Key House chairman slams Senate immigration bill


FILE - In this May 20, 2013 file photo, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., left, confers with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., center, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as the Senate Judiciary Committee assembled to work on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Leading senators working on immigration legislation reached a compromise Tuesday on the details of an expanded high-tech visa program, officials said as the Senate Judiciary Committee neared completion of its work on the measure. At the same time, several officials said the White House has made it known to Leahy that it would prefer postponing a showdown over the rights of same sex spouses until a vote in the full Senate. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) | Zoom

WASHINGTON (AP) - A key House committee chairman on Wednesday sharply criticized a wide-ranging immigration bill just passed by a Senate committee, underscoring the difficulties ahead as the politically volatile measure moves forward in a divided Congress.

Separately, a bipartisan House group that has been working behind the scenes to craft its own immigration measure encountered fresh difficulties.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., argued that the bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote Tuesday "falls far short" of what is needed to end the problem of illegal immigration, and is unlikely to secure the border.

"While I commend the Senate for their continuing efforts to tackle the extremely difficult task of reforming our broken system, I must observe that S. 744 repeats many of the mistakes of the past," Goodlatte said at a hearing of his committee on the legislation. "We have serious concerns."

Goodlatte's critique was echoed by other Republicans on his panel. "I cannot find any deadline by which the border needs to be secure" under the legislation, complained Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

Their comments came the day after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 5 to advance the measure to the full Senate, with three Republicans joining the Democratic majority. The bill would aim to enact new border controls and enforcement mechanisms in the workplace, allow tens of thousands of workers into the country legally for high- and low-skilled jobs, and create a 13-year path to citizenship for the 11 million people already here illegally.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledged Wednesday to bring the measure to the Senate floor in June after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would support a vote to begin debate on the measure, although he said he remained undecided about supporting it.

"I'm undecided about the bill, but I'm not undecided about the problem," McConnell said on Fox News Channel. "The border is unsecure and we need to fix it. So I've not decided yet whether this is the bill to do that, but we've got a serious problem along the border."

Meanwhile there were new setbacks for a bipartisan House group that has been working to finalize its own measure along the lines of the Senate bill.

The group of eight lawmakers, four Democrats and four Republicans, has been promising for months to release the legislation but has encountered numerous difficulties as it tries to get a deal that could get through the Republican-controlled House while also satisfying Democratic concerns. Late last week, after reports that talks had stalled, lawmakers insisted they had an "agreement in principle." But on Wednesday lawmakers and aides said the group had new problems arising from a dispute over how to handle health care for immigrants here illegally.

Republicans in the group are trying to establish a system to ensure that no taxpayer money goes to pay for health care for people here illegally. Democrats in the group thought they had come up with a mechanism that could satisfy that concern at least well enough to act as a placeholder so the group could release the legislation, two House aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. One aide described the solution as a fund to be paid for by fees in the bill to reimburse states and local governments any costs of health care for those in the country illegally.

But, according to the aides, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democratic leaders objected over concerns that the legislation moved too far to the right and into areas outside of the purview of the immigration group. That caused Democratic members of the group to back off the deal.

"They had agreed to that until Democrat leadership objected," Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a member of the group, told reporters.

"What may be the story at the end of this session is that Obamacare killed immigration reform," Labrador said.

A House Democratic leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations, said House Democratic leaders were not trying to interfere with the House immigration group, or slow it down, but simply trying to clarify the language.

Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the immigration group who also is a member of House leadership as Democratic Caucus chairman, said group members were still talking in pursuit of a deal.

"I think the eight of us are trying very hard to make a deal," Becerra said. "I think everyone, both the Republican and Democratic leadership, are working hard to try to get a deal that could get past the House."

___

Associated Press writer Luis Alonso Lugo contributed to this report.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Top Stories

  • Heartstopping
    Daredevils post breathtaking pictures atop Seattle landmarks

  • Snowy Passes
    Escape cold Seattle; go skiing at Crystal Mountain

  • Dirty Wars
    Director Jeremy Scahill says Obama hasn't been fighting a clean war
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (60)


  • Add A Comment

  • HLC wrote...
    What happened to JOBs.
    Wasn't that Obozo the Fools number 1 priority? Never mind if his mouth is moving he's lieing or having another go with Carl.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    HLC
    The same can be said about The GOP led house. They said their number one priority in 2010 was JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. What happened instead was wasted time passing bills on Sharia Law, making E Pluribus Unum our national motto, making Christianity our official religion and English the official language, and many other laws that had absolutely nothing to do jobs.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @wsualum
    Don't forget the time they wasted passing 'tea party budgets' that they already knew were nothing more than symbolic acts of futility because they contained so little comprimise, so little for even the Republicans in the Senate to get onboard with that they had ZERO chances of passing. Oh - and don't forget the big dust up over light bulb standards - remember the big angry house republican waste of time (started by Bachman) where they angrily protested the 'government forcibly telling us what lightbulbs we could use'? When it turned out it was the House itself that had passed the very freaking law they were protesting? I think they spent 2 or 3 days whining about how they themselves had set those laws in place... and then ended up doing NOTHING whatsoever.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    Jobs? i thought it was about stripping million from health insurance
    that's why the House has wasted 50 million tax payer dollars holding 37 meaningless votes.

    Jobs?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @HLC
    Haven't you learned yet that when you spend half of a posting spewing hate that you only look the idiot yourself and don't achieve anything against the object of your hate? And don't forget that the Republicans have spent ALL of thier time telling you how to hate Obama and blocking his every move instead of providing the jobs they claimed they were elected to create / the economy they claimed they were elected to fix. So, less hate, more facts please.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @HLC
    What about the Repubs #1 priority (other than thier stated #1 of denying Obama a second term)???? JOBS JOBS JOBS - yet all they've done is complain about how wrong Obama is - as the economy has very slowly improved in many, many ways.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    Jobs council
    hasn't met in over a year. Maybe Oprah knows what the he)) is going on.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Republicans are throwing everything else off the cliff -
    why not immigration?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    @CH
    look at you....so confused again....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    There are plenty of jobs that American's will NOT do....like
    roofer, carpenter, or anything that big business does not want to pay a living wage. However, more immigrants will reduce middle class wages even further. The elites know exactly what their doing, unfortunately, most American's never took economics in school and do not realize the impact of 20 million people in the workforce willing to work for slave wages. READ the history of the labor movement in the early 20th century....it's success was after limiting immigration.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    a living wage.
    What is this? GIve me a definition...a number. You can't. It's just another leftie, commie lie meant to instill guilt on the productive and validate taking more from them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    Definition of a living wage....
    A working person should make more than a person able-bodied person on welfare. "Leftie, commie lie"....try a tea party conservative that is sick of the elites and corporations ripping off the American people through illegal immigration. Oh, I am a LEGAL immigrant. Took 12 years to get in....should I have swam the river prior to 87??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    11 million are here illegally!!!!
    who let that happen? DEPORT THEM!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Sick
    Brilliant! How will this be done? What will the cost be? Do we have the facilities to hold all of them? The resources? Ready to pay more for goods and services, let alone watch the economy shut down. Read the studies, they provide more for this country than they take.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Easy
    Quick giving them freebies, get rid of the anchor baby rule and go after businesses that hire them.

    they will leave in droves on the no more freebies alone.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    One more thing Make English the national language
    That will save Billions right there. No more printing forms in 100 different languages, no more needing to teach classes in 100 different languages thus no need for interpreters. If you need one bring your own.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    wsualumn
    they provide more births....seriously all the wic, housing, food stamps, free programs, dream act, cell phones, health care....a one way ticket back to their country would be cheaper...what are you talking about? I am not suggesting holding them anywhere.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    I have to agre with SickofSeattle.....
    your argument to do nothing is "it's too hard", and "it will cost too much". The fact is, we will save billions of dollars if we aren't supporting illegal aliens (by giving them tuition, medical benefits, welfare, etc..).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    WSUALUM?
    You must be referenceing a liberal funded study. Only a blind retard can look at our situation and thinks that illegals give more than they take? ARE YOU KIDDIN' ME?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @sickofseattleite
    "11 million are here illegally!!!! who let that happen?" --- How about those wonderful 'job creators' that illegally hired them? you know - the folks who's jobs brought them across the border over the last 40 years and the republicans and democrats that didn't do anything about it over those same years? That's WHY they're here. Or would you rather take the simpleton's way out and blame Obama?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    Obozo will like the immigration law.
    After the fool gets rid of every part the republicans want. It may require his relatives to come out of the shadows.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Give us your poor...your huddled masses...
    yearning to take advantage of hard working Americans and vote "D".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Quick giving them freebies, get rid of the anchor baby rule and go after businesses that hire them.
    Bingo. Calif just began shutting down illegal baby birthing motels. The anchor baby loophole needs to be closed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @HPD 5-0
    I want to thank you for your attitude. That is exactly the attitude that leads toward extinction for conservatives. Keep it up!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    Conservatives are....
    the remaining few who love America, and want it to prosper. Back in the day, those who work hard and achieve, reap the reward of the good life. Now, they are punished and forced to pay for the losers......
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    love America?
    by wasting it's money and blocking all legislation? They love their money and power, they do not love America. That's why they don't bank here.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    just began shutting down illegal baby birthing motels
    then where would get your sex? In the back seat of the black and white.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    Repbulicans are already losing because they wont stand up to Obama
    and the overspending dumbocrats ruining our country! At this point what have they got to loose? While the dumbocrats let Americans who earn everything loose everything to everyone else who does nothing. Stand up Republicans and take back our country! Stop this madness! Stop this reckless spending! Enforce the laws they are breaking! What the dumbocrats are doing to our country is an embarrassing OUTRAGE!!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Whose country?
    I'm always amused by the "take back our country" line. I have heard it used by whatever faction happens to not be in power, both republican and democrat, and I always wonder what they have in mind. Since we regularly have elections in our country, it would seem the real issue for the losers is winning a majority, and last time I checked it requires creating a platform and putting forth candidates that will appeal to the most voters. Or does the "take back" statement imply some other means of gaining power? Armed takeover? The other thing I wonder about is what is meant by "our country"? So the party in power aren't citizens? The people who voted for them weren't citizens either? Or are there not enough landowners among them? Or is it a matter of longevity? If they are relative newcomers to the U.S. does that mean they not rightful owners of "our country"? Oh wait...we have to give the country back to the native Americans!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }