Thread: Senate Clears Way for Immigration Bill Talks

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 0890.story

Senate Clears Way for Immigration Bill Talks
By Nicole Gaouette
Times Staff Writer

June 30, 2006

WASHINGTON — Senate leaders overcame a procedural glitch Thursday that had stalled efforts to revamp immigration laws, paving the way for the chamber to appoint negotiators to work on a joint bill with the House.

The agreement eliminated a problem that had threatened to kill any chance of a final bill by preventing talks from even taking place. Now, negotiators can begin dealing with the major obstacle to an immigration accord — an intense dispute between the House and Senate over the scope of such legislation.

A measure the House passed in December dealt solely with toughening border security and cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants. A Senate bill approved in May included similar provisions, but also would create a guest worker program and allow most illegal immigrants to gain legal status in the U.S. — elements opposed by many House Republicans.

The Senate bill would require illegal immigrants eligible for legalization to pay back taxes — a proposal that sparked the procedural quandary. Under the Constitution, only the House can initiate bills that generate federal revenue; if a Senate bill does so, any House member can block it.

Anticipating House action against their bill, Senate leaders for weeks had been unable to find a way around the problem. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) proposed taking a House-passed tax bill pending before the Senate and attaching the chamber's immigration bill to it. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) objected, expressing fears that unrelated tax measures also would be added to it.

The deadlock was broken Thursday when Reid announced he had accepted GOP assurances that they would not add anything to the bill.

With that hurdle overcome, the onus for progress on an immigration overhaul rests with House Republicans.

The chamber's GOP leaders have scheduled an unusual series of public hearings across the country in July and August — proceedings designed partly to highlight what conservatives see as flaws in the Senate bill.

The House leaders also have made it clear that intensive, closed-door negotiations on a compromise bill will not begin until the hearings are completed.

Capitol Hill observers note that in an election year, Congress typically avoids final action on contentious issues as the November vote nears. But House leaders insist an agreement on an immigration bill remains possible this fall.

Preliminary talks "are going to continue while the House has its hearings," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said.

Senate Republicans struck an optimistic chord.

"After the House finishes its hearings, we will begin the vital work of crafting a final bill," Frist said.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ho ... 197713.php

Thursday, June 29, 2006
Reid OKs immigration bill plan
Top Senate Democrat ready for negotiations.

By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register

WASHINGTON – The Senate’s top Democrat this morning withdrew his objections to sending the Senate immigration bill to the House as part of a tax bill, a maneuver needed to bypass a constitutional requirement governing how Congress deals with legislation.
"Democrats stand ready to appoint conferees and move forward on this bill at any time,’’ Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on the floor this morning.

But Reid’s willingness to send the Senate-passed immigration bill to the House under a procedure devised by Majority Leader Bill Frist won’t mean that the differences between the House and Senate on this controversial bill will be negotiated any time soon.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert has made it clear that he is not willing to appoint members to a conference committee before a series of hearings around the country conclude at the end of August. Because of that, First has decided to wait until September to appoint the conferees on the Senate side. "After the House finishes its hearings, we will begin the vital work of crafting a final bill," Frist said today in a statement.

The House hearings begin next week. Rep. Ed Royce, R-Fullerton, who chairs a subcommittee on nonproliferation and terrorism, will host a session on July 5 in San Diego and another one July 7 in Laredo, Texas.

A large group of GOP House members, including Royce and the rest of the Orange County GOP delegation, is doing all it can to block consideration of the Senate bill, which combines immigration enforcement provisions with a new guest-worker program and a plan to legalize many of the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. The House passed an enforcement-only bill in December.

The Senate passed its immigration bill May 25. But a constitutional question prevented the bill from being immediately sent to the House and a conference committee appointed.

Under the Constitution, any bill that raises taxes must start in the House. The Founding Fathers’ rationale was that those closest to the people – House members who represent hundreds of thousands rather than millions of people – should be the ones to tax them.

The Senate immigration bill ran afoul of that rule because the bill includes a mandate that illegal immigrants wanting to adjust their status would have to pay back taxes.

Frist had suggested that the entire Senate immigration bill be attached to a tax bill the House already had sent to the Senate. Then that bill could be sent back to the House, setting up a conference between the two chambers.

But Reid was concerned that the Senate Republican majority might use this tactic "as an opportunity for mischief and would insert the estate-tax repeal or other extraneous tax provisions." Democrats oppose such measures and didn’t want to be put in the position of voting against an immigration conference bill because it contained tax measures they opposed.

But Reid said this morning that Frist gave him verbal assurances that the tax provisions would be immediately stripped out before the new bill was sent to the House for conference. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who would be chairman of any conference, as well as Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., two other key players in this debate, gave Reid written assurances, he said, ‘that they will not sign a conference report that contains tax provisions unrelated to the immigration bill."

Frist and Reid have already agreed on the parameters of a conference panel.

There will be 26 senators named to the conference committee – 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats. The top seven Republicans and five Democrats from the Judiciary Committee will be included, along with seven other senators from each party, picked by Frist and Reid. Reid has already said he plans to include Sens. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. and Barack O’Bama, D-Ill., neither of whom is on the Judiciary Committee.

There will be 26 senators named to the conference committee – 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats. The top seven Republicans and five Democrats from the Judiciary Committee will be included, along with seven other senators from each party, picked by Frist and Reid. Reid has already said he plans to include Sens. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. and Barack O’Bama, D-Ill., neither of whom is on the Judiciary Committee.

With the inclusion of Salazar and O'Bama, it's already starting to sound like a stacked deck for the amnesty team.

With the inclusion of Salazar and O'Bama, it's already starting to sound like a stacked deck for the amnesty team

True representatives of "special interest groups ", oh excuse me....I meant to say, true representatives of the "American people" !! Yea, ALL OF US !!!

Does the nonsense around here EVER END ???????????????????

Originally Posted by MW

There will be 26 senators named to the conference committee – 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats. The top seven Republicans and five Democrats from the Judiciary Committee will be included, along with seven other senators from each party, picked by Frist and Reid. Reid has already said he plans to include Sens. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. and Barack O’Bama, D-Ill., neither of whom is on the Judiciary Committee.

With the inclusion of Salazar and O'Bama, it's already starting to sound like a stacked deck for the amnesty team.

Of course the Senate will chose a strong group for their amnesty bill, that isn't surprising. Go House go, we're counting on you.

That's something we can be thankful for....the House. Do you REALIZE how far up the creek we'd be without them ?

SCAREY thought.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

That's something we can be thankful for....the House. Do you REALIZE how far up the creek we'd be without them ?

Hi LegalUSCitizen, recommend staying vigilant. The house did pass the CAFTA law. Lobby organizations, lunatic fringe groups, and commie subversive organizations will be pouring millions into their anti-American lobby efforts.

These organizations will continue to exert anti-American influence and dominion over elected officials:

The Trilateral Commission
The Illuminati
The Council on Foreign Relations
The Bilderbergs

Know thy enemy:
Communist La Raza
NASSCOM
The India Caucus
TATA
and other subversives out there.

Let's Get A Border Deal Done

By Tamar Jacoby
Saturday, July 1, 2006; Page A25

The immigration bills passed by the House and Senate in recent months could hardly be more different. The House package is harsh, punitive and focused exclusively on tougher enforcement. The Senate bill balances toughness with pragmatism by including provisions to admit the workers we need to keep our economy growing and deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

The prospect of reconciling the two bills has always looked difficult -- the legislative equivalent of marrying a giraffe and a hippopotamus. As part of their maneuvering for position, House Republicans declared that they wouldn't even negotiate until they had held a series of special hearings on immigration. And despite signs of softening in recent days, even hints of possible agreement on a phased solution, the House is still going ahead with its hearings. Yet this, I believe, may not be such a bad thing.


Why would I say that? After all, the details on the hearings leave little doubt about the House's intentions: to look tough and -- let's put it charitably -- skeptical about immigration, both legal and illegal. Many of the sessions are scheduled for border states, where frustration about illegal immigration runs highest. And they will address such subjects as retroactive Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants, whether state and local law enforcement should be empowered to arrest illegal immigrants without other cause, whether existing border enforcement is tough enough, and English as the official language -- all subjects guaranteed to rub raw the public's irritation.

Still, as every American TV viewer knows, no one, no matter how savvy, ultimately succeeds in controlling the message in our great, garrulous media. House immigration naysayers may believe that they can use the hearings to stir voters' bile. But television, national and local, is not just going to air the sessions. On the contrary, each night's news will bring a debate about immigration, and the more one-sided the hearings, the more stubbornly the media will air the other side.

By the end of the summer, the public will have had a long, thorough course on immigration. And as someone who spends a lot of time speaking to audiences on the subject, I'm convinced that this will only deepen viewers' pragmatism. They'll start to look more closely at who these foreigners are -- and see that most are hard-working, churchgoing people with families. Voters will also start to think harder about enforcement -- about what is practical and what isn't. And by the end of the summer, they will be, if anything, hungrier for a solution -- less patient with grandstanding efforts to block a bill.

The debate won't, of course, convince the angriest voters -- the ones who want to seal the border and deport or drive out illegal immigrants. That 20 to 25 percent of the public -- and poll after poll shows that's how strong they are, no more, no less -- is probably not open to persuasion. But what the discussion could do is energize some of the other 75 percent: voters who, most surveys show, are more pragmatic -- including being willing to legalize the 12 million -- though generally less intense in their beliefs and less likely to voice or vote on them.

And new energy among moderates could in turn shift the balance among House Republicans, strengthening practical, problem-solving members as against those who think their ticket to reelection is signaling that they dislike immigrants. Of course this strategy will work only if there are indeed some pragmatists among House Republicans. But I believe they are there, including in leadership: members who see the summer's hearings less as a means to stop the Senate bill than as a way to mollify and manage the immigration naysayers in their caucus.

In the end, it will depend on what the electorate seems to want most. Do Americans want Congress to take action on this year's No. 1 domestic issue, or would they rather see candidates standing pat on a party line? A recent Manhattan Institute poll of likely Republican voters left little doubt: 72 percent thought it was very or extremely important for Congress to come to grips with immigration this year, and though 39 percent believed the Senate package was amnesty, 75 percent still favored it. They want a solution that badly.

Neither party yet seems to recognize this deepening public desire for the government to try governing. But that's exactly the point about a summer of debate about immigration. Come September, the public's hunger for a solution may be impossible to ignore.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01549.html