This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/politics/senate-panel-considers-amendments-on-immigration-bill.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
In Senate, Efforts to Reshape, or Derail, Immigration Bill Senate Bipartisanship on Display, Briefly, as Committee Focuses on Border Security
(about 9 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee began considering on Thursday more than 300 amendments intended to reshape — and, in some cases, even derail — legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws. WASHINGTON — As the Senate Judiciary Committee began plowing through more than 300 amendments intended to reshape — and, in some cases, derail — legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, signs of bipartisanship emerged Thursday, with the committee accepting at least eight Republican proposals to strengthen border security.
Four of the bill’s authors — Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, along with Republican Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — sit on the committee and have previously indicated they would band together to vote against any amendments they feel would undermine the core of the bill, which offers a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country, as well as implements stricter border security measures. Four of the bill’s authors — Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, along with Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both Republicans — sit on the committee and had previously indicated that they would band together to vote against any amendments they saw as undermining the core of the bill. The legislation offers a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country, and implements stricter border security measures.
But it remains unclear just what amendments group members would view as “poison pills,” intended to thwart the bill, and what amendments they would consider as good-faith improvements to their legislation. At the same time, members of the bipartisan group — as well as Democrats on the committee — were eager to demonstrate that they were operating with an open mind and a willingness to accept Republican suggestions to improve security at the border. By Thursday afternoon, they were pointing to the eight approved Republican measures as a sign they had done just that, hoping to increase Republican backing for the bill.
Mr. Schumer, in his opening statements, said, “We know there are many who want to kill this bill,” but urged his colleagues to “be constructive.” One amendment by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the committee, was approved with a voice vote and would require continuous surveillance of 100 percent of the United States border and 90 percent effectiveness of enforcement of the entire border. In the original bill, the 90 percent effectiveness rate applies only to high-risk sectors of the border.
If border officials have not reached the surveillance and enforcement goals after five years, the bill creates a border commission to advise the Department of Homeland Security on how to reach its goals. Mr. Grassley’s amendment makes it more likely that the commission would need to be established.
“We are going to make sure that we have border security first,” Mr. Grassley said. “The legislation doesn’t do it.”
But the bipartisan coalition also held firm and defeated an amendment by Mr. Grassley that would have required the Homeland Security secretary to certify that the southern border was secure for six months before any undocumented immigrants could receive legal status.
Democrats on the committee felt that Mr. Grassley’s measure had the potential to endlessly delay citizenship to the undocumented immigrants already in the country, and Mr. Flake and Mr. Graham — the Republican members of the bipartisan group who also sit on the committee — joined with the Democrats in voting it down, 12 to 6.
“This is our chance, in this hearing room, to write an immigration bill for the 21st century, for America and its future,” Mr. Durbin said.“This is our chance, in this hearing room, to write an immigration bill for the 21st century, for America and its future,” Mr. Durbin said.
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, in his opening remarks acknowledged that the Democratic majority had the power to vote down Republican amendments, but implored his colleagues to consider all measures with an open mind. Despite the generally congenial tone and the roughly two-dozen amendments, from both Democrats and Republicans, that ultimately passed, tempers were running high by the end of the day. Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, argued that, “The committee has voted down every serious border security amendment that has been presented here today.”
“I am hopeful that the majority on this committee will work, as I trust it will, in good faith, to improve this bill and consider amendments that would make real changes,” Mr. Cruz said. When Mr. Schumer said that Mr. Cruz simply did not want to accept any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country — something Mr. Cruz has said, and has even filed an amendment to that end — Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, accused Mr. Schumer of “impugning people’s motives.”
Before noon on Thursday, the committee had adopted six Republican-sponsored measures, including one that requires the secretary of homeland security to report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on how the border security strategy is being implemented. “There’s big holes in the underlying bill and we’re trying to plug them,” Mr. Cornyn said. “We’re actually trying to be helpful.”
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the committee chairman, had planned for a marathon markup, as the process of adding amendments to legislation is known. In a move intended to head off criticism from opponents that the process is too rushed and not fully transparent, Mr. Leahy decided to make all the amendments available to the public by posting them on the committee’s Web site Tuesday night. Thursday’s sessions came as the American Conservative Union released a letter signed by more than two-dozen prominent conservatives throwing their support behind an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.
As chairman, Mr. Leahy has wide discretion to manage the politically delicate process as senators formally introduce their amendments to be voted on by the committee. While Mr. Leahy has not yet defined all the procedures, he said senators should expect a series of intense all-day sessions, and that he hoped to finish work before the Congressional recess at the end of the month. “Conservatives are ready to support immigration reform, so long as it is pro-economic growth, strengthens families, fosters assimilation and prevents another wave of illegal immigration from happening again,” the letter read.
On Thursday, the committee planned to work its way through the entirety of Title I of the bill, which focuses on border security. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the committee, has made plans for a marathon markup, as the process of considering amendments to legislation is known, that he said would likely last all month. In a move intended to head off criticism from opponents that the process is too rushed and not fully transparent, Mr. Leahy decided to make all the amendments available to the public by posting them on the committee’s Web site on Tuesday night.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he worried that the current bill is “legalization first and enforcement later.” Politically delicate amendments remain on both the Democratic and Republican sides, including two by Mr. Leahy that would allow United States citizens to seek a permanent resident visa, known as a green card, for a same-sex foreign partner — something they cannot do now.
“We need to work together to secure the border first,” said Mr. Grassley, the ranking Republican on the committee. “People don’t trust the enforcement of the law.” Asked about Mr. Leahy’s amendments, which Republicans in the bipartisan group have said would doom the legislation, Mr. Schumer said he was nervous.
Mr. Grassley has offered 77 amendments, including one that was approved Thursday that would require continuous surveillance of 100 percent of the United States border and 90 percent effectiveness of enforcement of the entire border. Currently the 90 percent rate applies only to high-risk sectors of the border. “This one is something, you know, I worry about all the time, even — I’m a good sleeper, but I wake up in the morning thinking of these things, sometimes early in the morning,” he said. “And so how we resolve this remains to be seen.”