President Barack Obama, who has made enactment of an
immigration bill one of his top priorities for this year,
praised the Senate Judiciary Committee’s action, saying the bill
was consistent with the goals he has expressed.

“I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill
to the floor at the earliest possible opportunity and remain
hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further
improvements,” Obama said in a statement released by the White
House.

By a vote of 13-5, the Senate panel approved the bill that
would put 11 million illegal residents on a 13-year path to
citizenship while further strengthening security along the
southwestern border with Mexico, long a sieve for illegal
crossings into the United States.

The vote followed the committee’s decision to embrace a
Republican move to ease restrictions on high-tech U.S. companies
that want to hire more skilled workers from countries like India
and China.

In a dramatic move before the vote, Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont,
withdrew an amendment to give people the right to sponsor
same-sex partners who are foreigners for permanent legal status.

Leahy’s colleagues on the committee – Republicans and
Democrats – warned that the amendment would kill the legislation
in Congress. Democrats generally favor providing equal treatment
for heterosexual and homosexual couples, while many Republicans
oppose doing so.

“I’m committed to ending that discrimination,” Leahy said
before withdrawing the amendment.

“Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for not defending
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) families against the
scapegoating of their Republican colleagues,” said Rachel Tiven,
executive director of Immigration Equality, a gay rights group.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said the changes made
to visa rules governing high-skilled workers, which he had
demanded on behalf of the U.S. technology industry, were the
price of his support for the bill when the committee voted.
Hatch voted for the bill.

In another encouraging sign for the legislation, Senate
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said he will not block the
measure from coming to the floor for a full debate.

McConnell of Kentucky did not say how he ultimately would
vote on the bill, but he told reporters that the bipartisan
measure “made a substantial contribution to moving the issue
forward.”

All of the core elements of the legislation have been
maintained after five long work sessions by the committee.
Furthermore, some border security provisions critical to
conservatives and border-state members of Congress have been
strengthened.

Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-immigration
reform group America’s Voice, said the bill was now
“battle-tested” and was emerging with more Republican support
than when the Senate panel began work on it this month.

“It’s remarkable. You have a dysfunctional Congress, where
both parties have been at war with each other, working together
on a bipartisan basis on a controversial issue and making
tremendous progress,” Sharry told Reuters.

That bipartisanship may have been fostered, at least in
part, by the Nov. 6 presidential election in which Obama vowed
to get an immigration bill through Congress as his Republican
challenger, Mitt Romney, urged undocumented immigrants to simply
“self-deport.”

Romney won less than 30 percent of the Hispanic-American
vote, spurring Republican party leaders to quickly pivot and
call for passing comprehensive immigration legislation.

SHARP EXCHANGES

Some of the most conservative Republicans on the Senate
panel, however, persisted in their attempts to significantly
change the bill ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

One of the sharpest exchanges came when Republican Senator
Ted Cruz of Texas offered amendments to kill the pathway to
citizenship for the 11 million and to permanently deny some of
them federal benefits aimed at low-income people.

The path, Cruz argued, “will serve only to encourage yet
more illegal immigration. It will not solve the problem.”

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, noting the
Texan’s amendments would deny education, nutrition and health
benefits for low-income people who are winning legal status and
ultimately citizenship, said Cruz’s message to undocumented
immigrants was, “We don’t want you. You can’t be part of the
future of this nation.”

“What kind of America are you thinking of here, Senator
Cruz?” Durbin asked.

Meanwhile, Hatch warned that even with his victory on visa
rules for high-tech foreign workers, his ultimate support for
the bill would hinge on a set of controversial amendments that
he would propose during the full Senate debate.

Those are thought to be aimed mostly at preventing illegal
immigrants who move to legal status from getting certain
government programs, including Social Security retirement
benefits and tax credits for children and families with low
incomes. Republicans also want to prevent newly-legalized
residents from getting government healthcare benefits.

Denying healthcare benefits under “Obamacare,” the
president’s sweeping 2010 healthcare restructuring, is a major
sticking point in the Republican-controlled House of
Representatives, where a bipartisan group of eight lawmakers
were meeting on Tuesday to cobble together their own immigration
bill.

HIGH-TECH NEGOTIATIONS

The immigration bill currently requires all companies that
hire employees on H-1B visas for specialized workers to
advertise job openings on a government website and offer them
first to any qualified Americans.

One of Hatch’s proposals, worked out in a deal with New York
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, would require only companies
defined as “H-1B dependent” to give Americans the first shot at
jobs. It was strongly opposed by the AFL-CIO labor organization.

The Schumer-Hatch deal also changes the definition of an
H-1B-dependent company, which currently is any firm where more
than 15 percent of the workforce are on high-skilled work visas.
Under the amendment, it would apply only where more than 15
percent of workers in a specific occupation within the company
are using the H-1B visa.

Steve Case, the co-founder and former chairman and CEO of
AOL, called the deal a major breakthrough. A coalition of tech
groups that had been lobbying for the changes promptly issued a
letter in support of the bill. One source said tech groups
agreed that they would enthusiastically support the bill if the
changes were made.

But AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the changes
“unambiguous attacks on American workers.” He added, “American
corporations could fire American workers in order to bring in
H-1B visa holders at lower wages.”

By a vote of 13-5, the panel approved the nearly 900-page bill that would put 11 million illegal residents on a 13-year path to citizenship while further strengthening security along the southwestern border with Mexico, long a sieve for illegal crossings.

The vote followed the committee’s decision to embrace a Republican move to ease restrictions on high-tech U.S. companies that want to hire more skilled workers from countries like India and China.

In a dramatic move just before the vote, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, withdrew an amendment to give people the right to sponsor same-sex partners who are foreigners for permanent legal status.

Leahy’s colleagues on the committee – Republicans and Democrats – warned that the amendment would kill the legislation in Congress. Democrats generally favor providing equal treatment for heterosexual and homosexual couples, while many Republicans oppose doing so.

“I’m committed to ending that discrimination,” Leahy said before withdrawing the amendment.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said the changes made to visa rules governing high-skilled workers, which he had demanded on behalf of the U.S. technology industry, were the price of his support for the bill when the committee took its final vote.

In another encouraging sign for the legislation, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said he will not block the measure from coming to the floor for a full debate.

McConnell did not say how he ultimately would vote on the bill, but he told reporters that the changes won by Hatch “has made a substantial contribution to moving the issue forward.”

All of the core elements of the legislation have been maintained after five long work sessions by the bipartisan group, and some border security provisions critical to conservatives and border-state members of Congress have been strengthened.

(Additional reporting by Sarah McBride. Writing by Richard Cowan; Editing by Xavier Briand and Paul Simao)

At the heart of the debate is whether there is a shortage of Americans with the math and science skills needed for work at technology firms like Facebook Inc, Google Inc and Microsoft Corp.

Labor is brandishing research that says the scarcity of workers is a myth while the tech industry is pointing to other studies that say the shortage is very real and is a threat to U.S. competitiveness.

In behind-the-scenes maneuvering that has created a quandary for Senate supporters of a broad immigration bill, lobbyists say Silicon Valley is pulling out all the stops to fight restrictions on a foreign-worker visa program known as H-1B that is aimed at making sure Americans get the first crack at any job openings.

Talks are expected to be ongoing this weekend to try to resolve the dispute over the high-skilled visa program that has proved to be a stumbling block for the Senate Judiciary Committee, which aims to vote on the immigration legislation by the end of the month.

If a deal can’t be reached, it could alienate tech companies that have told lawmakers they might reconsider their support for the bill. It could also cost the vote of a key Republican senator, Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is on the fence about the legislation.

LABOR SAYS PLENTY OF U.S. WORKERS

The immigration bill, President Barack Obama’s top domestic legislative priority, would create a path to citizenship for some 11 million undocumented immigrants, step up border enforcement and nearly triple the number of visas for high-skilled foreign workers. The legislation, drafted by a bipartisan group of eight senators, would also create new guest worker programs for low-skilled jobs such as waiters, hotel workers and construction workers.

The AFL-CIO has accused the tech industry, which has put its huge lobbying muscle into the fight, of becoming “greedy.” The companies have already had a great deal of influence on the legislation and are now “trying to get more and more and more,” said Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto, legislative representative with the AFL-CIO.

A study that labor and its allies have been touting has become a flashpoint for its dispute with Silicon Valley. The report from the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) think tank, says the United States has “more than a sufficient supply” of workers with education in science, technology, engineering and math, known as STEM. It says that for every two students graduating from U.S. colleges with such degrees, only one has been getting hired in science or technology fields. (EPI study: r.reuters.com/myv28t)

The EPI study also says there has been wage stagnation in these fields for years, which it says means workers lack the power to bid up salaries because there aren’t enough job openings.

“If there’s a shortage, why don’t you increase wages?” said Hal Salzman, one of the authors of the EPI study.

In a scathing criticism of the EPI study, Robert Hoffman of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC) – which represents companies such as Apple Inc, Microsoft and Google – pointed to 83,000 job openings that were listed on Dice.com, which posts tech job listings. He also cited data at the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics that he said shows a huge demand for computer science majors that is not met by the number of people graduating in the field.

“This would suggest, for EPI at least, that U.S. employers are engaged in a massive conspiracy to advertise for U.S. STEM jobs that do not exist,” Hoffman wrote in a blog post last month on the ITIC web site. “That’s quite a conspiracy. I wonder if EPI thinks we faked the moon landing.”

TECH FIRMS SAYS SHORTAGE OF WORKERS

Hoffman pointed to a separate study put out this month by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation that accused EPI of “cherry-picking” poorly performing tech-related fields to include in its study and of “misreading” labor market signals. (ITIF study: r.reuters.com/nyv28t)

Hatch is championing the cause of the tech industry, which wants changes in a provision requiring that companies advertise jobs on a government-run website and offer them first to qualified Americans. Tech companies want most firms to only be required to make “good faith” efforts to hire Americans.

The AFL-CIO’s most powerful ally in the fight over skilled-worker visas is Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who sits on both the Judiciary Committee and is one of the eight senators who wrote the immigration bill.

In a sign that he is at least open to talking about a way to satisfy the tech industry, Durbin, when asked if there was a deal yet on the dispute, said on Thursday morning, “We’re working on it.”

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

The bill was carefully crafted by a bipartisan group of Senators to address a slew of concerns from interest groups. But the provision has emerged as a sticking point for the business community and could cost the support of a key Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.

Democrat Charles Schumer, one of the gang of eight Senators that hashed out the original bill, has been trying to broker a compromise with Hatch on the H-1B visa program for high skilled workers.

“We are working very hard to negotiate an agreement,” Schumer said at the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held its third session on Thursday to examine the immigration bill.

On behalf of tech firms and businesses, Hatch has introduced amendments to make it easier for companies to hire foreigners. Schumer said he had asked Hatch to defer his amendments “in hopes that we can get an agreement for early next week.”

Under the bill, companies would have to vouch that they were not replacing American workers with foreigners for 90 days before and after the company applied for the work visa. Hatch’s amendment would only require that the employer did not intend to displace a U.S. worker.

Hatch is also seeking to soften requirements designed to ensure that Americans get the first crack at a high-skilled job. Under the bill, employers would first have to advertise the job and offer the position to any qualified American.

Hatch’s amendment would only require employers to take good faith steps to recruit Americans. That requirement would only apply to companies that had more than 15 percent of their workforce on H-1B work visas.

Republican Lindsey Graham, who is part of the gang of eight, said Hatch had some good points. “I know he has been a real leader on this and I hope we can find some common ground,” he told reporters.

Schumer, Graham and other lawmakers are trying to accommodate Hatch in part because they want more Republican senators to support the bill, which would put pressure on the Republican-led House of Representatives to act on immigration reform.

That has angered the AFL-CIO union organization. “It’s not OK to trade workers to get a senator,” said Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto, legislative representative with the labor federation.

DiBitetto did not say whether the AFL would pull its support for the entire bill if Hatch’s amendments were approved.

Influential business groups, which fear the legislation would increase their liability, have held back from endorsing the legislation until their problems with the H-1B program are resolved.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is aiming to complete work on the bill before June.

(Reporting by Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York took the lead in trying to broker a compromise on a visa program for skilled workers known as H-1B that has divided business groups and organized labor. The two sides are at odds over requirements that companies first seek Americans for any job openings and a prohibition on displacing U.S. workers.

The tech industry and labor both wield a great deal of clout in the debate over a sweeping Senate bill that would step up border enforcement, give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance for citizenship and revamp visa programs for high- and low-skilled workers.

The AFL-CIO labor organization says the recruitment and displacement requirements in the bill are merely efforts to protect American workers, while the tech industry argues the provisions are burdensome and in some cases unworkable.

Pushing on behalf of the tech companies is Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has not yet said whether he will back the broad immigration bill but says changes to accommodate tech firms could be crucial to his decision.

Hatch has introduced several tech-related amendments to the bill written by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators. The amendments are strongly supported by Silicon Valley and business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, but opposed by the AFL-CIO.

The labor organization has a powerful ally in Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, who strongly opposes giving companies more leeway to hire foreign workers.

Schumer is working to settle the issue before a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled for Thursday, according to congressional aides and lobbyists. Schumer, Durbin and Hatch all sit on the Judiciary Committee, and Schumer and Durbin are members of the Gang of Eight.

HATCH’S SUPPORT SEEN CRITICAL

The Group of Eight senators, who have pledged to work together to preserve a consensus on the immigration bill, met on Tuesday night. The H-1B visa program was one of the issues discussed, according to congressional aides. The group has been urging both sides to reach a deal on the visa program and considers Hatch’s support to be important for the bill’s chances in the full Senate and in the House because of the message it would send to other Republicans.

“I think the rest of the group understands that Hatch’s support is critical,” one congressional aide said. “We need all the support we can get. Senator Hatch has said that if we can address the H-1B issues in the bill, that he can support the legislation.”

A system known as “E-Verify” that allows U.S. employers to check the legal status of workers is also proving to be a divisive issue in the discussion of the immigration bill.

Under the Senate bill, use of the system would be mandatory for all employers within five years. But businesses and many civil liberties groups worry about an error rate in which roughly one out of every 400 searches turns up incorrect information. That sometimes happens because of errors in typing names into the system or because of issues such as confusion over name changes for people recently married.

In an amendment backed by a broad array of interest groups, Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has proposed delaying the full implementation of the verification mandate for companies with 14 or fewer employees unless the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees E-Verify, can certify the system meets a certain accuracy rate.

The amendment is backed by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, several immigrant advocacy groups and some small-business organizations. But it is strongly opposed by the National Restaurant Association, which says exempting some businesses but not others would make for unfair competition.

“It’s a deal-killer. If you start creating exemptions, how are people going to see that you are serious about enforcement?” said Angelo Amador, vice president of labor and workforce policy for the National Restaurant Association, which represents some 980,000 food-service establishments.

But Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU, said the amendment would keep pressure on the Department of Homeland Security to try to ensure E-Verify is as accurate as possible.

“I think what this does, which is so important, is it keeps the focus on accuracy, in a real and meaningful way so that there will be an actual consequence if the system is not accurate,” Calabrese said.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan and Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Rubio and seven other Republican and Democratic senators, known as the “gang of eight,” have crafted a sweeping bill that would revamp the immigration system, increase work visas and put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

In its second day of examining the legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against the Republican amendment that would have made it easier for the government to track illegal immigrants and other foreigners who have overstayed their visas.

The amendment would have required a biometric system at every point of entry in the United States before illegal immigrants would be eligible for permanent residency or a green card.

The biometric system is estimated to cost about $25 billion and uses technology such as iris scans and fingerprinting to identify people.

Citing the price tag and saying it would delay citizenship under the program, two of the Republicans who helped craft the bill sided with Democrats to defeat the amendment 12-6. The biometric system idea could potentially deter Democrats from voting for the entire bill if it delays illegal immigrants from becoming citizens.

In an effort to keep the legislation intact, the bipartisan gang of eight senators agreed to work together to block amendments that could kill the bill.

But Rubio’s office said he was disappointed by the vote and would fight to add biometrics to the country’s exit system when the bill is considered by the full Senate later this year.

“Having an exit system that utilizes biometric information will help make sure that future visitors to the United States leave when they are supposed to,” his spokesman said.

Immigration reform advocates hope Rubio’s popularity with conservatives will help sell the bill to his party.

The committee has already succeeded in rejecting other Republican attempts to beef up border security in ways that go beyond the bill and could jeopardize the path to citizenship. So far, the panel has considered around 60 of the 300 amendments introduced.

STUDENT VISAS

In response to the Boston marathon bombings and September 2011 attacks, the committee approved two Republican amendments to close loopholes in the student visa program.

One amendment would require data from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System to be transferred to customs and border patrol officers.

In Boston, one of the bombing suspect’s friends who allegedly helped remove evidence was allowed to re-enter the United States even though his student visa had expired.

The other amendment would prohibit flight schools from offering student visas unless the school was accredited by the federal government. Two of the 9/11 hijackers had obtained student visas to attend flight schools, according to lawmakers.

HIGH SKILL WORKERS

Senators had been due on Tuesday to consider changes to work visa programs and were under pressure from businesses to make it easier to recruit highly skilled workers from other countries and bring in more foreigners to do manual labor.

But debate on those issue was postponed.

High-tech companies and other businesses are pushing for changes to provisions that would require firms to seek American applicants first for any job and that would prohibit the displacement of U.S. workers.

The companies are backing a series of amendments by Republican Utah Senator Orrin Hatch concerning the skilled worker visa program known as H-1B.

The AFL-CIO labor organization opposes the amendments, saying they would be unfair to American workers.

Hatch, whose support is important because it would increase pressure on the Republican-led House to work on legislation, said he has had conversations with the Senate gang of eight and has made clear the H-1B visa issue may be pivotal to his vote.

“I think they’re taking me seriously. Let’s put it that way,” Hatch said of the Senate gang. “And I hope they do because if they don’t, I’m not going to support this bill.”

Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto, legislative representative at the AFL-CIO, said she was “troubled” that Hatch would suggest that changes to the H-1B visa program might be the price of his vote.

“This bill is already balanced,” DiBitetto said. “If anything, it’s already skewed a little bit too much to the employer.”

It is unclear whether the committee will consider Hatch’s amendments when it meets on Thursday. The gang of eight was discussing them Tuesday night and his proposals could be considered as a larger package of amendments when the full Senate examines the bill.

At the end of the day-long session, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said he hoped to get through many issues by week’s end and threatened a Saturday meeting if work moves too slowly.

As the committee debated changes to the nearly 900-page bill, a group of conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives vowed to “tear up” and defeat that bill if it reaches their chamber.

They derided the Senate legislation as little more than “amnesty” for those who have come to the United States illegally or overstayed their visas. If enacted, they said it would cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Representative Steve King of Iowa told reporters that House conservatives were launching a public relations campaign consisting of floor speeches, opinion articles and other actions to “get the message out that there’s another viewpoint here. It’s not the one that’s being stampeded in the Senate and may be stampeded in the House.”

Representative Steve Stockman of Texas, referring to the eight senators who wrote the Senate’s immigration bill, said, “They have a gang of eight. We’re going to have a gang of millions” who, Stockman said, “will rise up against” the bill.

Instead of comprehensive immigration reform, these House conservatives want new steps to secure the southwestern U.S. border against illegal crossings before considering other changes to immigration law.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan, Rachelle Younglai and Richard Cowan; Editing by Vicki Allen, Andrew Hay and Cynthia Osterman)

Rubio and seven other Republican and Democratic senators, known as the “gang of eight,” have crafted a sweeping bill that would revamp the immigration system, increase work visas and put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

In its second day of examining the legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against the Republican amendment that would have made it easier for the government to track illegal immigrants and other foreigners who have overstayed their visas.

The amendment would have required a biometric system, which uses technology such as iris scans and fingerprinting, at every point of entry in the United States before illegal immigrants would be eligible for permanent residency or a green card.

Citing a $25 billion price tag and saying it would delay citizenship for the unauthorized foreigners, two of the Republicans who helped craft the bill sided with Democrats to defeat the amendment 12-6.

In an effort to keep the legislation intact, the bipartisan gang of eight senators agreed to work together to block amendments that could kill the bill.

But Rubio’s office said he was disappointed by the vote and would fight to add biometrics to the exit system when the bill is considered by the full Senate later this year.

“Having an exit system that utilizes biometric information will help make sure that future visitors to the United States leave when they are supposed to,” his spokesman said.

Immigration reform advocates hope Rubio’s popularity with conservatives will help sell the bill to his party.

The committee has already succeeded in rejecting other Republican attempts to beef up border security in ways that go beyond the bill and could jeopardize the path to citizenship.

On Thursday, lawmakers were due to consider changes to work visa programs and were under pressure from businesses to make it easier to recruit highly skilled workers from other countries and bring in more foreigners to do manual labor.

High-tech companies and other businesses are pushing for changes to provisions that would require firms to seek American applicants first for any job and that would prohibit the displacement of U.S. workers. The companies are backing a series of amendments by Republican Utah Senator Orrin Hatch concerning the skilled worker visa program known as H1-B.

The AFL-CIO labor organization opposes the amendments, saying they would be unfair to American workers.

The committee delayed some of Hatch’s most controversial amendments to give lawmakers time to hash out a compromise.

Hatch, whose support is important because it would increase pressure on the Republican-led House to work on legislation, said he has had conversations with the Senate gang of eight and has made clear the H1-B visa issue may be pivotal to his vote.

“I think they’re taking me seriously. Let’s put it that way,” Hatch said of the Senate gang. “And I hope they do because if they don’t, I’m not going to support this bill.”

As the committee debated changes to the nearly 900-page bill, a group of conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives vowed to “tear up” and defeat that bill if it reaches their chamber.

They derided the Senate legislation as little more than “amnesty” for those who have come to the United States illegally or overstayed their visas. If enacted, they said it would cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Representative Steve King of Iowa told reporters that House conservatives were launching a public relations campaign consisting of floor speeches, opinion articles and other actions to “get the message out that there’s another viewpoint here. It’s not the one that’s being stampeded in the Senate and may be stampeded in the House.”

Representative Steve Stockman of Texas, referring to the eight Republican and Democratic senators who wrote the Senate’s immigration bill, said, “They have a gang of eight. We’re going to have a gang of millions” who, Stockman said, “will rise up against” the bill.

Instead of comprehensive immigration reform, these House conservatives want new steps to secure the southwestern U.S. border against illegal crossings before considering other changes to immigration law.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan, Rachelle Younglai and Richard Cowan; Editing by Vicki Allen and Andrew Hay)

On the eve of a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a
broad coalition of business groups wrote to the panel urging
changes to the visa program known as H-1B.

The bipartisan Senate immigration bill would raise the cap
on the number of high-skilled workers to at least 110,000 from a
current limit of 65,000. In future years, the cap could rise as
high as 180,000 depending on labor-market conditions.

In the letter signed by the Chamber of Commerce, the
National Association of Manufacturers and major technology
lobbying organizations, the groups welcomed the increase in the
size of the high-skilled worker program and but said they wanted
some changes to some of the program requirements.

The changes, the letter said, would help avoid, “unintended
consequences,” that could run counter to the goal of encouraging
innovation.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah has proposed several
amendments to the high-skilled visa program, including a
softening of the requirements designed to ensure that Americans
get the first crack at a high-skilled job. Many business groups
have consulted with Hatch and support his proposals.

Business groups say they have no problem with the goal of
hiring American workers but contend that some view the
recruitment procedures as burdensome.

The AFL-CIO labor organization disagreed. “The idea that
you’re going to change the bill to deny American tech workers a
shot at the jobs of the future – that’s not good politics,
that’s not good policy and it isn’t going to pass,” said Jeff
Hauser, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO.

“Our view is that technology workers in America who have
invested in the skills of the future — as the tech industry
wants them to do – they deserve a fair shot at the jobs of the
future,” Hauser added.

Daniel Costa, an analyst with the Economic Policy Institute,
a liberal think tank, also criticized the proposed amendments,
saying that the requirements on high-skilled visas “don’t seem
to be very onerous.”

The sweeping immigration bill, written by the bipartisan
“Gang of Eight” senators, would tighten border security, provide
a 13-year path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal
immigrants in the country and revamp visa programs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday will debate
amendments to the bill on H-1B visas, which allow non-U.S.
citizens with advanced skills and degrees in specialty
occupations to work in the country for up to six years.

FIRST OFFER TO AMERICAS

The Senate bill would require employers that want to use the
high-skilled worker visa program to first advertise the job on a
government-run website and offer it to any qualified American.

One of Hatch’s amendments would loosen these provisions and
only require employers to take good-faith steps to recruit
Americans. And only “H-1B dependent” companies, which hire a
large number of foreign workers, would be required to first
offer the job to an American.

The Senate bill would also require companies to pledge not
to replace American workers with foreigners for 90 days before
and after the companies apply for work visas. Hatch would
require that employers not intentionally displace U.S. workers.

Though business and labor are at odds over some provisions
in the high-skilled visa program, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and the AFL-CIO have a deal over separate provisions in the bill
concerning low-skilled workers. The “W-visa” program would allow
a certain number of people to work in the country temporarily as
janitors, hotel workers and in other low-skill jobs.

The bill would put strict limits on the number of
construction workers who could obtain these visas.

While joining tech companies and other groups in pushing for
changes to the high-skilled worker program, the Chamber of
Commerce declined to throw its support behind efforts from the
construction industry to expand the low-skill worker program. In
its own letter to the Judiciary Committee, the Chamber urged
that the “sound structure” in W-visa program be retained.

An amendment from Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah would
double the number of visas for low-skilled workers to 400,000
from 200,000. If approved, that amendment could imperil the
bill’s chances by upsetting the balance the Senate authors
sought to achieve among business, labor and other groups.

Geoff Burr of the Associated Builders and Contractors, which
represents the construction industry, said that while his group
backs Lee’s amendment, the votes aren’t available at the
Judiciary Committee to expand the low-skilled worker program.

Business groups hope that if the immigration bill passes the
Democratic-led Senate, the call to increase the size of the
low-skill visa program might find favor in the Republican-led
House.

In a letter to Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who is one of the authors of the bill, analysts at the Social Security Administration said the overall effect of the bill on the Social Security’s finances “will be positive.”

The analysis said the bill would create a net 3.22 million jobs over the next decade and boost U.S. gross domestic product by 1.63 percentage points over that period.

The letter came days after a hotly debated report from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the pathway to citizenship in the bill for undocumented immigrants could cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

The sweeping immigration bill would boost funding for border security, revamp visa programs to allow for more high- and low-skilled workers and chart a 13-year path to citizenship for many of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

The Heritage Foundation study, which was criticized by liberal supporters of immigration reform as well as some conservatives, said that over a lifetime, immigrants would end up costing the government because they would take in more in benefits than they would pay in taxes.

The think tank put the cost of the change in the law at $6.3 trillion over 50 years.

Critics of the study said it did not take into account how immigration reform could increase economic growth by making labor markets more efficient and companies more competitive.

Advocates for immigration reform contend it would help ease pressure on government programs such as Social Security because it would result in a greater number of younger workers to support aging baby boomers, who are beginning to retire in large numbers.

The analysis from the Social Security actuaries could lend support to that argument.

It comes as the Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing this week to consider a raft of amendments to the bill.

The latest report from the Social Security Board of Trustees, issued in April 2012, estimated that the program’s accumulated “trust funds” would be exhausted by 2033, meaning policymakers might need to raise taxes or cut benefits or both to deal with the shortfall.

The Senate bill, unveiled last month by Rubio and other members of the bipartisan Gang of Eight, would grant temporary legal status to many of the 11 million illegal immigrants provided they paid back taxes and fines. They would be eligible for green cards, conferring permanent residency status, within 10 years and citizenship in a further three.

The Social Security office said in its letter that it estimated about 8 million immigrants would apply for temporary legal status. “Many of these individuals already work in the country in the underground economy, not paying taxes, and will begin paying taxes” once they apply for temporary status, the letter said.

Analyzing the impact of visa programs for high- and low-skilled foreign workers, the Social Security actuaries said those provisions would also increase tax collections.

“We estimate a significant increase in both the population and the number of workers paying taxes in the United States as a result of these changes in legal immigration limits,” the Social Security office said.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan; Editing by Peter Cooney)

In a letter to Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who is one of the authors of the bill, actuaries for the Social Security Administration said the overall effect of the bill on the Social Security’s finances “will be positive.”

The analysis said the bill would create a net 3.22 million jobs over the next decade and boost U.S. gross domestic product by 1.63 percentage points over that period.

The letter came days after a hotly debated report from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the pathway to citizenship in the bill for undocumented immigrants could cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

The sweeping immigration bill would boost funding for border security, revamp visa programs to allow for more high- and low-skilled workers and chart a 13-year path to citizenship for many of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

The Heritage Foundation study, which was criticized by liberal supporters of immigration reform as well as some conservatives, said that over a lifetime, immigrants would end up costing the government because they would take in more in benefits than they would pay in taxes.

The think tank put the cost of the change in the law at $6.3 trillion over 50 years.

Critics of the study said it did not take into account how immigration reform could increase economic growth by making labor markets more efficient and companies more competitive.

Advocates for immigration reform contend that it would help ease pressure on government programs such as Social Security because it would result in a greater number of younger workers to support aging baby boomers, who are beginning to retire in large numbers.

The analysis from the Social Security actuaries could lend support to that argument.

It comes as the Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing this week to consider a raft of amendments to the bill.

The latest report from the Social Security Board of Trustees, issued in April 2012, estimated that the program’s accumulated “trust funds” would be exhausted by 2033, meaning policymakers might need to raise taxes or cut benefits or both to deal with the shortfall.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan; Editing by Peter Cooney)