Photograph by Craig F. Walker/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Lead by Mayor Michael Hancock, Anna and Fran Simon are the first couple to take part in a civil union ceremony at the Webb Building in Denver , on May 1, 2013.

The two Democratic members of a bipartisan Senate immigration group who sit on the Judiciary Committee are refusing to say whether they’d vote to add protections for same-sex couples to the measure.

“I’m not going to get into speculatives,”  Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said today when asked whether he’d vote for an amendment proposed by the panel’s chairman, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy.

Leahy wants to add a provision requiring that foreign nationals married to a same-sex U.S. citizen be treated equally to those married to a citizen of the opposite sex. Republicans in the eight-member Senate group, opposing the measure, say it would cause them to pull their support for the bill.

“Our four Republican colleagues feel very strongly, those in the Gang of Eight, that if this is in the bill, they would not be able to support it,” Schumer said. “Our four Democratic colleagues, including myself, believe that this is not just another issue, but an issue of discrimination. So how we resolve this remains to be seen.”

Schumer said he “would like very much to see” Leahy’s provision added to the bill, “but we have to have a bill that has support.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the other Democratic member of the Senate group who sits on the Judiciary panel, similarly would not say earlier this week if he would back the Leahy amendment if it comes to a vote in the committee, which Democrats control by a two-seat margin.

Schumer today said supporters of Leahy’s amendment who don’t want to sink the overall immigration bill face a “conundrum.”

“This one is something I worry about all the time,” he said.   “I’m a good sleeper, but I wake up in the morning thinking of these things.”

Original post is Schumer: Same-Sex Marriage ‘Conundrum’ for Immigration Bill by Political Capital.

Photograph by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Sen. Marco Rubio with reporters on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Behind closed doors.

That’s where much of what gets done — when things actually get done — gets done in Washington.

So it appears that the funny bone of the Senate judiciary chairman was tickled by Sen. Marco Rubio’s letter about the immigration bill.

Florida’s Republican Rubio warned Democratic Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont late last week in an open letter that “a rush to legislate, without fully considering all views and input from all senators, could be fatal to the effort of earning the public’s confidence.”

Chairman to secretary: Take a letter to Rubio.

“Yours is the second open letter in March that I have received from a Republican Senator, each suggesting, in one way or another, that we slow the process for consideration of comprehensive immigration reform,” Leahy wrote to Rubio today in another open letter.

Rubio’s bipartisan “gang” of eight senators has been negotiating the terms of a bill they hope to unveil next week. The latest element of it, an agreement between labor and business leaders over visas for low-skilled workers, was sealed in a private conference call Friday night with another member of the gang, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. That promoted a statement from Rubio Sunday morning as the talk shows were getting underway:

Any talk of a final agreement is “premature,” he said, adding: “In order to succeed, this process cannot be rushed or done in secret.”

“I hope that the American people will soon be able to review the legislation you and your seven fellow gang members have reportedly been working on for months,” Leahy wrote to Rubio today. “I am hopeful you recognize, as I do, that if we do not act quickly and decisively we will lose the opportunity we now have to fix our immigration system. Those who have been committed to this effort for decades are counting on us and expect the Senate to act thoughtfully and without further delay. I have little doubt we are capable of doing both and that our committee process will be, as is my practice, a full and open public debate of the legislation.”

(Note the reference to decades, in the note to the senator of two years.)

When everyone gets back to town next week — when the gang’s proposal is to be unveiled — Leahy is inviting everyone in for a talk.

We’re sure that will be open.

(With thanks to Bloomberg’s Phil Mattingly for pointing out the chairman’s letter:)

Sen. Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy responds to Rubio letter on immigration: 1.usa.gov/YQKuGF

— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) April 2, 2013

Original post is Leahy to Rubio: Ready for ‘You and Your Fellow Gang Members’ by Political Capital.

Photograph by Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 24, 2013, to introduce legislation on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Ted Cruz, the first-year Republican senator from Texas who has taken on some senior lawmakers in rhetorical fisticuffs during his debut on Capitol Hill, ran into one contender today who showed little patience for his brashness.

Cruz put a question to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senior senator from California and former mayor of San Francisco who witnessed bloodshed in her own tenure at City Hall and is pushing a ban on assault weapons and mega-sized ammunition clips in the aftermath of the shootings of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, with a Bushmaster.

“The right of the people” to keep and bear arms, Cruz said, is a term of art in the Second Amendment that is sounded in the First Amendment as well.

“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is, would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment,” Cruz said.

“Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

“I’m not a sixth grader,” Feinstein replied. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.”

“Look, there are other weapons” that people can purchase, she said. “I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the (Supreme Court’s) Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here.”

“And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution,” she said. “I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

The bill, she said, specifies more than 100 banned weapons — yet it exempts more than 2,000 weapons.

“Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States?” she asked. “Do they need a bazooka?.. I come from a different place than you do.”

“I would note she chose not to answer my question,” Cruz said, pressing his luck.

“The answer is obvious — no.” Feinstein said.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee joined in, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, pointing out to Cruz that, in his home state of Texas, the state Board of Education “tells people which books they can and cannot read.”

The ban on assault weapons and clips with more than 10 rounds of ammo passed the committee by a vote of 10-8 along party lines, only Democrats backing it.

President Barack Obama congratulated the committee:  “ These weapons of war, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose: to inflict maximum damage as quickly as possible.  They are designed for the battlefield, and they have no place on our streets, in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers. ”

The ban is likely to die in the full Senate.

Original post is Cruzing for a Lecture: Feinstein on Guns by Political Capital.

Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham during a hearing about gun control on Capitol Hill on Jan. 30, 2013.

Some Republican senators say that today’s  Judiciary Committee  hearing on gun control would have been better with some show-and-tell.

South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Ted Cruz  of Texas fired off a letter to Judiciary Chairman Patrick  Leahy of Vermont complaining about being unable to bring various firearms to the hearing to help their colleagues learn before they legislate, as reported by Bloomberg Government’s Congress Tracker.

In the letter, the senators say they were foiled by what they called onerous gun restrictions. Among them: the District of Columbia’s ban on assault rifles.

“Our goal is simple — to educate fellow senators and members of the public how and why firearms are used by millions of law-abiding Americans in self-defense, hunting and sporting purposes,” they wrote. “We also want to shatter the mistaken belief that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a danger to society.”

They complained the rules are “so impractical as to be unworkable” and urged Leahy to work with law-enforcement officials so that “at future hearings senators can request, and law enforcement will timely provide, various firearms for display and discussion purposes.”

The newly elected senator from Texas had some other thoughts today as well:

We need a serious debate about the Second Amendment. Here are my thoughts from hearing earlier today: youtube.com/watch?v=fiMYIQ…

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 30, 2013

For the record, it’s not impossible to carry assault weapons to an event into the Capitol complex.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein brought almost a dozen samples to her news conference last week unveiling her proposed ban on the weapons, something she was only able to do with lots of planning. They had to be brought into the Capitol by D.C. police, inspected by the Senate’s Sergeant at Arms as well as the U.S. Capitol Police and also have trigger locks, according to Brian Weiss, a spokesman for the senator.
.

Original post is Gun-Control Hearing: No Show and Tell by Political Capital.

Photograph by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Retired NASA astronaut and Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, right, and his wife, shooting victim and former Rep. Gabby Giffords arrive for a Senate Judiciary Committee followed by Chairman Patrick Leahy and ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley before hearing about gun control on Capitol Hill on Jan. 30, 2013.

“The time is now.”

The words of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was grievously wounded in a gunman’s attack in Tucson in2011, appearing today at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“You must act,” Giffords told the Senate committee, holding its first hearing on the issue of curbing gun violence since the latest massacre that shook the nation, the shootings of 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, last month.

“Be bold, be courageous,” Giffords told the committee. “Americans are counting on you.”

Her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, shared a picture of the couple before the committee and posted these notes on n Twitter:

@gabbygiffords delivered remarks in congress today for the first time in over two years. We’ve come a long, long way. #Giffords

— Mark Kelly (@ShuttleCDRKelly) January 30, 2013

My courageous wife @gabbygiffordsabout to give opening statement at gun hearing. twitter.com/ShuttleCDRKell…

— Mark Kelly (@ShuttleCDRKelly) January 30, 2013

“Americans are looking to us for solutions and action,” said Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

There should be no question, Leahy said, about expanding the instant background checks required for gun-buyers.

He also said this, at a hearing that will include testimony the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre.

“The Second Amendment is secure and will remain secure.”

Original post is Giffords on Gun Control: ‘Time is Now’ by Political Capital.