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.

H Street is the home of the Center for American Progress (CAP), founded by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta in the fall of 2003. Originally conceived as a think tank to match the conservative Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, CAP quickly dropped the thinking and became, simply, a tank. Its objective was to overpower conservatives and Republicans, to devastate them with a fusillade of government activism, to pulverize their fortifications with ammunition loaded into the progressive echo chamber.

Good weapons don’t come cheap. CAP requires considerable stimulus to acquire, track, and destroy its targets. Podesta’s fundraising methods, as one might expect from a Clintonite, were ingenious. He incorporated two entities: The Center for American Progress as a tax-deductible nonprofit 501(c)(3), and the Center for American Progress Action Fund as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4). Donations would not be disclosed, allowing contributors the protection of anonymity even as CAP called for transparency in political giving and government regulation of political speech.

CAP and CAP Action shared office space, and employees of one entity often wrote for the other, but Podesta’s media flacks always were careful to distinguish between them. CAP, for instance, is where you find the high-toned stuff, the demographic determinism of Ruy Teixeira and the collected ravings of Larry Former Reagan Official Korb.

CAP Action is of a lower brow. It publishes the ThinkProgress blog, where for a time you could read, among other critics of the “lobby,” the foreign policy analysis of one Zaid Jilani, who described his opponents on Twitter as “Israel-firsters”; the creative misspellings of amateur philosopher and terrorist impersonator Matthew Yglesias; and the factually half-baked conspiracy theories of Lee Fang. Think of them as the greats.

Like other greats, all three young men have since left the building, moving on to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (Jilani), Slate (Yglesias), and the Nation (Fang). Funny enough, it was another Nation writer, Ken Silverstein, who published the bombshell report last week on the finances of his colleague’s former employer, exposing for the first time the identities of corporate donors to the Center for American Progress.

Silverstein’s work, like other reporting from the Los Angeles Times and Mother Jones and the WFB, explores the numerous ditches and culverts irrigated by the river of left-wing dark money that flows through American politics. Essential reading, his piece reveals the extent to which liberal groups benefit from the business community’s desire to get right with the mandarins who have the power to sue and investigate and boycott and demonize. For immunity, and for favor, companies are willing to pay a pretty penny.

Silverstein describes how CAP, in just a few years, grew from seed money provided by the secretive Democracy Alliance of progressive donors to obtain assets of more than $20 million. Its finances took a hit in 2006 despite the Democratic victory in that year’s midterm elections. The following year, CAP management created the Business Alliance, “a membership rewards program for corporate contributors.”

Money came in. And when Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the alliance grew. “CAP’s total assets now top $44 million,” Silverstein reports, “and its Action Fund treasury holds $6 million more.” CAP’s ability to reflect and influence the opinion of liberal elites, however, is priceless.

Silverstein obtained a document CAP used in 2011 to pitch possible members of the Business Alliance. Slog past the barely literate sentences—“Recognizing the importance of the private sector perspective in the issues debate, the Business Alliance program has proven to be a successful way to keep CAP and its experts connected with and cognizant of business perspectives on the issues of highest priority on our work”—and one arrives finally at the nitty-gritty.

Three levels of membership are described. A $25,000 annual contribution gains one’s corporation entry to “regularly scheduled roundtable discussions with CAP experts, business, Hill, and national leaders”; “two opportunities to engage CAP experts in private meetings”; “invitation to VIP events with leaders from government, business, and academia”; and “updates on new CAP reports and products from Business Alliance staff relevant to your unique interests.”

For a $50,000 annual contribution, one’s corporation enjoys all of those benefits, as well as “two additional opportunities to engage CAP experts in private meetings”; an “exclusive Business Alliance overview meeting offering analyses of issues on Capitol Hill”; and a “private session with American Progress communications and outreach staff.”

And for those special interests that just can’t meet and engage and attend sessions enough, a $100,000 contribution gets one’s corporation all of those benefits, as well as a “membership in Green Energy Economy Council (GEEC)”; a “membership in International Business Council pilot program”; an “invitation to participate in Global Progress Summit”; and a “private meeting with a member of the American Progress Executive Committee.” Only in Obama’s America does it cost $100k to be called a GEEC.

Not stated directly, of course, is that what all of the briefings and interactions and councils get you is entry into the corridors of a think tank with close ties to the presidency. Podesta, whose brother is one of the most influential lobbyists in town, oversaw the transition team that staffed the Obama administration. As American Progress chairman, he watches over his empire. The current head of CAP is Neera Tanden, who has worked for Obama and Hillary Clinton. Tom Perriello, a former liberal Democratic congressman who was one of the president’s favorites, runs CAP Action. These are influential people.

So influential are they, that the Department of Energy loan program that gave us Solyndra and First Solar was largely designed in CAP’s offices. Silverstein tells the appalling story of how a CAP representative praised First Solar in congressional testimony, and promoted it in CAP publications, without revealing that the solar manufacturer was a member of the Business Alliance, and that one of CAP’s board members was also on the board of First Solar. (He left the First Solar board in 2012.)

“CAP’s promotion of the company’s interests has supplemented First Solar’s aggressive Washington lobbying efforts, on which it spent more than $800,000 during 2011 and 2012,” Silverstein writes. The investment returned dividends. Such lobbying has allowed First Solar to enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans and subsidies.

“CAP is a strong proponent of alternative energy, so there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of its advocacy,” Silverstein observes. No reason at all. Yet I wonder if Silverstein would have been so charitable if the organization he was describing was, say, Americans for Prosperity, and the donors Charles and David Koch.

We know already that as long as the companies belong to politically correct institutions and back politically correct causes, they are indulged and given the benefit of the doubt. But this street goes in only one direction. Travel with the wrong fellows, support the wrong causes, and you will be picketed, boycotted, tarred, feathered, and dragged through the media mud.

What First Solar and other members of the Business Alliance such as Pacific Gas and Electric, General Electric, Boeing, Lockheed, the University of Phoenix, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, the Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists of Turkey, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and Comcast are really buying, then, is not so much access but insurance. They are contributing to the Center for American Progress so that they, too, can benefit from the liberal ability to speak from both sides of the mouth. They can reap the benefits of the market, and even of government privilege, so long as they express concern, real or fake, over global warming or abortion rights or affirmative action or whatever the liberal cause of the day happens to be.

They are not participating in an intellectual project or a political movement or a trade association but a shakedown, a scam, a caper—a compelling and labyrinthine detective story that is only beginning to be unraveled.

Rumsfeld discussed the book, Rumsfeld’s Rules: Leadership Lessons in Business, Politics, War, and Life, in a talk at the Heritage Foundation.

The book by the two-time secretary of defense features a collection of almost 400 aphorisms chronicled from his career as a naval aviator, White House staffer, and corporate executive.

Rumsfeld attributed the White House’s struggles to deal with a “perfect storm” of controversies—the shifting account of the embassy attack in Benghazi, heightened scrutiny of conservative groups by the IRS, and the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Justice Department—to a lack of decisiveness among those in Obama’s administration.

“Make a decision as early as you can, because every day someone either above or below you is limiting your options,” he said. “If decisions are delayed, they start getting debated in the press.”

But if action is delayed in favor of more deliberation, administration staffers become less believable, he said.

“Trust leaves on horseback and returns on foot,” he said. “It’s easier to lose credibility than it is to restore.”

Rumsfeld originally recorded the rules on three-by-five notecards and kept them in a shoebox, but President Gerald Ford asked him to type them out and distribute them to staffers when he was serving as chief of staff in 1974. Many of the adages do not come from Rumsfeld himself, but from the military officers and politicians he met throughout his career.

He recounted meeting former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early ’80s after President Ronald Reagan asked him to persuade world leaders to oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.

The treaty, which has not been ratified by the Senate and continues to be debated today, would establish a set of international rules for governing the oceans, including technology and wealth transfers to undeveloped nations and pollution controls.

After describing the treaty’s administration of the rules as “Orwellian” to Thatcher, she replied: “Well, Mr. Ambassador, the way you described it sounds like the international nationalization of two-thirds of the earth’s surface. You know what I think of nationalization.”

Rumsfeld also discussed his second stint as secretary of defense during George W. Bush’s presidency, pushing back against the notion that the 9/11 attacks inhibited the “goal of bringing the Pentagon to the 21st century.”

“In a strange way it provided an impetus to do things we otherwise probably would not have been able to do,” he said.

He noted reforms such as increasing the number of special operations forces by 80 percent as necessary for fighting a different type of enemy in the war on terror. Still, not all of his ideas for reform were met with enthusiasm, he said.

Some Army officers were incensed after his decision to cancel the Crusader artillery program because it was too costly and inefficient, he said.

“There’s enormous resistance in the Iron Triangle—Congress, the Pentagon, and the defense industry—[to change],” he said.

“If you’re going to sin, sin against God; God will forgive you. Never sin against the bureaucracy. They’ll get you one way or another.”

The last maxim in Rumsfeld’s book of almost 400 rules?

“If you develop rules, never have more than 10.”

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.

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 Parliament allocated $81 million so the Commerce Ministry can import nearly 39 million rolls of toilet paper and other necessities, El Universal reported.

The lawmakers also approved the importation of 50 million sanitary pads, 3 million tubes of toothpaste, 17 million disposable diapers and 10 million bath soap bars, the newspaper said.

Venezuela has been plagued by shortages of basic necessities since adopting the policies of late socialist President Hugo Chavez.

McAuliffe made clear during his failed 2009 run for governor that he is strongly opposed to drilling off Virginia’s coast.

During that campaign, McAuliffe held an online Q & A session with the Washington Post and made clear that he does not support drilling off Virginia’s coast.

“We need to invest in renewable energy and look for opportunities to create green jobs,” wrote McAuliffe. “I do not support drilling for oil off our coast.”

McAuliffe reaffirmed his stance on drilling during a Democratic primary debate that same year.

“Yes, and I’ve been consistent from the start of this campaign. There was bipartisan legislation passed, signed by Gov. Kaine, promoted by Gov. Kaine, that says no oil drilling, no oil drilling and limited exploration for natural gas,” said McAuliffe.

Even following defeat, McAuliffe argued that further drilling in Virginia would move the state backwards.
“We’ve seen his approach and his approach is, the simple answer is: Drill Baby Drill… And folks, we do not want to go back, we want to go forward,” said McAuliffe in his concession speech.

The next year, McAuliffe told reporters “offshore drilling won’t give us a penny.”

According to campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin, the stark policy change is not a flip-flop, but rather a decision made based on how much McAuliffe has learned about the industry in recent years.

“Terry has learned more about offshore drilling from experts in Virginia,” Schwerin told the Post. “He thinks that because of technological progress we can now do it in a responsible fashion.”

But this sort of change is becoming a pattern for McAuliffe, who has also been caught flipping his stance on Virginia’s coal industry.

America Rising has put together a video chronicling McAuliffe’s evolving stance on offshore drilling:

Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said CAP has failed to live up to the standards it applies to conservative groups.

“I find it ironic that the Center for American Progress may now realize how difficult it can be for a controversial nonprofit to have its corporate donors exposed,” Lakely said. “Maybe now CAP will tone down its celebration of crimes in the name of ‘disclosure’ and denunciation of corporate donations to nonprofits—but I have my doubts.”

Lakely’s comments followed on a report Tuesday in the Nation that revealed a partial membership list of CAP’s Business Alliance, a secretive collection of businesses that contribute to the liberal think tank.

The report also revealed CAP leaders have advocated for policies that benefitted a number of its corporate partners. CAP has previously accused conservative organizations of taking money from corporations before advocating in favor of policies that help them.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund’s ThinkProgress blog attacked the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, in 2012. It published a list of Heartland’s corporate donors in a post titled, “EXPOSED: The 19 Public Corporations Funding The Climate Denier Think Tank Heartland Institute.”

CAP launched a pressure campaign against companies that contributed to Heartland’s operations. General Motors withdrew its funding of the Heartland Institute in the wake of CAP’s disclosure.

Heartland was not the only political group that received GM contributions. The bailed-out automaker also turned up in the Nation’s report on CAP.

A GM spokeswoman confirmed that the GM Foundation was a member of the Business Alliance and contributed to CAP for several years. She disputed that the company was still a member of the group.

“The information they are citing is old, very old … according to our internal records our GM Foundation contributed to this organization in ‘06, ‘07 and ‘08,” a GM spokeswoman told the Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday via email. “The corporation did not contribute and neither part of GM is involved with them as of today. Obviously, the Nation is using either very old or wrong information.”

CAP, a staunch supporter of the auto bailout, advocated for legislation that would have benefitted GM, while the company was a contributor. CAP embraced then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2007 proposal to use taxpayer dollars to pay the automaker’s burgeoning employee healthcare costs if the company promised to build more hybrid vehicles. The page has since been scrubbed from its site.

“GM faces legacy costs (health care plus pensions for retired workers) of $1,500 per car. … Clearly the failure to address America’s health care finance problems has become a major competitive disadvantage,” the CAP post says. “Targeting retiree health costs offers a strong incentive for industry action on fuel savings investment and reduces the competitive disadvantage.”

CAP was also a major proponent of the auto bailout, which used $50 billion in taxpayer funds to keep GM from having to undergo a traditional bankruptcy.

Lakely is sympathetic to the appearance of corporate influence at CAP, pointing out that a think tank’s principles can align with particular corporate interest without being compromised.

“Who funds the message is not relevant; the quality of the argument and the soundness of the public policy prescription is what matters,” he said.

Auto expert Ed Niedermeyer said GM’s embrace of groups like CAP reflected the influence that political pressure and public money have on companies.

“GM’s contributions to CAP, its incredibly generous bailout, its shift towards the president and CAP on issues like climate change, combine to create a troubling picture of deep collusion between the government and corporate interests,” Niedermeyer said.

Rep. Raúl Labrador (R., Idaho), who has been in talks with members of both parties about an immigration proposal, spoke at a Heritage Foundation-organized event about the prospects of the plan.

“Most Republicans are for immigration reform as long as we have border security that works and the American people aren’t stuck with the bill,” Labrador said.

The Senate’s immigration bill, titled “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday. Some Republicans have criticized what they view as a legalization first, border security later scheme.

Under the proposal, the Department of Homeland Security must develop a border security plan, including the use of drones, agents, and fencing, within six months of enacting the bill. Once the plan is in place, illegal immigrants can seek provisional legal status.

The Senate committee rejected an amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) that would have only permitted the legalization of immigrants after control of the U.S. border with Mexico had been established for six months.

The House Judiciary Committee also discussed the Senate bill Wednesday, with members raising concerns that it would be too lax on enforcement and comparing it to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Labrador said any House proposal would include tougher border security measures and triggers before legalization could take place.

Labrador said House members planned on unveiling an immigration proposal at the beginning of June, but that depends on “whether Democrats will put Hispanic groups ahead of labor unions and Obamacare.”

Unions affiliated with Democrats are opposed to the potential for more low-skilled workers to be allowed into the United States, while Republicans are concerned about the long-term costs of more immigrants using healthcare services.

Even if House members backing the proposal are able to address varied concerns about border security and cost, Labrador admitted that passage of a House bill might be an uphill struggle.

“I think the opposition is still going to be pretty vocal,” he said.

“But I think you can see in this meeting when we have conservatives talking about immigration reform that we’re all trying to get to yes. But we’re not going to do that by compromising our principles.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R., Kan.) cited a recent report by the Heritage Foundation that found legalized immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits but pay $3.1 trillion in taxes as a concern for many House Republicans.

“We have to take a look at the welfare issue and make certain it’s not going to cost us,” he said.

Republicans on the panel also discussed their terms for raising the debt ceiling. An analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center last month found that the government would not reach its borrowing limit until later than previously thought, likely in early September or October.

Several Republicans said they would not vote to raise the debt limit absent a plan that includes reforms to entitlement programs, such as granting more flexibility to state Medicaid spending and tying Social Security benefits more closely to inflation.

“Mandatory spending has to be the core of any package on the debt ceiling,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R., La.) said.

Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) added that a debt ceiling package should include measures aimed at balancing the federal budget in 10 years.

“We still have no budget and every member of Congress has been paid,” he said.