But things move fast in politics. Bonner announced his resignation at 4 p.m. Thursday. Conservative columnist Quin Hillyer announced he was running for Bonner’s seat at 5 p.m.

“When an opportunity comes to do something good, one must grab it,” Hillyer wrote in an American Spectator post that night.

Hillyer served as press secretary to former Rep. Robert Livingston (R., La.) before returning to his first career: journalism. Hillyer was a columnist for newspapers such as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Mobile Register, and then moved on to number of conservative national publications, including the American Spectator, the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner.

The Washington Free Beacon caught up with Hillyer on Friday for a short interview.

WFB: So what spurred you to throw your hat in the ring?

Hillyer: Well, Congressmen Bonner shocked everybody by suddenly announcing he’s going to resign, and I just figured there is nobody down here who can more quickly and be up and running in Congress than I can, both because I worked as a leadership staffer, so I know how Congress works, and I’m already well known to conservative media and activists. So I could hit the ground running.

WFB: As a fellow member of the “right-wing noise machine,” as our detractors like to call us, what has your time writing for conservative media taught you?

Hillyer: It has taught me that there is a desperate need—scratch that—near desperate hunger for principled conservative leadership. I see it in my readers’ comments and emails all the time. And this is a country that is so wonderful. It needs a return to the things that made us great.

WFB: What kind of principles do you mean?

Hillyer: I’m a veteran Reagan-Kemp, opportunity society conservative. I was in Detroit in 1980 when Reagan was nominated. I don’t want to return to Reagan’s policies, but I want to apply his timeless principles to situations today.

In terms of positions, I’m a well-known fiscal conservative. I’m for a very robust and lean—lean as in no fat—defense force, and for ethical government.

For more background—it looks like no one has hacked this yet—the Wikipedia article on me looks remarkably accurate right now.

WFB: Has anyone else announced they’re running?

Hillyer: There are a whole bunch of names being mentioned. There are a lot of elected officials. I figured I needed to get out early because people think of me as a journalist, not a politician.

It’s a very hard thing for someone elected midterm in a special election to figure out how Congress works. Alabama deserves someone who can hit the ground running. [Phone rings.] Hello? Hi, can I call you back in a second? … Sorry about that.

WFB: No worries. Let’s talk policy a little bit.  How do you feel about the immigration talks going on right now?

Hillyer: I wish they would leave immigration alone until we get a Republican president.  Anything Obama would sign, I do not trust. I don’t see the urgency to do something on immigration right now. I’m not saying nothing needs to be done, but I don’t see the urgency.

WFB: OK, so after immigration, Democrats are hoping to bring back some gun control bills. There’s a split among Republicans on supporting things like expanded background checks. Where do you stand on that?

Hillyer: Hold on, I’m getting another call from a number I don’t recognize […]

WFB: You’re a man in demand, Quin. 

Hillyer: Well, I’m the only one who’s announced, so … OK, where were we? Gun control: I’m against it.

WFB: Anything else I should have asked or that you’d like to add?

Hillyer: I am the longest standing Reaganite who could possibly be in this race, and I think that’s what southern Alabama wants.

WFB: One last question, probably the most controversial one I’ll ask you. University of Alabama or Auburn?

Hillyer: It would take too long to explain that.

WFB: Good answer.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) sent a letter  to the president on Thursday expressing concern that the White House has so far failed to respond to requests for a sit-down from the National ICE Council, which represents more than 7,000 U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers.

The council, a division of the AFL-CIO representing immigration enforcement agents, “requested a meeting with the Administration three months ago to weigh in on immigration policy and share their firsthand concerns over the breakdown of interior enforcement,” according to the letter.

“To date, they have received no meeting invitation.”

The letter is in accordance with GOP strategy on immigration reform: first, the nation’s borders must be secured and law enforcement must be free to actually enforce the law.

“To be effective any immigration reform bill must heed the warnings from our federal immigration agents,” Sessions and Goodlatte wrote.

“Unfortunately, far from being included in the process, ICE officers have been shut out and have even had their day-to-day operations handcuffed by DHS officials to the point of being unable to carry out their sworn duties,” the letter added.

Obama personally met with a group of illegal immigrants in the Oval Office on Tuesday to discuss immigration reform proposals.

Chris Crane, the National ICE Council’s president, said in a February letter to the president that “our union and its members have not been invited to participate in White House meetings concerning the crafting of a comprehensive immigration bill.”

Actions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “prevent us from doing our jobs and enforcing duly enacted law,” Crane said.

Some ICE agents have filed a lawsuit against DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, alleging that her policy of exercising “prosecutorial discretion” has prevented ICE from adequately carrying out its law enforcement responsibilities.

The council also co-wrote a letter on Monday to members of Congress claiming that Senate immigration reform legislation “fails to meet the needs of the law enforcement community and would, in fact, be a significant barrier to the creation of a safe and lawful system of immigration.”

House Republicans share some of those concerns. Goodlatte and the House GOP leadership team said in a news release on Thursday that the House would not “simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes.”

“Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce its own legislation,” the release said.

The statement specifically cited “border security” and “enforcement mechanisms” as two key challenges to be addressed by immigration reform legislation.

Gomez was asked about an ad his campaign released earlier this week accusing Markey of comparing Gomez to Osama bin Laden in a Web video that placed their images side-by-side:

“I don’t think there’s anything more offensive,” Gomez said. “You know I’ve got four young kids, and they gotta sit there and gotta see an ad with their dad — who served honorably, talk to anybody I served with — whether as a pilot or as a SEAL, anybody I worked with. And for him to be as dirty and low, pond scum, like to put me up next to bin Laden, he’s just gotta be called what he is. It’s that simple.”

The Boston Globe reports the Gomez campaign demanded that Markey take down the video, saying the juxtaposition is disgraceful since Gomez was a Navy Seal.

NANCY PELOSI: The president doesn’t know about everything that is going on in every agency in government. Should Mr. Boehner have known because this is his neighboring district where the IRS office is? I don’t think you can hold him accountable for what happened in that IRS office. But obviously the public will make its decision about it but that’s it. It’s a Bush appointee under his leadership this happened. It was wrong. Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Obama will outline shifts in the nation’s counterterrorism policy during a speech later this afternoon at the National Defense University.

The speech will broadly discuss ongoing efforts to combat terrorism across the globe and make clear that “the use of force alone cannot defeat” violent radicals, administration officials said during a conference call before Obama’s address.

During the speech, the president will renew his call to close the Gitmo prison and either try the remaining terrorists in America or send them back to their native countries, according the administration officials, who spoke on background.

Obama will also announce that he is lifting a moratorium on sending Gitmo detainees back to Yemen, a longtime terrorist haven that the administration says has moderated under new political leadership.

Administration officials will review these transfers on a case-by-case basis, according the officials.

Obama will also reiterate his opposition to the notion that America is engaged in a global war on terror, a policy established by former President George W. Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“The president has indicated and will indicate today that he rejects the notion of a global war on terrorism which is an amorphous definition that applies to a tactic,” one senior administration official told reporters.

The Obama administration views the effort to combat Islamic radicalism more narrowly, the official said.

“The president will make clear what we are engaged in is a focused effort against” a very specific network of extremists such as those affiliate with al Qaeda. “We are defining this more narrowly.”

Obama also will recommit to his controversial policy of targeting terrorists—including American citizens—with drone strikes, the White House officials said.

This policy declaration comes just days after the White House acknowledged that drone strikes have killed at least four Americans since 2009.

“There are times when there are individuals who are present at an al Qaeda and affiliated facilities, and in that regard they are subject to the lethal action that we take,” one official said.

“As in any war there are tragic consequences that come with the decision to use force including civilian casualties,” the official said, arguing that there would be “far greater civilian casualties” if the president decided to utilize military force or air strikes.

The administration officials also discussed the “trade offs” associated with reporting on classified information, an issue that has garnered much attention since it came to light that the Obama administration tapped the phone lines of several Associated Press reporters.

“The president will indicate he believes that again we must protect the right of a free press, even as we must prosecute those who violate the law,” said one official, saying the president is concerned about “any potential chilling effect on reporting.”

Asked by a reporter if the ongoing hunger strikes at Gitmo had anything to do with the president’s renewed call to close the facility, the officials said the strikes were concerning.

“It’s certainly true you’ll hear it [the hunger strikes] in reference as an indication the type of issues we have, where you have” hundreds of detainees who have been cleared for transfer but are barred from leaving due to a congressional mandate.

“Part of the context of that is people taking drastic steps of hunger strikes in Gitmo,” the official said.

The president’s speech will also touch on efforts to combat domestic terrorist threats, such as the Boston Marathon bombings.

Obama see a “need to take action given the fact that in today’s world, particularly given the Internet, individuals can be radicalized and learn to kill … without leaving their home,” one official said.

The president will also call on Congress to provide increased funding for security at U.S. diplomatic compounds around the world.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.) told the Washington Free Beacon in a statement that she will support legislation passed by the House on Wednesday to approve construction of the pipeline if it comes to the Senate floor.

“Yesterday’s vote on H.R. 3 in the House is another clear indication the majority of those in Congress believe it is time to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline,” Heitkamp said.

The legislation, authored by Rep. Lee Terry (R., Neb.), would circumvent presidential approval of the project, which would carry crude oil from Canada through a 1,700-mile pipeline to refineries on the Gulf coast.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) also said she will support the bill, telling the Free Beacon, “our national and economic security will be bolstered with the construction of this pipeline.”

“The list of reasons to approve the Keystone Pipeline is now almost as long as the pipeline itself. I have strongly supported building the pipeline since I led the first bipartisan letter to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011, and I remain committed to doing everything I can to break ground on it as soon as possible,” Landrieu said.

Landrieu and Heitkamp both supported a proposal in March to move forward with construction of the pipeline without sign-off from the administration.

“This is a shovel-ready project which has undergone a thorough review process; it is time to put Americans to work on this project that will create good-paying jobs and take important steps forward to reducing our dependence on foreign oil,“ Heitkamp told the Free Beacon.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has not signaled whether he will allow a floor vote on the legislation, which could put his caucus in the awkward position of voting on a wildly popular project that is vehemently opposed by the party’s environmentalist base.

“Red state Democrats can either support job creation, modernized energy infrastructure, and the middle class benefits of cheaper energy, or they can dance to the tune of a handful of liberal billionaire enviro whackjobs,” said Republican strategist Rick Wilson.

“Then they can explain [to voters] why we’re essentially saying no to that cheap energy and giving it to China,” Wilson added, in reference to signals from Canadian officials that they will sell crude to China if the pipeline is not approved.

Senate Republicans nonetheless expressed hope that Reid, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, will allow a floor vote on Terry’s bill.

“We’ve seen multiple times that there is bipartisan support in the Senate for Keystone,” a Senate Republican leadership aide told the Free Beacon. “One would hope that Democrat senators who do support the pipeline could prevail upon the majority leader to bring this bill to the floor and finally do something to create jobs and make energy more affordable.”

The aide lamented that Reid “has shown that jobs and North American energy independence are not a priority for him and he has previously refused to bring bills to the floor that would break through the Obama administration’s stalling on approving construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Some efforts to authorize construction of the pipeline have come to the floor, but, despite some Democratic defections, enough toed the environmentalist line to defeat the proposals.

Obama is unlikely to sign the legislation even if it does make it through the Senate. The White House signaled on Tuesday that the president would likely veto the bill.

Observers say procedural schemes to pass the bill, such as tying it to a debt limit increase, would likely bear little fruit.

“I have no doubt [Reid] will take the necessary steps to prevent something like Keystone from being attached” to a debt limit deal, Chris Miller, a former energy and environmental aide for Reid, told National Journal.

Even as the Senate takes up the legislation, a number of Republicans are urging Obama to reject environmentalists’ demands that approval of the pipeline be tied to additional regulations on carbon emissions.

“You should approve the Keystone XL pipeline project on its merits alone without suddenly moving the goalposts after more than four years of review by tethering its fate to wholly unrelated and economically disastrous new regulatory policies,” urged 24 Republican Senators in a Thursday letter to the president.

Update Friday, May 24, 1:03 p.m.: Following publication of this story, a member of Heitkamp’s staff wrote to say that despite the senator’s effusive support for the project and her statement that “yesterday’s vote on HR. 3 in the House, is another clear indication the majority of those in Congress believe it is time to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline” that the senator “didn’t say she would support HR 3.”

The bill, titled the “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” would ban abortions after 20 weeks.

As currently written, the bill would outlaw abortions after the cutoff date only in the District of Columbia, over which Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Rep. Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), the bill’s sponsor and the chairman of the subcommittee holding the hearing, has pledged to amend the bill so it covers the entire United States.

Witnesses described the most common abortion procedure used after the 20 week cutoff and outlined the medical evidence showing that babies can feel pain at 20 weeks and earlier, according to their written testimony.

Anthony Levatino, a gynecologist from New Mexico who has performed over a thousand abortions, described in great detail the “suction, dilation, and evacuation” abortion procedure typically used for second trimester abortions.

After mechanically sucking out the baby’s amniotic fluid, the doctor removes parts of the baby using toothed forceps, Levantino testified.

“Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you. Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion,” Levantino testified.

“If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again,” he told the committee, according to his written testimony. Levantino delivered almost identical testimony last year in support of a pervious version of this bill.

Maureen Condic, a professor of neurobiology and pediatrics at the University of Utah medical school, outlined the neurological and medical evidence that babies can feel pain 20 weeks after conception.

The spinal reflex has developed after eight weeks, “the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity,” Condic said in her written testimony.

The spinal cord and the part of the brain responsible for pain perception begin to connect at 12 weeks, and the connection is complete by 18 weeks, Condic said.

“There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have,” she said in her written testimony.

Condic acknowledged that her argument runs against the position of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others but contended that medical evidence contradicts the society’s claims.

While three of the four witnesses testified in support of the bill, one described her personal experience of choosing to abort her 21 week old son after doctors discovered that her son’s brain had not developed properly.

The baby had effectively failed to develop one half of the brain as well as the connective tissue between the two halves, Christy Zink told the committee.

“This condition could not have been detected earlier in my pregnancy. Only the brain scan could have found it. … If the baby survived the pregnancy, which was not certain, his condition would require surgeries to remove more of what little brain matter he had, to diminish what would otherwise be a state of near-constant seizures,” Zink said, according to her written testimony.

The premise of the bill, to prevent pain, “is a lie,” Zink contended.

“The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was made out of love and to spare my son’s pain and suffering,” she said, calling the abortion “the most difficult decision of [her and her husband’s] lives.”

The bill comes on the heels of the conviction of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell on three counts of first-degree murder for killing three babies after botched abortions.

Franks cited the Gosnell case as the reason for wanting to expand the bill to cover the entire country.

“The case of Kermit Gosnell shocked the sensibilities of millions of Americans. However, the crushing fact is that abortions on babies just like the ones killed by Kermit Gosnell have been happening hundreds of times per day, every single day, for the past 40 years,” Franks said in a statement last week announcing his intention to expand the bill nationwide.

Franks’s pledge earned immediate condemnation by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Rep. Franks is using this bill in a shameless effort to exploit the terrible tragedy in Pennsylvania where Kermit Gosnell was just convicted of murder for performing illegal abortions that resulted in killing of infants and women. The women of America deserve better,” NARAL president Ilyse Hogue said in a statement on Friday.

Planned Parenthood on Wednesday called on Franks to cancel Thursday’s hearing after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Arizona law outlawing abortion after 20 weeks.

The 9th Circuit reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s decision that abortion cannot be outlawed before the baby is viable outside the womb, which has been roughly set at 24 weeks.

Penny Pritzker, whose father founded the Hyatt Hotel chain, was on the receiving end of strong queries from Republicans on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Ranking Committee Republican Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) grilled Pritzker over her tenure as board chairman of Superior Bank. The bank, which her family purchased in 1989, failed in 2001 under the weight of subprime loans. Some bank members lost their life savings, according to Thune.

“What do you have to say to the depositors who lost great sums of money?” Thune asked.

Pritzker acknowledged the bank’s failure, but denied that she played an active role.

“I was never an officer of the bank or a manager,” she said. “My family voluntarily agreed to pay $453 million (to the FDIC) … it was the right thing to do both for depositors and for my family.”

Pritzker attempted to distance herself from her billionaire reputation during the hearing. She highlighted her great grandfather’s immigration to the U.S. from Russia in the 19th Century.

“He came here dirt poor,” she said.

She also emphasized that her inheritance had little to do with her career as a businesswoman. She said that she encouraged her family members to fire her if she couldn’t “get the job done” when she started her career and emphasized that she had started five companies on her own.

“Through hard work we survived and grew and the company remains successful and employs thousands of people,” she said.

The crowd at the confirmation hearing was dotted with grim-faced men and women wearing red UNITE HERE t-shirts.

UNITE HERE, a union representing hotel workers, has waged a campaign against Hyatt for many years, alleging abusive working conditions. The 270,000-member union announced Monday it would publicly oppose Pritzker’s nomination and protested in front of the landmark Chicago Hyatt.

UNITE HERE has become increasingly critical of the administration. Not only has it opposed Pritzker’s nomination, its leadership has criticized the implementation of Obamacare because it could cost union members their health benefits.

The union has been a vital political ally of Obama and Democrats in recent years. It has been a strong proponent of immigration reform, as well as a major fundraiser, spending more than $7 million in the 2012 cycle.

Pritzker helped launch Obama’s political career in Illinois by contributing to his Senate campaign. She also bundled more than $1.3 million for the president in 2008 and 2012, contributed $250,000 to his 2013 inauguration, and served on his Jobs Council.

UNITE HERE members are aware of her close ties to the administration but remained steadfast in their opposition.

Pritzker defended her approach to labor organizations when Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) asked about the AFL-CIO’s boycott of Hyatt.

“There’s no success in business without a good relationship between management and labor,” Pritzker said. “I support the right for workers to organize if that’s what they want to do.”

“Very entertaining,” a man wearing a UNITE HERE shirt said when asked how he thought the hearing went. “We’re going to be here no matter what. That’s what justice is about.”

The Republicans voiced their opinions that the so-called “Gang of Eight” bill falls short of the goal of ending illegal immigration in the United States, especially given the Obama administration’s inability to enforce current immigration laws.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.

“We’re jumping the gun,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) told the committee.

The Republicans on the House committee stressed that the border must be secured and current laws enforced before meaningful reform can be considered. Many called the bill amnesty.

Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) said the bill represented “the largest and most expensive amnesty act in the history of the United States.” He went on to say that IRCA, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, was Reagan’s greatest political mistake.

IRCA granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Proponents of the Senate bill said IRCA was singularly focused on border security. The new bill goes further, they said.

However, Republicans are not convinced. The Senate bill would grant amnesty to over 11 million illegal immigrants without doing much to effectively enforce border security laws.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R., Wis.) told the committee the Senate bill “could end legal immigration” by making it easier to become a legal immigrant illegally.

None of the witnesses testifying could specify a deadline by which time the border would be secure.

Additionally, there is concern over the broad authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security, a political appointee.

Witness Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, was concerned the bill gave the DHS secretary too much discretion.

Several Republicans expressed the belief that there was a political motivation behind the hastily passed immigration bill.

The bill could be beneficial to Democrats and the Obama administration, which has been pushing for reform.

“My constituents want a real remedy, not a political remedy,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.).

“She had counsel, she had sufficient time with counsel and she clearly waived,” Issa told a group of reporters. “To be candid, my Democratic members were astounded, you didn’t hear any protest when I made it subject to recalling. There was nobody who argued with the point of order of Mr. Gowdy that in fact she had waived.”

Issa said Lerner will likely be called back to testify.

“Our staff, our lawyers are working with her lawyer, and we’ll take it up after the short recess … all four witnesses are subject to recall,” Issa said. “I think we expect that she’ll be back in front of the committee.”

Lerner testified at Wednesday’s hearing, “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules and regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) immediately took issue with the committee’s decision to let Ms. Lerner leave without answering their questions.

“She just testified. She just waived her fifth amendment right to privilege,” Gowdy said. “That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.”

“We’re often chastised for ‘are you going to bring somebody there just to ridicule them,’ of course not,” Issa said. “When someone says they’re going to take the fifth, you bring them, they take the fifth, you dismiss them.”

“She came, she chose to testify under oath, and then tried to assert,” Issa said. “Rather than disrupt the other three, we continued without her so there’d be time for attorneys to argue this out.”

Congress will be in recess all of next week and return Monday June 3.