Election 2008 Democrats | Republicans | General Election: Heads-to-Heads | Latest Polls

---

June 26, 2007

Special Report Roundtable - June 26

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN JOHN CORNYN, (R) TEXAS: I think the American people can be forgiven in doubting the commitment of the federal government and the willingness of the federal government to actually do all the things it is promising. That's why this bill is such a tough sell.

SEN TED KENNEDY, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: If we sink this bill, if we vote against this bill, we won won't have even tried to do all the background checks. We won't even have tried to get the border into terms of security. We know what so many of the members of this body are against, but we have, now, yet to hear what they are for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Senator Kennedy and Senator Cornyn talking about the Immigration Reform Bill, which, after looking like it was dead and gone, is back up on the Senate floor subject to a certain set of, a restricted set of amendments. Getting it back on the Senate floor required some doing today, and it happened.

Some thoughts on all this now from Fred Barnes, the executive editor of the Weekly Standard, Mara Liasson, national political correspondent for National Public Radio, and Mort Kondracke, executive editor of "Roll Call," FOX News contributors all.

So, this was a big hurdle. The House remains in doubt as well. How likely now is it that this Bill will clear the Senate? Fred?

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, it depends on the vote on a couple of amendments and then another cloture vote, which, in other words, you'd have to shut off debate and go to a vote. Otherwise the opponents could yap forever and it would kill the bill.

There are two big amendments. One is by Senator Menendez in New Jersey, a Democrat, who would cut out of bill--he would bring ban back chain migration. You know, family unification, where your sister and her sister and her uncle, and all these people get in, and it dominates legal migration. Ending that was a key to getting the Republicans like John Cornyn.

And, secondly, in a bigger amendment is one by Lindsey Graham that would really toughen the enforcement in the bill. It would say the head of your household would have to go back to your home country and do a touchback in order to get a Z visa, and--

HUME: Is that likely to pass?

BARNES: Well, wait a minute, it's tougher than. And it also jumps if on those who only have visas who come here, about 30 percent or more of those who are illegal immigrants in America overstay their visa. This would say after 48 hours, if you haven't turned yourself in or left or notified authorities, your name would then be put on the National Criminal database, and you would be, obviously, subject to arrest and then deported. That is very tough.

And so, I don't know whether the Democrats, the liberal Democrats like Teddy Kennedy are going to go for that or not. But, I'll tell you, if it doesn't pass, they will lose Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl, the key Republicans, and the bill will fail.

MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ROLL CALL. But the Kyl-Graham bill on touchback, the head of family going back home, is a means of avoiding, of killing and even tougher bill which is regarded as a point and fill. That is the Hutchison bill--

HUME: Let's not get too far off into the weeds here.

KONDRACKE: OK, but look, so the grand bargainers basically like that Kyl-Graham bill that--

HUME: Provides a touchback provision, that before you get to Z visa--

KONDRACKE: But it guarantees that you can come back after you do your touchback.

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I would say that, in terms of prospect of this bill, I haven't heard anybody feel very, very confident. That doesn't mean it's not going to pass, but I this think it is extremely unclear at this point.

Whether these amendments are going to get passed, are they going to bring requisite number of Republicans along to vote for this. There are plenty of Republicans who, no matter what amendments you are going to pass, believe that if there is any KAPSA citizenship for illegal aliens in this bill, that's amnesty, and they are against it.

But, you know, if you can peel off a small handful--

HUME: But that isn't really the provision thought, Maura, that has given rise to the claims of an amnesty. That is the provision that allows, before you get to this question of Z visas and all that, a temporary visa that will allow you to stay in the country while you go through the process.

BARNES: That, too, has been changed in the Graham amendment. Right now it would be if it passed. Right now it says after 24 hours, if the federal authorities haven't found some reason you are a criminal, or something, for not giving you this probationary visa, you automatically get it.

But the Graham amendment would change it to say you have to wait for all the tests, the data--

HUME: You don't get it automatically.

BARNES: You don't get it automatically. And that's the third. That why this amendment is so important.

HUME: Now, those three measures would keep Republicans on the reservation?

BARNES: Look, you are going to get about 20 Republicans anyway. If it passes--you start with 20, and you pass the graham amendment, you could get up to 26 or 27 Republicans, a majority of the Republicans, and the bill would pass with you have 64, 65 votes.

HUME: In the meantime, we have a little bit of news here. The House Republican Conference has voted 114-23 to say they do not like and do not support the Senate Bill.

Now Nancy Pelosi has talked about that meeting.

KONDRACKE: Nancy Pelosi has stepped back from the idea that she needs 70 votes.

HUME: No kidding.

KONDRACKE: It's forty to 50 she is after now, and they are not going to start with the Senate Bill. They are going to start fresh and try to build a new bill.

HUME: When we come back with the panel we will discuss Senator Lugar's speech on the war in Iraq, which is the talk of the town. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R), INDIANA: Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of United States national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Dick Lugar is a serious guy, so obviously you take it seriously. But on the other hand, again, he voted against is the surge, he said the U.S. had reservations. We take seriously his point of view because he is a serious guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, how big a deal is it that Richard Lugar, the former chairman and now the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has made public his--at least in terms, made a big speech expressing some long-held reservations about the policy in Iraq?

It wasn't long before George Voinovich, another doubting Republican, was out commending Lugar and saying what a great speech it was. Democrats, of course, love it. John Warner expressed his admiration as well.

How serious, folks? Is this a major blow, or is this not very important?

KONDRACKE: I don't think it is--it's not the end of the story, because the end of story, we have been hearing forecasts of it for a while. Even Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader who is conservative and has been a down the line supporter of President Bush, has said that in September there is going to have to be a change of strategy. And Lamar Alexander and others are sponsoring an amendment that says that the Iraq Study Group ought to be the basis of future policy.

And that is essentially what Lugar said, that the surge is not working, we have to start looking at a plan B. And the plan B is a lot like what the Iraq Study Group propose.

LIASSON: Look, I don't think--this might be a turning point, we don't know yet. But I think it is a pretty serious step along the road that seems to be--there seems to be a consensus forming. When you have Mitch McConnell, and Dick Lugar, and other Republicans talking about something has to change in September, and that something is some kind of a draw down. Even the generals are talking about that, being able to do that.

I think it is important. And I think--

HUME: So the surge gets up to speed in June and allowed to proceed for what, three months?

LIASSON: Maybe longer.

HUME: And then they start the drawdown then, or are you talking about some later drawdown?

LIASSON: Well, maybe longer. He's talking about a plan to do that. And what he said that was interesting is he said one of the problems is that the prospects for the success of surge are too dependent on the action of others who don't share our agenda. Meaning--

HUME: The Iraqis?

LIASSON: Yes. Even if you provide the security that space that the security was supposed to provide for political reconciliation, that part of it, which only the Iraqis can do, isn't happening.

BARNES: I admire Senator Lugar. He is totally wrong the about this.

The speech, when you stop and think about it, it's a ridiculous speech. He says he wants to stop the surge, stop the counterinsurgency, move the troops of combat, and then that will achieve four goals: no terrorists haven in Iraq, less sectarian violence, it will prevent Iranian domination, and limit the U.S. loss of credibility.

Those are the things--those are what he will achieve. It's only the surge and the counterinsurgency and its chance of winning in Iraq that will achieve those goals. And he thinks they will be achieved by doing the opposite. He is just totally wrong about this.

KONDRACKE: This is all premised op notion, which I'm afraid is the reality, that America lacks what our ambassador there calls "strategic patience," and that the time is going to run out, and that we ought to plan ahead for it.

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