Several House Republicans will vote against a border security package if it includes legislation the Judiciary Committee is set to take up Wednesday, effectively killing the bill unless it gets significantly reworked.
As many as a dozen Republicans would vote against the bill in its current form if it makes it to the House floor, according to five people familiar with the dynamics. Roughly 10 other people familiar with the negotiations told The Washington Post that the number of “no” votes remains fluid as lawmakers continue to seek consensus. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing internal negotiations.
The threat to scuttle the legislation is an escalation in a months-long debate among House Republicans over how to fulfill a campaign pledge to address border security. But with only four votes to spare, the margin for finding a solution all factions of the Republican conference can agree on is vanishingly slim.
The dispute remains centered on legislation proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (Tex.) that would temporarily halt migrants’ legal right to asylum if any port of entry becomes overwhelmed. Rep. Tony Gonzales (Tex.) has repeatedly chastised the proposal for infringing on legal immigration pathways. Republican leaders are trying to iron out the differences among members now rather than on the House floor.
“I’m not an island. I’m a tip of an iceberg, and what I’m saying is not because I have some issue with somebody. It’s because it’s bad policy for a lot of members that are in tough [districts President Biden won],” Gonzales said, noting opposition to the package isn’t just among Hispanic lawmakers. “We won the majority by winning these seats, and why would you put them in a bad spot unless you wanted to?”
Opposition to Roy’s legislation has swelled since the Judiciary Committee released the bill’s text Monday, after weeks of delays. Provisions related to e-verification for workers, temporary visa updates and debates over restricting access to “parole” for certain noncitizens have irritated Republicans who represent districts with large Hispanic and agricultural communities.
Republican Reps. Dan Newhouse (Wash.) and David G. Valadao (Calif.), both of whom represent rural districts, are continuing to negotiate with their staunchly conservative counterparts over the E-Verify portion of the bill. South Florida Republicans and several others representing Hispanic communities have concerns over language that would severely limit parole to certain noncitizens, such as some Venezuelans and Cubans who are allowed to temporarily reside or stay in the United States for certain reasons.
Early Tuesday, Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (Ohio) said that the group was still working to find consensus on the asylum language and concerns over E-Verify, parole authority, visa overstays, and how to treat unaccompanied minors at the border.
“We made some changes through the conversations that resulted in the package that we’re now putting forward,” Roy said about how his initial proposal had changed following backlash. “Who knows, maybe we’ll come to some agreement to make a few more changes or pass it through as it is and then have some debates before it hits the floor.”
Republican unity was tested at a news conference Tuesday morning, where several members of the all-Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference preempted the Judiciary markup, irritating leadership. Leadership staff even called several Hispanic Republicans to dissuade them from attending, according to three people familiar with the outreach.
Gonzales said the news conference was meant to emphasize real concerns at the border with testimonials by agents and the Tambunga family, whose relatives were killed after a driver transporting undocumented migrants and fleeing police crashed into their truck. Gonzales said he recently told an influential colleague, “You know if I’m voting no against the package, the package is failing. This has to do with us wanting to pass meaningful legislation as best as possible.”
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.) — who has for years played a role in immigration reform debates — still emphasized his confidence that a deal would get done, saying, “the one thing that is totally unacceptable is inaction.”
Lawmakers remain confident they can find a solution, but it hinges on several steps falling into place after the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs committees all pass varying bills by the end of next week. If that happens, members expect leaders to allow for an open amendment process so lawmakers could put proposed changes up for a floor vote. Those amendments that pass would be added into the package before the final vote.
“I think we can get something done. We have to. That’s what we ran on,” said Rep. Juan Ciscomani, who recently flipped a Democratic district on the Arizona-Mexico border.
Yet numerous lawmakers who have been skeptical throughout the process remain deeply worried that the amendment exercise would be for naught, since their amendments would likely fail on a full floor vote. They want reassurance now that they can get support across the conference.
There are also several off-ramps that could ease tensions in the coming hours. Judiciary Republicans debated the bill into Wednesday afternoon after those opposed to current asylum, parole and E-Verify proposals had worked into the evening Tuesday to see whether tweaks could be made to appease those with concerns. But any significant changes would mean risking support from staunchly conservative lawmakers.
Judiciary leaders already delayed the bill’s markup twice after realizing there was not enough time to prepare legislation that had broad support. In an effort to speed up the process, leadership demanded over the weekend that the eight initial bills the committee was going to address individually be packaged into one, leading to a scramble to rework text — which some admit has led to “duplicative” language — and cutting into the time for lawmakers to decide on whether to support the package.
“I need to see what comes out of committee,” Rep. Don Bacon (Neb.) said Tuesday. “I was concerned about what went into committee, but I was hoping what comes out of committees is a better bill. I really just don’t know.”
One significant change made during the combination of the bills was including a provision from Rep. Tom McClintock (Calif.) that tweaked parts of the Roy bill. Rather than shut down asylum if any port of entry is overwhelmed with undocumented migrants, it would instead require asylum seekers to remain in Mexico until their court date in the United States or until the port of entry is stabilized.
Several members will be watching whether McClintock’s amendment is adopted. If it is not, one member noted, “it’ll get ugly very fast.”
Several Hispanic Republicans and vulnerable incumbents also have said they would not support legislation that would hinder asylum claims.
“As an immigrant myself, I will never support anything that doesn’t allow for valid asylum claims. That’s what America is all about. But America is also about laws and America is about legal immigration,” Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez (Fla.) said.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which sent a letter to lawmakers in January describing Roy’s bill as “antithetical to our nation’s moral principles,” has also told the Judiciary Committee that it opposes the bill, according to Chieko Noguchi, the executive director of the conference’s Washington public affairs office.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and a dozen other agriculture groups, meanwhile, sent a letter to Jordan on Wednesday urging him not to pass the bill “without concurrent, meaningful legislation to address the labor crisis faced by America’s farmers, ranchers and growers.”
The trade groups estimate the bill’s E-Verify provisions “would cause agricultural production to fall by $60 billion dollars, and food prices to increase by 5-6 percent,” they warned in the letter, which was obtained by The Post. “This would be crushing to an already struggling and vulnerable industry.”
In response to ongoing criticism, Roy said that the package will ensure that undocumented migrants are not released into the United States and that people claiming asylum with “an actual credible fear of persecution of religious or political beliefs” will be protected.
“The goal here is to not allow asylum to be used as a back door to the immigration system. We think we’ve got language now that is largely accomplishing that,” he said. “We’re just having to figure out how to get it exactly right.”
Leigh Ann Caldwell contributed to this report.
