Senate Panel, Getting Punchy on Immigration, Quits for the Night

8:42 p.m. | Updated After a break for dinner and votes, the Senate Judiciary Committee moved onto Title II of the immigration overhaul bill, which deals with the path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country.

As the night wore on, the group grew increasingly punchy. Mr. Schumer, talking about his bipartisan group, made a wayward “Gangnam Style” allusion when he said, “Gang—gang—like that guy from Korea.” His fellow senators groaned, and shortly after, Mr. Leahy, the committee chairman, adjourned for the evening.

The committee will pick up where it left off on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. and Mr. Leahy was already warning about an even longer day.

May 20, 2013
Ashley Parker
The New York Times

8:01 p.m. | Updated This week, Mr. Hatch has become the senator to watch because with the exception of Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both of whom are in the bipartisan group that drafted the bill, Mr. Hatch is considered the Republican most likely to support the legislation coming out of committee.

His support would give the bill an added boost of conservative gravitas, and help send it to the Senate floor will a jolt of bipartisan momentum.

However, Mr. Hatch has made it clear that his vote comes with a price — specifically, support for some of his amendments that are favored by the high-tech industry, as well as provisions that fall in the finance jurisdiction. One amendment, for instance, would require that immigrants pay all of their back taxes and stay current with any new taxes as they undergo the legalization process.

On Monday, during a break for dinner, Mr. Hatch gave reporters an update on the state of his negotiations with the bipartisan group.

“We’re making headway, we’re not there yet,” he said. “I just hope we can get there by tomorrow, and hopefully that will be something that will solidify this bill out of committee.”

He said that if he is able to pass his high-tech amendments in the committee, he would agree to holding back his four finance amendments and offering them later on the Senate floor. But, he cautioned, the finance amendments would still have to pass the full Senate before he will throw his support behind the bill.

“If I don’t get those four, or something very close to them,” he said, “I will vote against this bill on the floor. And they know that, they know that I’ve been straight up on it.”

Mr. Durbin so far has emerged, along with Mr. Grassley, as one of the major opponents to Mr. Hatch’s high-tech amendments, worrying that they would harm American workers. But Mr. Hatch said his concern was just the opposite — that the current state of the bill would harm American companies.

“It’s got to be something that works, not something that pushes people offshore, which is what the current language does,” he said. “The whole high tech world is up in arms about it.”

Mr. Hatch added: “We lead the world in high tech, why do we want to give that up to the rest of the world when we can stay strong here and keep our dollars?”

Still, Mr. Hatch was optimistic, and privately, Senate aides said they expected a deal might be reached as early as Monday night.

“I’m certainly working with them to see if we can come up with language I can support,” Mr. Hatch, 79, said, before adding with a laugh, “I’m just a poor young humble senator from Utah.”

5:07 p.m. | Updated Monday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee was expected to be long — perhaps dragging late into the evening — but largely devoid of partisan fireworks, as the panel returns to debating and amending a broad overhaul to the nation’s immigration laws.

Several of the more controversial and difficult provisions still being negotiated are likely to be debated in the committee this week, or could be introduced later on the Senate floor.

For instance, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, who is viewed as a crucial swing vote on the committee, has said publicly and privately that his support would require the passage of several of his amendments, which would increase the number of H-1B visas available to high-skilled workers in science, technology, engineering and math. Senator Richard J. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a member of the bipartisan group that drafted the immigration bill, opposes such measures on the grounds that they would hurt American workers. Mr. Hatch’s office is still working with the bipartisan group to reach a compromise.

Similarly, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the committee’s chairman, is considering offering his Uniting American Families Act as an amendment to the bill this week. Mr. Leahy’s provision would make it possible for gay and lesbian immigrants to sponsor their foreign partners for green cards. Though many Democrats on the committee and in the bipartisan group agree with the amendment, Republicans have said that adding protections for same-sex couples could kill the entire overhaul.

Here is a look at some of the interesting and important amendments from Monday’s session, including provisions for refugees and asylum seekers, immigration courts, and trafficking:

• LEAHY 3, Allowing immigrants who are victims of domestic violence or human trafficking to work while their applications for legal status is pending — Approved by voice vote

Mr. Leahy offered an amendment that would allow immigrants who are victims of domestic violence or human trafficking to work while their applications for legal status is pending.

“I think that we cannot close our eyes to them,” Mr. Leahy said, referring to immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. “As I’ve said over and over again, a victim is a victim is a victim.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the committee, at one point asked how many immigrants would use this provision.

“How many abused people are out there?” Mr. Leahy asked. “I don’t know the answer to that.”

The amendment was ultimately approved through a voice vote.

• GRASSLEY 27, Implementing a one-year filing deadline for asylum cases — Tabled

Mr. Grassley introduced an amendment to “maintain the integrity of the asylum process,” which would have put in place a one-year filing deadline for asylum cases — meaning that immigrants seeking asylum would have one year after arriving in the country to file their petition.

The current bill, Mr. Grassley said, “would make it easier for those who wish to do us harm to exploit the system.”

He mentioned the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, who were allowed to stay in the United States after their father was granted asylum, before adding, “My concern is that we’re not doing enough to prevent fraud.”

Mr. Durbin, however, said he worried that immigrants who came to the United States seeking asylum were often “traumatized by the experiences they’ve had,” and might not even realize there’s a one-year deadline.

“It creates an artificial barrier to people who otherwise would be eligible,” he said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, came down somewhere in the middle, saying that while she had a “problem” with leaving no limit on asylum claims, she thought a longer bar — perhaps a five-year window — was more reasonable.

Mr. Durbin said he was open to compromise on that front, and the committee decided to hold the amendment until it could reach a bipartisan compromise.

• FEINSTEIN 3, Creating immigrant visas for displaced Tibetans from India and Nepal — Approved by voice vote

Ms. Feinstein then introduced an amendment that would create 5,000 immigrant visas for displaced Tibetans from India and Nepal over a three-year period.

“On this issue, I don’t mind irritating China,” Mr. Grassley said, to laughter.

“That was not my intent,” Ms. Feinstein clarified.

“Added benefit,” quipped Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group, shortly before the provision was adopted through a voice vote.

• GRAHAM 2, Requiring the Department of Homeland Security to turn over information on visa overstays to federal law enforcement agencies — Approved by voice vote

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of the bill’s authors, introduced a tweak to one of his original amendments, which would require the Department of Homeland Security to turn over information on visa overstays to federal law enforcement agencies.

The provision, intended to assuage concerns in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings after an investigation determined that some of the suspects’ friends had overstayed their student visas, was approved in a voice vote.

• GRAHAM 1, Revoking legal status from asylum seekers who returned to their home country without “good cause” — Approved by voice vote

In another amendment intended to address the fallout from the Boston bombings, Mr. Graham introduced a provision that could revoke legal status from asylum seekers who returned to their home country without “good cause.” One of the Boston suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, returned to Dagestan for a six-month trip last year.

“What it says is that if you return to the country where you sought asylum from and were persecuted without good cause, you can lose your status,” Mr. Graham said.

Citing, for instance, a funeral of a loved one back in the home country, Mr. Graham added, “It can be waived if there’s good cause.”

Immigration advocates oppose Mr. Graham’s amendment, because they believe there are many legitimate reasons — an ailing parent, or a piece of property in the home country that an immigrant still needs to deal with — that refugees or asylum seekers might need to return to their home country.

The amendment was approved on a voice vote, though a few notes of dissent could be heard.

• HATCH 6, Requiring the establishment of a biometric exit system at the 30 largest airports in the country — Approved, 13-5

In what was probably the biggest vote of the day so far, the committee voted 13 to 5 to approve an amendment by Mr. Hatch that would ultimately require the establishment of a biometric exit system at the 30 largest airports in the country, in order to track immigrants when they leave on international flights.

The amendment, introduced in Mr. Hatch’s absence by Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona and a member of the bipartisan group, would require the Department of Homeland Security to put in place a biometric system — like fingerprint recognition — in the 10 biggest airports in the country within two years, and have the program up and running in the “Core 30” airports within six years.

Almost all of the senators on the committee agree that a biometric identification system is the most tamper-proof, as well as the golden ideal, but Democrats especially have questioned how logistically possible such a program is. Last week, the group debated an amendment by Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, that would have required a biometric exit system to be in place at all land, air and sea ports before any immigrants could begin to receive legal status. Mr. Sessions’s amendment was defeated 12 to 6, but Monday’s discussion of Mr. Hatch’s amendment on a similar topic seemed to pick up on the debate over a biometric exit system.

“It mandates a biometric program at our largest airports,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s a good start.”

Mr. Schumer added, “As we’ve all said, we’d love to move to a biometric system, but we have to make sure it works,” and he said he did not want to “hold up” the immigration legislation while trying to perfect a biometric program.

Ms. Feinstein, who said she believed that “the biometric field is the field of the future,” called the provision “a very positive compromise.”

Mr. Sessions, however, was not satisfied, arguing that the amendment did not go as far as current law and, in a mini-outburst, exclaimed that he was “daggone tired” and frustrated with the government’s not doing what it was supposed to be doing. (Mr. Flake said he did sympathize with Mr. Sessions, saying, “We’re all frustrated by the slow pace of this.”)

“A lot of people are tired of a lot of things,” Mr. Leahy said, in a tone of exasperation.

But ultimately, Mr. Hatch’s amendment won approval, with the two Republican members on the committee who are also in the bipartisan group — Mr. Flake and Mr. Graham — voting in favor of it. They were joined by two of their Republican colleagues: Mr. Hatch and Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Mr. Leahy voted against the provision, because he was concerned that it would not be logistically feasible.

• GRASSLEY 52, Prohibiting any asylum and refugee provisions until one year after a review of the Boston Marathon bombings — Failed in a voice vote

After a break for lunch, Mr. Grassley introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any asylum and refugee provisions until one year after the Director of National Intelligence submits to Congress a review of the Boston Marathon bombings.

Democrats on the committee and immigration advocates expressed concern that Mr. Grassley’s provision would unfairly delay needed improvements to the asylum system, and said that asylum-seekers shouldn’t be forced to suffer simply because the Boston bombing suspects came to the country on their father’s asylum petition.

The provision failed in a voice vote, an outcome with which Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida who is a co-author of the bill but does not sit on the committee, was not pleased.

“There are serious concerns about how shortcomings in our immigration system could have allowed the Boston Marathon terrorist attack to occur,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for Mr. Rubio, in an e-mail statement. “Congress should be provided with a thorough investigation of the bombing before we make any changes to our asylum provisions or our student visa system because the lessons we will learn from an investigation will allow us to identify and correct the flaws in the current system that exposed us to this attack. Senator Rubio will fight to ensure that we have a complete understanding of what allowed the Boston bombings to occur and will make sure that we make the needed changes to close any holes in our immigration system to prevent future acts of terrorism in the United States.”

• GRASSLEY 43, Making immigrants ineligible for legal status if they are determined to be a member of a street gang — Failed 8-10

Mr. Grassley introduced an amendment intended to crack down on immigrants who belong to criminal gangs, which, while ultimately voted down in an 8 to 10 party line vote, provided a fun back and forth on “gangs.” (Remember, the bipartisan group that drafted the current immigration overhaul is often referred to as the “Gang of Eight.”

“My amendment is about gangs, and I imagine there’s a lot of good use of the word ‘gang,’ like ‘Gang of Eight,’” Mr. Grassley said, by way of introduction.

In fact, Mr. Grassley’s amendment would have made immigrants ineligible for legal status if the Secretary of Homeland Security is able to prove that the immigrant was a member of a street gang, as well as a “danger to the community.”

“It is straightforward, and would help remove dangerous criminal gang members,” Mr. Grassley said.

And with that, it was back to “gang” repartee, with Mr. Leahy saying he would, “yield to our most distinguished gang member.”

One such member of the Gang of Eight, Mr. Durbin, joked, “We were thinking about tattoos.”

But despite the joviality, and despite the fact that nearly every committee member seemed to agree with Mr. Durbin’s statement that “gang activity is deadly and dangerous,” the amendment failed.

• FRANKEN 7, Seeking to help protect children who are separated from their parents during immigration raids and deportations — Approved, 18-0

Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, introduced an amendment — the “Humane Enforcement and Legal Protections for Separated Children Act” — that would help protect children who are separated from their parents during immigration raids and deportations.

In introducing his provision, Mr. Franken discussed several moving stories, including one of second-grader who came home from school to find his parents were gone, and cared for his younger sibling on his own for a week. He also mentioned an infant, still breast-feeding, who was separated from its mother for several days after an immigration raid.

Under Mr. Franken’s amendment, for instance, immigration enforcement officials would be required within two hours of a raid to inquire if the immigrant in custody is the primary care-giver of a child and, if so, give the immigrant at least two phone calls to arrange for child care in their absence.

The legislation had several co-sponsors — Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware; Ms. Feinstein; Mr. Grassley; and Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii — and passed unanimously, 18 to 0.