With Disputed Amendments Ahead, Senate Panel Returns to Immigration Bill

J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press Senators Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont confer on Monday during a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on immigration overhaul legislation.

1:23 p.m. | Updated Monday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee was expected to be long â€" perhaps dragging late into the evening â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" 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 alleged Boston Marathon bombers, 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, worried that immigrants who come to the United States seeking asylum are 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 no limit on asylum claims, she thought a longer bar â€" perhaps a 5-year window â€" was more reasonable.

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

- FEINSTEIN 3, Creating immigrant visas for displaced Tibetans from India and Nepal â€" 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 â€" 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 suspect’s 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” â€" Approved by voice vote

In another amendment intended to address the blowback 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, where authorities believe he may have become radicalized.

“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 â€" an ailing parent, or a piece of property back in the home country that the immigrant still needs to deal with â€" why a refugee or asylum-seeker might need to return to their home country.

But 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 â€" Approved, 13 - 5

In what was likely the biggest vote of the day so far, the committee voted 13 to 5 to approve an amendment by Mr. Hatch, which 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 implement a biometric system â€" such as fingerprint recognition â€" 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, which would have required a biometric exit system in place at all land, air and seaports before any immigrants could begin to receive legal status. Mr. Sessions’s amendment was defeated 6 to 12, 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 didn’t want to “hold up” the immigration legislation while trying to perfect a biometric program.

Ms. Feinstein, who said that she believes “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 not doing what it’s supposed to be doing. (Mr. Flake said he did sympathize with Mr. Sessions, explaining, “We’re all frustrated by the slow pace of this.”)

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

But ultimately, Mr. Hatch’s amendment won approval, with the two Republican members on the committee who are also in the bipartisan group â€" Mr. Flake and Mr. Graham â€" voting in favor of it. They were joined by two of their Republican colleagues â€" 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.

Follow Ashley Parker on Twitter at @AshleyRParker.