Testifying before the committee were Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission for Libya; Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer posted to Libya; and Mark Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism.

During the hearings, Hicks gave a detailed description of the events as they unfolded on September 11 from his perspective at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya. He recounted how the prime minister of Libya called to inform him that Ambassador Stevens had died, saying it was “the saddest phone call” of his life.

Hicks also said that a four-man Special Operations team based in Tripoli was preparing to fly to Benghazi to attempt to help those under attack, but it was told by the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command Africa to not make the trip. State Department and Pentagon officials later explained that the team would not have reached Benghazi in time and were needed to defend the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

Congressional Republicans have argued the hearings and their ongoing investigations into the Benghazi attacks as a necessary attempt to find out what mistakes were made that led to the death of a U.S. ambassador — as well as if Obama Administration officials attempted to downplay the attack in the weeks after it occurred for political reasons.

“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC-R) posted on his Facebook page. “We’re going to find a system failure before, during and after the attacks. We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.”

Democrats have countered that the Republican efforts are simply an attempt to manufacture a controversy that will smear President Obama and damage the 2016 presidential aspirations of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

To read more about the Benghazi attack and excerpts from earlier hearings on the topic, read the December 2012 issue of International Debates.

The package is expected to address the following:

Pathway to Citizenship

In December 2010, Congress rejected the DREAM Act when Republican opposition denied supporters the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster. The legislation would have provided individuals who were brought to the United States without documentation as children a way to become U.S. citizens through temporary residency and an education or military service requirement. Following the high Latino turnout in the 2012 elections, opposition to such a measure has quieted down, and it is expected to be part of the agreement. (See the November 2010 Congressional Digest on “The DREAM Act.”)

Guest Worker Program

The AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have negotiated a new guest worker program for immigrants who work in low-skill jobs in such areas as construction, hotels, restaurants, food processing, and manufacturing. Under their proposal, up to 200,000 visas a year eventually would be granted to U.S. companies looking to hire immigrants for low-skill jobs, with no more than 15,000 of the visas to go to construction companies. Guest workers would be able to seek permanent status after a year. The Senate group plans to adopt the proposed language.

Agricultural Workers

Agricultural employers and farmworker representatives have been working to shape an agreement on a pathway to legal residency for undocumented immigrant farmworkers. Under the current H-2A visa program, workers are sponsored and under contract to a specific employer.  Farmworker advocates say that system has enabled some employers to exploit workers with the threat of dismissal and deportment. Under a new visa program, farmworkers would be allowed to work in the United States legally, travel across State lines, and eventually become eligible for a green card. Two remaining issues of contention relate to wages and restrictions on the number of future workers.

Family Visas

Business groups want more green cards to be available for skilled, high-tech workers, but some others are concerned that such visas would come at the expense of family unity. Instead, they favor expanding the overall number of visas and allowing new foreign workers to bring their families with them when they move to the United States.

Same-Sex Couples

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (VT-D) has introduced legislation along with Senator Susan Collins (ME-R) to permit American citizens to sponsor same-sex “permanent partners” applying for legal residency in the United States, just as heterosexual married couples are currently allowed to do under the law.  Other Democratic group of  eight members support the measure, which is likely to be included in the new package.

Border Security

Although Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano said in March that the U.S. border is as “secure as it’s ever been,” some in Congress are demanding that border security verification precede implementation of any plan to put undocumented immigrants on a pathway to potential legalization. Senator John Cornyn (TX-R), a gang of eight member, and Representative Michael McCaul (TX-R) have introduced the Border Security Results Act to set stricter standards by which DHS would determine whether portions of the U.S. border are secure.

Immigration reform is widely considered to have the best chance of passage of any major legislation this year; however, a bipartisan group of eight House members is also working on a reform package that is expected to be significantly different from the Senate bill. If the two bills pass their respective chambers, they will have to be reconciled before a final version is agreed to and sent to President Obama for his signature.

Although overshadowed by this week’s landmark oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 (which will be covered extensively in the May issue of Supreme Court Debates), the decision in Florida v. Jardines is a noteworthy one.

For instance, the case created some strange ideological bedfellows Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and more liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and the generally more liberal Stephen Breyer (although Breyer has displayed a penchant for backing the government in law-and-order-type cases.

The decision shows that there can be a majority of the Court’s justices who join across ideological divisions to place greater emphasis on personal liberties and property rights over the law-enforcement powers of the government.

Also of note is that just last month, in Florida v. Harris (the spotlight case of the January 2013 issue of Supreme Court Debates), the Court ruled that an “alert” to the presence of contraband by a trained police dog is enough to give police the right to search a car. Once again, the Court appears to place a greater emphasis on an individual’s right to privacy in their own home, rather than on public roads in an automobile. For instance, the Court has ruled that the Government needs a warrant to use infrared cameras to observe a house, to go into a person’s driveway to place a tracking device on a car, or for a police officer to peer through a window to look for criminal activity.

There are exceptions, however. In Brigham City v. Stewart (2006), the Court ruled that police can enter a home if they think an occupant is or is about to be seriously injured. In Kentucky v. King, the Court held that if police smell marijuana and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, they can enter a home after knocking and announcing their presence. (Justice Alito, in his dissent, cited King, arguing that a police dog that detects the scent of contraband is not legally different from a human officer who smells marijuana coming from a house.)

Despite this decision, drug-sniffing dogs will continue to be a valuable tool for law enforcement. But, for the first time, the Court has placed limits on their use.

• S. 54, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013, introduced by Senator Charles Schumer (NY-D), to make it a Federal crime to serve as a “straw purchaser,” or someone who buys a firearm with the intent of selling it to an individual who cannot pass a background check.

• S. 146, the School Safety Enhancements Act, introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (CA-D), to provide communities and schools with resources to install classroom locks, lighting, fencing, reinforced doors, and other deterrent measures. The bill would also help schools conduct security assessments and training for students, teachers, and administrators, and allow schools to better coordinate with local law enforcement.

• S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA-D), to prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, and importation of 157 of the most commonly owned military-style assault weapons. The bill also bans an additional group of assault weapons that can accept a detachable ammunition magazine and have one or more military characteristics. In addition, it bans large-capacity magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

• S. 374, the Fix Gun Checks Act, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and to require a background check for every firearm sale.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (VT-D) said, “What we have accomplished in our committee work has been difficult, but we have not accepted that as an excuse to do nothing. We have listened to heart-wrenching testimony. We have opened the process to input from all, and we have proceeded methodically to search for commonsense answers to the recurring tragedy of gun violence.”

In praising the committee’s work, President Obama repeated his State of the Union mantra on gun violence, saying “Each of these proposals deserves a vote.”

It is unclear however, whether all of the committee-approved measures will be considered on the Senate floor and in what form ― as a package or as individual bills. Some senators have suggested breaking S. 150 into two separate bills, believing that the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of passage than the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, which is deemed almost certain to fail.

Other gun-related bills that the Judiciary Committee did not consider are likely to be offered as amendments. One such measure is S. 480, introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (SC-R), to improve the effectiveness of the NICS by clarifying reporting requirements related to adjudications of mental incompetency.

The spotlight now moves to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV-D), who will determine the best strategy for moving forward. Reid historically has opposed gun control legislation, but said after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting in December, “We need to accept the reality that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens.”

Meanwhile, advocacy groups on both sides have geared up for a floor fight. Gun Owners of America are urging their supporters to tell their senators to block any motion to proceed on gun control legislation.

The dilemma for Majority Leader Reid is whether to bring a bill to the floor that he knows cannot pass and let the Republican opponents shoulder the blame, or to offer a bill that may survive a Senate vote but  is far less stringent than what the President has implored Congress to at least consider.

For in-depth background on the gun control debate, see the March 2013 issue of Congressional Digest on Gun Violence Prevention.

The legislation renews a 1994 law that expired in 2011. The original law, written by Vice President Joe Biden when he was a Democratic senator from Delaware, created a National Domestic Violence Hotline and authorized Federal funding for battered women’s shelters.  Although many Republicans supported the law, some raised objections to provisions in the Senate bill providing protections relating to sexual orientation and immigrant status and giving tribal courts greater jurisdiction in domestic violence cases that take place on tribal lands.

The provisions relating to the jurisdiction of tribal courts were among the most contentious. Tribal justice systems are limited from prosecuting non-Native criminals; yet most domestic violence crimes that take place against women on tribal lands (88 percent) are committed by non-Native Americans, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Opponents of the provisions argued that non-Natives Americans accused of such crimes could be denied their rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Before voting on the Senate measure, the House took up its own version of the bill that did not extend the law’s provisions to previously unprotected groups. That bill was rejected by a vote of 166 to 257.

Reacting to the bill’s passage, President Obama said, “Over more than two decades, this law has saved countless lives and transformed the way we treat victims of abuse. Today’s vote will go even further by continuing to reduce domestic violence, improving how we treat victims of rape, and extending protections to Native American women and members of the LGBT community.”

For more background on VAWA, see the June 2012 issue of Congressional Digest, “Violence Against Women,” and the April 2000 issue of Supreme Court Debates, “Violence Against Women (2000).”

Obama opened with a quote for President John F. Kennedy — and an assurance that “the state of our union is stronger.” He then moved on to outlining the efforts so far to address the budget deficit and the additional work that has to be done to reach his goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction. He warned, however, that the coming mandatory cuts through the “sequester” — a sword of Damocles enacted in the budget agreement of 2011 to force Congress to reach a deal on further budget cuts — would “jeopardize our military readiness,” “devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research,” “slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

Obama identified the “the rising cost of health care for an aging population” as one of the main causes of our long-term debt, and identified “modest reforms” to our social safety net programs — including reducing subsidies to Medicare prescription drug providers, increasing payments from the “wealthiest seniors,” and changing reimbursement policies to emphasize quality of care over specific services provided. He also said the government should undertake tax code reform, to get rid of “tax loopholes and deductions” for the “well-off and well-connected.”

From there, he outlined a number of other economy-related proposals, including increased research and development investment, infrastructure improvement, streamlining home mortgage refinancing, the creation of “manufacturing hubs,” and the support of green-energy technologies to help combat global warming.

On the topic of education, he endorsed increased support for preschool education, better instruction in technology in high schools, and making higher education more affordable through “tax credits, grants, and better loans.”

Obama called for Congress to pass immigration reform that provides a “pathway to earned citizenship,” while securing U.S. borders and providing priority in the Nation’s immigration system to highly skilled workers. He urged passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which addresses the disparity in incomes between men and women, and the Violence Against Women Act, which recently passed the Senate and has yet to be voted on in the House of Representatives. And he called on the minimum wage to be raised to $9.00 an hour.

Pivoting to foreign policy, Obama noted the continued drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and said that next year another 34,000 soldiers will come home and “the war in Afghanistan will be over.” He said Al-Qaeda in 2013 is “a shadow of its former self,” but the threat remains “from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa.” To counter the threats, he said, United States needs help countries provide for their security and not “send tens of thousands of ours sons and daughters abroad or occupy other nations.” He also identified Iran and North Korea as continuing to pose dangers to U.S. interests and said that cyber-attacks can threaten our security and economy.

Obama closed by challenging Congress to take action on his gun control proposals — such as expanded background checks, limits on magazine size, and an assault weapon ban. “Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress,” he said. “If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.”

Finally, Obama ended by appealing to Americans’ common heritage as citizens: “We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story.”

It is hoped that the new rules, though modest, will help to some extent to break the legislative logjam that characterized the last Congress and to action on the Senate floor. In recent years, the minority party’s use of the filibuster ― in which any senator can stall a vote and demand a supermajority of 60 votes to pass almost any bill ― rose dramatically. Senate Democrats claim that Republicans have launched more than 385 filibusters since 2007, compared to 49 from 1919 to 1970.

In the action on January 24, senators approved S.Res. 16 by a vote of 86 to 9. The resolution permanently changes the Senate rules to move legislation to the floor faster. If the majority leader, the minority leader, and seven senators of from each side of the aisle sign a petition to proceed to a vote on a bill, the Senate can hold a vote to invoke cloture (end debate) and proceed immediately to a vote. This will eliminate the 30 hours of debate time that typically has been required.

The other resolution, S.Res. 15, which the Senate adopted 78 to 16, is a “standing order,” meaning that its provisions are not permanent and will expire at the end of the current Congress. The measure allows the majority leader to avoid a filibuster on motions to proceed if he guarantees that the minority party will be able to offer two amendments to the bill under consideration. Thus, Republicans will no longer be able to kill a bill before it has even been debated, and Democrats will lose some of their ability to block Republicans from amending bills on the Senate floor. Senators will still be able to filibuster final passage of a bill, however.

S.Res. 15 also allows the nomination process to proceed more quickly by limiting post-cloture debate on Federal nominations (other than for senior officials, such as Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices) to a maximum of eight hours. Previously, some nominations could take a week to confirm.

Those who supported the rules changes predict that they will result in a more efficient Senate. President Obama praised the bipartisan action, stating: “Too often over the past four years, a single senator or a handful of senators has been able to unilaterally block or delay bipartisan legislation for the sole purpose of making a political point. At a time when we face critical decisions on a whole range of issues ― from preventing further gun violence, to reforming our broken immigration system, to getting our fiscal house in order and creating good paying jobs ― we cannot afford unnecessary obstruction.”

Others expressed disappointment that the rule changes did not go far enough and that they left too many loopholes in place to be effective. As the 113th Congress gets underway, it will soon become apparent to what extent the new Senate rules will make a difference.

President Obama delivers his inaugural address.

On Monday, President Barack Obama stood before the west steps of the U.S. Capitol building and took the presidential oath of office as part of the 57th presidential inauguration ceremony. Technically, President Obama’s second term began Sunday, when he took the oath at the White House, as the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that the newly elected president assume office before noon on Jan. 20. With that date falling on a Sunday this year, however, the formal inauguration ceremony was moved to Monday.

By taking the oath twice this week, President Obama has now recited the presidential oath of office four times — a feat matched only by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served four terms in office. This historical quirk is due to the fact that during President Obama’s first inauguration, Chief Justice John Roberts incorrectly said the oath for President Obama to repeat, and in an abundance of caution, he was asked to re-administer the oath to the president the following day.

During today’s inauguration, the President was sworn in with his hand on two Bibles — one used by President Abraham Lincoln during his first inauguration and one belonging to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

During his inaugural address (full text), President Obama gave a full-throated defense of progressive ideals and policies, evoking the language of the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident …”) and the Constitution (“We the People …”). He criticized those who call America a “nation of takers” and for those who “mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasonable debate.”

He emphasized the need for a government-supported social safety net, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid: “We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm.”

He also mentioned the need to address global climate change and lauded the struggle for civil rights, mentioning Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall — milestone events in the women’s rights, African-American rights and gay rights movements, respectively. It was, in fact, the first time gay rights has been mentioned in an inaugural address.

“This is our generation’s task,” he said,” to make these words, these rights, these values — of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — real for every American.”

Following the ceremony outside the Capitol, and a lunch with congressional leaders inside the Capitol rotunda, President Obama and his family proceeded to a reviewing stand on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House to watch the inaugural parade, a tradition dating back to George Washington’s first inauguration in 1789, when he was accompanied to the swearing-in ceremony in New York City by local militias. The first time the inaugural parade took its present route from the Capitol Building to the White House in Washington, D.C., was following the inauguration of President Thomas Jefferson in 1805.

After the parade finished Obama went back inside the White House, to prepare for the two official inaugural balls, both to be held in the Washington Convention Center.

Crowds stretch from the Capitol to past the Washington Monument as Barack Obama takes the oath of office for a second term.

Major components of the President’s package include:

• A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Congressional action is required to change the law, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA-D) is introducing legislation to reinstate a version of the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 until 2004, when it was allowed to expire. The issue is sure to be controversial, however, as there is substantial disagreement over what constitutes an “assault weapon,” with some arguing that it may be impossible for Congress to come up with a comprehensive definition. The President is also asking Congress to limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and to ban the use of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the military and law enforcement ― a proposal that is expected to garner more support than the assault weapons ban.

• Universal background checks for all firearms sales. Congressional action will be needed to strengthen the law to cover sales originating from gun shows and other private sellers (which studies show represent 40 percent of all gun sales).  Currently, only federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on individuals purchasing guns.  The Administration also plans to increase incentives for States to report and share information on those prohibited from gun ownership. Some moderate Members of Congress have indicated that they will support these proposals.

•  Gun violence research. The Administration is directing the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. Starting in the mid-1980s, the CDC engaged in such research, but in 1996, Congress stipulated that none of the funds made available to that agency could be used “to advocate or promote gun control” and cut the equivalent appropriation from CDC’s budget. The presidential directive also calls on Congress to provide funds for the CDC to investigate the relationship between violence and the media.

•  School safety. The White House is taking Executive action to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers and counselors and to purchase appropriate safety equipment. The plan also calls on Congress to provide funding for grants to States to help school districts shore up emergency management plans. This part of the package is not expected to face significant opposition.

• Mental Health Services. A new initiative, called Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education), will provide training for teachers and others who work with youth to detect mental illness and make sure treatment is available for those who need it. The Administration will also issue final regulations to ensure mental health coverage under private plans and Medicaid. Those who oppose gun control measures favor increased emphasis on mental health.

The Senate is expected to act first on the proposals, with the Judiciary Committee playing a major role. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who chairs the committee, has scheduled the first hearing on gun violence issues for January 30.

As the debate heats up, look for comprehensive coverage in Congressional Digest  on the President’s package and lawmakers’ response.

In the 16-page document, the Chief Justice — in a writing style much more conversational than he uses in his Court opinions — discussed judicial efforts to keep a tight budget and the need for judicial vacancies to be filled promptly, and summarized of the workload of the various courts in the Federal system. He even spent several pages on the history of the Revolutionary War-era frigate the U.S.S. Constitution, and concluded his report by comparing the Nation to the still seaworthy “Old Ironsides,” withstanding “daunting tests” and always emerging “strong” and “secure.”

Released as lawmakers were gathering at the Capitol to attempt to pass legislation to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the Chief Justice acknowledged the gravity of the “truly extravagant and burgeoning national debt” and said his branch was doing its part to keep costs down. He noted that the judiciary’s $6.97 billion annual budget was two-tenths of one percent of the total U.S. budget. He cautioned, however, that further attempts to cut into the judiciary budget would affect the ability of courts to handle their judicial obligations and “inevitably result in the delay or denial of justice for the people the courts serve.”

Another threat to the judiciary’s ability to adequately perform its duties, the Chief Justice noted, was the numerous judicial positions that have remained unfilled over the past four years. While not taking a position on the debate over the cause of the backlog — President Barack Obama’s pace of making appointments or Senate Republicans’ reluctance to schedule confirmation hearings and votes — he wrote that, “at the close of 2012, twenty-seven of the existing judicial vacancies are designated as presenting judicial emergencies. I urge the Executive and Legislative Branches to act diligently in nominating and confirming highly qualified candidates to fill those vacancies.”

The Chief Justice also took the time to acknowledge the “resilience and fortitude” of the employees in the Judiciary Branch in the “most trying of times.”

When Hurricane Sandy shut down much of the the Eastern Seaboard, he wrote, judiciary “personnel reported to work, notwithstanding their own personal circumstances, and courts maintained communications with jurors, lawyers, and staff, while making arrangements to address urgent court matters.”

The Supreme Court ends its holiday break today with a private conference and resumes hearing oral arguments on Monday.