White House Sets U.S.-China Summit for California in June

President Obama plans to meet President Xi Jinping of China next month for the first time since Mr. Xi’s installation as the leader of the world’s most populous nation, as the two leaders try to establish a working relationship on critical issues like North Korea, the global economy and allegations of state-sponsored cyber attacks, the White House announced on Monday.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi will meet on June 7 and 8 at Sunnylands, the Walter and Leonore Annenberg estate in Southern California, the White House said. Mr. Obama already had travel scheduled on the West Coast at that time, officials said, so they decided that Sunnylands, a less formal setting, would provide a better environment for the two men to get to know each other. To prepare for the meeting, Thomas E. Donilon, the president’s national security adviser, will travel to Beijing from May 26 to 28.

“The U.S.-China agenda is big and complex, and we have a lot of issues to discuss and work though,” said Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House. “As we have said before, the relationship has elements of cooperation and elements of competition. We have no illusions about this. Our approach to China seeks to expand the areas of cooperation in managing regional and global challenges, and we seek to manage our differences in a way that prevents disruptive and unhealthy competition from undermining our interests and those of our allies in Asia.”

The meeting will come at a significant moment for the United States and China. As a recent flurry of threats from North Korea underscored, Mr. Obama is encouraging China to play a greater role in restraining the erratic conduct of its isolated neighbor. Moreover, China holds about $1.25 trillion in United States debt, more than any other foreign country, but its share of total debt has fallen in recent years to 7 percent from 10 percent, easing American reliance on Beijing.

As for cyber technology issues, the United States has accused China of state-sponsored cyber attacks that it believes have led to the theft of billions of dollars in intellectual property and government documents.

The meeting with Mr. Xi in California will be part of a busy few weeks in foreign relations for Mr. Obama. He plans to attend the Group of Eight summit meeting in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in mid-June, where he will meet with longtime allies as well as President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. On Monday, the White House announced that Mr. Obama will make a weeklong journey to Africa starting in late June.

Sunnylands, a sprawling estate more than 100 miles east of Los Angeles, has played host to seven American presidents, as well as members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, Queen Elizabeth II and other members of the British royal family, and Hollywood figures like Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Jimmy Stewart and Ginger Rogers, according to its Web site.

Obama to Visit Sub-Saharan Africa in June

President Obama will make a weeklong trip to Africa this summer, the longest journey of his presidency so far to the continent of his father’s family, the White House announced on Monday.

Mr. Obama will visit Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania from June 26 to July 3, the White House said. While he made a one-day stop in Ghana after visiting Russia and Italy in 2009, this will be his most extended visit to Africa since taking office.

“The president will meet with a wide array of leaders from government, business and civil society, including youth, to discuss our strategic partnerships on bilateral and global issues,” the White House said in a statement. “The trip will underscore the president’s commitment to broadening and deepening cooperation between the United States and the people of sub-Saharan Africa to advance regional and global peace and prosperity.”

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made high-profile trips to Africa as president, but Mr. Obama’s visit carries additional political and personal significance since his father was from Kenya. While Mr. Obama was born and largely raised in Hawaii, his book “Dreams From My Father” offered a meditation on his roots and described his exploration of the African side of his family. But some activists have expressed disappointment that he did not spend significant time on the continent during his first term and have complained that he has not done more in terms of policy to advance African countries.

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.

Senate Panel Asks I.R.S. Chief to Detail Communications With White House

If the Internal Revenue Service and the Obama administration thought the Senate Finance Committee and its Democratic leaders would offer something of a respite from the battering they have been taking from Congressional Republicans, they learned otherwise on Monday.

Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who is the chairman of the committee, and Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican, forwarded a six-page letter to Steven Miller, the acting I.R.S. commissioner, who announced his resignation last week. It contained 41 pointed questions about the I.R.S.’s efforts to single out for special scrutiny conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. Those questions, which are to be answered by May 31, go well beyond the agency’s actions and address the questions Republicans have been asking for a week: Who in the Obama administration knew what? And when did they know it?

“Provide copies of all documents between I.R.S. employee(s) and anyone else regarding the targeting of applications based on the existence of certain phrases and/or subjecting those targeted applications to full development and heightened scrutiny,” the letter read.

“Was the decision to target any tax-exempt applications for review and subject them to full development or heightened scrutiny influenced or prompted in any way by political pressure directed at the I.R.S. from any members of the Congress or other elected officials?” it asked.

“Provide documents relating to communications between any and all I.R.S. employees and any and all White House employees, including, but not limited to, the president, regarding the targeting,” the letter said.

The document also demanded the identity “by name, grade and position title” of “every I.R.S. supervisor, I.R.S. manager or other I.R.S. employee who became aware that any individual in the White House or Treasury Department became aware of any improper targeting.”

The Finance Committee will convene a hearing on the issue on Tuesday featuring Douglas Shulman, a Bush administration appointee who led the I.R.S. while much of the targeting was taking place and who has not yet been questioned.

“I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out, frankly. It’s broader than the current focus,” Mr. Baucus said on Bloomberg Government’s “Capitol Gains” television program. “And I think it’s important that we have the hearings, and I think that will encourage other information to come out that has not yet come out. I suspect that we will learn more in the next several days, maybe the next couple, three weeks, which adds more context to all of this.”