INDIANAPOLIS - The so-called three-strikes bill that would have cracked down on Indiana businesses employing illegal immigrants didn't make it out of conference committee in this year's legislative session.
The Legislature adjourned Friday without reaching a compromise that would narrowed the gap between different versions of the bill passed by the House and Senate.
As they explained the bill's failure, Democrats and Republicans pointed fingers at each other. But both sides said they expected the issue to remain a hot-button one.
"I'll be back," said the bill's chief architect, Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, as it became clear that two versions of the bill he pushed could gain no traction in the session's final hours. Delph said he'll bring the issue up again next year.
Both the House and Senate versions would have created a three-tiered punishment system for companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants after 2009. After three incidents, companies could face the revocation of their business licenses. The House version included funding for enforcement and changed the way the bill would be enforced.
As the bill reached the House-Senate conference committee, Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said that if Senate Republicans wanted to pass an immigration bill, they would have to concur with the one the House had passed, rather than splitting the difference.
"It's unfortunate because we passed a very tough bill out of the House that had funding in it," he said. "They could have concurred on it in the Senate, and they chose not to. Instead, they would bandy about ideas, strange compromises that didn't have any enforcement procedures in them or any dollars attached," he said. "That's lamentable, but certainly there was an opportunity there."
Sen. Tom Weatherwax, R-Logansport, who chaired the conference committee, said he couldn't get the required support to move a bill this year.
The conference committee consisted of a member of each party from both the House and the Senate, and he needed signatures from all four members to advance the bill. He said House Democrats wouldn't pass a bill without funding for enforcement, but Senate Republicans were opposed to including that money.