http://ocregister.com/ocregister/new...le_1150261.php

Immigration debate remains fluid
As Senate gets down to the nitty-gritty of policy overhaul, lawmakers know all roads still lead back to tougher House bill and more scrutiny.

By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register



A funny thing happened on the floor of the United States Senate this past week.

They debated. They didn't just snipe at each other. They didn't posture and make meaningless speeches - OK, maybe a few.

But really, on their plate is what would be the biggest transformation of our immigration policy in decades. And in a town where we're used to the real decisions being made behind closed doors, senators got down to the nitty-gritty as they talked about and voted on about a dozen amendments.

"This is the way the Senate is supposed to function - wide-open debate and let the votes fall where they will," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., during a call Friday.

I also talked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Friday. The California Democrat said she is glad the bill, which she thought from the beginning was being pushed through too fast, is now being closely scrutinized.

"We debated the issues in the bill," the state's senior senator said. "Problems now have a chance to bit by bit come to the surface."

From how many new guest workers should be allowed into the country to whether undocumented immigrants here now should be legalized to whether English should be the national language, you got a feeling that some senators were actually making up their minds how to vote based on what their colleagues were saying on the floor.

There were some wins and some losses for both sides.

Supporters of comprehensive changes, though, were the bottom-line victors.

They beat back amendments that would have gutted their bill - a challenge to the legalization plan for an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants, eliminating any new guest-worker program and an amendment that would have barred guest workers from citizenship.

But there were some victories for the bill's opponents.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who hates this bill more than most lawmakers, succeeded in getting 370 miles of border fencing added.

And Democrats Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Feinstein got the number of new guest workers cut from 325,000 a year to 200,000.

There's an interesting group of Democrats – including Feinstein and Boxer – who are quite uneasy about any guest-worker plan. They're sympathetic to the millions living and working here now. But bringing in more workers is another matter.

"I think one of the problems with this is that there are too many people involved," Feinstein told me.

Feinstein likes the idea of allowing the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants here now to earn legal status. But she has problems with the way the bill is drafted in that area.

So Monday, she's going to try to change it - although she knows she has an uphill fight.

Feinstein doesn't like the three-tiered system in the bill for those people here illegally. The system - concocted by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida – was the price of enough GOP support to make the bill viable on the floor.

Feinstein wants to create a new "orange card" that would allow all those here illegally to get in the back of the line for a green card. And they'd get in line based on when they first arrived in the United States. So those here the longest would be first up. (If the senator thinks she'll get Orange County's congressional delegation on board because she named a card after their county, forget it. O.C.'s five GOP members are strongly behind the enforcement-only approach the House has taken).

But I did have a short conversation with Bill Goodrich, president of the United Agribusiness League based in Irvine. He and others in that industry are coming to town Monday to lobby the House to support a guest-worker program. And Goodrich believes President Bush's statements on the issue may be making some Republican House members rethink - including some close to home. He wouldn't name names.

But all the players in this debate know there is still one more week to go and anything could happen.

"We taking it day by day," said Frank Sharry, who leads the National Immigration Forum, a coalition of pro-immigrant groups, in a conference call.

Opponents still believe.

"I'm reasonably optimistic this thing is going to die next week," said Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies. His organization wants to restrict immigration.

Krikorian is hoping his side can cobble together the 41 votes needed to stop a final vote on the bill.

The way the Senate works, anyone with 41 votes in his or her pocket can pretty much stop anything because it takes 60 votes to close off debate on any matter and call for a vote.

But reportedly Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has assurances from even those Republican who hate this bill that they won't hold up a final vote.

For them, all roads lead to the House, where they hope this bill will either be fixed or killed.

But let's not get too far ahead.

There are many amendments to be debated and voted on next week. Most will be introduced by those attempting to chip away at what they believe are the most egregious parts of the measure.

In the meantime, Bush is likely to keep on speaking - and that's music to the ears of the bills' supporters.

The president started out Monday night telling the nation he will send National Guard troops to help with border security until more border agents can be hired. And he restated some other security initiatives that have been in the hopper for some time.

Bush didn't specifically say he supported S2611. But he all but did.

House Republicans are waiting and crossing their fingers the Senate bill will be stopped. All the while Democrats and their GOP allies in change are watching the Senate floor but keeping one eye on the other side of the Capitol, knowing that their toughest job is yet to come.

We'll all be watching.