Political news

June 13, 2007, 3:43PM

A look at congressional earmarks

By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Some call them "pork." Others say "pet projects" or "earmarks."

Whatever you call them, lawmakers' special projects for people back home are proving to be an enormous headache for Democrats controlling Congress, just as they bedeviled Republicans when they were in charge.

House Republicans are demanding that Democrats live up to a promise of more openness in acting on "earmarks" — those dams, armories, bridges, courthouses, research grants and other projects that lawmakers send home to their districts and states.

What are earmarks? How do they work? Why the fuss? Here are some answers to such questions.

Q: What is an earmark?

A: Most often, it is a pet projects that lawmakers seek for their districts and states. It can include road projects, water and sewer funds, community development grants, military base improvements and grants to local hospitals, universities and nonprofit organizations.

Earmarks can be tax breaks aimed at a specific company or research grants for a single employer. Such companies often reward lawmakers with campaign cash. In the case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., it was bribes.

Q: What does a lawmaker have to do to get an earmark put in a bill?

A: In the case of appropriations bills, there is an application process. Lawmakers fill out forms and say which projects they want the most. Staff and lawmakers scrutinize to make sure everybody's following the rules and to weed out bad ideas. The party controlling the House or Senate gets about 60 percent of the earmarks allocated to each chamber.

Q: How can you find them?

A: Often, it's easy. In spending bills, rosters of earmarks are listed in reports accompanying bills. And with Internet search engines, it's often not that hard to figure out what's going on with an earmark and whether one thinks it's worthwhile.

But some earmarks, such as tax breaks benefiting individual companies or carefully worded criteria that guide agencies to award contracts or projects to selected companies or areas can be virtually impossible to trace — unless one of the few lawmakers in the know tattles on the beneficiary.

Q: How do they work?

A: Lawmakers essentially are ordering agencies to spend money in ways Congress demands instead of awarding money based on formulas or at the discretion of bureaucrats. For example, a House member representing Waco, Texas, might direct the Justice Department to reward the city with an anti-crime or police hiring grant instead of having city officials apply for the money.

Q: So what's wrong with that?

A: Nothing. Virtually all lawmakers say they have a right to use Congress' power of the purse to direct public money to their district and state. After all, they know their districts better than do federal bureaucrats.

But lawmakers get greedy and pushy, and some earmarks are just plain dumb: the $50 million earmark approved years ago to build an indoor rain forest in the middle of Iowa.

In recent years, under GOP control of Congress, earmarking practices have gotten out of control. In 2005, according to the White House budget office, there were 13,492 earmarks in appropriations bills totaling almost $19 billion.

Q: What is being done about them?

A: Democrats imposed a one-year ban on earmarks when finishing up last year's spending bills and they pledge to cut earmarks in half from prior levels. President Bush is demanding that the number and total cost of earmarks be cut in half.

Democrats largely have adopted GOP changes put in place last year requiring that earmarks placed in bills be identified, along with their sponsors. The idea is that greater disclosure will serve to keep wasteful projects out of the bills.

But the House Appropriations Committee chairman, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., has sidestepped the reforms by keeping bills free of earmarks during initial House debate, depriving rank and file lawmakers the chance to force votes to knock them out of bills.

Q: Does more openness work?

A: Are you kidding? Virtually every time anti-earmark lawmakers try to kill stuff they say is pork, they lose by overwhelming votes. But the "bridge to nowhere," a $223 million project connecting Alaska's lightly populated Gravina Island to Ket****an was shelved after it drew scorn from the media and the public.

Q: Does the president propose earmarks?

A: All the time. Bush's agencies propose the vast majority of projects and award the vast majority of grants and federal contracts. They sometimes appear to favor Republicans; for example the Homeland Security Department's fire grants program has rewarded GOP districts with three-fifths of all grants.

At the same time, the Education Department bureaucrats has pressed school districts that want reading improvement grants to buy materials from contractors favored by GOP officials.

Arizona House approves bill to prod courts on bail for immigrants

Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.13.2007

PHOENIX -- The Arizona House approved a proposal Wednesday aimed at prodding courts into enforcing a voter-approved law that denies bail to illegal immigrants who are charged with serious crimes.

The bill would spell out procedures and ground rules for courts must use in deciding if criminal defendants are illegal immigrants who should be denied bail.

The proposed change was prompted by complaints from lawmakers and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas that some judges have ignored or given short shrift to requirements of Proposition 100, which was approved in November with 78 percent of the vote.

The 34-22 vote by the House sends the bill (SB1265) to the Senate for consideration.
Republican Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, who proposed the changes, said the law would assist courts in carrying out the wishes of voters.
"(Voters) think it is silly that you are in this country illegally, commit a serious felony and then should be out on the street," Pearce said.

Democratic Rep. Tom Prezelski of Tucson, an opponent of the bill, said the proposal would loosen the standard for determining whether a person could be denied bail under the voter-approved law and that it could have adverse effects on innocent people.
"We are going to see this bite us," Prezelski said.

The bill requires courts to consider defendants' admissions, immigration holds, indications from law enforcement agencies and any other evidence that show a defendant is in the United States illegally.

It also would specify a standard of evidence for courts to use and require that the no-bail determination be made during a person's initial court appearance.

In addition, a defendant would have to be asked about his or her citizenship within 24 hours of being taken into custody and the information provided to courts and prosecutors for bail determinations.

THE TIMES/BLOOMBERG POLL
Large majority supports path to citizenship
A poll finds 63% of all respondents, and 65% of Republicans, back the controversial measure.

By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
June 13, 2007

WASHINGTON — A strong majority of Americans — including nearly two-thirds of Republicans — favor allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

That is a striking show of support for a primary element of an immigration overhaul bill that has stalled in the Senate amid conservative opposition.

Only 23% of adults surveyed opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to gain legal status. That finding bolsters the view, shared by President Bush, that the bill's opponents represent a vocal minority whereas most people are more welcoming toward illegal immigrants.

"They are willing to take jobs that our people aren't interested in, and I think this helps the economy," Joseph Simpkins, a retired dry cleaner in New Jersey who participated in the survey, said in a follow-up interview. "As long as they pay taxes, I see nothing wrong with having them become citizens."

The immigration bill, a top priority for the White House, is languishing at a time when Bush's approval rating has hit a new low: The poll, first disclosed in a new Times blog, found 34% approved of the job the president is doing, the lowest level registered by the Los Angeles Times poll throughout his time in office.

Those and other poll findings indicate a pessimistic electorate, distrustful of political and corporate leaders and unhappy with the status quo at home and abroad.

More than two-thirds of those surveyed believe the country is seriously on the wrong track, nearly matching the highest level of pessimism since 1992. Many blame U.S. oil companies and the Bush administration for high gas prices. And they have a jaundiced view of corporate chieftains, seeing them as overpaid and unethical.

"I don't know anyone who says, 'Wow! Things are going well,' " said Patricia Clark, a homemaker in Harrisburg, Pa. "It's the middle-of-the-road people like us who pay all the taxes and get hit with high gas prices. I can understand why people don't vote."

Dissatisfaction with Bush is a big part of the sour mood. His approval rating fell to 34% from 45% in September. Even among Republicans, that number was down to 70% from 83%.

Only 31% of those surveyed approved of the president's handling of the war in Iraq. And the poll found increased support for an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal: A quarter of those polled said they supported such a plan, up from 19% in January.

And the perception that the country is not moving in the right direction was more pervasive than in January, when 61% said things were on the wrong track; now 69% feel that way. Just 43% of GOP respondents said the country is moving in the right direction.

Partisan divisions are particularly pronounced in voters' views of the economy and their own financial condition. Eighty-two percent of Republican respondents said the economy is doing well, whereas 44% of Democrats shared that view. Fourteen percent of Republicans said they were worse off financially than three years ago, compared with 34% of Democrats.

The poll also found a wide gender gap in attitudes toward the economy, with men far more optimistic than women. More than two-thirds of men surveyed said the economy is doing well, compared with 49% of women.

"Sure, there are people out of work, but I do feel our economy is doing as well as I've ever seen it," said Harold Wells, a retired financial planner in Michigan. "We have 4.5% unemployment, and the stock exchange is at its highest in a while."

As gasoline prices soar over $3 a gallon, survey participants were most likely to blame U.S. oil companies and the Bush administration rather than market fluctuations. Whereas 12% said market forces were responsible for the high price of gas, 38% blamed oil companies and 21% blamed the administration.

Corporate chiefs in general were viewed with suspicion, with 81% saying they are overpaid and 33% saying they are ethical.

The immigration debate has heated up in recent weeks, with the Senate taking up — and last week putting off — the overhaul legislation. The bill aims to establish a pathway to citizenship for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. It also would create a guest worker program and institute a point system for evaluating new immigrants that would put less weight on family ties and more on applicants' skills and education.

Underscoring the urgency of the debate, 86% of people surveyed said illegal immigration was an important problem.

Although the pathway to citizenship is one of the most controversial provisions of the Senate bill, 63% of those polled backed the idea — as did 58% of those who identified themselves as conservatives and 65% of Republicans.

The survey question specified that, under the proposal, citizenship would be available only to those who registered their presence in the U.S., had no criminal record, paid a fine, got fingerprinted and learned English, among other requirements.



Those conditions helped ease concerns among some Republicans, including Michael Prandini of Fresno, who heads a homebuilders association. He said a path to citizenship without these conditions would be "unfair to the people who have gotten citizenship through the correct channels."

The guest worker program and visa point system did not draw as much support, largely because those elements of the legislation were not as well known. Forty-three percent said they did not know enough about the point system to have an opinion; 25% did not know enough about the guest worker program to weigh in.

The survey was conducted Thursday through Sunday; 1,183 adults were surveyed by telephone. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

janet.hook@latimes.com

--
(INFOBOX BELOW)

Views on immigration

Do you support or oppose the following proposals:

Q: Allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted and learning English, among other requirements.

All Democrats Independents Republicans
Support 63% 66% 66% 65%
Oppose 23 19 20 27
Don't know 14 15 14 8

Q: Create a guest worker program that would give a temporary visa to noncitizens who want to work legally in the United States. All Democrats Independents Republicans
Support 49% 51% 52% 47%
Oppose 26 26 24 30
Don't know 25 23 24 23

Q: Establish a point system for new immigrants that gives more weight to professional qualifications and command of English than to those having family already in the United States. All Democrats Independents Republicans
Support 34% 30% 33% 43%
Oppose 23 30 24 16
Don't know 43 40 43 41

Q: Do you think things in this country are generally going in the right direction or are they seriously on the wrong track?

Now

Right direction: 24%

Wrong track: 69%

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling: His job as Situation
president The economy in Iraq
Approve 34% 38% 31%
Disapprove 62 58 67
Don't know 4 4 2

Q: So far, who do you think is winning the war in Iraq? All Democrats Independents Republicans
U.S. 18% 11% 13% 34%
Insurgents in Iraq 13 20 16 4
Neither U.S. nor 64 66 66 54
insurgents
Don't know 5 3 5 8

Q: Do you support or oppose setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? All Democrats Independents Republicans
Support 57% 82% 60% 24%
Oppose 39 14 36 73
Don't know 4 4 4 3

Q: In your opinion, when should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq? All Democrats Independents Republicans
Right away 25% 42% 22% 9%
Within the next year 43 50 46 31
Stay as long as it 26 6 23 54
takes to win the war
Don't know 6 2 9 6
--

Answers may not total 100% where some answer categories are not shown.

For more results and poll analysis, visit: http://www.latimes.com/timespoll

--

Methodology:

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll contacted 1,183 adults nationwide by telephone June 7-10. Telephone numbers were chosen randomly from a list of all exchanges in the nation, allowing listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. Multiple attempts were made to contact each number. Adults were weighted slightly to conform with their respective census proportions by ***, ethnicity, age, education and national region. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results may also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.

--

Source: L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll

Former border inspector pleads guilty to alien smuggling charges

June 13, 2007
By DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A former U.S. border inspector pleaded guilty Wednesday to alien smuggling charges.

Adam Bender, 49, of Eastpointe pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland and faces up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine at sentencing Oct. 11.

“He was a dupe,” his lawyer, Marc Lakin of Birmingham, said Wednesday.

He said a co-defendant, Hassan Saad, 35, of Detroit, a roofing and home improvement contractor, befriended Bender and his family and exploited the relationship to smuggle friends and relatives into the U.S. for a profit. Lakin said Bender would wave through immigrants at the bridge and tunnel in Detroit, based on Saad’s word that they were legal.

Saad has pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit alien smuggling and is awaiting sentencing. He faces a possible 6-12 month prison sentence based on an agreement with prosecutors. Saad told Cleland that he gave gifts and money to Bender.

Contact DAVID ASHENFELTER at 313-223-4490 or dashenfelter@freepress.com.

June 13, 2007, 11:49PM

Immigrants demand action on stalled reform measure Many fear their next chance for legal status may be years away

By JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — As President Bush pressed lawmakers Tuesday to get immigration reform back on track, immigrants across the country were marching, praying, writing lawmakers and hitting the road for Washington in a desperate push to revive the stalled measure.

Before the bill collapsed in the Senate last week, most immigrants agreed it was flawed. But seeing a rare opportunity for change slipping away — and recognizing it may not come again for years — many insisted they wouldn't let it go without a fight.

The immigrants' rallying cry echoed the president's words to divided Republicans: "The status quo is unacceptable."

"There was a lot of frustration that politics got in the way of sound, necessary public policy," said Jerry Gonza*** of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, a statewide organization whose 4,000 members are calling their senators seeking reforms. "The time is now. They need to act."

A caravan left Los Angeles for Washington on Sunday, picking up immigrants along the way who are eager to tell their stories to legislators. A second caravan was scheduled to depart Wednesday after a send-off from Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony.

The first group was led by Eduardo "Piolin" Sotelo, host of the nationally syndicated radio show Piolin por la Manana, and was cheered by hundreds of supporters as it left.

In the spring of 2006, Sotelo used his popularity to rally hundreds of thousands of people to march for reform in California and across the nation.

Now he's collecting letters asking for a path to citizenship for the country's approximately 12 million illegal immigrants. He's broadcasting his appeal from cities along the way and expects to have about 1 million letters by the time he gets to Washington today.

"If someone's already proved they're working hard for this great nation and for his family, and he's proved he's a good human being, why not live legally here in this country?" Sotelo said. "We're waiting for a positive answer from our senators."

Immigrants whose families were separated during immigration raids are hanging all their hopes on the possibility of comprehensive reform.

Tony Wasilewski, a Polish immigrant living on the outskirts of Chicago, saw his wife deported to Poland on June 8. She took with her the couple's 6-year-old American-born son, fearing he was too young to be away from her.

The separation turned a good life into a nightmare, Wasilewski said.

"I want to bring my family back to America, and I want to protect families that are in the process of deportation," he said. "I'm going there to try to talk to our leaders, our congressmen, our senators. We need a change."

Wasilewski is also joining a caravan of about 100 immigrants, clergy and other supporters on a 10-city tour that culminates with a June 20 rally in Washington.

On Sunday, Catholic dioceses nationwide took part in a day of prayer for immigration reform. Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Solis said Mass at Our Lady Queen of Angels Church in downtown Los Angeles.

In Atlanta, immigrant groups are calling for an interfaith day of prayer on June 21. And in Miami, immigrants and advocates are holding nightly vigils praying for lawmakers to put aside their political differences.

June 14, 2007, 12:52AM

Senators work to revive immigration bill


WASHINGTON — Key Republican and Democratic senators are reaching for a deal to resurrect their stalled immigration compromise by requiring that some $4 billion be spent on border security and workplace enforcement.

The mandatory security funding is part of a plan to attract more Republican support for the measure, which grants legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants.

In private meetings Wednesday, the bipartisan group that crafted the delicate compromise was hammering out a plan to allow votes on a limited set of Republican- and Democratic-sought changes in exchange for a commitment from GOP holdouts that they will back moving ahead with the bill.

Republican architects of the measure, which grants legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants, expressed confidence that such an agreement was possible as early as Thursday.

"The list is there," said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., adding that GOP senators were ready to present their plan to Senate leaders.

With the tentative package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "should have what he needs to move forward," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "This is just to let him know that it can be done."

Reid has said he would revive the measure if at least 20 more Republicans commit to moving ahead with the broad immigration bill. It stalled last week when only seven GOP senators supported a Democratic bid to limit debate and expedite a final vote.

Reid expressed optimism that negotiators would strike a deal that could pave the way.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator, said he supported the bid to provide mandatory funding for border security and enforcement.

"You give the assurance that when this is signed, that there are going to be the resources to do the kind of security protections that are in this legislation," Kennedy said.

Under the proposal by Kyl and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., border security and workplace enforcement would be funded up front, and eventually covered by the fines and fees set out in the broader immigration bill.

"Everybody's trying to prove that they are willing and able to enforce the law this time, unlike 1986," Kyl said, referring to the last major immigration overhaul, which established a one-year amnesty program for illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. at least four years.

"What better way to demonstrate that other than to say, 'We're not going to let congressional appropriations dictate this — we are going to put the money up front,'" Kyl said.

As part of the tentative deal, the Senate would vote on a proposal by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to require all illegal immigrant household heads to return to their countries of origin before obtaining legal status, Graham said. Under the legislation, only those seeking green cards — permanent legal residency — would be required to return home first.

Negotiators spent hours Wednesday huddled in meetings or on the phone. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez helped craft the bill in a series of intense and secretive talks earlier this year, was again on hand to help broker a deal.

"There's no question it's an uphill battle," Kennedy said. "It's difficult but not impossible."

A day after Bush went to Capitol Hill to field criticism from Republicans who derailed the bill, the White House said it would be open to changes to the delicate bipartisan compromise. Architects have argued their so-called "grand bargain" could collapse under the weight of poison-pill amendments.

"You may have a carefully crafted compromise, but on the other hand, you have members of both parties who want to have their say and have their input," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

Snow also signaled support for the idea of pumping additional money into border security, which he said was worth pursuing, and played down the bitter divisions among Republicans on the issue. "This is not an internal 'fight,'" he said, and added that Bush "considers fellow Republicans friends and colleagues."

Republicans have coalesced behind the idea of assuring a funding stream for border security and workplace enforcement. Georgia Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson want a separate emergency spending bill that could total as much as $15 billion to pay for such measures.

Additional funds for border and workplace crackdowns could persuade the Georgians to back the effort to resurrect the immigration bill, Chambliss said.

"We're thinking about it," he told reporters.

Secure border first, senators implore Bush: Georgians distrust bill, letter says

Found in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Written by Bob Kemper
Posted on 2007-06-13

By Bob Kemper
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 06/13/07

Washington —- President Bush made a rare personal appearance on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to urge Senate Republicans to support an immigration reform bill they helped to derail last week.

Other administration officials fanned out on Capitol Hill and took to the airwaves to make the case that bipartisan support for the bill is broader than it appears and that Congress could still meet public demands to curb illegal immigration this year.

"Now is the time to get it done," Bush told reporters after his meeting with Republican senators. "It's going to take a lot of work, a lot of effort. We've got to convince the American people that this bill is the best way to enforce our border."

The compromise immigration bill, hammered out by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans over the past three months, requires that the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border be secured before the enactment of other reforms, like the temporary guest worker program Bush wants.

But Bush encountered skepticism from senators like Georgia's Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, who helped craft the bill but so far refuse to commit to voting for it.

They cautioned that the compromise bill is not yet tough enough on border security and the handling of about 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Isakson and Chambliss sent a letter to the White House just hours before Bush's appearance urging the president to craft an emergency budget bill that would immediately and completely fund all of the border security measures included in the immigration legislation.

Such a move would reassure congressional conservatives and address public distrust of the federal government's commitment to immigration reform, they wrote, stopping short of saying their support for the overall immigration bill was conditioned on Bush taking such action.

"The message from a majority of Georgians is that they have no trust that the United States government will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and secure the border first," Isakson and Chambliss wrote.

"Such a move," they wrote, "would show your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It will also work towards restoring the credibility of the federal government on this critical issue."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters after the meeting with Bush that other Republican senators support funding security measures now to "dramatize" Washington's commitment "in a way that people can focus on."

The Senate last week considered myriad amendments that generally pushed the bill toward tougher enforcement. But when Republicans twice refused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's call to cut off debate, Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the bill, normally a fatal move for legislation.

Key Republicans and Democrats —- including Chambliss and Isakson —- have been working together privately since last week to find a way for Republicans to have amendments they favor considered on the Senate floor in exchange for their later support to cut off debate and vote on the bill.

Reid, who chided Bush for not doing enough to ensure the bill's passage, said he would return the bill to the Senate floor if Republicans agree to reduce the number of amendments and Bush secures greater Republican support.

"We'll move on to immigration when they have their own act together," Reid said Tuesday.

"It's not a question of Democrats doing anything. It's a question of Republicans supporting their own president."

Bush won no immediate converts at the meeting, but no one expected him to, said McConnell, the Republican senate leader.

"Look, we had a very, very good discussion, including some of our members who are not —- shall I say —- keen on this measure, and others who are still taking a look at it and trying to decide how they're going to vote," McConnell said.

"A lot of that will depend upon what it looks like in the end. And none of us know that yet."

At a time when Bush's influence over congressional Republicans is fading, participants in the closed-door meeting said the president opted against arm-twisting and instead listened and responded to their specific concerns.

"The whole meeting was encouraging in that it was very congenial and very frank at the same time," Isakson said. But "this was not a meeting where anybody made any commitments."

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2007/06/13/natimmig0613a.html

President Bush supports setting aside all the fees and penalties in the bill solely for tougher security on the border and workplace enforcement

June 14, 2007, 10:47AM

Bush offers to increase money for border security


By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press

"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," Bush said in a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors.

Bush got behind a proposal to set aside money collected through fees and penalties for tougher border security and workplace enforcement. Two Republican senators, John Kyl of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have proposed such an amendment.

Bush said the measure would "show the American people that we're going to do our jobs of securing this border once and for all."

The provision would immediately divert $4.4 billion toward border security, with that amount to be paid back once new fees are in place. The point would be to ensure that border security would not be subject to the whims of the yearly budget negotiations.

The move is also part of a White House effort to cobble together a winning coalition, vote by vote. Some lawmakers are withholding support for the broad-based bill because of deep skepticism that border security will actually improve.

With many questions unanswered, it was unclear how much of a concession the move amounts to for Bush.

The White House did not have an estimate of how much money the provision would generate yearly toward border security. It also could not say whether the money would be in addition to currently planned border security funding levels or just a way to dedicate funds to that purpose. And it wasn't clear what budget account would be drawn down to pay for the initial $4.4 billion.

A bipartisan group of senators crafted a fragile compromise on the immigration bill that Bush supports. But the deal is in deep trouble, because many Republicans oppose that it provides a way for millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally to become legal.

The group behind the compromise was hoping to reach agreement to allow votes on a limited set of changes from the Republican and Democratic sides in exchange for a commitment from GOP holdouts to let debate on the bill resume. Architects have argued that their so-called "grand bargain" could collapse under the weight of too many amendments, or those designed as "poison pills."

Bush said the bill emphasizes security by requiring tougher border and workplace measures before new options for immigrants and guest workers could begin. Already, he said, border agents are capturing and sending home huge numbers of people trying to cross illegally.

"They're working hard down there, and they're making progress," Bush said. "People are doing the jobs we expect them do, and now we're going to build on that progress."

The legislation stalled last week when only seven GOP senators supported a Democratic bid to limit debate — called a cloture vote — and expedite a final vote.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the White House feels good about its chances for bringing the bill back to the floor now.

"We feel confident there are going to be enough votes for cloture," he said.

Posted June 14, 2007 01:39 PM

The Immigration Bill In Harry Reid's Court

By David S. Broder
Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page A27

It is hard to say who looked worse in the Senate's impasse on immigration legislation -- Democrats or Republicans -- but the responsibility for reviving that measure clearly rests most heavily on the shoulders of Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It was Reid who decided last Thursday to pull the bill off the floor after a small number of recalcitrant Republicans, led by Jim DeMint of South Carolina, blocked his efforts to clear away the remaining Republican amendments and move toward a final vote.

Reid abandoned the effort to pass the legislation, despite pleas from its leading Democratic sponsor, Sen. Ted Kennedy, to give it more time -- and despite an offer from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to pare down overnight the list of remaining Republican amendments to a manageable size.

Reid had decided that a week of debate before the Memorial Day recess and four or five more days last week was all the time the Senate could afford for what is arguably the single most important domestic issue on the agenda.

All this, from a Senate that had spent most of the past five months battling futilely with President Bush over a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq -- and that then closed down for three days over last weekend and used Monday for a debate on a purely symbolic vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Readers of this column know I am no fan of Sen. Reid. When I wrote in April about his shortcomings as majority leader, The Post received a protest letter signed by the other 50 senators in the Democratic Caucus, attesting to their devotion to their leader.

I may be risking another mass reprimand by what I am about to write, but here is what I know:

There's no doubt that DeMint, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and a few other Republicans were out to stop the immigration bill -- and were conducting a filibuster by amendment. But McConnell, who supports the legislation and was eager to deliver a legislative victory to Bush, said repeatedly that the Republicans would vote to end debate after they had a chance to offer as many amendments as they did last year -- when they controlled the Senate and had passed a similar immigration measure.

By McConnell's count, they were nine short of that number when Reid tried to cut off debate Thursday night. Democrats have a different tally. Reid had been trying all day to cut a deal with the Republicans to dispose of a few more amendments, but he was continually stymied by DeMint and Sessions. Reid said he would brook no more delay. But with McConnell withholding his help, only seven of the 49 Republicans voted for cloture -- and it failed, prompting Reid to remove the immigration bill from the Senate floor.

In his pique, Reid was quick to label the rejected legislation as "the president's bill," even though the White House had had less to do with writing it than a bipartisan group of senators, mainly members of the Judiciary Committee. Reid also put the onus on Bush to deliver more Republican votes to end debate, making that a condition for possibly reviving the measure -- after the Senate finishes work on an energy bill some time next week.

His aides and associates insist that Reid really wants an immigration bill. But he went out of his way to rewrite that bill to meet the demands of organized labor by allowing a second vote on an amendment by Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to "sunset" after five years the guest-worker program that unions see as a competitive source of low-wage workers.

The Dorgan amendment lost by one vote the first time but passed by a single vote the next time -- as four conservative Republicans supported it in hopes it would become a "poison pill" that killed the fragile bipartisan consensus behind the bill. Reid himself supported the "killer" amendment.

He may be playing with fire. A poll that Andy Kohut completed for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press four days before the Senate fiasco on the immigration bill found a striking increase in disapproval of Democratic congressional leaders. In January, 39 percent approved of them and 34 percent disapproved. In early June, disapproval topped approval, 49 percent to 34 percent. Among independents, the disapproval score was 58 percent to 26 percent.

Reid may think that Bush will suffer if immigration reform is killed. But the public is likely to put the blame where it principally belongs -- on the leader of the party that runs the Senate.

davidbroder@washpost.com

Transcript:

'Special Report with Brit Hume'

Transcript: June 12, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

This is a rush transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume" from June 12, 2007.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Next on SPECIAL REPORT, the president tells Senate Republicans the status quo on immigration is unacceptable and GOP Leader McConnell says the bill is almost done. Wasn't this bill supposed to be dead?

And wait until you hear what a new poll shows about how Fred Thompson is doing.

House Republicans, meanwhile, rip Democrats over the special spending known as earmarks.

And what have they done with that U.S. sponsored Mideast TV network and who did it.

Plus, Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong in the doc for his alleged misconduct towards those lacrosse players. All that right here, right now.

Welcome to Washington. I'm Brit Hume. President Bush took the symbolically significant step of traveling to Capitol Hill today to try to get that immigration reform bill back on track. The president said he understood that many members of his own party oppose measure, but the news he got from the GOP leader was far from bad. Chief White House correspondent Bret Baier reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a rare visit to a Senate Republican policy lunch on Capitol Hill, President Bush tried to persuade skeptical Republicans that the comprehensive immigration bill stalled in the Senate is still the best way to secure the border, telling reporters after the nearly hour and a half long lunch meeting that he will continue to personally try to salvage this bill.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe without the bill it's going to be harder to enforce the border. The status quo is unacceptable. And I want to thank those senators on both side of the aisle who understand the team is now to move a comprehensive piece of legislation. The White House will stay engaged.

BAIER: Senators in the meeting described it as more of a soft sell than an arm twisting, with a extensive question and answer session about border security. The Senate minority leader said he didn't know how many mind were changed, but insisted the Senate is close to passage.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I do think this bill is about 80 or 85 percent of way through, toward the finish line. And we don't have any interest in giving up on it.

BAIER: A group of nine Republican senators sent a letter to the president today urging him to step up border security measures now, instead of inserting them into the bill as benchmarks or triggers. Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina is one of the senators who was not and will not be persuaded by the president's push for a comprehensive bill.

SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: When we passed a bill last year that would secure our border, with more border agents and barriers and fencing, and we haven't moved ahead with that.

BAIER: Despite a determined group of opponents like DeMint, a late—afternoon bipartisan meeting between key Senate negotiators was set to lay out a finite number of amendments to be considered in order to break the political logjam. Senior aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said once that is done, Senator Reid is committed to bringing the bill back up for debate and a final vote in possibly the next two weeks.

Today Reid again publicly put the onus on Republicans.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: The question is do the Republicans support their president's immigration bill? At this stage, it's a resounding no. When it comes to be yes; when they get 25 or so votes for us, we will have another proportion that we can bring to the Senate.

BAIER: At the White House there is growing confidence about Senate passage.

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The key provisions have the support of more than 60 members of Senate. What the president is trying to do is to work constructively with both sides to try to get a bill that is going to deal with the problem that has been 21 years in the coming.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BAIER: One idea suggested at the lunch meeting that has received tentative support here at the White House is for the president to put forward an emergency supplemental funding request for border security, like the administration has done to fund the war. The idea being that the administration could then show senators specifically that the security measures will be funded.

Republican Senator Arlen Specter told Fox today that might, quote, dilute a lot opposition to this bill. Brit?

HUME: Bret, thank you. The guest worker program in this immigration reform plan would look something like the current program we have for seasonal workers. Some American businesses says they could not survive without those employees. Congressional correspondent Major Garrett looks at one such company not far from here.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the Chuptank (ph) River in Cambridge, Maryland sits J.M. Clayton Seafood, the world's oldest crab factory, a fourth generation family business run by Jack Brooks.

JACK BROOKS, JM CLAYTON SEAFOOD: Actually, here is a boat coming in right here, so this is luck.

GARRETT: Crab arrives in bushels by boat for weighing and processing, or by truck from water men up river. Brooks sells crab whole to restaurants like Harris Crab House on nearby Kent Island. In addition to whole crabs, restaurants like Harris buy Brooks' hand picked crab to make a variety of crab dishes, chief among them, crab cakes.

But Brooks can't succulent crab morsels without crab pickers, blue collar, blue crab surgeons who toil nine to 10 hours a day in this picking room. It is here the raging debate over immigration reform and Brooks' family business collide.

Most of Brooks' workers are from Mexico. They receive H2B Visas as seasonal, non-farm laborers. Brooks keeps files on each worker, plus state and federal forms verifying native born workers won't take his jobs, jobs he is compelled to advertise locally.

BROOKS: We had one person apply this year. So we called them and tried to hire them, but they are not available or we couldn't get in touch with them.

GARRETT: Brooks began hiring foreign workers in the late 1990's starting with 15 in 1997. Now he hires nearly 150 a year, and whatever happens on immigration reform this year, Brooks needs Washington to keep these workers coming.

BROOKS: We are not for the temporary workers, the local workers. They wouldn't be working here. I don't know where they would be, but it wouldn't be here. Again, we would be — I don't know what it would be here, a condo, or who knows.

GARRETT (on camera): But you would be closed?

BROOKS: Yes, it wouldn't be a crab house.

GARRETT: Without these workers.

BROOKS: Exactly.

GARRETT (voice-over): The jobs open in March, close in November. Minimum wage is guaranteed, but pickers are also paid by the pound of crab picked. Experts can earn up to 15 dollars an hour. Nearly all the crab pickers are women. Brooks says that's because the women are far more patient.

BROOKS: I guess they're risk takers, so to speak, you know, leaving home, leaving family. Some of them leave kids. But, you know, they come here to work.

GARRETT: Thirty two-year-old Conseulo Mendozo has picked crab here for nine years. A single mother, she has two boys, ages nine and three. With nearly a decade in the picking room, we asked if she likes crab.

CONSUELO MENDOZA, TEMPORARY WORKER: I used to. Now, not any more.

GARRETT: Twenty three-year-old Olga Gonzales, also a single mother, has a four-year-old daughter in Mexico. Like all the Mexican workers, Olga sends most of her earnings back home.

OLGA GONZALES, TEMPORARY WORKER: You make more money, more here than you do in Mexico.

GARRETT: The woman pay 35 dollars a week in rent to live communally in a home Brooks provides. Inside, chores of a different kind, but also the chirp of UniVision and touches of home inside their adopted one.

Back in the picking room, Brooks said native born workers have more year around employment choices, and dislike the tedious, meticulous and strictly seasonal work of crab picking.

BROOKS: We would love to have all American workers. It makes our life a lot simpler. It used to be a lot simpler. But, you know, we are crab people. We are just running our business and making a living, and hoping that, you know, people in Washington will let it continue.

GARRETT: For Brooks, the words continue and temporary workers add up to survival.

In Cambridge, Maryland, Major Garrett, Fox News.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUME: Communities across the country are struggling over how to deal with illegal immigrants who, unlike those in Major's report, do not have steady work. While some places need the migrants and rely on them, others object to the unsightly if not dangerous conditions at the places where day laborers gather. In one New York community, a lawsuit has forced the town to come up with its own answers. Correspondent Laura Ingle has that story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAURA INGLE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Day laborers in Mamaroneck can now congregate freely inside the Straight Gate church as they wait to be picked up for a job. Police will no longer be able to question workers about their immigration status or order them to move on. The laborers had made complaints to Hispanic rights groups that they were being hassled by police. They took those complaints to one of New York's largest law firms, which decided to do the case pro bono.

JANIS MEYER, DEWEY BALLANTINE LAW FIRM: The issue of whether the plaintiffs or the other day laborers were documented or not never — did not arise in connection with the equal protection claim. The case was not about immigration. The case was about having the ability to seek work if you are here.

INGLE: The workers have won a ground breaking settlement with the village of Mamaroneck that allows them to gather in a safe haven, which will also serve as a place for the immigrant community to gain skills.

MARIANO BONEO, HISPANIC RESOURCE CENTER: This is a safe place and it is dignified. Language skills, yes (INAUDIBLE) English as a second language. And actually those classes also incorporate citizenship and American culture. We really want to foster integration and we both have to learn from each other.

INGLE: The agreement was reached yesterday after village board members decided it would be more cost affective to come to a compromise with the workers.

(on camera): This is the park where day labors would congregate and wait for work. But there were so many quality of life complaints coming from resident that police had to shut down this informal hiring sight. That forced the workers out on to the streets, which is how the lawsuit began.

(voice-over): The settlement provides for the payment of attorney fees for the workers, modifications to police procedures about questioning day workers, and there will be a court appointed monitor for this site. The village and the day laborers issued a joint statement outlining the agreement and trying to reach out to the people of the village of Mamaroneck: "In putting this matter begin us, the day laborer community and the village of Mamaroneck look forward to building bridges with all village residents to achieve a mutually beneficial relationship based on cooperation, communication and understanding."

But not all members of this small community want this site here.

DONNA ****ERSON, MAMARONECK RESIDENT: Where are these men from? What is their background? Are they sexual predators? You know, are they robbers? You know, who are they? Nobody knows. Would you want that in your neighborhood? I don't want it in mine.

INGLE: The settlement is not final yet. It still needs approval from a federal judge. Until them, the workers will be congregating at this site, hoping to find work.

In Mamaroneck, New York, Laura Ingle, Fox News.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUME: A new Rasmussen Report poll finds likely Republican primary voters as much in favor of Fred Thompson for the GOP presidential nomination as for Rudy Giuliani. Thompson, who is, of course, not yet officially running, is tied with Giuliani at 24 percent. John McCain, once considered the front runner, has fallen to 11 percent, along with Mitt Romney at 11.

But a new "Los Angeles Times/"Bloomberg poll finds Giuliani still leading with 27 percent support, Thompson closing in with 21. McCain and Romney trail at 12 and 10 percent.

Among Democrats, the poll show Hillary Clinton well ahead; 33 percent, followed by Barack Obama at 22. Al Gore still says he has no plans to run; third with 15 percent. John Edwards fourth with only eight percent.

And as for Congress, 65 percent of Americans in that poll now disapprove of the way it is handling its job. That percentage of approval is the lowest in a decade, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is also losing support; 39 percent disapprove of her performance; 36 percent approved. In January, her numbers were higher than — her approval numbers were higher than her disapproval numbers.

Later in our program, a U.S. funded Arabic language broadcast network began with high hopes. Now it's in trouble. We'll find out why. And up next, House Republicans and Democrats fight over how to expose pet spending projects to scrutiny.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUME: House Republicans are vowing to stall progress on a number of measures on the floor until Democrats amend their plan for dealing with earmarks, appropriations that boost federal spending, but can be a lifeline and the basis for reelection votes lawmakers. Correspondent Molly Henneberg tells us what they are fighting about.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MOLLY HENNEBERG, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Republican House leaders say Democrats promised transparency, accountability, but now have put forth a plan not to lift or debate earmarks before the House votes on spending bills. Earmarks are those special pet projects, funded by taxpayer dollars, attached to spending bills, that most members of Congress love to bring home to their districts. The top House Republican says earmarks should be up for discussion.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: So we are going to slow this process down until the Democrat majority realizes the error of their ways.

HENNEBERG: But the Democratic chairman the House Appropriations Committee says his committee got over 30,000 earmark requests, and with so much time spent this Spring on the Iraq supplemental and unfinished funding bills from last year, they couldn't whittle them down in time.

REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: Our staff did not have the capacity to screen all of them before we brought the bills out.

HENNEBERG: So here is what Representative Obey has decided: the 12 spending bills will pass the House without earmarks. Then a list of earmarks will be posted before the August recess. Members of Congress can question an earmark in writing. The sponsor of that earmark will reply in writing. Those earmarks ultimately approved by the appropriations committee will be added to the House spending bills in the fall, just prior to the House/Senate Conference Committee.

The final bills out of that committee cannot be appended, just an up or down vote