|
Immigration backers see 30 to 40 House GOP votes |
|
By Ian Swanson
|
|
Posted: 06/28/07 07:29 PM [ET] |
The 23 Republicans who voted against a resolution in the House GOP conference disapproving of the Senate’s immigration bill falls well short of the 50 to 70 Republicans that Democratic leaders say they need to move a bill through the House.
At the same time, some immigration reform advocates argue it is a good starting point toward winning the 30 to 40 Republican votes that could be attainable for a comprehensive immigration bill.
“I’m optimistic we can get 40,” said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who offered a motion to table the disapproval resolution, which won 28 votes. He also predicted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm
Emanuel (Ill.) would bring an immigration bill to the floor with that level of GOP support.
“I think they have to get politically realistic about it,” he said.
An aide to Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said the vote represents a good starting point. Along with LaHood, Diaz-Balart is one of only seven House Republican cosponsors of immigration legislation introduced by Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.).
“We feel pretty good that there’s 30 to 40 Republicans that favor addressing this immigration issue in a comprehensive manner,” the aide said.
Other sources said the Republican Caucus has only clouded how much support there really is for immigration reform in the House.
The GOP caucus vote “doesn’t send a particularly strong signal that there’s too much opposition in the House,” insisted Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza. “It’s a smaller group than I think folks expected.”
But supporters can’t take for granted that those voting against the Republican resolution would vote for a comprehensive immigration bill, particularly one that offered a path to citizenship for immigrants illegally in the U.S., said one business lobbyist.
The lobbyist noted that some who voted either against the GOP resolution or for LaHood’s motion to table might have done so as a way of protesting the process, something LaHood agreed with. He said some members were offended that they were being asked to vote on a conference resolution with little advance notice or debate.
“For me, this is a huge disappointment for how our leadership handled this,” LaHood said.
Pelosi and Emanuel have both said that 50 to 70 Republican votes will be needed to move an immigration bill through the House, which most Republicans interpret as a signal that Democrats want to protect their vulnerable members, particularly freshmen, from any fallout resulting from voting for immigration reform.
Most also say Pelosi and Emanuel have little hope of reaching that figure.
“Good luck,” offered Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). “I look forward to the Speaker personally whipping that vote.”
More moderate Republicans are also doubtful that Pelosi and Emanuel can count on 50 to 70 Republicans.
“I haven’t done a nose count, but I suspect that that number is very aggressive, and I have to think that the number is considerably less,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who is co-chairman of the moderate Republican Tuesday Group.
Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), another moderate Republican, said he had no idea how many Republican votes were attainable on a comprehensive immigration bill. “There’s a lot of opposition. That’s the most I can tell you,” Castle said.
Like McHenry, half of the Republican Caucus is already enrolled in the Immigration Reform Caucus, a House group led by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) that staunchly opposes any amnesty for illegal immigrants. Although Munoz said she believes some members of this group might vote for a comprehensive immigration bill, a spokesman for Bilbray indicated any legislation with amnesty would have difficulty passing muster with coalition members.
The spokesman defined amnesty as any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay and have a path to citizenship, even if they must pay fines and are put at the back of the line for citizenship.
LaHood said he has been involved with a small working group, which includes Emanuel, Flake and Gutierrez, seeking answers to the immigration debate. He said the group is in regular contact with the White House and has also talked to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chairs a House immigration subcommittee and is expected to produce a House bill.
Business supporters of immigration reform say a House bill won’t be a carbon copy of the Senate bill or the Flake-Gutierrez measure. Instead, they predict Lofgren, working with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), will borrow elements of both the Senate bill and the Gutierrez-Flake approach. She has already held several hearings on the issue.
Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), another cosponsor of the Gutierrez-Flake bill, said he is opposed to the Senate bill in its current form and advised House leaders to come up with their own immigration alternative.
Business lobbyists working on immigration reform say Lofgren, a former immigration attorney, is uniquely positioned to offer an approach that might bring a disparate group of lawmakers together. Lofgren’s district is close to both Silicon Valley, which wants an increase in highly skilled foreign workers on H-1B visas, and her state’s prime agriculture valley, which is in desperate need of low-skilled farm workers.
Lofgren also represents a state with a large Hispanic population, making her sensitive to arguments that the Senate bill gives too little weight to family considerations in determining who will be allowed in the U.S., several business lobbyists said.
“You couldn’t get a better person,” said Robert Hoffman, vice president of congressional affairs for Oracle.
|
