergo the difficult process of implementing the deep cuts required by the sequester, we refuse to sacrifice safety.”

Summing up the effects of the spending cuts on the FAA’s modernization plan for air traffic control, Commerce Committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D- W.V., called it “a terrible situation” and “incomprehensible – but there it is.” He added that the delay in the implementation of Next Gen, the new air traffic control system, would be “awful and dangerous.” Rockefeller voted for the Budget Control Act.

On the House side of the Capitol, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Tuesday scrutinized how three agencies ­-- the National Park Service, the Smithsonian and the National Archives -- that deal with the tourists who visit the nation’s capital are coping with the spending cuts.

Republicans used the hearing to attack National Park Service director Jonathan Jarvis for not starting to plan for the sequester back in 2011. The National Archives implemented a hiring freeze in 2011 but the Park Service did not.

Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R- Calif. – who voted for the sequester as did 268 other House members – called the spending cuts “the first real down payment on reducing the size of government in my twelve-plus years on the Hill,” but also called the sequester “the worst possible way to save money.” 

Yet, he said, some executive branch officials – such as Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, who runs the agency that displays the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence – had frugally managed their money and made the effect of the sequester “less onerous than it would otherwise be.”

Jarvis told the committee, “No national parks are closing – what we’re doing is reducing operating hours, reducing services at some of them, reducing the ranger-led programs, as well as maintenance.” He added that he could have chosen to close 70 to 100 smaller national park sites, but “we chose to spread the impact across all units, reducing services but not actually closing any individual park.”

Rep. Mark Meadows, R- N.C., whose district includes parts Great Smoky Mountains National Park, told Jarvis that signs had gone up in his district saying that the Park Service is closing operations due to sequestration. “I’m unaware of any signs,” Jarvis said, telling Meadows that he would instruct his subordinates to take them any such signs down.

And Jarvis said he was not aware of any order from his superiors to make the sequester as painful as possible.

“No, sir, we do not want to make this painful,” Jarvis told Meadows. But referring to the cuts in park services, he told Meadows that “there’s a difference between intentionally making them painful and the fact that they will be painful…. A cut of this level is painful by definition.”

Related:

Bush is back -- but not his popularity

After a couple stutter-steps as they waited for the full text of the bill, statements from outside groups began pouring in this morning in reaction to the Senate immigration legislation that dropped overnight.

The responses from pro-reform stakeholders have all been similar: They applaud the bipartisan nature of the Senate plan, believe it meets overarching goals for citizenship and legal immigration, and are optimistic about the “starting point” offered by the legislation that can now be discussed and amended in the upper chamber.

There are a few points of concern for various groups, which will lobby for improvements in coming weeks. Those concerns include -- but aren’t limited to:

- Some, including the AFL-CIO and Asian-American groups, don’t like the provision that would eliminate family-based visas for the siblings of U.S. citizens. (AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday “Are brothers and sisters close family members? Well, to ask the question is really to answer it. Of course they are and so we’re going to fight for that issue.”)

-  There’s some concern that the fines (currently a total of $2000 for an undocumented immigrant who eventually becomes a citizen) are too high. (For example: Marielena Hincapié , head of the National Immigration Law Center, said on the same call that “the combination of fees and penalties cannot price out today’s low-income immigrants who could be tomorrow’s entrepreneurs.”)

-  Advocates for gay rights had been lobbying for the inclusion of measures to address visa eligibility for binational LGBT couples; those were not addressed. The Human Rights Campaign said in a statement: “As drafted, the bill omits reforms that would end discrimination against tens of thousands of binational gay and lesbian couples … “Failing to act [on a legislative fix] would stand in stark contrast to this bill’s unprecedented inclusivity. As we stand at the crossroads of history, leaving anyone out weakens the moral authority of this once-in-a-generation legislation. No one should be forced to live in the shadows of society.”

-  Privacy and civil liberties groups like the ACLU historically haven’t keen on the E-Verify requirements, which  ACLU called “job-killing, costly and privacy-invasive” in its statement.

Meanwhile, those who oppose the bill have today reiterated past warnings that the reform will hurt American workers and reward lawbreakers without enforcement of border security measures.

Here are excerpts of some of the written responses from key groups on both sides of the debate:

AFL-CIO
President Richard Trumka

“The bill introduced today is another step toward addressing a real crisis. The United States urgently needs a roadmap to citizenship for more than 11 million aspiring Americans. And while Washington, D.C., is full of legislative unveilings that dissolve into recriminations and unsolved problems, this time actually is different. Our cause is unstoppable. There will be a roadmap to citizenship in 2013. As is to be expected in an 844-page first response to an issue as complex as immigration, there are several details in the bill that cause unintended, but serious, harm to immigrant workers and the broader labor market. We will work to correct those problems now that a bill is before the Senate Judiciary Committee. … Our role is to make sure that the roadmap leads to citizenship achievable not only in theory but in fact.  Workers care for the elderly, mow our lawns or drive our taxis, work hard and deserve a reliable roadmap to citizenship. And so the labor movement’s entire grassroots structure will be mobilized throughout this process and across this country to make sure the roadmap is inclusive.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
President and CEO Tom Donohue

“The Chamber has long called for comprehensive immigration reform that incorporates four critical components—increased border security, expansion of temporary worker programs and employer-sponsored green cards, some type of pathway to legalization and eventual citizenship under tight criteria, and a balanced and workable employment verification system. This legislation meets these goals. We welcome this legislation as a critical step toward a final law that will work for our economy and for our society. There is no doubt that there will be additional input and analysis through Senate hearings and amendments, and we look forward to being part of that needed process.”

National Council of La Raza
President Janet Murguía

“This legislation, while not perfect, is a monumental step forward in ensuring that this nation has a fair, humane and effective 21st-century immigration policy that serves our nation’s best interests and works for all Americans, including families, workers and businesses.  It is especially important that this legislation includes a real roadmap for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status and eventual citizenship, one that is true to our nation’s history, our laws and our values. We urge policymakers to follow the example of these senators and work as quickly as possible to pass a bill.  We would note that immigration is a galvanizing issue for the nation’s Hispanics, whose vote last November generated a game-changing moment for this debate, giving us an opportunity to arrive at a solution.  Our community is engaged and watching this debate closely.  As the legislation progresses, we will work to ensure that legalization is real, enforcement is accountable and families and workers are protected.  We have cleared a substantial hurdle today, but we cannot rest until we see legislation signed into law.”

Human Rights Campaign
President Chad Griffin

"The bill introduced by the Senate’s Gang of Eight brings us one step closer to the historic immigration reform this country desperately needs. From a groundbreaking pathway to citizenship, to a lasting solution for the young DREAMers hopeful for a future in this country, to much-needed reform for asylum-seekers, this bill will change millions of lives for the better. But as immigration reform reaches the Senate Judiciary Committee, there is work left to do. As drafted, the bill omits reforms that would end discrimination against tens of thousands of binational gay and lesbian couples. Currently, committed couples like Santiago Ortiz and Pablo Garcia from New York City are stuck in legal limbo because gay or lesbian couples are denied a chance to obtain relationship-based permanent residence. Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy has been an outspoken champion of the legislative fix to this problem, the United American Families Act (UAFA, S. 296). This bipartisan legislation, also sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, deserves a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee as an amendment to the immigration bill. Failing to act on UAFA would stand in stark contrast to this bill’s unprecedented inclusivity. As we stand at the crossroads of history, leaving anyone out weakens the moral authority of this once-in-a-generation legislation. No one should be forced to live in the shadows of society.”

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Migration Committee Chair Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles

“I welcome the introduction of legislation today in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. bishops look forward to carefully examining the legislation and working with Congress to fashion a final bill that respects the basic human rights and dignity of newcomers to our land—migrants, refugees, and other vulnerable populations. I commend the Senators who have introduced this bipartisan bill, as they have shown leadership and courage in this effort,” Gomez said. “We will look to work constructively with them and other members of Congress to improve upon their proposal, should such improvements prove necessary, so that any final bill creates an immigration system that restores the rule of law in a humane and just manner.” 

Hispanic Leadership Network
President Jennifer Korn (Republican-affiliated group)

“America’s legal immigration system is broken. We must protect America’s legacy as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of laws. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 is a strong conservative start to the immigration reform process. We need a lasting reform that overhauls our bureaucratic visa system, secures our borders, creates a temporary worker program, establishes a worker verification system, and allows the eleven million undocumented immigrants in our country to earn a legal status. We need an immigration system that reflects the needs of our economy and cuts the deficit. This is what the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 has brought us. I look forward to an open and honest legislative process.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading Senate Judiciary Committee opponent of reform bill

“Has Congress forgotten who it represents? Congress’ duty is to the American people. I believe it is going to be clearly established that this plan will be detrimental to working Americans—and will not pass. What Congress needs to understand is that our obligation is to law-abiding Americans who have seen their wages erode over the last decade. We can’t further weaken their financial position in order to provide more benefits to those here unlawfully. I understand the hard work that went into this bill. But as we explore its many flaws and loopholes in the coming days, I am confident the American public will firmly reject it—and will demand reform that puts the national interest first.”

NumbersUSA
President Roy Beck

“Nearly every section of the Gang Amnesty bill seems to add more foreign workers to compete with unemployed and underemployed Americans. The Gang apparently believes that the way to help the 20 million Americans who can't find a full time job is to give out another 20 to 30 million lifetime permits to foreign citizens over the next decade. None of this is the kind of economy or society most Americans desire. Surely a compassionate and thoughtful citizenry will put a stop to this nonsense and ask its Senators to go back work putting Americans back to work."

Federation for American Immigration Reform
President Dan Stein

“The programs that grant amnesty to illegal aliens and a steady supply of low-wage labor will be implemented, regardless of whether the border is secure. The Washington and Wall Street elite have the bill they want. Now it is time for the American people to have their say,” Stein noted. “Over the coming weeks, FAIR and other groups dedicated to immigration reform that protects the interests of Americans will be mounting a full-scale effort to educate the public about this bill’s blatant attempt to favor special interests at their expense and to mobilize opposition.” 

Related Stories

• Paul not ready to embrace Rubio, Gang of Eight immigration legislation
• As Senate's immigration 'Gang' releases text, House group speaks up

President Barack Obama will stick to his forthcoming budget on Wednesday, and does not regard it as a "starting point" for negotiations with Republicans toward a fiscal deal.

The administration's 2014 budget — which Obama will introduce at 11:15 a.m. on Wednesday — seeks an additional $1.8 trillion in savings through a combination of new revenues, entitlement reforms and targeted cuts to discretionary spending. The budget contains spending adding up to $3.77 trillion.

And while GOP lawmakers have expressed skepticism toward Obama's new budget, particularly for its inclusion of new taxes, the White House argued Tuesday in previewing the announcement that Republicans shouldn't be so dismissive.

"We don't view this budget as a starting point in the negotiations," one senior administration official said on a conference call previewing the budget. "This is an offer where the president came more than halfway."

“The question is, are Republicans willing to come to us?” the official asked, saying that the administration would be "sticking" to its position.

"If they refuse to include revenues in any deal, then there will be no deal. it's that simple."

Obama offered a change in how Social Security benefits increase over time (so-called "chained CPI") in hopes of drawing Republicans into begrudging agreement on proposals to raise new revenue. Among those revenue-raising provisions were:

• Enacting the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would require households making over $1 million to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes
• Limiting tax deductions to up to 28 percent of income for the top 2 percent of earners in the United States
• Expanding a tax credit for middle-class families to pay for child care
• Funding universal preschool, something Obama called for in his State of the Union address, through an increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products
• Establishing of a National Infrastructure Bank, which in April 2013 Obama said could raise $10 billion, with each federal dollar leveraging up to $20 in total investment 
• Paying for the launch of 15 “manufacturing innovation institutes,” whose $1 billion price tag was first floated during the State of the Union 

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:31 AM EDT

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a pivotal member of a bipartisan group of senators trying to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, said on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that the key to a bipartisan “grand bargain” on entitlement reform and tax reform “is can we solve immigration?”

If Democrats and Republicans can come up with a bill to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, the South Carolina Republican said, it would open the way to a deal on entitlements and taxes.

Related: Graham warns of North Korean regime overplaying its hand

A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham has been collaborating with three other Republican senators, Marco Rubio of Florida and Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona, along with four Democratic senators, to try to design an immigration bill. This group is known as the Gang of Eight.

“We’re hoping to get this thing done in the next couple of weeks,” the South Carolina Republican told NBC’s David Gregory.

The leading Democratic member of the Gang of Eight, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation that “So far we're on track. All of us have said there will be no agreement until the eight of us agree to a big, specific bill but hopefully we can get that done by the end of the week.”

The major impediment to reaching a final immigration accord is now the design of a guest worker program, Graham said on Meet the Press. If Republican negotiators are willing to allow a path to citizenship for those foreigners now illegally living in the United States, Graham said, “then the Democratic Party has to give us a guest worker program to help our economy. That’s what we’re arguing over.”

In a message to fellow Republicans, Graham said “the politics of self-deportation are behind us,” – a reference to an idea floated during the 2012 presidential campaign by GOP candidate Mitt Romney. Graham implied that the millions of non-citizens who are illegal living in the United States won’t leave voluntarily and he added that the concept of “self-deportation” was both “impractical” and “offensive.”

Graham said “nuggets” in proposals already leaked from President Barack Obama’s budget plan for the new fiscal year are “somewhat encouraging” and could lead to a deal with Republicans on entitlements and taxes. Obama is “showing some signs of leadership that has been lacking,” he said.

According to Obama administration officials, the president on Wednesday in his Fiscal Year 2014 budget blueprint will propose some changes in entitlement programs – such as a new formula for Social Security, which would effectively reduce retirement benefits, and raising the premiums that upper-income Medicare beneficiaries would need to pay for coverage.

“We’re beginning to set the stage for the grand bargain,” said Graham.

But he mentioned one idea that Obama has not proposed – raising the eligibility age for Medicare benefits from the current age of 65. Graham called for a change to “harmonize the retirement age of Medicare with Social Security.” For middle-aged and younger workers, the eligibility age for full Social Security retirement benefits is 67. For Medicare benefits, the eligibility age is now 65.

On immigration, Graham faces increasingly vocal opposition from some of his fellow Republicans in the Senate.

Related: LGBT activists jump into immigration fray, seeking same-sex partner protections, rights

On Friday, four Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, led by ranking member Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, sent a letter to Graham and the other Gang of Eight Republicans saying, “your group has secretly met for months and not consulted with members of the Committee about major changes to our nation’s immigration laws. The time for transparency has come.”

Grassley and his GOP colleagues complained about   the “rushed timetable” which they say Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., has set for committee approval of the immigration overhaul, moving directly to committee drafting of a bill, with no additional committee hearings.

“We believe it is time for you to discuss the status of your negotiations, disclose what concessions have been made, and provide details to members of the Judiciary Committee as well as the entire Republican Caucus,” the Grassley group said in its letter to Graham and other GOP Gang of Eight members.

As First Read wrote this morning, President Barack Obama's budget is expected to contain an additional $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years -- including a measure to change the way cost-of-living increases are calculated for Social Security recipients. 

The outline, which mirrors an abandoned compromise offer from the White House to House Speaker John Boehner last year, is already causing griping on the left because the entitlement changes would effectively decrease payments to beneficiaries.

But the budget isn’t exactly getting a ringing endorsement from Boehner either. The House Speaker said in a statement Friday that the White House is holding the entitlement reforms "hostage" by asking for further revenues. 

Boehner's full statement follows: 

"The president and I were not able to reach an agreement late last year because his offers never lived up to his rhetoric. Despite talk about so-called balance, the president's last offer was significantly skewed in favor of higher taxes and included only modest entitlement savings. He said he could go no further toward the  middle, and that's why his last offer was rejected.  In the end, the president got his tax hikes on the wealthy with no corresponding spending cuts. At some point we need to solve our spending problem, and what the president has offered would leave us with a budget that never balances.  In reality, he's moved in the wrong direction, routinely taking off the table entitlement reforms he's previously told me he could support.

"When the president visited the Capitol last month, House Republicans stated a desire to find common ground and urged him not to make savings we agree upon conditional on another round of tax increases. If reports are accurate, the president has not heeded that call. If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That's no way to lead and move the country forward." 

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 5, 2013 10:46 AM EDT