2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

May 20, 2007

Graham, Schumer On Immigration

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace. The search intensifies for three missing soldiers in Iraq, next on "Fox News Sunday."

On Capitol Hill, a deal on immigration, a continued split over Iraq and a growing consensus on the fate of Attorney General Gonzales. We'll discuss all this with two Senate powerhouses, Democrat Charles Schumer and Republican Lindsey Graham.

Also, when does criticism of judges become intimidation? We'll find out in a rare and exclusive interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Then, after the South Carolina Republican debate, who's up and who's down? We'll find out from our Sunday regulars, Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And our Power Player of the Week -- when he spoke on Capitol Hill, everyone listened, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. Here's a quick check of the latest headlines. U.S. forces in Iraq are expanding their search for three soldiers who have been missing for more than a week.

General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, says he believes at least two soldiers are still alive. A group linked to Al Qaida is believed to be holding them.

Former President Jimmy Carter slammed President Bush Saturday in a series of interviews. Carter called the Bush administration, quote, "the worst in history," and he described outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair as, quote, "abominable, blind and apparently subservient."

And in Afghanistan, a U.S. convoy narrowly missed being hit by a suicide bomber in a crowded market. The attack killed at least 14 civilians and injured more than 30.

With Congress now facing a full plate of tough issues, we've invited two key senators to discuss them: Democrat Charles Schumer, who's in New York, and Republican Lindsey Graham, who comes to us from South Carolina.

Gentlemen, let's start with immigration and that comprehensive package that was announced this week.

Senator Schumer, you've been quiet about this compromise. Do you support it or not?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Well, first, we haven't even seen the written language. But let me just say this. First, we do have to do something about immigration.

If we do nothing -- there are now 12 million illegal aliens in the country. It will go to 20 million. Many companies and individuals who need specific people to create jobs from overseas won't be able to get them. So we have to do something.

And look. The bill is a fair starting point. It has two very good provisions in there that I like. One is really tough employer sanctions.

Most Americans would accept changes to immigration, even a path to citizenship, if they knew there wouldn't be wave after wave of illegal aliens coming into the country.

And the way to stop that is make employers -- go hard on employers when they hire someone illegally, make sure there's a non- forgable I.D. The bill does that.

The second good thing is the path to citizenship. It's not amnesty by any means. Amnesty means, "Oh, you can all become citizens right now." This is a long, hard path.

You have to learn English, pay a fine, go behind everybody else who's been in line. It would probably take about 15 years. So those two are good things, and I think that's a good balance in the bill.

I have two problems with it. One, while I certainly believe that immigration -- we need to bring in people who have skills, who the economy needs, we also need to take care of families so they can be unified. I think the bill is a little stinting on that. I'd like to see some changes there.

But the biggest objection I and many Democrats have, which could be a stumbling block to the whole bill, is this guest worker program. It's an additional program. Hundreds of thousands of people come in. There's virtually no protections.

They're going to bring wage rates down, and after their time is up, they're probably going to stay in the country and become a new group of illegal immigrants.

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Graham here.

And particularly, I want to ask you, Senator, about the criticism from the right. You are one of the key players in putting together this bill, but yesterday down at your home state, South Carolina, Republican convention, you were booed by people down there who still think this is amnesty.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: What I tried to do at the convention was be honest with my constituents and let them know that there will never be immigration reform without bipartisanship and let them know the role the White House played in drafting this bill.

I've been very proud to work with the White House, Secretary Chertoff, Gutierrez, Senator Schumer, Democrats and Republicans to fix this problem.

You know, before 9/11, this was a social economic problem. After 9/11, this is a national security problem. I think we all have an obligation to fix this problem.

The guest worker program is an important aspect of it. You cannot hire a guest worker until you advertise that no American will take the job and you have to advertise at a competitive wage.

I think we have struck the right balance here. We're securing our borders. We're controlling who gets a job on our terms. As Chuck says, this is by no means forgiveness. This is a probationary sentence for the 12 million.

If they ever want to become a citizen, they've got to wait till everybody ahead of them goes through the line and they have to go back to their home country to apply.

And to my colleagues who want to make the bill better, you're welcome to come on the floor and let's work together.

To my colleagues who come on the floor to tear this bill down with no alternative, you're not doing this country a service, and I will push back.

If you've got a better idea, you can lead us to a better solution. I'm all for it. But if all you're going to do is say no and embrace the status quo, I'm going to be your biggest critic.

WALLACE: Before we move on to other subjects, let me ask you, though, Senator Graham, when you first announced this bill, you said it's going to pass with 75 votes in the Senate.

We're hearing an awful lot of fire from both the right and the left. Are you in trouble?

GRAHAM: Oh, no, I felt really good. President Bush has led us to a very good solution that should have been done years ago.

When is the Republican party going to solve this problem, when we lose every aspect of the government? This is the best deal the Republican Party will get. This is the best deal the Democratic Party will get.

If we can make it better, fine. But this is our chance. This is our moment, and I look forward to taking this bill to the floor, and I believe it will be overwhelmingly supported by the American people. I really do believe that, because it's a good solution to a hard problem.

WALLACE: Senator Schumer, you plan to hold a vote of no confidence on Attorney General Gonzales perhaps as early as this week. The White House is already calling this a political stunt. Do they have a point?

SCHUMER: No, they don't. Look. The bottom line is the only person who thinks that the attorney general should remain attorney general is the president.

He's gotten virtually no support from even Republicans in the Senate. Just a handful have supported him. Six have called for him to step down. A dozen more have said very negative things about him.

And so the president can keep him. He has the constitutional power to do it. But we have the constitutional power to try to pressure the president to understand that Gonzales is no good.

And let me just say two quick other things, Chris. We need a new deputy attorney general. Of course, the old one, McNulty, resigned. And we need someone quickly who puts rule of law first. No one is running the department.

And second, I think the testimony of Jim Comey was riveting but it also asked some serious questions. We know Attorney General Gonzales did not go to John Ashcroft's...

WALLACE: Let me just briefly -- because people may not know what you're talking about. It came out Jim Comey, who was the deputy attorney general -- John Ashcroft, the attorney general, was very sick in the hospital, and Comey was acting attorney general.

And there was a question about renewing the warrantless wiretap program, and so Gonzales, who was then White House chief of staff, went to the hospital to try to get Comey overruled by Ashcroft who, as we say, was in a hospital bed. Go ahead.

SCHUMER: Right. And you know, Gonzales did not do this on his own. The question is who ordered him to do it. The president was asked. He didn't say yes or no.

Mr. Comey mentioned Vice President Cheney and David Addington, the chief of staff for the vice president as on the other side.

I'm sending letters today to the president, to Vice President Cheney, to Mr. Addington, asking them if they sent Gonzales there or if they know who it is who did it, because the Justice Department's own Office of Legal Counsel said that this program was being done illegally.

To try and go around the established law and go to a sick man in his hospital bed and try to get him to sign something he might not even be aware of that his own department said was not consonant with the law -- that's really, really a terrible thing to do, and we want to find out who did it.

WALLACE: Let me just clear up a couple of things. First of all, of course, at that time, Gonzales was the White House counsel, but the chief of staff, Andy Card, also went on the meeting.

SCHUMER: Yes.

WALLACE: And I should also point out that James Comey, under questioning from Senator Specter, said there was nothing illegal in what the White House did here. But let me move on, if I can, to Senator Graham.

Do you still have confidence in Alberto Gonzales running the Justice Department?

GRAHAM: Here's what I would like to see the Senate do. Find out the facts about the firing of the U.S. attorneys, make sure that -- I don't believe there's any evidence of illegal behavior on the part of the attorney general.

If the president wants to keep him in his job, I will work with him. The Congress is at 29 percent. The Congress is at 29 percent because we're playing all of these "gotcha" games.

We've got a chance as Republicans and Democrats to do something good for this country: Solve illegal immigration, the biggest national security problem facing this country.

There are millions of people here. We don't know who they are and what they're up to. I want to focus on that, rather than pass a resolution, that's never been done in the history of the Congress, to play "gotcha" politics with the attorney general. So I hope we'll understand why we're at 29 percent.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, finally, I...

SCHUMER: I have to disagree with Lindsey on this.

WALLACE: Well, real quickly, because I want to talk about Iraq as well, Senator.

SCHUMER: This is not "gotcha". This is serious stuff. The rule of law, putting law above whether you're a Democrat or Republican, is at stake. The attorney general has violated it. We ought to be doing everything we can to get a new attorney general.

WALLACE: Okay. Let's talk about Iraq, because that is certainly a serious subject, the war in Iraq.

Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have both now promised that they're going to get a bill to the president by next weekend, before Memorial Day, they say.

Are you willing to drop the time lines, the deadlines for troop withdrawals, in order to get money to the troops?

SCHUMER: Well, look. We have two goals, Chris. One is to fund the troops while they're there, but the second is to change the mission. There are different ways to do it. But we're going to keep fighting for that second part as well.

One bit of good news. The Republicans and the president have been moving in our direction. A few months ago, they said no benchmarks. Now they're willing to accept benchmarks. So there are serious negotiations here. It will not just be on this bill. We're going to continue to move for time lines on the DOD bill which will come up. But right now, the president wants nothing on the bill. We want timetables with specific change of mission.

You'll have to come out somewhere in between to get an agreement, and that's where we're headed, but then we will move on and try to push the timetables on the deauthorization bill in the next few weeks.

WALLACE: Senator Graham, let me end with you on this. What seems to be the possible compromise this week is the idea -- no time lines, but benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government and cutting off foreign aid if the Iraqi government fails to meet those benchmarks. Could you accept that?

GRAHAM: What I hope we can do is find benchmarks that will not undermine the mission. We've got to win in Iraq.

And this whole idea of a new mission of where our troops can just fight Al Qaida and no one else -- I've been a military lawyer for 25 years. What you're trying to do is impossible to implement.

We have to fight extremists who are trying to topple this infant democracy. Benchmarks, holding the Iraqi government accountable, but not by empowering our money -- they need the money. They're running out of the money.

We need to give the troops the money without ensuring their defeat. We're at 29 percent because we can't fund troops at war, and we're trying to do something in the back door which we won't do in the front door, which is cut off funding, bring them home. That's an honorable path.

This idea of trying to have benchmarks and time lines that ensure their defeat is unacceptable to me. And this is a war we can't lose.

So I hope we'll be smart enough and wise enough as a Congress to give our troops what they need without ensuring their defeat and empowering their enemy.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there. Senator Graham, Senator Schumer, we want to thank you both. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us.

Up next, a rare interview with the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. We'll ask her about growing criticism that judges legislate from the bench. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Even though Sandra Day O'Connor has retired from the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean the nation's first female justice is taking it easy.

She's in the process of putting together her own Web site to teach students about the court system and to try to answer critics she believes are going too far. We sat down with her late this week at the Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Justice O'Connor, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, FORMER JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT: Thank you.

WALLACE: You say that one of the things that got you started thinking about this Web site were all of the partisan attacks on judges, all the talk about activist judges legislating from the court.

Why does that kind of talk disturb you?

O'CONNOR: It was a concern to me because I've lived a long time now. I'm a product of the last century, you know. And I do not remember a time when there were such a broad and widespread range of critics of judges.

Now, when I was a youngster I do remember seeing on the highway out by the Lazy B Ranch a big billboard saying, "Impeach Earl Warren," and that was in the years when there were some cases like Miranda and some criminal cases, and people got all excited.

But what we're seeing now is a more broadly based range of criticisms of the nation's courts, both state and federal, and we saw it in the last election.

Do you remember in South Dakota there was a proposal on their ballot to amend the state constitution? It was called Jail for Judges.

It was a proposition to, by constitutional amendment, remove judicial immunity from state judges and subject them to punishment by fine and/or jail for making an erroneous decision, and it would have affected jurors and witnesses as well. And so these were symptomatic of what we were seeing across the country, and to such a degree that it seemed to me we should try to find out what was going on. What are the concerns, why are they concerned, what can we do about it?

WALLACE: But you certainly know that when courts, especially the Supreme Court, make decisions on such deeply felt issues that there's going to be criticism, even sharp criticism.

O'CONNOR: Absolutely. And by no means do I suggest that it's wrong to criticize courts for particular decisions. We will always have that.

Some of the issues that courts are dealing with end up being issues on which people can reasonably differ in the appropriate outcome. So it's understandable that there can be criticism, and our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to do that.

But when it goes further and when it is producing legislation to impeach judges for particular decisions that the legislators don't like, for example, that's a concern. That was not the constitutional scheme. Criticism is fine.

WALLACE: Let me follow up on that, because you say we must not allow criticism to cross over into intimidation.

O'CONNOR: Into sanctions and intimidation, that's right.

WALLACE: Do you see a real danger of that happening?

O'CONNOR: Well, I do, absolutely. And in the Congress of the United States, there were resolutions to impeach judges for the outcome of the Terri Schiavo case.

There were proposals for impeachment of any federal judge who ever would cite a foreign judgment in an opinion.

I mean, these are things that go beyond just saying some judge reached an erroneous decision. Removal from office is a kind of sanction, I think.

WALLACE: And a form of intimidation.

O'CONNOR: Correct.

WALLACE: So what do you hope that this Web site, which I know you're still building -- what will it accomplish?

O'CONNOR: Well, in many, if not most, high schools today, civics education is no longer required. And I don't know how long we can survive as a nation if we don't teach every generation how our government is structured and works.

I regard that as a very important thing for our public schools to teach. It's critical for every generation to learn it. You don't inherit that knowledge through the gene pool. Indeed, when we got a Bill of Rights giving every citizen the right to due process of law, to freedom of speech, and freedom of religion and so on, the only way that can be enforced is to give courts the power to overturn actions by the legislative or executive branch that impinge on those freedoms. And that's how it has to be enforced.

So if you start imposing sanctions and punishment on judges for particular decisions within their jurisdiction, we have a problem.

WALLACE: But some of the critics would come back to you and say the reason we're critical, the reason we want to put these restrictions on, is because judges are overstepping their bounds.

O'CONNOR: Well, that's fine. They're free to say that. But to take a particular judge and try to impeach them for some decision, or take other sanctions of that nature, goes clearly against the constitutional structure. We don't do that.

What we're going to try to do is to create an interactive program that will be found on the Web site, on one's computer, and make it fun so that the student using it can play the role of judge and decide an actual issue, and then compare it with what might actually have happened.

I mean, there are going to be all kinds of ways to use this so that the learning process will be engaging and fun.

WALLACE: I have to ask you, do you surf the Net?

O'CONNOR: No. Seldom.

WALLACE: Seldom?

O'CONNOR: Right.

WALLACE: But...

O'CONNOR: But young people do.

And I've watched my grandchildren. And I think they have more fun working with their computer than they do just reading a textbook. That's the point.

And I hope that we make this so interesting and so informative and engaging that a new generation is going to learn about how our courts work.

WALLACE: You left the court a little over a year ago. What do you miss about it?

O'CONNOR: Oh, well, it was interesting to be involved in the process of deciding issues of the day that came to the court. And it is a remarkable institution. It's a great institution.

WALLACE: Do you ever see a case coming up and wonder what are they going to do to a decision that you wrote some years ago?

O'CONNOR: Oh, yes, but that's idle speculation.

WALLACE: But I mean, do you sit there and go, "Gosh, you know, I kind of wrote the decision that's the law now?"

O'CONNOR: Oh, what I think doesn't matter. I'm not on the court anymore.

WALLACE: After you read a decision, just on a personal basis, do you ever sit there and think, "Well, they got that wrong?"

O'CONNOR: Well, I might, but I'm not going to say so.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: But I mean, you still have to follow this, and you must have your opinion as to what the right way to apply the law is.

O'CONNOR: But it's not an opinion that I'm going to share.

WALLACE: Well, I didn't expect you to.

O'CONNOR: No.

WALLACE: I am going to ask you this, though. Do you worry about the court chipping away or even reversing a woman's right to choose?

O'CONNOR: I'm not going to express a concern about anything that this court might do. I don't see that as my role as a retired justice. It just isn't.

I don't care what I feel about it personally, it's not -- I think it would be quite inappropriate to express a view.

WALLACE: President Reagan's private diary has just been published, and in it, he has something to say about you. "July 6th, 1981, Nancy's birthday. Called Judge O'Connor in Arizona and told her she was my nominee for Supreme Court. Already the flak is starting and from my own supporters. Right-to-life people say she's pro- abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she'll make a good justice."

Does that sound like the Ronald Reagan you knew?

O'CONNOR: It does.

WALLACE: What stands out in your memories of former President Reagan?

O'CONNOR: That he was a marvelous leader. President Reagan had a manner about him that made people like and respect him.

He just spoke well, and he had a clear vision of the major things that he wanted to accomplish, and he focused on it, and he expressed his ideas well. And he was just a very effective president, I thought.

WALLACE: I want to go back to this question about attacks on judges, because I think this speaks to some issues that you may have to deal with in developing your Web site.

When one justice is replaced by another and suddenly the law of the land changes on an issue, can you understand why some people might come to think that the Supreme Court is less about principle than about politics?

O'CONNOR: That's the concern if stare decisis is disregarded. Obviously, that is a concern.

Our legal system is based on that of Great Britain. We just celebrated Jamestown's 400th birthday.

And from my perspective, one of the most important things the settlers of Jamestown did was to import with them the British system of common law.

And under the common law, if an appellate court decides an issue of law, then that's binding on the lower courts unless and until that appellate decision is modified or changed.

It's called stare decisis, and that's just an important concept under our legal system.

WALLACE: But what happens if that begins to go out the window, and as...

O'CONNOR: Well, we hope that it doesn't. We hope that most of us who've studied law have a respect for that basic principle.

WALLACE: So that the law doesn't change when the faces on the court change.

O'CONNOR: It shouldn't change just because the faces on the court have changed.

WALLACE: And to the degree it does, does that perhaps contribute to skepticism about the court?

O'CONNOR: Well, I guess it could, at a certain level.

WALLACE: Let's talk a little bit about Sandra Day O'Connor. While you have stepped down from the court, you have clearly not retired. And I know one of the things that you're doing is hearing appellate cases.

Do you ever worry about getting reversed by your former colleagues on the Supreme Court?

O'CONNOR: Well, I don't worry about it at all. If they think it needs reversing, let them do it.

WALLACE: And you wouldn't... O'CONNOR: I easily could have made a mistake.

WALLACE: And you wouldn't sit there and think, "Those so-and- sos, I..."

O'CONNOR: Oh, no. Heaven's sakes, no.

WALLACE: You were also a member of the Iraq Study Group that proposed a plan for dealing with the war. And when the group, your group, issued a report, you said the following, "What we need to go forward in this very tough situation is a broad consensus in our country."

Are you disappointed that there has been no consensus and that, in fact, the divide is wider than ever?

O'CONNOR: It is a concern that, at the moment at least, we don't see a broad consensus on what to do. It would be helpful if we had a consensus.

It would make it easier to get financial support out of the Congress and other supplies and action, as needed. Obviously, it makes it easier if there is some kind of general consensus about what to do.

WALLACE: How's your husband doing?

O'CONNOR: Well, not as well as I would like.

WALLACE: I talked with Nancy Reagan once about her husband, and she said the toughest part of Alzheimer's is that you lose your shared memories.

O'CONNOR: That's right. It's very sad. And it's a disease that, as of now, has no cure. And it's a progressive condition. So it's sad to see it happen and progress with someone you love.

WALLACE: How long have you and Mr. O'Connor been married?

O'CONNOR: Fifty-four years, a long time.

WALLACE: So there are a lot of shared memories.

O'CONNOR: A lot of memories, yes.

WALLACE: Finally, you once told your brother that when you retire from the court, you become a nobody. Do you...

O'CONNOR: I don't remember that discussion.

WALLACE: You don't?

(LAUGHTER)

Well, you were quoted in the paper, so who knows?

O'CONNOR: All right.

WALLACE: Do you still feel that you have an important role to play?

O'CONNOR: If I can be part of the creation of a teaching tool to help teach the younger generation about the court system, I will feel I have made a very helpful contribution, frankly.

WALLACE: Justice O'Connor, we want to thank you so much for the interview and thank you so much for your service to our country.

O'CONNOR: Thank you. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Justice O'Connor says her Web site should be up in about 18 months, and she says it will be targeted at kids in junior high and high school.

Well, coming up, our panel of Sunday regulars on that big immigration deal. The Republican right hates it and so does the Democratic left. Will it become law? Some answers when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty, but without animosity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA: It's a pardon to immigration law- breakers and it's a reward with the objective of their crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Those are some of the sharply divided opinions even among Republicans about the new immigration reform bill that was announced this week.

And it's time now for our Sunday gang, Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News, and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

Well, Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House all reached agreement on a comprehensive immigration reform package this week which would first try to enforce the borders and then, after certain triggers were met, would provide for guest workers and for a path to citizenship.

Brit, what do you think of the deal?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS WASHINGTON MANAGING EDITOR: Well, I think that the thing you didn't mention there was that once those border measures are taken and the so-called triggers have been pulled, there is this provision for getting what's called a Z visa, which is basically an immediate granting of legal right to be here, and that's the part that has people screaming that there's amnesty.

I think it doesn't meet the definition of amnesty very well, but that's the term that's being tossed around.

I think, however, Chris, that the bill will pass the Senate. I think that Senator Kennedy will bring along enough Democrats and there'll be enough Republicans to go with them to pass the Senate.

It could, however, be in some trouble in the House, and we'll just have to wait and see. House leaders are being very cautious in what they're saying about it.

MARA LIASSON, NPR: Yes, I think, look. This is a real bipartisan compromise. And one of the definitions of that is it's getting flack from both the left and the right.

And I agree with Brit. I think it does have a good chance in the Senate. I think it's very unclear if it will pass the House and, if some version passes the House, whether there actually will be a bill signed in the end.

But I do think there's a question for people who say this is amnesty, which is would anything short of deportation be amnesty to them, and I suspect it probably would be.

So the question remains what you're going to do with the 12 million people who are in this country illegally, and this bill lays out a very long stretch of hurdles and obstacles for them to get over to the point where some immigration advocacy groups are even questioning them.

They certainly don't consider it amnesty or a free ride. But I do think this bill has a very, very tough road ahead of it.

WALLACE: Bill, when we've talked about this in the past, you have generally been pro-comprehensive immigration reform, and I get a lot of e- mail from conservatives who criticize you from the right.

What do they not get that you apparently do get?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, no, I'm a liberal on immigration, and I thought last year's bill should have been passed. I think it would have been decent law and would have been awfully good for a Republican president politically and Republican Congress to show they could deal with the problem.

I'm not sure this year's bill deserves to be passed. I've been trying to study up on it. It's not so easy. It was released late Friday night. You try to go online and you read about it, and it's very complicated and confusing.

There seems to be an exception to the triggers that might swallow up the triggers right in the very first section. Section 601(h) is an exception. I mean, and here's what...

WALLACE: Yes, I've been studying that as well.

(LAUGHTER)

KRISTOL: No, but here's what's striking. Here's what's striking. Last year's bill went through the Senate Judiciary Committee. There was a huge debate. There were amendments. It went to the floor. There was over two weeks of debate with amendments. This thing has been produced in private. It was unveiled Friday night. And they want a cloture vote tomorrow night? I really think -- on this, I'm with the opponents. This is an inappropriate way to deal with such a major issue.

This thing should be out for a few weeks for people to analyze. It should probably come through a committee or at least should go to the floor in such a way that it can be fully amended and debated.

There's no reason for a cloture vote on this tomorrow night. So in this instance, I think, I'm more skeptical about this year's bill than last year's bill. And I think procedurally, they have embraced something that's really hard to defend.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, I think that the reason that they're trying to do it quickly, Bill, is because there's a very narrow window of opportunity here, and they're trying to build momentum.

If you let this bill sit there in the sun for a long time, I think it's going to shrivel up, because there are opponents standing on either side.

Looking at it from the left, there are the church groups and organized labor. Organized labor says, "You're going to create a subclass of workers. The people who come in as guest workers can only stay for two years. Then they've got to go. It's going to drive down wages."

The churches are saying, "Wait a second, what about family reunification?" Family reunification used to be the hallmark of America's immigration policy. Now you're going to have a point system that rewards people who have high levels of education or high levels of skill.

And you know what the right is up to. Xenophobes on the right -- "Oh, we don't like it, it's not the America we knew." They're just anti- immigration.

KRISTOL: Letting this bill sit there in the sun is called democracy.

WILLIAMS: No.

KRISTOL: Sunlight is the best disinfectant, Justice Brandeis said. Let people read the bill for a few weeks...

WILLIAMS: They will. They will.

KRISTOL: ... and debate it.

WILLIAMS: Look, it's going to have to go to the House. There's going to have to be some kind of...

KRISTOL: No, no, no. I'm sorry, the United States Senate is the place which has open rules that allow for debate and amendments.

And a cloture vote tomorrow night is ridiculous. And I think it...

HUME: Well, Bill...

KRISTOL: ... suggests that the authors of this bill have no confidence that it can stand up to real scrutiny.

HUME: All a cloture vote will allow is a bill to be brought to the floor, as I understand it.

KRISTOL: This week. This week.

HUME: But there will be all kinds of time for debate and discussion of this bill.

KRISTOL: They say they want to pass it this weekend.

HUME: Well, maybe they can, but look. This bill isn't going to get through the United States Congress and to the president's desk without there being a tremendous debate about it, and without -- every detail of what's in it is going to be dragged out, examined and discussed.

I don't think we're in any danger of having something snuck through in the middle of the night that's going to change our immigration policy forever. It's just too big an issue.

WALLACE: Not surprisingly, the bill and the issue is getting all mixed up into presidential politics.

Mara, former Governor Romney, who supported comprehensive immigration reform last year, including a path to citizenship, is now very quickly against this bill and has even put out a television ad stating his opposition. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Legal immigration is great, but illegal immigration -- that we've got to end. Thank you. And amnesty is not the way to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mara, is that another case where Romney's position has evolved?

LIASSON: I think so. He didn't say so in the ad, but it's clear that he feels this bill is amnesty, and it sounds like he is saying anything short of deportation is amnesty.

He clearly reflects what a lot of people in the Republican base think. That might be one of the reasons why he's doing a little bit better in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I mean, he has stuck to a very, very disciplined strategy. He has a pretty clear idea of what he wants to do in this campaign, which is hew to the right on almost every issue, which -- as he mentioned in the debate, with the one exception of No Child Left Behind.

But yes, I think that this is an issue that really drives Republicans apart. And it's a very hard issue. I think although Rudy Giuliani hasn't said exactly what he thinks about this bill, he has said in speech after speech that he is for a path to citizenship.

And of course, John McCain was involved in this bill. So that puts Romney clearly opposed to them.

WALLACE: Bill, and then there's Senator McCain, who, in the final negotiating session up on Capitol Hill this week reportedly -- it's come from a bunch of sources -- swore at his fellow Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and then, when challenged by Cornyn, said, "I know more about this than anybody else in the room." McCain's staff denies it.

What do you make of that?

KRISTOL: I think it will not help Senator McCain in the Republican presidential primary -- not his position. He's had this position for a long time. It's one I'm sympathetic too, a pretty liberal position on immigration.

It's this notion that Juan also repeated that this thing has to be jammed through. Senator McCain said Thursday at the press conference we can't let this sit out there too long. It will get involved in politics.

I just think people -- this is a huge -- as Brit said, a huge reform. It needs to be debated. And the idea that a senator stands up and says, "We negotiated this in private. This now needs to be brought to the floor for cloture tomorrow night, having been unveiled Thursday, and that this thing deserves to be passed quickly without real scrutiny," I think that will sit badly with the Republican primary voters.

WILLIAMS: And I think you've got to understand politics, and the politics -- and especially the politics coming from President Bush, who is a big fan of this deal -- is that you've got to try to accelerate it so that you get some momentum, and then get it to the House, and let the debate -- there's nobody trying to stifle debate here.

KRISTOL: The House does not bring bills to the floor with an open rule. There will not be a chance to amend this bill on the floor of the House.

WALLACE: All right. All right. Enough procedure. We've got about 20 seconds left. Real quickly, starting with Juan, is this going to end up on the president's desk or not?

WILLIAMS: Yes, it will end up on the president's desk, because the president is so desperate to have something to build a legacy on given what's going on in Iraq.

WALLACE: Bill, will this end up on the president's desk? KRISTOL: No.

WALLACE: Mara?

LIASSON: This Senate bill, this particular bill, will not.

WALLACE: Well, comprehensive immigration reform.

LIASSON: I think probably not.

HUME: I think not in this precise form, but I think it's at least 50/50 that a bill will reach the president.

WALLACE: We have to take a quick break here, panel.

But coming up, Republicans jump ugly with each other during the Fox debate. Where does the race stand now? The panel weighs in when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1927, Charles Lindbergh took off in the Spirit of St. Louis to begin his flight from New York to Paris.

Lindbergh was the first pilot to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic. It took him 33.5 hours.

Stay tuned for more panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: And my fear is that McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold has done to campaign finance and money in politics, and that's bad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: I haven't changed my position on even numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may be running for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Mitt Romney and John McCain in one of several skirmishes among the Republicans during this week's presidential debate.

And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan. I had to explain to Bill during the commercial what jump ugly means.

So let's look at the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll on the Republican race. Here it is. And while this is a national poll, the trends are reflected in early state polls.

As you can see, Mayor Giuliani still leads but has slipped significantly in the last month. Senator McCain is holding steady. And the rest of the field, both announced candidates and those who may still get in, are trailing.

We should point out, though, there a new poll, Brit, this morning, a Des Moines Register poll, which now shows Romney with a significant lead in Iowa, and Giuliani and McCain trailing. Where do you think the Republican race stands now?

HUME: Well, I think that the top three are McCain, Giuliani and Romney, no question about it.

I think Romney has finally begun to make a bit of a move, and it has been a little surprising that he had not done any better considering the fact that he's been out there a while. He has, you know, had a conservative platform. He's a very attractive guy. And in places like South Carolina, for example, he spent a lot of money to get his name recognition up and he helped his popularity.

Yet we found in South Carolina when we were down there this week that while his name recognition was up to 87 percent, he was still sitting at 8 percent in the polls in that state, an important early state where someone with a strong conservative profile would be expected to do better.

So it looks as if it's beginning to happen for him in other places, which, I think, was inevitable given, you know, the amount of effort he's put into it. He's got a well organized campaign.

WALLACE: Mara, has Giuliani weathered the storm over his pro- choice position on abortion, or do you think that's going to continue to nag at him?

LIASSON: Well, I think you'd have to assume that some of the -- the storm over his position was two parts. One is recognizing what his position was, which people hadn't focused on.

And then there was the kind of confusion that he created over exactly what his feelings about Roe were. I think he's kind of clarified that a bit.

But you'd have to assume that some of his slippage is because people are finally starting to focus on aspects of Giuliani other than the fact that he's the hero of 9/11.

So I think it is a taking a toll on him, and there's a whole bunch of other parts of Giuliani's record that haven't been focused on yet.

What I think is interesting is that in that debate, he is still the frontrunner on paper, in the national polls, but nobody's going after him. It's Romney and McCain who see themselves as rivals, and they almost discount Giuliani as so improbable as not to merit attack right now.

KRISTOL: I think the big picture of what's happened, if you look back at December -- McCain was the frontrunner, around 40 percent. He's come back to the field. He's now at 20 percent, 22 percent.

Giuliani became the frontrunner. He's now coming back to the field. Sixty percent of Republican primary voters nationally are not for either Giuliani or McCain, who have been the two huge names, the two frontrunners.

In Iowa, it's now 65 percent are not for Giuliani and McCain. There is a huge opening for Romney and/or Fred Thompson. I just think there -- it turns out being pro-abortion rights, in the case of Giuliani, and pro- amnesty -- let's use that term -- but pro-very- liberal-immigration bill, in the case of McCain -- those are two big hurdles, and there's a big opening for Romney, which he's exploiting pretty effectively, and for Fred Thompson, which he's about to exploit, because I think he will get in the race within the next month.

WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think the Republicans have a candidate. That debate -- you know, hats off, by the way. It was very well conducted by you and Brit. I mean, all the criticism of Fox for how you're going to conduct the debate -- I mean, obviously, look at the debate. It was pretty fair.

But that was no march of the titans up there on the stage, I've got to tell you. There's nobody there who you could say, "Oh, that guy's really head and shoulders above everybody else."

And when you saw the interchange that went forth between Romney and McCain about flip-flops, and who really has a position, and who isn't simply being an opportunist here, I think Romney got undressed. And he was trying to attack McCain.

You know what? It just made McCain, especially when it came to the torture issue -- I thought McCain was the one who stood tall and said, "Here's what I believe. I've been a prisoner of war. I've talked to military people." And everybody else, it looks, is just trying to throw meat to the far right.

WALLACE: Well, let's turn to the march of the titans on the Democratic side, where the overwhelming issue continues to be how against the Iraq war are you, and when were you against the Iraq war.

Senator Clinton, who used to oppose timetables for withdrawal, this week voted for the Feingold bill, which would cut off funding for combat operations by March of next year.

But afterwards, she said, "No, all I really wanted to do was talk about it." Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, D-N.Y.: I'm not going to speculate on what I'm going to be voting on in the future. I voted in favor of cloture, to have a debate. We weren't successful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And then to further complicate matters, Clinton said later, "Well, no. In fact, I supported Feingold in the cutoff of funds next March."

Brit, where is she? Where are the Democrats on Iraq right now?

HUME: They're for getting out of Iraq, the sooner, the better. And virtually every one of them has that position. And Senator Clinton's position differs only in the sense that she refuses to say I'm sorry for the original vote to authorize the war.

But that's where they all are. It's where the whole party is.

WALLACE: Meanwhile, let me ask you about this, Mara. Former President Clinton tried to say well, you know, his wife and Senator Obama, who seem to be the two frontrunners on the Democratic side, are really in the same position on Iraq.

But here was Obama's response. "I suppose that's true, if you leave out the fact she authorized it and supported it, and I said it was a bad idea. You know, that's a fairly major difference." Ouch. Is Democratic politics getting a little less polite?

LIASSON: Well, yes.

HUME: Was he jumping ugly?

LIASSON: No, no, no, I don't think that was jumping ugly, whatever jumping ugly is.

Look. I think that Senator Clinton has taken a lot of steps to completely get rid of any daylight between her and the rest of the field in terms of where you stand on the war right now.

I don't know how much farther to the left you can go than voting for Feingold, which is cutting off funding.

However, the one difference does remain, which is whether you were for it or against it in the beginning. And her campaign, starting with Mark Penn and now with her husband, has been attacking Obama, saying there really isn't any difference because their votes have been the same.

But I think that's where a certain portion, a big portion, of the left-wing base of the party -- where were you on Iraq from the beginning does matter. And Obama does have the distinction of saying, "I was against it from the beginning. I thought it was a bad idea."

And I think he's withstood the attacks from the Clinton camp pretty well.

KRISTOL: It's pretty amazing that every Democratic presidential candidate is now for getting out of Iraq within the next 10 months. I mean, it's, for me, such an irresponsible position. And they have all, like lemmings, followed Edwards and Gore -- followed Edwards, I guess you'd have to say, to that position.

WILLIAMS: Well, you know, it's interesting. I mean, on the right, it's interesting to me, Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel -- they're finally saying, "Wait a second. What about the Republicans? Why aren't you calling for accountability and responding to the public will that says let's find a successful way to manage this war?"

WALLACE: Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel on the right. There you go. Thank you, panel. See you next week.

Time now for some mail about our interview last Sunday with presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Dan Evans from Maryland writes, "As a lifelong Republican voter since Richard Nixon in 1960, I find that I cannot support Mr. Giuliani because of his stands on social issues. I would not vote in the next election if he is nominated." But Noel Kranz from South Dakota disagrees. "I can't remember the last time I voted for a pro-choice candidate, but I will next year. Keeping America strong is that important. Go Rudy!"

Be sure to let us know your thoughts by e-mailing us at fns@foxnews.com.

Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: You often hear about the speaker of the House. But there's another figure who has been the voice of the House for almost two decades. And he's our Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAUL HAYS, HOUSE READING CLERK: They more than any other part of our government reflect the will of the people.

WALLACE: Paul Hays is talking about the U.S. House. And if his voice sounds familiar, that's because for the last 19 years anyone watching C- SPAN can't have missed him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: The Public Law 105-331...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: In a sense, are you the town crier for the House?

HAYS: In a very strange sort of sense, yes.

WALLACE: Hays was the House reading clerk, called on to read the title of bills, the text of amendments and presidential messages.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: House Resolution 120, resolution recognizing H.R. 2884, a bill to amend the...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: ... a bill to provide for the treatment of District of Columbia...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: ... and resolution providing for consideration...

(END VIDEO CLIP) HAYS: I hope I got across to anyone listening what those words meant.

WALLACE: His job sometimes put him at the center of history.

HAYS: Probably the most dramatic was the impeachment of a president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: On December 18th, 1998, Hays read the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. He remembers it took 12.5 minutes.

HAYS: I just was trying to get through it without tripping over any of those legal phrases. I really was worried about that. It's the only thing I ever rehearsed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: Pursuant to Section 2 of Article 1 of the Constitution...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: For all the drama, you used to work on crossword puzzles while the House was in session, true?

HAYS: Yes, I did that.

WALLACE: In fact, you would work on a couple of crossword puzzles at a time, true?

HAYS: I had a drawer full of them.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: Paul Hays grew up in Washington. He moved here from Tennessee at age 14 and got a job as a page on Earl Warren's Supreme Court.

He says that formed his politics.

HAYS: We could remember these cases and, gee, they're all decided the wrong way. And I decided, "Well, you know, if it's the liberals who are making all these decisions that I don't think are right, I must be a conservative."

WALLACE: In 1966, then Congressman Jerry Ford hired him for a clerical job in the House, and he stayed there 41 years. In 1999, he had a stroke, and it took him eight months to recover.

For someone who makes his living reading, it must have been pretty frightening.

HAYS: It was. At first, I didn't know if I was ever going to be able to talk again.

WALLACE: Hays still walks with a cane, but he went back for eight more years in the House, until last month when, at age 61, he decided to step down.

There are two reading clerks, one appointed by each party. But when they gave him a brief tribute, they were applauding on both sides of the aisle. It was one of the few times Paul Hays didn't get the last word.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: But that distinctive voice is not about to go silent. Paul Hays says he'll now look for work reading commercials or books on tape.

And that's it for today. Have a great week, and we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday".

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006