Immigrant Measure Still Backed by Gays

Advocates focused their fury on several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, which considered more than 300 amendments to the bill, after the senators warned the chairman, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, that they would not vote for an amendment he wanted to introduce. The measure by Mr. Leahy, also a Democrat, would have allowed American citizens to seek permanent resident status — a document known as a green card — for a foreign same-sex partners.

But as the bill now moves to the Senate floor, the political damage from the episode for the Democrats — including senators who have been firm allies of gay causes like Mr. Leahy, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois — may not be as severe as it first appeared. Gay rights advocates, stepping back from the loss, said the overhaul still contained many measures that could benefit gay immigrants, most of which came through the committee gantlet unscathed.

Other provisions that the committee agreed to add to the bill, dealing with asylum and immigration detention, had been the subject of vigorous lobbying by gay organizations.

The committee outcome was a relief for Republicans in the bipartisan group of eight senators that wrote the bill, who had said the same-sex amendment would cripple the entire measure. By fending it off, Republicans held on to crucial support from evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics.

“To try to redefine marriage within the immigration bill would mean the bill would fall apart,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican, told Mr. Leahy in the moments of high suspense last Tuesday evening before the Vermont senator announced his decision. Mr. Graham said support from conservative evangelical churches, which have put on an ambitious campaign to pass the overhaul, “made it possible for a guy like me to survive the emotional nature of this debate.”

One activist who had intensely mixed feelings about the committee’s results was Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, co-director of Get Equal, an organization that seeks legal equality for gay people.

“I can’t deny my outrage when I felt betrayed,” said Mr. Sousa-Rodriguez, who said he had delivered thousands of petitions to Mr. Schumer’s Washington office just a week earlier.

But he said he was ready to push for the bill on the Senate floor, where lawmakers expect to take it up the week of June 10. “Many of my friends will benefit from the overall legislation,” he said.

Like many gay advocates, Mr. Sousa-Rodriguez, who was born in Brazil, sees the legislation from several angles. He is one of as many as 1.7 million young immigrants who were brought here illegally as children. Those immigrants would be eligible under the Senate bill for an accelerated five-year path to citizenship. They include a vocal contingent of youths who are gay.

But Mr. Sousa-Rodriguez is also legally married to an immigrant from Colombia, Juan, who is about to become an American citizen. If the same-sex amendment were to become law, Mr. Sousa-Rodriguez’s husband could seek a green card for him immediately, without waiting five years. In the Judiciary Committee debate, Mr. Leahy kept everyone, including his own staff, wondering until the final hour whether he would formally introduce the same-sex amendment. He had sponsored similar legislation many times in the Senate, and he left no doubt in his opening statement about his strong support for the provision.

But then he turned to the other senators on the committee, asking them for their views. In agonized comments the Democrats, also including Dianne Feinstein of California and Al Franken of Minnesota, replayed the Republican warnings that the measure would be a deal breaker.

According to several Senate aides, the Democrats were surprised and miffed that Mr. Leahy shifted the burden to them to nix the amendment.

“He did it in a way that made others walk the plank and kept his hands clean,” one Democratic aide said, “and that was not appreciated.”

In the end Mr. Leahy withheld his amendment, leaving open the option of introducing it later. The committee sent the bill to the Senate floor on a strong bipartisan vote.

View the original article here

In Senate, Democrats halt pipeline measure - Philadelphia Daily News

WASHINGTON - With gas prices a high-octane campaign issue, the Democratic-led Senate beat back a Republican effort to advance the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.

Thursday's vote to attach the project to a must-pass transportation bill failed, 56-42, with 11 Democrats joining Republicans to support the measure. Sixty votes were needed for passage.

While both Pennsylvania senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey, voted in favor of the measure, the other Philadelphia-area senators voted against it.

President Obama had called senators to urge a no vote.

"We hope that the Congress will ... not waste its time with ineffectual, sham legislation," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

But the effort - along with a vote on a measure to expand offshore drilling that was also rejected - was designed to highlight differences between the two parties and provide campaign fodder in this year's battle to control the White House and the Senate.

"The president simply can't claim to have a comprehensive approach to energy, because he doesn't," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "And any time he says he does, the American people should remember one word: Keystone." No Republicans opposed the Keystone measure, but two did not vote.

Republicans are eager to showcase Obama's decision to withhold approval of the Canada-to-Gulf Coast pipeline as proof that the administration is not doing enough to generate jobs and increase energy supplies. But opponents of the project say supporters exaggerate the number of jobs it would create and dispute that it would bring down gas prices.

The pipeline issue has divided core Democratic constituencies. Some labor unions back the project as a way to create jobs; environmentalists warn the pipeline would expand the nation's carbon footprint and create more pollution.

An alternative Democratic measure that would, among other things, have prohibited the export of oil transported in the pipeline and, according to its sponsor, Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), put "teeth behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the America consumer," also failed.

Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.), who led the floor debate on the Keystone amendment, argued that the Democratic alternative measure would have added "additional impediments" to the project.

The Keystone votes come as the Senate is on track to pass a $109 billion, two-year transportation bill next week. The legislation sets road, highway, and transit priorities.

But the transportation bill's fate is uncertain because House Speaker John A. Boehner (R., Ohio) has been unable to corral a majority for passage in the Republican-controlled House. Republicans disagree on how big the bill should be and what it should include.

One measure passed Thursday would steer 80 percent of the penalties paid by BP for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill to restoring coastal ecosystems and rebuilding local economies in the gulf.

View the original article here

House passes measure to avoid government shutdown, but Senate won’t (The Ticket)

Reid (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

The House of Representatives early Friday morning passed a continuing resolution to fund the government and avoid a looming shutdown after the first attempt to pass a resolution failed. But Senate Democrats are strongly opposed to the new measure.

"The bill the House will vote on tonight is not an honest effort at compromise. It fails to provide the relief that our fellow Americans need as they struggle to rebuild their lives in the wake of floods, wildfires and hurricanes, and it will be rejected by the Senate," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement prior to the vote, which resulted in passage 219-203.

Democrats argue the new resolution includes inadequate disaster funds for FEMA, and they oppose spending cuts to programs they say are necessary to stimulate the economy.

"Wake up! Wake up! You can't kill these programs. This is the solution you are killing," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said on the House floor, referring to cuts to environmental programs he argues are going to help Americans against natural disasters.

But Republicans who support the measure say that the proposed spending cuts are key to rescuing the economy.

"I'm not one of those people who believe that we have to offset every emergency," Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said on the House floor. " . . . . But in the past, we have not had a 14 trillion dollar deficit!" he shouted. "That's the danger to this country--is the 14 trillion dollar deficit and the 1.6 trillion we add to it every damn year!"

The first continuing resolution that came before the House earlier this week failed when Democrats joined 48 Republican conservative fiscal hawks in the House to defeat it. So House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) appealed to conservatives and made deeper cuts in the current resolution, which drew opposition from just 24 House Republicans. Six Democrats also supported the current bill.

Both parties face a time crunch. The government is currently funded through the fiscal year, which concludes Sept. 30. Democrats say FEMA may require additional funds as early as Sept. 26. And Congress is scheduled to be in recess following today's session in observance of next week's Rosh Hashana holiday.

Reid said Friday he would put the measure up for a vote this morning but that it is dead on arrival.

Update 12:47 p.m. EST: The Senate voted to table the resolution 59-36. Reid has scheduled a vote for Monday evening.

View the original article here