ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Patrick Leahy

LGBT

The Fate Of Immigration Reform For Same-Sex Binational Couples

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee had the opportunity to consider changes to the immigration reform bill that would have provided much needed relief to same-sex binational couples.  Those changes would have improved the bill by staying true to the core principles of the bill by ensuring family unity is at the heart of the nation’s immigration laws and policies.

At the end of the mark-up, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) offered an amendment to recognize same-sex spouses for family based immigration sponsorship, a provision that has also been proposed before in a separate bill as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Committee Republicans drew a line in the sand, however, and declared that the amendment’s inclusion would destroy Republican support for the entire bill. Rather than jeopardize the bill’s passage, the Chairman withdrew the amendment from consideration.

Although Republican opposition to including this provision — which would end discrimination in immigration against LGBT families — was  extremely disappointing, the bill heads to the Senate floor with a number of  important provisions that will benefit all LGBT immigrants. These provisions include:

  • Most importantly, creating a path to citizenship for the estimated 267,000 undocumented immigrants who identify as LGBT. Recent research has shown that at least 267,000 of the 11 million undocumented people living in the United States identify as LGBT.  The Senate bill’s path to citizenship means better wages, greater employment security, and access to critical social services for undocumented LGBT immigrants.
  • Ending the one-year ban on asylum. The right to seek asylum in the United States is important in order to protect LGBT people around the world from persecution.  Without the bill, many credible asylum claims are rejected since LGBT asylum seekers often miss the one-year filing deadline, either because they do not know that sexual orientation and gender-based persecution are grounds for seeking asylum or they do not feel safe disclosing their LGBT status to government officials so soon after arriving in the United States.  This key provision withstood numerous attacks from Committee Republicans yesterday.
  • Prohibiting the use of solitary confinement based on an immigration detainee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Prolonged solitary confinement has been used on LGBT detainees under the guise of protecting them.  The bill would explicitly end the harmful practice of placing immigrants in solitary confinement because of their sexual orientation and gender identity and ensure that solitary confinement is only used in extreme circumstances.
  • Limiting the use of detention and increasing the use of less restrictive alternatives. LGBT detainees are often subjected to increased rates of discrimination, mistreatment, and abuse in immigration detention, both at the hands of fellow detainees and by guards.  Limiting the use of detention to when it is absolutely necessary and promoting the use of less restrictive alternatives for immigrants who are not a flight risk protects LGBT immigrants from the dangers they face in detention.

Although protections for families headed by same-sex couples were not included in the committee’s bill, the fight is not over. UAFA could be introduced again as an amendment to the bill on the Senate floor in the coming weeks. But beyond Congress, there are opportunities in the two other branches of the federal government to provide relief to same-sex binational couples.

The Supreme Court will soon hand down its decision on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If the court finds DOMA unconstitutional, the federal government will then be able to recognize same-sex spouses as they do different-sex spouses for all federal benefits and protections, including for family-based immigration sponsorship.

Even if DOMA remains on the books, however, President Obama has the authority to use the prosecutorial discretion outlined by his administration in June 2011, which stated Immigration and Customs Enforcement would focus its resources on deporting criminals and persons who are a threat to public safety, and not on tearing apart law-abiding family members. The administration later clarified that its definition of family included long-term same-sex binational couples. As Congress continues to debate commonsense immigration reform, the Obama Administration should keep true to this principle and focus on keeping families together, including LGBT families.

Sharita Gruberg is a Policy Analyst for the LGBT Immigration Project at the Center for American Progress.

Security

Senator Introduces Post-Benghazi Embassy Security Funding Bill

(Credit: AP)

A Democratic senator on Thursday introduced a new bill to boost security at U.S. embassies in the aftermath of an attack on a diplomatic outpost in Libya last year.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) serves as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a role he inherited as the “scandal” over the Obama administration’s response to the attack in Benghazi, Libya was reaching one of its many peaks in January. Today on the Senate floor, Menendez castigated his colleagues who believed that the Senate had not done enough to investigate Benghazi, reminding them that there have been 11 hearings in Congress on the matter since September. “We have fully vetted this issue,” Menendez said.

The focus “should not be to score political points at the expense of the families of the four victims,” he went on to say. “It should be on doing all we can to protect our personnel serving overseas and provide the necessary oversight and legislative authority to carry out the administrative review board’s recommendations.” With that in mind, Menendez introduced the Embassy Security and Personnel Protection Act of 2013, a bill he hoped would be “able to count on the support of all of our colleagues to enact this crucial, time-sensitive legislation without delay, without obstruction, without political grandstanding.”

The bill would provide further funding to the Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program, first instituted in 1998 to boost security to “high-risk, high-threat” diplomatic posts and has since been chronically underfunded. Under the new legislation, the program would be able to build far more than the two to three facilities a year for the two dozen posts that fall into the high-risk, high-threat category. It would also provide funding for implementing a shift in the mission of Marine Corps security guards posted at U.S. embassies to protect staffers as well as classified assets. The bill would also require the State Department to provide verification to Congress of it fully putting into place its Accountability Review Board (ARB) on Benghazi’s recommendations for improvement.

Diplomatic security has been given a short-shrift in the aftermath of Benghazi. During her appearance before the Senate in January, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to persuade Congress to shift $1.3 billion in funding bookmarked for warfighting in Iraq towards providing for greater diplomatic security. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) shepherded legislation through the Senate fulfilling Clinton’s request, but the bill died in the House. Since then, most of the conversation surrounding Benghazi has focused almost exclusively on the Obama administration’ss supposed cover-up, no matter how many documents are released debunking the claim.
Read more

LGBT

President Obama: Including LGBT Community In Immigration Reform Is ‘The Right Thing To Do’

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to consider hundreds of proposed amendments to the immigration reform bill, one of which will extend protections to bi-national same-sex couples, because the Defense of Marriage Act current prevents them from sponsoring foreign-born partners. Friday night, President Obama explained that he believes adding that provision is “the right thing to do” because “the LGBT community should be treated like everybody else”:

OBAMA: The LGBT community should be treated like everybody else. That’s the essential core principle behind our founding documents. The idea that we’re all created equal and we’re equal before the law. [...]

I can tell you I think that the provision is the right thing to do. I’ll also tell you that I’m not going to get everything I want in this bill. Republicans are not going to get everything they want in this bill.

Watch it (HT: Blabbeando):

The absence of this specific protection for same-sex couples is causing division over the fate of the bill. Some Republicans, like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have warned that adding this provision will completely derail the bill, but its sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is adamant about including it. LGBT groups, including the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAAD, and The Task Force support adding it to the bill, but conservative groups like the National Organization for Marriage have accused them of attempting to “brazenly jeopardize immigration reform.”

Justice

How Just One Senator Vetoed A Judge And Gave A Big Gift To The NRA

Senate Republicans Explain The Rules Governing Judicial Nominees

Judge Elissa Cadish, a state court judge in Nevada who President Obama nominated to a federal district court, asked the President to withdraw her nomination, according to a letter that became public today. Cadish was the victim of an arcane senate tradition that allowed just one senator, Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), to unilaterally block her nomination. Heller objected to her nomination because she once correctly described the state of gun rights law prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

In 2008, before Heller established for the first time in American history that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, Cadish was asked whether the Constitution does indeed protect such an individual right, and she gave the only correct answer a judge could have given at that point in history — “I do not believe that there is this constitutional right,” adding “of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge.” This statement accurately described the state of the law pre-Heller.

Nevertheless, Cadish’s nomination languished without a hearing due to a Senate tradition that allows a single senator to veto a nominee from their home state. In Senate parlance, Heller refused to return his “blue slip” on Cadish, and Senate Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy (D-VT) honored a tradition establishing that a nomination will not receive a hearing unless both home-state senators sign these slips.

It should be noted that not every Senate Judiciary Chair has honored this tradition in the past. In 2003, for example, when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took over as Judiciary chair and George W. Bush was president, Hatch largely abandoned the blue slip rule. According to the Congressional Research Service, “[a] return of a negative blue slip by one or both home-state Senators d[id] not prevent the committee from moving forward with the nomination — provided that the Administration [] engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state Senators,” during during Hatch’s tenure.

There is no good reason why President Obama’s nominees should not enjoy the same deference that President Bush’s nominees enjoyed under Hatch.

Health

Five Republicans Oppose Bipartisan Measure To Combat Human Trafficking

As the Senate moves to a final vote on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), today 93 Senators endorsed an amendment to combat human trafficking. While opposing human trafficking is a fairly non-controversial subject, five far-right Republicans broke with the majority of their own caucus and opposed the bipartisan amendment.

The amendment, authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT), strengthens VAWA by reauthorizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The measure helps law enforcement investigative human trafficking and supports international efforts to stop the practice. Leahy noted that on the anniversary of President Lincoln’s birth, “we continue to fight human trafficking, which can amount to modern day slavery,” making the amendment a fitting tribute. “The United States remains a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. We know that young women and girls – often just 11, 12, or 13 years old – are being bought and sold. We know that workers are being held and forced into labor against their will. People in this country and millions around the world are counting on us.”

The amendment was opposed by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), James Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

Lee also voted against even allowing the Senate to consider the Violence Against Women Act, based on his bizarre belief that the entire bill is unconstitutional.

Prior to his time in the Senate, Johnson famously opposed the bipartisan Wisconsin Child Victims Act, a bill to extend the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse crimes. His objection was that it would be bad for business if employers who help cover up the crime could be “severely damaged, possibly destroyed, in a legitimate desire for justice.”

Leahy said of the the Trafficking Victims Protection Act:

This measure strengthens criminal anti-trafficking statutes to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to effectively combat all forms of trafficking. It ensures better coordination among federal agencies, between law enforcement and victim service providers, and with foreign countries to work on every facet of this complicated problem. It includes measures to encourage victims to come forward and report this terrible crime, which leads to more prosecutions and help for more victims. We have included accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and we have streamlined programs to focus scarce resources on the approaches that have been the most successful. A Senator asserted yesterday that trafficking programs have been wasteful and duplicative. In fact, the programs supported by this amendment have been carefully tracked and shown to be effective. Nonetheless, the amendment reduces authorization levels by almost a third from the levels in the last reauthorization because we are determined to ensure efficiency and respond to concerns. We have made similar efforts to streamline VAWA.

The offices of the five Senators were not immediately available to respond to questions about their rationales for opposing the amendment.

Politics

Senator Catches NRA Head In Epic Flip Flop

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) caught National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in a significant contradiction during Wednesday’s hearing on preventing gun violence. Since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut the nation’s most influential gun lobby has opposed the growing bipartisan push for universal background checks, arguing that such a policy would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. But as Leahy pointed out, the group has supported the reasonable background checks in the past.

Under current law, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks. Gun safety advocates have sought to close the loophole for years and in the 1999, the NRA backed this effort.

“We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show,” LaPierre said during a hearing held on May 27, 1999, in the wake of the Columbine High School shooting. “No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system.”

Leahy pressed LaPierre on why the organization has since changed its mind:

LEAHY: Do you still, as you did in 1999, still support mandatory background checks at gun shows? Yes or no?

LAPIERRE: We support the national check system on dealers. We were here when one of your colleagues held the hearings in terms of who would be a dealer and who would be required to have a license. If you did it for live the good and profit, yes. If you did it for a hobby, no. [...]

LEAHY: You do not support background checks in all instances at gun shows?

LAPIERRE: We do not, because the fact is, the law right now is a failure the way it is working. You have 76,000 people that have been denied under the present law. Only 44 were prosecuted. You are letting them go. They’re walking the street.

LEAHY: Back in 1999, you said no loopholes anywhere for anyone. But now you do not support a background checks for all buyers of firearms?

LAPIERRE: The system the way it is working now is a failure. This administration is not prosecuting the people they catch. 22 states are not even putting the mental records of those adjudicated incompetent into the system. If they try to buy a gun, even if you catch them, and they try to walk away, you let them. They are criminals, homicidal maniacs, can’t mentally ill — and mentally ill. We all know that, maniacs and the mentally insane do not abide by the law.

Watch it:

While NRA leadership opposes universal background checks, its members back the change. A national survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University found that “89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.”

Update

Here is a copy of the ad the NRA took out in 1999 saying, “We think it’s reasonable to provide for instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops.”

Update

The NRA broke its commitment to support background checks for “every sale” and lobbied for a watered down provision in 1999.

Security

Democratic Senator Slams Republicans For Blocking Embassy Security Funding

Sen. Patrick Leahy

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) issued a statement on Wednesday slamming House Republicans for removing an authorization for increasing embassy security funding from an emergency disaster relief bill.

Released on the same day as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony before Congress on the Benghazi attack, Leahy doesn’t hold back in his scorn for the House. “Since the Republican takeover of the House, House Republicans have proposed deep cuts for U.S. embassy operations and programs across the board, including for security,” Leahy said in his statement. “Now they have topped even that record of recklessness”:

In preventing this transfer of unused funds appropriated earlier for Iraq – funds already appropriated and approved by Congress – [House Republicans] have hobbled the work that everyone agrees is needed to harden our embassy security efforts. [...] Many of our diplomats serve in dangerous places by necessity. We need to protect them as best we can, without turning our embassies into impenetrable fortresses that make it impossible for them to do their jobs.

“For Republicans to blame the Administration for failing to protect our diplomats, without acknowledging their own efforts to slash resources for embassy security, is pure, distilled hypocrisy.”

Secretary Clinton previously announced her intention to request the ability to transfer funds at the release of the Accountability Review Board’s findings in December. The Senate passed a bill approving $60 billion worth of funding to clean up from Superstorm Sandy in late December, to which Leahy attached an amendment authorizing the transfer from unused Iraq and Afghanistan funding to allow for increases in embassy security. Since then, the House has taken the lead in drafting the relief bills, each time leaving out Leahy’s provision.

Clinton repeated her call several times during her testimony before both houses of Congress on Wednesday, noting that the House had yet to act. House Republicans have still been reluctant to provide her request, despite continuing to attack the Obama administration’s commitment to security. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) this morning on CNN made clear that he believes that security failures in Benghazi were “not about the budget.” Likewise, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) — a lead provocateur on Benghazi — once proudly declared that he “absolutely” cut funding to the State Department’s Diplomatic Security.

Justice

Justiceline: December 20, 2012

Welcome to Justiceline, ThinkProgress Justice’s morning round-up of the latest legal news and developments. Remember to follow us on Twitter at @TPJustice

NEWS FLASH

Senate Bill Conditions Egypt Aid On Public Disclosure Of Security Budgets | A draft Senate bill proposed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would condition U.S. financial support for Egypt on the public disclosure of Egypt’s military and police budgets. Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid — Israel is the largest recipient — and 65 percent of that aid goes to the military. Egypt receives an average of $1.6 billion a year in U.S. aid. The bill also stipulates that Egypt uphold the 1979 peace treaty with Israel as well as “guarantee basic freedoms, including freedom of expression, the right of civil society organizations to operate freely, and the right to establish political parties.” The House of Representatives proposed a similar bill but without the disclosure requirement.

Nina Liss-Schultz

Security

Panetta: Borrowing To Finance Iraq War Was A ‘Mistake’

The last U.S. military vehicle out of Iraq

Testifying on Capitol Hill today, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that financing the Iraq war with borrowed cash — and thereby raising the national deficit — was a “mistake.” The war came at a huge cost to the U.S. “We ran that war on a credit card,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who asked Panetta about using borrowed money to finance wars. Panetta responded:

If we repeated the mistake of not paying for the war that we decide to engage in, the result would be that you would simply add more to the deficit and the debt of this country for the future. You just put the burden on our kids for the future…

It’s important that we recognize the costs that are involved, and that frankly all of us bear the responsibility to bear those costs if we’re willing to engage in war.

Watch the video:

According to U.S. News and World Report, the Congressional Budget office put the cost of war at $800 billion (that’s what the Center for American Progress’s Iraq War Ledger said, too). But President Obama has said the war, which he opposed and finally ended, costed $1 trillion. Those costs are likely to rise yet — by 2014, the post-9/11 combat veteran cohort will be bigger than the Vietnam veteran cohort, and a recent report said maintaining veterans benefits will soon cost more than maintaining active duty military forces.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up