Gun Bill Will Be Taken Up After Senate Recess

WASHINGTON - The Senate plans to begin debating a package of gun regulations next month when it returns from its Easter recess, said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. Mr. Reid began procedural motions late Thursday on a bill that seeks to enhance background checks for those who purchase guns, and to curb gun trafficking and increase money for school safety.

“The bill I advance tonight will serve as the basis for opening debate,” he said in a prepared statement. “Once debate begins, I will ensure that a ban on assault weapons, limits to high-capacity magazines, and mental health provisions receive votes, along with other amendments. In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for all of these provisions to receive votes, and I will ensure that they do.”

The biggest question mark in the bill remains the background check component, which groups concerned with gun safety believe is the most important issue for Congress to consider to help stem gun violence.

For many weeks, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, negotiated a measure that would expand background checks to nearly all gun purchases, roughly 40 percent of which are not subject to them now, according to numerous studies. The measure would also strengthen penalties against states that fail to keep their background reporting systems current.

But Mr. Coburn pulled out of the negotiation because he did not agree with Mr. Schumer and the majority of law enforcement agencies and other groups that believe that private sales must include records, similar to those kept by gun stores. As for now, the bill will include a background check measure from last year that is more strenuous than the one Mr. Schumer was pursuing with several Republicans; he hopes to substitute it later with one that would be more attractive to Republicans.

“I hope negotiations will continue over the upcoming break to reach a bipartisan compromise on background checks, and I am hopeful that they will succeed,” Mr. Reid said. “If a compromise is reached, I am open to including it in the base bill. But I want to be clear: in order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks.”

A Monster With a Sweet Spot for Jazz

The Miles Davis Trumpet in-ear headphones by Monster may not give you the most sound quality for the dollar, but they are high on aesthetic value.

That is not to say these headphones are not good. In certain genres, the Trumpets were quite good indeed.

After listening to some rock, pop, film and orchestral music, I was ready to dismiss the Trumpets as lackluster. But Diana Krall’s jazzy version of “Temptation” changed my mind. As you might expect from headphones called “Trumpets,” they did best on music featuring horns but also had rich sound on acoustic bass like past Monster headphones.

In fact, the $330 Trumpet comes with a specially remastered CD of Miles Davis’s “Sketches of Spain” that showcases the capabilities of the headphones. The highs of Mr. Davis’s trumpet were sharp and the bass full. The sound was slightly more detailed than with my preferred in-ear headphones, the $130 Westone UM1, but it had less dimension and sounded less natural than with my favorite, the over-the-ear $100 Grado SR80i headphones.

What really sets the Trumpet apart is its look. The hardware is silver and gold metal, with a three-button controller made to look like trumpet valves. There are small silhouettes of Davis below the earpieces and an engraved autograph on the cable trim.

The cables themselves are flat wires to reduce tangling, but they were susceptible to static crackle. They even delivered a couple of static electric jolts to my ears.

If you listen to jazz exclusively, are a massive Miles Davis fan or just like people to comment on your earphones, you might buy the Trumpets. Otherwise, there are cheaper options.

Video: Heckler Gives Obama Taste of Home in Israel

"This is part of the lively debate that we talked about," said President Obama after a heckler interrupted his speech in Jerusalem.

As Congress Votes to Avert One Fiscal Crisis, Boehner Moves on to Another

Just when it looked as if both political parties were ready to step off the bloody budget battlefield, the troops on Thursday began mustering for a new skirmish on an old issue: the debt ceiling.

Final passage Thursday of legislation to keep the government financed through Sept. 30 was supposed to usher in a more orderly budget process after nearly three years of brinkmanship and crises. Then Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, renewed his demand that any increase in the government’s statutory borrowing limit be accompanied by equivalent spending cuts â€" on top of the across-the-board cuts and budget caps already squeezing the government.

“Dollar for dollar is the plan,” Mr. Boehner told reporters.

His signals were somewhat mixed. The debt ceiling will not have to be raised until July or August, and while the speaker said that deadline would provide Republicans some leverage, he added, “I’m not going to risk the full faith and credit of the federal government.”

But Kevin Smith, a spokesman for the speaker, clarified that Mr. Boehner was not backing down.

“The speaker has made clear many times that Republicans will insist on spending cuts and reforms that exceed any upcoming debt hike,” he said.

Mr. Boehner’s stand may raise the pressure on House and Senate negotiators to come to an orderly agreement on deficit reduction this spring, but the way forward is unclear, a point the speaker himself made.

“The president has been clear that he’s not going to address our entitlement crisis unless we’re willing to raise taxes. I think the tax issue has been resolved,” he said. “So at this point, I don’t know how we’re going to go forward.”

Some rank-and-file Republicans have suggested that the House raise the debt ceiling only in exchange for significant changes to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, made it clear that Democrats would not play that game.

“Them’s fighting words,” she said.

Senators Considering Plan to Double Visas for High-Tech Workers

A bipartisan group of eight senators is considering a plan that would double the number of visas available to highly skilled foreign workers, as well as sharply increase the number of green cards available to foreign students who graduate from an American university with a degree in science, technology, engineering or math, two people familiar with the negotiations said.

The senators met for two hours Thursday morning to discuss the details of the plan, which is likely to become part of broader immigration overhaul legislation that they hope to introduce in early April, and were to meet again Thursday afternoon. The senators hope to finish an agreement concerning the H-1B visa program, which covers highly skilled temporary foreign workers, often in high-tech fields.

The Senate proposal would roughly double the number of available H-1B visas, which is currently capped at 65,000 per year. The Washington Post first reported on the proposal Thursday morning.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and a member of the bipartisan group, has privately expressed concerns about the H-1B visa program, and is said to be upset about the current proposal. Mr. Durbin opposes increasing the cap on H-1B visas without offering worker and job protections; he believes that the H-1B program, which was originally created to bring highly-skilled workers to the United States, is now being used for outsourcing, and does not offer enough protections for American workers.

On Monday, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and a ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill, which Mr. Durbin supports, aimed at reforming the H-1B program. Mr. Grassley’s bill would require all companies to make a “good faith” effort to hire American workers before looking overseas.

“Somewhere along the line, the H-1B program got side-tracked,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement. “The program was never meant to replace qualified American workers, but it was instead intended as a means to fill gaps in highly specialized areas of employment. When times are tough, like they are now, it’s especially important that Americans get every consideration before an employer looks to hire from abroad. The legislation will benefit the American worker, while still ensuring that U.S. companies get the specialized workers they need.”

The new H-1B proposal under consideration is a big victory for the high-tech industry, but has raised flags elsewhere, particularly among the labor community.

“The H-1B visa process needs urgent reform to make sure that the lofty rhetoric employed by the tech industry actually reflects how the program is implemented, rather than facilitating the exploitation of immigrant workers and the reduction of wages in the United States,” said Jeff Hauser, a spokesman for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the nation’s largest federation of unions.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group, said the challenge would be finding a way to welcome high-skilled workers into the country, while still protecting American workers.

“There’s broad consensus in letting more high tech people into the country but what we want to do is make sure that those kinds of mills, that don’t really end up helping America but rather might be mills where you get training here and go back home, can’t be allowed to continue the way they do,” Mr. Schumer said. “I think you can do both, you can be very generous in terms of high-tech coming to the country, but at the same time, you want to stop these companies that seem to take advantage of the H-1B program and don’t live within its spirit and I believe our proposal will do both.”

Though the Senate group is expected to release its legislation after the upcoming two-week Congressional recess, and members stress that the negotiations are ongoing and little has been finalized, details of the plan are increasingly started to leak out. The group is also expected to include a 13-year path to citizenship in their final bill â€" a 10-year wait for a green card, and another three years until full naturalization.

Still, some in the immigration community are growing frustrated, eager to see a bill this week. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a frustrated plea Wednesday for the group to speed up the pace of producing legislation. And on Thursday, more than a dozen immigration activities staged a protest in Mr. Schumer’s office, demanding immediate action on immigration legislation. Some were arrested.

Mr. Schumer, when asked about the protests and arrests in his office, said that he understood the pro immigration community’s eagerness for legislation, but counseled patience.

“I understand people’s frustration, people have waited a long time, but we are real close for the first time of coming up with a bipartisan agreement that has a darn good chance of becoming law,” he said.

Senators Considering Plan to Double Visas for High-Tech Workers

A bipartisan group of eight senators is considering a plan that would double the number of visas available to highly skilled foreign workers, as well as sharply increase the number of green cards available to foreign students who graduate from an American university with a degree in science, technology, engineering or math, two people familiar with the negotiations said.

The senators met for two hours Thursday morning to discuss the details of the plan, which is likely to become part of broader immigration overhaul legislation that they hope to introduce in early April, and were to meet again Thursday afternoon. The senators hope to finish an agreement concerning the H-1B visa program, which covers highly skilled temporary foreign workers, often in high-tech fields.

The Senate proposal would roughly double the number of available H-1B visas, which is currently capped at 65,000 per year. The Washington Post first reported on the proposal Thursday morning.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and a member of the bipartisan group, has privately expressed concerns about the H-1B visa program, and is said to be upset about the current proposal. Mr. Durbin opposes increasing the cap on H-1B visas without offering worker and job protections; he believes that the H-1B program, which was originally created to bring highly-skilled workers to the United States, is now being used for outsourcing, and does not offer enough protections for American workers.

On Monday, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and a ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill, which Mr. Durbin supports, aimed at reforming the H-1B program. Mr. Grassley’s bill would require all companies to make a “good faith” effort to hire American workers before looking overseas.

“Somewhere along the line, the H-1B program got side-tracked,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement. “The program was never meant to replace qualified American workers, but it was instead intended as a means to fill gaps in highly specialized areas of employment. When times are tough, like they are now, it’s especially important that Americans get every consideration before an employer looks to hire from abroad. The legislation will benefit the American worker, while still ensuring that U.S. companies get the specialized workers they need.”

The new H-1B proposal under consideration is a big victory for the high-tech industry, but has raised flags elsewhere, particularly among the labor community.

“The H-1B visa process needs urgent reform to make sure that the lofty rhetoric employed by the tech industry actually reflects how the program is implemented, rather than facilitating the exploitation of immigrant workers and the reduction of wages in the United States,” said Jeff Hauser, a spokesman for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the nation’s largest federation of unions.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group, said the challenge would be finding a way to welcome high-skilled workers into the country, while still protecting American workers.

“There’s broad consensus in letting more high tech people into the country but what we want to do is make sure that those kinds of mills, that don’t really end up helping America but rather might be mills where you get training here and go back home, can’t be allowed to continue the way they do,” Mr. Schumer said. “I think you can do both, you can be very generous in terms of high-tech coming to the country, but at the same time, you want to stop these companies that seem to take advantage of the H-1B program and don’t live within its spirit and I believe our proposal will do both.”

Though the Senate group is expected to release its legislation after the upcoming two-week Congressional recess, and members stress that the negotiations are ongoing and little has been finalized, details of the plan are increasingly started to leak out. The group is also expected to include a 13-year path to citizenship in their final bill â€" a 10-year wait for a green card, and another three years until full naturalization.

Still, some in the immigration community are growing frustrated, eager to see a bill this week. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a frustrated plea Wednesday for the group to speed up the pace of producing legislation. And on Thursday, more than a dozen immigration activities staged a protest in Mr. Schumer’s office, demanding immediate action on immigration legislation. Some were arrested.

Mr. Schumer, when asked about the protests and arrests in his office, said that he understood the pro immigration community’s eagerness for legislation, but counseled patience.

“I understand people’s frustration, people have waited a long time, but we are real close for the first time of coming up with a bipartisan agreement that has a darn good chance of becoming law,” he said.

Q&A: Seeing Ads on Twitter

Q.

Can I get rid of “promoted tweets” in my Twitter feed

A.

“Promoted tweets” are paid for by companies who want to advertise their products and services to Twitter users. According to Twitter, you cannot opt out of seeing them appear in your feed. On the Web, you can delete a paid message from your feed by moving the mouse cursor over the post and clicking the Dismiss button. If you are using Twitter’s apps for mobile devices, you can delete the message by swiping your finger on the screen.

Advertising helps keep free services free, and Twitter has stated that it wants to deliver relevant ads to its users. A post on the company’s advertising blog last year described how its developers are trying to target promoted messages based on the user’s gender (or the assumption thereof, as Twitter does not ask its members to define themselves as male or female when setting up an account).

Many third-party Twitter programs like HootSuite also display promoted messages. Some alternate Twitter clients may not show the ads, but you may have to search for those programs because they are starting to disappear. Twitter, which bought the TweetDeck app in 2011, recently announced it was discontinuing development of the iOS, Android and Adobe AIR versions of the software.

The Early Word: Elbows

In Today’s Times:
In Israel for the first time since he took office in 2009, President Obama intends to convey a message that he cares about Israel and will do whatever is necessary to protect its people from enemies, Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren write. On Thursday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the president of the Palestinian Authority before giving a speech in Jerusalem that will address the need for a renewed peace effort.

A push to revive a ban on assault weapons that never really had a chance of becoming law ended Wednesday after Senate Democrats left the ban out of a gun bill that the Senate will consider in April. Jennifer Steinhauer explains how and why legislation requiring background checks has supplanted the assault weapons ban.

The next fiscal fight has already begun taking shape in the House, where lawmakers began debating the 2014 budget after the Senate followed the House in approving legislation to keep the government operating through Sept. 30. Jeremy W. Peters and Jonathan Weisman describe a scene of partisan political theater as lawmakers put on display their “irreconcilable views” on “economics, public spending and the role of government.”

Matthew L. Wald looks at how Congress is beginning to weigh how to regulate the use of drones by governments, people and corporations in the United States, as the Federal Aviation Administration prepares to issue rules for commercial use of drones and as prices for the aircraft drop.

Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida might seem like natural allies. But Jonathan Weisman writes that the lure of the White House in 2016 has the two not-so-subtly competing for the spotlight.

Young conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage are trying to shift the political story line to favoring traditional marriage. Ashley Parker writes that the Supreme Court’s pending rulings on same-sex marriage cases this term are part of what young conservatives see as a fight that will be decades in the making.

Happening in Washington:

At 8 a.m., the House Steel Caucus and the Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus are separately holding breakfasts for lawmakers and industry executives.

Economic reports due Thursday include weekly jobless claims at 8:30 a.m., followed at 10 a.m. by leading indicators for February, last month’s existing home sales, and weekly mortgage rates.

At 10, senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will meet to consider Sally Jewell’s nomination to be the next interior secretary.

When the House convenes at 9 a.m., members are expected to take up and pass the Republican budget proposal.

Also at 9 a.m., a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee will examine the threat posed by cyberattacks.

At 10 a.m., military officials will update the House Armed Services Committee on efforts to prevent suicide among soldiers.