Tag Archives: republican

AP sources: Obama to name ex-Bush aide to head FBI

FILE – In this Jan. 14, 2004 file photo, Deputy Attorney General James Comey gestures during a news conference in Washington. President Barack Obama is preparing to nominate former Bush administration official James Comey to head the FBI, people familiar with the decision said Wednesday, May 29, 2013. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is prepared to nominate James Comey, a former Bush administration official with bipartisan credentials, as the next FBI director. In a possible warning sign, the top Republican on the Senate committee that would review the nomination said Comey would face questions about his ties to Wall Street.

Three people with knowledge of the selection said Wednesday that Obama planned to nominate Comey, who was the No. 2 at the Justice Department under President George W. Bush. Comey was general counsel to Connecticut-based hedge fund Bridgewater Associates from 2010 until earlier this year and now lectures at Columbia Law School.

Comey would replace Robert Mueller, who has held the job since shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which forced the FBI to transform itself into one of the nation’s chief weapons in the war on terror. Mueller’s last day on the job is Sept. 4.

The White House may hope that Comey’s Republican background will help him through Senate confirmation at a time when some of Obama’s nominations have been facing tough battles. But Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated Comey’s confirmation hearing would raise questions about the Obama administration’s investigations of Wall Street.

Grassley said in a statement late Wednesday he had not heard from the White House about Comey’s nomination but said Comey possessed a lot of important experience on national security issues.

“But, if he’s nominated, he would have to answer questions about his recent work in the hedge fund industry,” Grassley said. “The administration’s efforts to criminally prosecute Wall Street for its part in the economic downturn have been abysmal, and his agency would have to help build the case against some of his colleagues.”

The change in leadership comes as the FBI and Justice Department are under scrutiny for their handing of several investigations. Obama has ordered a review of FBI investigations into leaks to reporters, including the secret gathering of Associated Press phone records and emails of a Fox News reporter. And there have been questions raised about whether the FBI properly responded to warnings from Russian authorities about a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. The agency, meanwhile, is conducting a highly anticipated investigation into the Internal Revenue Service over its handling of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status.

Comey was deputy attorney general in 2005 when he unsuccessfully tried to limit tough interrogation tactics against suspected terrorists. He told then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that some of the practices were wrong and would damage the department’s reputation.

Some Democrats denounced those methods as torture, particularly the use of waterboarding, which produces the sensation of drowning.

Comey’s selection was first reported by NPR and was not expected to be announced for several days at least. It was confirmed to the AP by three people speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the selection ahead of Obama’s announcement. Senate confirmation will be needed.

Comey became a hero to Democratic opponents of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program when Comey refused for a time to reauthorize it. Bush revised the surveillance program when confronted with the threat of resignation by Comey and Mueller.

Earlier in his career, Comey served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the nation’s most prominent prosecutorial offices and one at the front lines of terrorism, corporate malfeasance, organized crime and the war on drugs.

As an assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia, Comey handled the investigation of the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. military personnel.

He led the Justice Department’s corporate fraud task force and spurred the creation of violent crime impact teams in 20 cities, focusing on crimes committed with guns.

Comey was at the center of one of the Bush administration’s great controversies — an episode that focused attention on the administration’s controversial tactics in the war on terror.

In stunning testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, Comey said he thought Bush’s no-warrant wiretapping program was so questionable that Comey refused for a time to reauthorize it, leading to a standoff with White House officials at the bedside of ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Comey said he refused to recertify the program because Ashcroft had reservations about its legality.

Senior government officials had expressed concerns about whether the National Security Agency, which administered the warrantless eavesdropping program, had the proper oversight in place. Other concerns included whether any president possessed the legal and constitutional authority to authorize the program as it was carried out at the time.

The White House, Comey said, recertified the program without the Justice Department’s signoff, allowing it to operate for about three weeks without concurrence on whether it was legal. Comey, Ashcroft, Mueller and other Justice Department officials at one point considered resigning, Comey said.

“I couldn’t stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis,” Comey told the Senate panel.

A day after the March 10, 2004, incident at Ashcroft’s hospital bedside, Bush ordered changes to the program to accommodate the department’s concerns. Ashcroft signed the presidential order to recertify the program about three weeks later.

The dramatic hospital confrontation involved Comey, who was the acting attorney general during Ashcroft’s absence, and a White House team that included Gonzales, Bush’s counsel at the time, and White House chief of staff Andy Card, Comey said. Gonzales later succeeded Ashcroft as attorney general.

Comey testified that when he refused to certify the program, Gonzales and Card headed to Ashcroft’s sick bed in the intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital.

When Gonzales appealed to Ashcroft, the ailing attorney general lifted his head off the pillow and in straightforward terms described his views of the program, Comey said. Then he pointed out that Comey, not Ashcroft, held the powers of the attorney general at that moment.

Gonzales and Card then left the hospital room, Comey said.

“I was angry,” Comey told the panel. “I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general.”

___

Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.

___

Follow Nedra Pickler on Twitter at https://twitter.com/nedrapickler

Associated Press

View original article: 

AP sources: Obama to name ex-Bush aide to head FBI

Leahy steps back on gay marriage issue

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., right, confers with the committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 20, 2013, as the committee assembles to work on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions. The panel is aiming to pass the legislation out of committee this week, setting up a high-stakes debate on the Senate floor. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says he will not offer — for now — an amendment to an immigration bill allowing gay Americans to seek green cards for their spouses.

The much-awaited announcement Tuesday by the Vermont senator clears the way for passage by his committee of the far-reaching legislation offering the possibility of citizenship to millions in this country illegally.

Leahy had been under pressure from gay rights groups to offer the amendment, which would have allowed gays to petition to bring their spouses to the United States like straight Americans can.

But the White House and other Democrats privately urged Leahy to hold off as Republican supporters of the immigration bill threatened to withdraw their support over the issue.

Associated Press

Source: 

Leahy steps back on gay marriage issue

Senate panel approves immigration bill

AAA May. 21, 2013 7:55 PM ET
Senate panel approves immigration bill
By DAVID ESPO and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., right, confers with the committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 20, 2013, as the committee assembles to work on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions. The panel is aiming to pass the legislation out of committee this week, setting up a high-stakes debate on the Senate floor. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

(AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved far-reaching immigration legislation that gives a chance at citizenship to millions living in the country illegally.

The 13-5 vote clears the bill for a Senate debate expected to begin early next month.

Committee approval came after the panel’s chairman sidestepped a showdown on the rights of gay spouses, heeding appeals from the White House and others who feared such a vote could lead to the bill’s demise in the Senate.

On a final day of drafting, the panel also agreed to a last-minute compromise covering an increase in the visa program for high-tech workers.

The landmark legislation creates new provisions to bring workers here legally and enforce against illegal immigration, as well as creating a path to citizenship for 11 million here illegally.

Associated Press

Continue at source - 

Senate panel approves immigration bill

Issa plans depositions for Mullen, Pickering

FILE – This June 7, 2012 file photo shows U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice listening during a news conference at the UN. Senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September, expressing concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Benghazi. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

(AP) — The Republican chairman of the House oversight panel is asking a veteran diplomat and a former chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff for sworn testimony about their investigation into the deaths of four Americans at a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, planned on Monday to seek depositions from retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen. Issa, who is leading Republicans’ investigations into the attacks on a State Department consulate last September, said he wants to know with whom the pair spoke to reach their conclusion that then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not direct the response to the pair of nighttime attacks in Libya.

“This is a failure, it needs to be investigated. Our committee can investigate. Now, Ambassador Pickering, his people and he refused to come before our committee,” Issa said Sunday.

Pickering, sitting next to Issa during an appearance on one Sunday show, disputed the chairman’s account and said that he was willing to testify before the committee.

“That is not true,” said the former top diplomat, referring to Issa’s claim that he refused to appear before the committee. Pickering has served in Republican as well as Democratic administrations.

Issa said he would like to speak with Pickering and Mullen privately and under oath.

Pickering, a seasoned diplomat who penned a highly critical report on security at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, defended his scathing assessment but absolved Clinton. “We knew where the responsibility rested,” said Pickering, whose career spans four decades.

“They’ve tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made,” Pickering said of Clinton’s critics.

In a separate interview, Pickering said he asked, via the White House, to appear at Wednesday’s session. He said he could have answered many of the questions lawmakers raised, such as whether U.S. military forces could have saved Americans had they dispatched F-16 jet fighters to the consulate, some 1,600 miles away from the nearest likely launching point.

“Mike Mullen, who was part of this report and indeed worked very closely with all of us and shared many of the responsibilities directly with me, made it very clear that his view as a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there were nothing within range that could have made a difference,” Pickering said.

Republicans and Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, have questioned why the military couldn’t move faster to stop the two nighttime attacks over several hours. Hicks, who testified before the House Oversight panel this past week, said a show of U.S. military force might have prevented the second attack on the CIA annex that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The Accountability Review Board, which Pickering headed with Mullen, did not question Clinton at length about the attacks but concluded last December that the decisions about the consulate were made well below the secretary’s level.

“I was surprised today that they did not probe Secretary Clinton in detail,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said of the review board.

Pickering and Mullen’s blistering report found that “systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department meant that security was “inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

Issa spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Pickering spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union,” CBS’ “Face the Nation” and NBC. Ayotte appeared on CBS.

Associated Press

Read more: 

Issa plans depositions for Mullen, Pickering

Top Dem calls for public testimony on Benghazi

FILE – In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, Libyan military guards check one of the U.S. Consulate’s burnt out buildings during a visit by Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif, not shown, to the U.S. Consulate to express sympathy for the death of the American ambassador, Chris Stevens and his colleagues in the deadly attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September, expressing concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Benghazi. (AP Photo/Mohammad Hannon)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

(AP) —

The top Democrat on a House panel says the authors of the independent investigation into the deadly assault in Benghazi, Libya, should testify at a hearing, not in a private deposition.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland sent a letter Monday arguing that former diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen should respond to Republican criticism of their report at a hearing next week.

Pickering and Mullen issued a scathing report last December critical of the State Department’s handling of security at the diplomatic mission. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attack.

Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said Sunday he would seek depositions from Pickering and Mullen.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

The Republican chairman of the House oversight panel is asking a veteran diplomat and a former chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff for sworn testimony about their investigation into the deaths of four Americans at a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, planned on Monday to seek depositions from retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen. Issa, who is leading Republicans’ investigations into the attacks on a State Department consulate last September, said he wants to know with whom the pair spoke to reach their conclusion that then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not direct the response to the pair of nighttime attacks in Libya.

“This is a failure, it needs to be investigated. Our committee can investigate. Now, Ambassador Pickering, his people and he refused to come before our committee,” Issa said Sunday.

Pickering, sitting next to Issa during an appearance on one Sunday show, disputed the chairman’s account and said that he was willing to testify before the committee.

“That is not true,” said the former top diplomat, referring to Issa’s claim that he refused to appear before the committee.

Issa said he would like to speak with Pickering and Mullen privately and under oath.

Pickering, a career diplomat who has served in Republican and Democratic administrations, penned a highly critical report on security at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya. He defended his scathing assessment but absolved Clinton. “We knew where the responsibility rested,” said Pickering, whose career spans four decades.

“They’ve tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made,” Pickering said of Clinton’s critics.

In a separate interview, Pickering said he asked, via the White House, to appear at Wednesday’s session. He said he could have answered many of the questions lawmakers raised, such as whether U.S. military forces could have saved Americans had they dispatched F-16 jet fighters to the consulate, some 1,600 miles away from the nearest likely launching point.

“Mike Mullen, who was part of this report and indeed worked very closely with all of us and shared many of the responsibilities directly with me, made it very clear that his view as a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there were nothing within range that could have made a difference,” Pickering said.

Republicans and Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, have questioned why the military couldn’t move faster to stop the two nighttime attacks over several hours. Hicks, who testified before the House Oversight panel this past week, said a show of U.S. military force might have prevented the second attack on the CIA annex that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Robert Gates, a former Defense secretary, defended the decisions made at the time, saying: “I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” adding “getting somebody there in a timely way — would have been very difficult, if not impossible.”

The Accountability Review Board, which Pickering headed with Mullen, did not question Clinton at length about the attacks but concluded last December that the decisions about the consulate were made well below the secretary’s level.

In her last formal testimony as secretary of State, Clinton appeared before two congressional committees investigating the Benghazi attacks. She took responsibility for the department’s missteps and failures leading up to the assault, but said that requests for more security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi didn’t reach her desk.

Pickering and Mullen’s blistering report found that “systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department meant that security was “inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

Issa spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Pickering spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union,” CBS’ “Face the Nation” and NBC. Gates appeared on CBS.

Associated Press

Excerpt from:

Top Dem calls for public testimony on Benghazi

Coalition on immigration bill clears first tests

From left, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., standing, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confer as the Senate Judiciary Committee meets on immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 9, 2013. A bill to enact dramatic changes to the nation’s immigration system and put some 11 million immigrants here illegally on a path to citizenship is facing its first congressional test as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins considering proposed changes to the 844-page legislation. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

(AP) — The bipartisan coalition behind a contentious overhaul of immigration laws stuck together on a critical early series of test votes Thursday, turning back challenges from conservative critics as the Senate Judiciary Committee refined legislation to secure the nation’s borders and offer eventual citizenship to millions living illegally in the United States.

In a cavernous room packed with lobbyists and immigration activists, the panel rejected three attempts by opponents of the bill to impose tougher conditions on border security before unauthorized immigrants could apply for legal status. Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — part of a bipartisan group that helped draft the measure — joined all 10 Democrats in blocking each of the changes.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who has yet to announce a position on the overall legislation, opposed one of the proposed changes but backed others.

Assuming the core political alignment remains intact, the committee is expected to approve the measure within two weeks and clear the way for an epic showdown on the Senate floor in June.

White House aides watched from the sidelines as the committee began its work on a bill that President Barack Obama has made a top priority in the opening months of his second term in the White House.

Painstakingly negotiated by a bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” the measure would clear the way for tens of thousands of new high-tech and lesser-skilled workers to enter the country while also requiring all employers to check the legal status of their employees. But it was the core trade-off — securing the border against future illegal immigration while setting up a 13-year process by which immigrants unlawfully in the country could qualify for citizenship — that generated the most controversy by far.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who helped draft the bill, said it would “change our policy so that the people who are needed to help our economy grow can come into this country, and at the same time we will note that when families are divided the humane thing to do is bring those families back together.

“Because we so dramatically stop the flow of illegal immigration, we can do both. And we do, and do it fairly.”

Republican critics made no claim they can defeat the bill in committee and concentrated instead on casting doubt on assertions that it will secure the U.S.-Mexican border before it allows immigrants illegally in the United States to take their first steps toward legal status.

“The triggers in the bill that kick off legalization are weak,” said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, referring to a series of requirements that must be met before unauthorized immigrants can apply for legal status. “No one can dispute that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later.”

He said the last extensive overhaul of immigration in 1986 had also claimed it would end illegal immigration. “We thought we were so certain…and we screwed up,” he said of those who voted for the bill 37 years ago, himself among them.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said he feared the result of the measure would be a shell game in which “amnesty takes effect but not enforcement.”

The first challenge came on Grassley’s proposal to require six months to elapse between the time the southern border is secured and immigrants may begin seeking legal status, a step that Schumer said would “delay, probably forever, any legalization” for immigrants now living in the country without authorization.

The second was advanced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and sought to require that both houses of Congress vote to declare the border secure before the citizenship process could begin. Under the legislation as drafted, the secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to make that declaration.

“Many of us are concerned that the border fencing and security triggers in this bill leave too much discretion to the secretary,” Lee said.

Graham said he feared the result would inevitably be deadlock, in which the Democratic-controlled Senate would declare the border secure while the Republican-controlled House would counter that it was not.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, later tried to require that the number of U.S. border patrol agents be tripled on the U.S.-Mexico border and the amount of equipment stationed there be quadrupled before any immigrant could apply for a change in legal status.

Hatch, who had supported the two earlier GOP proposals, opposed Cruz’ plan.

The day’s proceedings unfolded as the committee worked its way through more than 300 amendments, some of them noncontroversial and others intensely so.

Eager to demonstrate their openness to changes, Democrats stressed that they had agreed to a number of Republican proposals.

One, advanced by Grassley, specifies that a requirement for 90 percent of would-be border crossers to be stopped or turned back must apply to the entire southern border, not just “high-risk” sectors.

But a verdict on perhaps the most contentious proposal — to assure that immigrants in the country illegally are treated the same regardless of sexual orientation — is not expected to come to a vote until next week or the week after. Gay rights groups are adamantly seeking the provision be inserted into the measure, but Republicans have warned that could splinter the coalition behind the bill and doom its chances for passage.

The legislation was drafted by Democratic Sens. Schumer and Dick Durbin of Illinois, who are on the committee, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado, who are not, as well as Flake and Graham and Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and John McCain of Arizona.

Under the legislation as drafted, immigrants who entered the United States illegally before Dec. 31, 2011 and have been in the country since then may apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status. To qualify, they must pass a background check, have no serious criminal conviction on their record, pay any back taxes they owe and a $500 fine.

At the end of a decade, they may apply for permanent residency, pay an additional fine of $1,000 and meet other requirements. After an additional three years, they may apply for naturalization.

___

Follow Erica Werner on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ericawerner

Associated Press

View the original here:  

Coalition on immigration bill clears first tests

Senate committee takes up immigration bill

FILE – In this April 18, 2013 file photo, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., center, and others Senators, participate in a news conference on immigration on Capitol Hill in Washington. From left are, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Rubio, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. One of the legislation’s authors, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has already acknowledged that the bill will face a tough road to passage if the border security elements are not improved. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bill to enact dramatic changes to the nation’s immigration system and put some 11 million immigrants here illegally on a path to citizenship is facing its first congressional test.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday was to begin considering proposed changes to the 844-page legislation, with some 300 amendments pending on a wide range of issues that included border security and workplace enforcement, along with Democratic-authored measures to make the legislation more welcoming to immigrant families.

A focus throughout the committee session, expected to last about two weeks, will be on whether the four committee members who are among the so-called Gang of Eight senators who authored the legislation can stick together to protect against efforts to chip away at the bill’s core provisions.

The lawmakers in question are Democrats Chuck Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Their legislation aims to secure the border, provide new avenues for workers to come to the U.S. legally, crack down on employers who would hire people here illegally, and provide eventual citizenship to millions already in the country.

Although the bill allows citizenship to go forward only after certain border security goals have been met, those “triggers” haven’t proven convincing enough for many GOP lawmakers. Early fights in the committee session are likely to center around that issue, according to the schedule laid out by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee’s chairman.

Even one of the bill’s authors, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has said border measures need to be stronger, so some changes may be accepted. But measures offered by some Republican senators would dramatically change the bill’s delicately crafted compromises in a way its authors are unlikely to accept.

For example, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the top committee Republican, has filed an amendment to prohibit anyone from obtaining legal status until the Homeland Security Department has maintained “effective control” of the border for six months — a potentially arduous standard to reach, depending upon how it is defined.

Such measures are “designed to undermine critical components of the bill,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, which supports the legislation, told reporters on a conference call Wednesday.

Associated Press

Original post:  

Senate committee takes up immigration bill

A risk including gay partners in immigration bill?

Jay Mercado, left, and Shirley Tan, third from left, and their twin sons Jorien Mercado, second from left and Jashley Mercado, both 16, of Pacifica, Calif., wait on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 24, 2013, to meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. Shirley is undocumented and Jay is an American citizen. They have been together for 27 years and have raised Jashley and Jorien. They and other gay rights activists are lobbying Senators today pushing to change the immigration bill to allow gay Americans to sponsor visas for their same-sex partners the way straight Americans can. Democrats are treading carefully on a proposed addition to the bipartisan immigration overhaul. At the far right is Kelly Costello of Maryland. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

(AP) — Frustrated at being left out of an immigration overhaul, gay rights groups are pushing to adjust a bipartisan Senate bill to include gay couples. But Democrats are treading carefully, wary of adding another divisive issue that could lose Republican support and jeopardize the entire bill.

Both parties want the bill to succeed. Merely getting to agreement on the basic framework for the immigration overhaul, which would create a long and costly path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally, was no small feat for senators. And getting it through a divided Congress is still far from a done deal.

Even so, gay rights groups, their lobbyists and grass-roots supporters are insisting the deal shouldn’t exclude bi-national, same-sex couples — about 28,500 of them, according to a 2011 study from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law. They’re ramping up a campaign to change the bill to allow gay Americans to sponsor their partners for green cards, the same way straight Americans can. Supporters trekked to the Capitol to make their case at senators’ offices on Wednesday.

“Opponents will be proposing amendments that, if passed, could collapse this very fragile coalition that we’ve been able to achieve,” Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said last week at the unveiling of the bill. He said the eight senators from both parties who crafted the legislation are committed to voting against changes that could kill it.

For Democrats, it’s a precarious position to be in. Democratic senators overwhelmingly support gay marriage — all but three are now on the record voicing their support — and two dozen of them this year backed a separate bill called the Uniting American Families Act to let gays sponsor their partners independent of a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

But the party’s senators are still bruised from an agonizing defeat on gun control this month. And few seem eager to inject divisive issues that might sink their best prospects for a major legislative victory this year and a potential keystone of President Barack Obama’s legacy.

“Any amendment which might sink the immigration bill, I would worry about,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a brief interview, adding that he had yet to decide whether an amendment for gays and lesbians would meet that yardstick.

Support from both Hispanics and gays was critical to Obama’s re-election, and his overwhelming advantage among Hispanics was a major factor prompting Republicans to warm to immigration overhaul almost immediately after. But now, one community’s gain on the immigration front could be to the other’s detriment.

“As you continue to add other issues to the immigration discussion, it’s going to make it more challenging,” said Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican.

Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has committed to offering an amendment to the bill to allow gay citizens to sponsor their partners, said Ty Cobb, an attorney and lobbyist with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. Another Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, pledged in a Judiciary hearing on the bill Monday to do “everything we can” to adjust the bill.

But even if the amendment makes it through the Senate, it faces a tougher path if and when the bill moves to the Republican-controlled House. GOP leaders there have been defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, though Obama has said it is unconstitutional. And while Obama supports same-sex marriage, his administration has shown little appetite for forcing the issue while the immigration overhaul’s prospects are still shaky.

“No one will get everything they want from it, including the president. That’s the nature of compromise. But the bill is largely consistent with the principles he has laid out repeatedly,” Obama spokesman Jay Carney said last week. A White House spokesman declined to answer further questions about the issue.

Some Democrats argue privately that with the Supreme Court poised to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the government from giving federal marriage benefits to gay couples, the issue could soon be moot. Still, even if the high court strikes the law down, it would only bring partial relief; only couples married in the nine states that recognize gay marriages would probably be eligible.

The issue has generated an intense advocacy campaign, with gay rights organizations and Hispanic groups such as the National Council of La Raza squaring off with religious interests such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which sent a letter to Obama telling him including the provision could jeopardize the whole bill.

At the Human Rights Campaign, four of its seven federal lobbyists are engaged in pushing lawmakers to back such an amendment. Immigration Equality, another group supporting the provision, said it was bringing more than 60 families from 24 states to the Capitol on Wednesday to ask lawmakers to offer their support.

And Log Cabin Republicans, a gay conservative group, is making a pro-business pitch with potential GOP supporters, arguing that including gay couples would allow U.S. companies to retain the best talent instead of forcing good workers to leave the U.S. to be with their partners.

Such may be the case for Paul Coyle, a 45-year-old partner in a Chicago law firm, who has spent the past 10 years in a long-distance relationship with his partner in Toronto. At first, the two men would take turns flying back and forth, he said, until immigration officials cracked down, making it harder for his partner to enter the U.S. Now Coyle flies to Canada every other week, wondering each time whether it would be cheaper and more rewarding to pack up his law practice and move to Canada.

“It’s emotionally draining. It’s financially draining, and every time he comes to the U.S., there’s the risk he won’t get let back in,” Coyle said. “But when you’re in love, you just take the risk, because it’s worth it.”

___

Follow Josh Lederman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP

Associated Press

View original article:

A risk including gay partners in immigration bill?

Judiciary Committee takes up immigration bill

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., at podium, about immigration reform legislation outlined by the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” Thursday, April 18, 2013, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. From left are Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Menendez, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

(AP) — A far-reaching new immigration bill is getting its first test at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where opponents of the legislation will be able to face off with its authors.

The committee includes Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and three other of the eight lawmakers who authored the bill to boost border security, fix legal immigration programs and eventually grant citizenship to some 11 million people here illegally. The panel also includes leading skeptics of the legislation, including Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

The 844-page legislation was introduced around 2 a.m. Wednesday, so critics say there’s been insufficient time to digest it and they’ve pushed for more hearings and a long process. Friday’s hearing will be the first of two the Judiciary Committee is expected to hold on the bill before it begins amending and voting on it next month.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been invited to testify, and she’s sure to face tough questions from Sessions and other Republicans on conditions along the border, which the Obama administration says is more secure than ever.

Some Republicans disagree and also contend that the immigration bill doesn’t do enough to improve border security, even though it requires certain enforcement steps to be taken before any path to citizenship can begin.

Napolitano in the past has criticized the idea of border enforcement “triggers” as a condition of a path to citizenship, putting the Obama administration at odds with the bipartisan Senate plan. But President Barack Obama praised the legislation when it was released this week.

A second panel of witnesses was to include Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a conservative-leaning economist who’s argued that immigration brings economic benefits to the U.S.; and Peter Kirsanow, a Republican member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission who’s said that illegal immigration reduces wages and eliminates jobs for low-skilled American workers.

___

Online:

Senate Judiciary Committee: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov

Associated Press

This article is from:

Judiciary Committee takes up immigration bill

Obama: Boston culprits to feel ‘weight of justice’

President Barack Obama speaks in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, Monday, April 15, 2013, following the explosions at the Boston Marathon. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

(AP) — A stony-faced President Barack Obama declared that those responsible for the explosions at the Boston Marathon “will feel the full weight of justice,” but he urged a nervous nation not to jump to conclusions. Top lawmakers declared the deadly incident an act of terrorism, and a White House official said it was being treated that way.

Obama, speaking from the White House late Monday, pointedly avoiding using the words “terror” or “terrorism,” saying officials “still do not know who did this or why.” However, a White House official later said the incident at the famous race was being treated as terrorism.

“We will find out who did this. We’ll find out why they did this,” Obama said in his brief statement. “Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full weight of justice.”

Authorities say at least two people were killed and more than 80 injured during two explosions near the finish of the marathon. A senior U.S. intelligence official said two other explosive devices were found near the end of the 26.2-mile course.

The president said the government would increase security around the United States “as necessary,” but he did not say whether his administration thought the incident was part of a larger plot.

Following a briefing with intelligence officials, Maryland Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said most urban areas in the country would be under high alert.

“We want to make sure this is not a pattern,” Ruppersberger said, adding that people could expect to see greater security at public areas such as train stations, ports and baseball games.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters that she had been in contact with U.S. intelligence agencies and it was her understanding “that it’s a terrorist incident.” Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the officials reported no advance warning that “there was an attack on the way.”

California Republican Rep. Ed Royce, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it was a “terrorist attack” and “yet another stark reminder that we must remain vigilant in the face of continuing terrorist threats.”

The White House said Obama refrained from publicly calling the attacks terrorism because it was early in the investigation and the perpetrators were unknown. But the official said any time there is an event with multiple explosions going off at the same time and aimed at hurting people, the administration considers that terrorism.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still underway and the official was not authorized to be quoted by name.

The president was briefed on the incident Monday by several senior administration officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. He also spoke with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Boston Mayor Tom Menino and pledged to provide whatever federal support was needed.

Additionally, the president spoke with Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, saying that “on days like this, there are no Republicans or Democrats, we are Americans united in our concern for our fellow citizens.”

The Secret Service quickly expanded its security perimeter at the White House. The agency shut down Pennsylvania Avenue and cordoned off the area with yellow police tape. Several Secret Service patrol cars blocked off the entry points to the road.

The White House was not on lockdown, and tourists and other onlookers were still able to be in the park across the street from the executive mansion.

The Federal Aviation Administration created a no-fly zone over the site of the two explosions and briefly ordered flights bound for Boston’s Logan International Airport held on the ground at airports around the country.

Security for outbound international flights has been increased, federal law enforcement officials said. Numerous runners were expected to leave Boston after the race, and the additional security was added as a precaution, the officials said. Those officials requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

As authorities grappled to fill in the pieces of what happened, Obama said Boston and its “tough and resilient” residents would “pull together, take care of each other and move forward as one proud city.”

___

Associated Press writers Nedra Pickler, David Espo, Jim Abrams, Joan Lowy and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

___

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC

Associated Press

More - 

Obama: Boston culprits to feel ‘weight of justice’