Posted on 03/01/2006 6:27:28 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Since "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.", I and others think it's a good idea to centralize what the goes on in the Senate (or House).
So if you see something happening on the Senate/House floor and you don't want to start a new thread to ask if anyone else just heard what you heard, you can leave a short note on who said what and about what and I'll try and find it the next day in THE RECORD. Or if you see a thread that pertains to the Senate, House, or pretty much any GOV'T agency please link your thread here.
If you have any suggestions for this thread please feel free to let me know.
Here's a few helpful links.
C-SPAN what a great thing. Where you can watch or listen live to most Government happenings.
C-SPAN 1 carries the HOUSE.
C-SPAN 2 carries the SENATE.
C-SPAN 3 (most places web only) carries a variety of committee meetings live or other past programming.
OR FEDNET has online feed also.
A great thing about our Government is they make it really easy for the public to research what the Politicians are doing and saying (on the floor anyway).
THOMAS where you can see a RECORD of what Congress is doing each day. You can also search/read a verbatim text of what each Congressmen/women or Senator has said on the floor or submitted 'for the record.' [This is where the real juicy stuff can be found.]
Also found at Thomas are Monthly Calendars for the Senate Majority and Senate Minority
And Monthly Calendars for the House Majority and Roll Call Votes can be found here.
THE WAR DEPARTMENT (aka The Dept. of Defense)
I bet they figured Snowe to once again vote the way that Collins did.
Oh, well...Frist was just on the floor listing all of the accomplishments so far this session...and saying that he expects an Immigration Reform Bill on the Senate floor in the week following this break.
THAT is going to be an interesting debate...although I heard Tom Delay on with Tony Snow...and he pointed out to Tony, that what radio talk show hosts, pundits, and a lot of voters want...
is more often than not...not a practical solution...and a bill getting over 10 million illegals to leave the country is not realistic.
BUT, I bet there will be LOTS of rhetoric on the radio and here on FR..about WHY NOT!
I am on that fence, like I was with the Dubai deal..watching both sides slug it out.
My heart says things, that my brain says won't work...and might not be best.
So...I will just bring the popcorn if you want to watch with me.
You are right...and what I just posted about the Immigration Bill that is coming out of Judiciary and that Frist war referring to...
Will have to hit the buzzsaw that is the HOUSE..and the HOUSE is a whole lot less "rational" when it comes to immigration, so I think I would like a seat at the Conference committee meetings...FIREWORKS!
That's a good deal of why we are governed.
I bet there will be LOTS of rhetoric on the radio and here on FR..about WHY NOT! [getting over 10 million illegals to leave the country is realistic]
More of the same old stuff. It's an old worn out battle here. I agree though, that the intensity will ramp up, and new players will enter the ring.
I am on that fence, like I was with the Dubai deal...
Not me. And I wasn't "on the fence" for very long on the Dubai Port World issue either.
I will just bring the popcorn if you want to watch with me.
Beer and pretzels. I may sit out the immigration discussion. The Hamdan case is being argued on the 28th, the Libby case is bubbling along, and I have a stack of paying work that promises to be fun.
Must mean that the Judiciary Committee didn't come out with a compromise measure on immigration.
Yes, those two cases you mentioned will be more interesting, to be sure.
Let me guess, you are on the side of a fence on the border?
NO...you are on the side of the laws already on the books being more strictly enforced, right?
Which would, in essence make a lot of this new legislation moot.
Some of both. I think President Bush is deliberately slacking on immigration law.
In that context, a fence isn't much help, although I think "the fence" should be improved in some areas. I'm not for a great wall of the Rio Grande, that's for sure.
Did you catch what Frist did at the close?
S.2349 has the Schumer ports amendment associated with it, and the cloture vote on it (the bill) failed 51-47 on March 9th. The cloture measure was filed to cut off the ports amendment.
The fact that Frist introduced the Border Control Bill is also somewhat of a deal, as it signals failure on the part of the Judiciary Committee to come up with an immigration reform package. In the scheme of things, the Frist bill is just a whip, as the House and Judiciary Committee do have power and influence (obviously). But bringing S>2454 to the floor is a stiff application of pressure.
I heard him talking about Border Control...but I wasn't paying close enough attention, obviously.
I didn't catch what you just posted.
My ears DID perk up though, when he mentioned a 5:30 vote on that Monday on the Lobbying Reform Bill...since it had been "dormant" since Schumer's little stunt and the cloture vote.
By "deliberately slacking"...do you mean he doesn't want to really tackle it...or is afraid that Congress will give him a bill that is TOO STRICT for him to sign?
I have pulled my hair out over his stubbornness over his "guest worker plan"...and I can't figure out if it is more the "compassionate" conservative Bush...or the astute businessman Bush...
who has been lobbied hard by businesses in the US that want the hugh influx of labor from the southern border?
Those are two different aspects, current vs. future action.
I think the President's current enforcement action is purposefully slack. The laws are there, and he is not cracking the whip on the administrative agencies within and under the executive. He uses "want of a law" as an excuse for his half-hearted commitment to enforce current law.
I have pulled my hair out over his stubbornness over his "guest worker plan"...and I can't figure out if it is more the "compassionate" conservative Bush...or the astute businessman Bush...
Doubletalk annoys me, and the President is full of it on immigration. Ther is no way to find his motive through his words, and I haven't dug deeper to find "internal" motivations such as cronyism, kickbacks, or just favoritism toward Mexico and Mexicans to the extend that he'll wink at immigration law-breaking.
It's not that I don't care, but my opinion and 2 bucks will buy you a Starbucks coffee.
Whatever his motivations or lack of them...it is the one subject that is driving me nuts..
Because it seems like almost every thread has some freeper posting their unhappiness with it....LOL
The matter is in somebody else's hands. You can either get uptight about it, or do the Minuteman thing (hich I applaud, as I think it is effective), or relax and support legislooters and Minuteman organization.
Because it seems like almost every thread has some freeper posting their unhappiness with it...
And another FReeper either defending the President's idea of immigration reform, or complaining about the Bush bashing. Yada yada yada, another day at FreeRepublic.
I have noticed that it's been about a year since the last exodus by opus - Schiavo matter provoked that. Primary elections in 2008 will do it again, I bet, if nothing else comes up meanwhile.
LOL...you are right, I had forgotten about those freepers that posted an opus about that time.
I don't know... a LOT could come up...the 2006 elections could get scary, if it looks like the House could go over to the dems.
But, don't underestimate the passion that this border thing can bring out.
I don't go on the threads that have that as the main topic though...too many flame wars.
Election flame wars are predictable. Party hacks vs. [pick your invective].
Primaries are more fun, the California recall got pretty heated.
don't underestimate the passion that this border thing can bring out.
Same template as elections, with an overlay of immigration bias.
Washington Post article re: last night's event.
S.2454 - Securing America's Borders Act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate considers two more lifetime appointments to U.S. courts. These confirmations will bring the total number of judicial appointments since January 2001 to 234, including the confirmations of two Supreme Court Justices and 43 circuit court judges. Of course, 100 judges were confirmed during the 17 months when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate. In the other 45 months, 134 judges have been confirmed. Ironically, under Democratic leadership, the Senate was almost twice as productive as under Republican leadership.The record itself is mixed up, having "duplicates" of Leahy's comments one-after-another.It is most regrettable that this President has not fulfilled his promise to the American people to be a uniter. Nor has he fulfilled his pledge to complete his work in advance of vacancies and to make nominations promptly. Judicial vacancies have grown to more than 50 and the White House has failed to send nominees for more than half of those. Some of those vacancies have been sitting empty for more than a year. Over and over the White House has missed the deadline the President established for himself, and today, more than half of the judicial vacancies, 27, are without nominations. One-third of those vacancies are already more than 180 days old, and one-third of the judicial emergency vacancies are without nominees. ...
Recently we have seen the President withdraw a circuit nomination [Payne] after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest. Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening process or by the ABA but by online journalists.
At a minimum that case and other recent revelations reinforce a point about this White House's poor vetting process for important nominations. A number of nominations by this President have had to be withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head Homeland Security, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and Claude Allen to be a Fourth Circuit judge. It was, as I recall, reporting in a national magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination. Democratic Senators resisted the nomination of Allen, a Virginian, because the President was seeking to appoint someone from another State to a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. When we are considering lifetime appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, it is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, all too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.
Here's another Leahy thing -- I wasn't planning to do a Senate summary today, this one just caught my eye ...
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my amendment No. 3154 to the budget resolution would restore much-needed funding to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. The administration's budget slashes this program by $20 million, which amounts to a 63-percent cut to a program that helps save the lives of law enforcement officers nationwide by providing State and local law enforcement agencies with the resources to help buy body armor for their officers.
The Daily Digest <- DO ClickOnIt
has a good summary of the amendments, with links to the Congressional Record.
Just to clarify, the cloture motion and cloture vote is NOT on the bill itself, but rather is on a motion to pick up the bill for consideration.
Invoking cloture on a motion to proceed to consideration is not common, but is not unusual. See last month's Senate thread for examples.
A motion was entered to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 2454 and, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur on Tuesday, March 28, 2006.
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2006Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
Q Well, all right. In the last two months, two former Iraqi officials have said Saddam moved weapons of mass destruction to Syria before the U.S. invasion. And now one of the documents released by the Pentagon yesterday, a letter by a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus, ties him to al Qaeda and the Taliban before 9/11. All of this, and yet, the President does not talk about any of it with the American people. Question: With increasing information coming out of here on Iraq -- WMDs and Saddam's link to al Qaeda -- what does the Bush administration want the American people to believe about these two crucial issues?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Les, first of all, the Director of National Intelligence has started putting out volumes of information and documents that were discovered in Iraq. And I think that that provides the public an opportunity to go and look, and they can make judgments for themselves in terms of some of the issues that you raise.
But the one thing the President has talked about, as we approach the three-year anniversary of Operation -- the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom is that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the right thing to do. This was a regime that was a destabilizing force in a troubled region of the world. This was a regime that had invaded its neighbors, that had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, that had a long history of defying the international community and failing to come into compliance with the demands of the international community.
And one thing that tyrants around the world know is that we mean what we say, and when we say there are going to be consequences for such behavior, it's important that we follow through on that. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution giving Saddam Hussein one last chance to come into compliance; he continued to defy the international community. He made the choice, and the world is better off with him removed from power.
[To "what does the Bush administration want the American people to believe about [Saddam moved WMD to Syria & Saddam had ties with al Queda]?", an answer that Saddam was a destabilizing force.]
Q Thank you. Scott, it doesn't look as though there will be an immigration bill passed by Congress this year, and if there is one, it will probably not contain a guest worker provision. Would the President sign an immigration bill that does not contain this provision?MR. McCLELLAN: I think that kind of speculation is a little premature at this point. The Senate is working to move forward on immigration reform. The President has said that we need to have a comprehensive package that continues to build upon the steps we've taken [1] to strengthen our borders and better secure our borders, [2] to continue to enhance our interior enforcement, and also [3] to have a temporary guest worker program. The President believes very strongly that if we're going to address the problems we face from immigration, that we need to take a comprehensive approach.
And there are a number of leaders in Congress that recognize the importance of addressing this in a comprehensive way. There have been discussions going on among leaders in the Senate about how to move forward on legislation. The House has moved forward on some legislation. And so we're going to continue working closely with leaders in Congress to move forward on immigration reform. This is an important priority for the President. He has laid out very clearly the direction we should go and the principles that are important to keep in mind as we move forward on legislation. And so we look forward to continuing to work with congressional leaders. ...
Q On immigration reform, you said the Senate wanted to -- you were glad the Senate was moving forward with comprehensive immigration reforms, but do you think that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I said the Senate is working to move forward on immigration reform.
Q Right. But do you agree with what Senate Majority Leader Frist did, in terms of moving a bill directly to the floor, or wanting to move it directly to the floor --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those are decisions for our legislative leaders to make. They determine how to move forward on the legislative process and the timing of those issues and how they go about it. So that's something for the Senate to decide.
Q And would it be a comprehensive bill if it doesn't include the guest worker program?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we believe that it needs to have all those three elements that I outlined earlier.
Q Scott, the Irish Prime Minister told us when he came outside that the issue of rendition had come up, that he registered concerns with the President about the possibility that Shannon Airport was being used as a transit point. Did the President offer him any assurances? What was his response?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that we have spoken about this issue previously. Secretary Rice had a good visit to Europe and addressed these issues. I think that you saw European leaders appreciate the information that they received from Secretary Rice during her trip. Renditions are a valuable tool in our efforts to save lives, and to protect the American people. And we previously have talked about how we respect the sovereignty of other nations. And Secretary Rice made that very clear on her trip. So I don't think anything has changed in terms of what she has already said on the issue.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060317-2.html
08:37 AM - March 23rd, 2006Thank you Harry Reid for finally being so candid with the American people.
Yesterday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Minority leader Reid gave away the Democrat playbook.
During the course of the interview, Harry Reid said:
- The wiretapping of Al Qaeda terrorists by the NSA was illegal.
- That he, as leader of Senate Democrats, would not rule out impeaching President Bush over the wiretapping program.
- He would seek to filibuster the border security legislation, Secure America's Borders Act, that I introduced in the Senate last Thursday because it focused only on border security and interior enforcement.
- He is in favor of "fair track" amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegal aliens.
- He does not believe in improving the physical security of our borders, because with better interior enforcement of employers, illegal immigration would stop (Harry forgot about the very real possibility of drug runners and terrorists crossing our porous borders...I imagine they wouldn't be looking for jobs).
Comments like this make very clear what is at stake in November.
Republicans need to rally around the President. We need to support our Senate and House candidates. We need to volunteer on their behalf. We need to walk door to door. We need to write letters to the editor. We need to post messages on popular online bulletin boards. And we need to wake up to the reality of what a Democrat controlled Senate led by Harry Reid would mean for our country.
To read the full text of the Reid interview please click here.
I encourage you to use the "email this blog" option in the action items box and send my blog post to as many friends, family members and co-workers as you can. We need to spread the word.
Written by Bill Frist, M.D
http://www.volpac.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=230
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 23, 2006President Participates in Meeting on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
10:37 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: ... Our government must enforce our borders; we've got plans in place to do so. But part of enforcing our borders is to have a guest worker program that encourages people to register their presence so that we know who they are, and says to them, if you're doing a job an American won't do, you're welcome here for a period of time to do that job.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060323.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 23, 2006Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
MR. MCCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. I don't have anything to begin with today. You've heard from the President about his immigration reform meeting earlier today. So I'll go straight to your questions.
Q Let me ask you about that immigration. When he says he doesn't want to pit one group against another, what is he talking about?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think what he was making was the point that this is an important debate, it's a serious debate, and he wanted to remind all of us in the country to elevate the discourse, to proceed forward in a civil and dignified manner. There are a lot of strong feelings on the issue of immigration reform, on all sides of the issue, and we should make sure that we proceed forward in a way where we don't ratchet up the rhetoric, that we don't let that rhetoric become too charged.
We've got an immigration system that is broken, it needs to be fixed. It starts with securing our borders. As the President made very clear earlier today, America is a country of laws and America is also a country of immigrants. And we need to continue to act to strengthen our borders and better secure our borders. That's what we are doing. That's why we've increased the number of Border Patrol agents; that's why we're using new technology to better detect people coming into this country for the wrong reasons. We also need to continue to enhance interior enforcement of our immigration laws.
And that's where it really starts, with those issues. But when you have an immigration system where there's an estimated -- and I stress "estimated" -- some 12 million undocumented illegal immigrants in the country, you have a problem and it needs to be fixed. And that causes great strain on the borders, as well, because our Border Patrol agents are having to go after people who are coming here simply for the reason of feeding their families back home and to fill jobs that Americans aren't filling.
So there's an economic need, and there's also the issue of how do we better secure our borders, and this fits into that. By having a guest worker program, temporary program, you're allowing our Border Patrol agents to focus where they should be on drug smugglers or criminals that are coming -- people that are coming here for the wrong reasons. So that's why the President emphasized his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform.
Q What rivalries, though, is he talking about -- about the groups against one another? I'm just trying to clear that up, that thought.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, this is an issue that sometimes the rhetoric becomes heated and charged because of the strong feelings, and the President was just emphasizing that this is a very important issue. It's a top priority. It's been a priority for the President for a long time. And we need to look at all issues involved here in a comprehensive way and work together to move forward.
Q Does he support the Frist bill that is coming up next week, or the one that the Majority Leader wants to bring up?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President is committed to comprehensive immigration reform. We've spelled out very clearly what our views are: We need to continue to take steps to secure our borders, we need to continue to improve interior enforcement, and we need to move forward on a temporary worker program. That's how you address this broken system and fix it in a comprehensive way.
Now, there's a lot of different ideas being expressed. We've been in close contact with leaders both in the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, talking about how we can move forward. The House has moved forward on a bill. It didn't include the temporary worker program. The Senate is now discussing the issue. There are a lot of different ideas. There are a number of people that want to see a guest worker program put in there. And we'll continue to work with them going forward. But they know what our views are and our strong belief in comprehensive reform. ...
Q You were asked about the President's reaction to the Frist bill. If the Frist bill doesn't have anything about the guest worker program in it, why can't you say he doesn't like that bill, or can you tell me -- or is he moving away from the guest worker program?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think there's some aspects in that -- in what he's proposing that are a good start. But the President, yes, believes that it ought to be comprehensive and that there should be a guest worker program, for one of the key reasons that I stated. One, you meet an economic need; these are jobs that Americans are not filling. And, two, it helps us better secure our borders because it lets our Border Patrol folks focus where they need to, on those who are coming here for the wrong reason. And it really shuts down the industry of illegal activity that is going on, when you have coyotes smuggling people into the country, treating people inhumanely and leaving them in the desert to walk in very hot -- more than 100-degree weather, and leaving them in the back of trucks. And so it helps shut down some of this illegal activity that's going on -- the forgery of documents and stuff, too. And that's why he believes that's an important aspect.
But our most important responsibility is to secure our borders. And that's why the President has acted and taken a number of steps to do so. Secretary Chertoff has talked about our Secure Border Initiative, how we've ramped up the number of Border Patrol agents, how we moved from a -- we are moving from a catch-and-release program to a catch-and-return program, meaning people that come here are not released within our country, but they're returned back to their country of origin.
And so it's important for the American people to know that our top priority and highest priority is enforcing our laws. But we are also a country that has always welcomed immigrants, and we need to be welcoming. And so the President is going to continue pushing for comprehensive reform. There are other senators that are talking about moving forward on legislation that includes comprehensive reform, so we're working with all those leaders on how to move forward.
Q Can I ask one more question?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is part of the legislative process, too. And the President is going to be talking more about this next week, as well.
Q But when the President first proposed this immigration overhaul, he focused on the guest worker program. He wasn't talking about border enforcement. He's changed a lot. Is that because of pressure from Republicans --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree. I think that he was focusing on all aspects. I'm not sure that all aspects were getting the kind of attention that maybe it should have. And that's probably, from a communication standpoint, probably our fault. We recognize the importance of talking about each aspect and talking about how they all work together to help fix our immigration system. We have a broken immigration system. That's what I talked about at the beginning.
And so the President recognized the importance of talking in greater detail about how we're working to secure our borders, because there are number of steps we've been taking, and he was talking about it, but I think more of the emphasis was being focused on the guest worker program. And some people were not hearing what we are doing to enforce our laws and strengthen our borders.
And if you look at the funding for border security, it's increased some 66 percent since 2001. Since 2001, border agents have apprehended and sent home more 5.9 million people coming into the country illegally. So the Secure Border Initiative is something that we have moved forward on, and he's going to continue to talk about how we need to build upon that, too. There's more we need to do.
Go ahead, Elaine.
Q Scott, in his remarks, the President said a debate over immigration reform needs to be civil. What kind of rhetoric was he cautioning against?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Terry brought that question up earlier. I don't know if you were in here at the time, but I talked about that.
Q Specifically, though --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think he was trying to --
Q Was there something that he heard --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- single anybody out. I think what he was trying to say is that he recognizes there are a lot of strong feelings on this issue, but that we need to find a way to move forward by working together, and that we need to do so in a civil way. This is a serious issue, and we are a country of laws and we're a country of immigrants, and we need to keep in mind the values that we believe strongly and the values that have been at the bedrock of this country.
Q Is he concerned that perhaps some of the debate might be taking on an anti-immigrant tone?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll leave it to what he said, and like I said, he wasn't trying to single out any particular people. There are strong feelings on this issue. He's not suggesting that by any means. But he does recognize that sometimes people on each side of this issue, or on the more extreme sides of the issue, tend to get heated in the rhetoric sometimes, and he's just reminding people that we're all committed to securing our borders.
There's some different views when it comes to how we go about fixing the immigration system and moving forward on a guest worker program. The President spelled out very clearly that any guest worker program would not include amnesty. That's his position, that anybody involved in that guest worker program has to -- it's temporary, one; two, they have to get in line just like everybody else. They don't get to go up to the front of the line, they have to get at the back of the line just like anybody else, and that there should be no automatic path to citizenship. This is a temporary worker program to meet some of our economic needs, and also to show the compassion of America and address the issue of treating these people more humanely. ...
Q Can I just follow up quickly? Elaine said, was he not suggesting anti-immigrant tone. You said, no, he wasn't suggesting that at all. But really, isn't that code for what he was saying? He said this debate has to recognize our own history. The country's history is one of we're all immigrants. So what was he saying? Can we just get to who was he talking about?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's not just we're all immigrants, we're also a country of laws, and that those laws need to be enforced. So the President, again, I stress to you, was not trying to single any group out or single any people out. What he was saying is that this is an issue that is difficult to address; otherwise, we would have solved it a long time ago. Remember, there had been steps taken back in 1986 to address some of these issues. But we still have a system that is broken. We still have a problem with our borders. I think when you have a 3,000-mile border, you're going to -- and you have people from the southern part of our hemisphere wanting to come here to support their families back home, you're going to have some problems there and you need to address that.
But you also have people that are coming here and engaging in a lot of illegal activity. And they're taking advantage of that broken system, and the people who suffer are good people who are coming here for the right reason. And so the President was emphasizing that, look, we can all work together to secure our borders, and we also need to work together to fix this immigration system, but we should do so in a civil and dignified way. If he --
Q Wasn't his warning about don't bash immigrants?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, if he had wanted to single anybody out, I think he would have. That was not at all what he was saying. But sometimes, as you know, covering this issue, the rhetoric can get very charged.
Q Scott, I've seen studies that say we need PhDs from overseas for Silicon Valley, but I've also seen studies that say that the illegals coming across the border are taking jobs from Americans and they're depressing wages in industries like construction. So when you say that there's an economic need, who are you citing?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President met with a very diverse group of people, people from the -- that represent the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, represent agricultural interests, people that -- religious leaders and faith-based leaders. So he had a diverse group of people he met with earlier today. You've got the list of the people that he met with, and you saw them when he spoke earlier.
But what he's referring to, in terms of a temporary worker program, is jobs that Americans are not filling. That's specifically what he was talking about earlier. These tend to be unskilled or lower-skilled jobs. And that's the economic need that needs to be met -- when there's a willing worker and a willing employer, trying to match those people together.
Q So you don't have a study, you're just citing anecdotal information from interest groups?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is actual facts. This is hearing directly from people on the ground. The President was governor of Texas; he knows firsthand the situation when it comes to our borders and people coming here to work and they're illegal. He knows firsthand this issue very well and it's been a top priority for him a long time. But I dispute your characterization, because you can go around the country and talk to people and they'll point out the need that is not being met here.
Q I've talked to contractors; they tell me that the wages in their industry are being depressed by illegal --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I would point out to you that we've got a very strong economy because of the policies that we've put in place. This is a growing economy. And there are a lot of high-paying, high-growth jobs that are becoming available. And so --
Q I don't dispute that --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I know, but I think it's important, if you're going to bring up the economic aspect of this. What we're talking about -- I think we may be talking past each other a little bit here -- what the President is talking about is jobs that Americans are not filling, whether they're jobs in the agricultural sector, the hotel sector, or what have you. That's what the President is referring to.
Q Scott, the Democratic leadership has threatened to do everything possible to stop certain facets of the legislation moving through Congress, relative to immigration reform right now. Yesterday Senator Clinton suggested that she found it hard to understand how a Republican Party that prides itself on talking about values could support legislation that, in her estimation, would criminalize even the assistance of people in need who happen to be illegal. She said that it would essentially criminalize Samaritanism and would effectively make Jesus a criminal, to paraphrase what she said.
Is that the kind -- I mean, a couple questions related to that part of the debate here. Is the Republican Party in jeopardy of being seen as anti-immigrant, and might that be what the President is warning about with his cautions? And how can the administration navigate this multitude of proposals now and ensure that there is a border protection that does not send the message that Clinton is warning about?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, the first part of your question. The President is talking about people on all sides of this issue, or both sides of this issue, and he's saying, let's move forward in a civil and dignified way. Let's work together to solve this problem that faces this country and address all aspects. So that's what the President is referring to.
Now, you're talking about the legislative process. There are different ideas that are out there. We have had a number of discussions with Democratic leaders and Republican leaders who are working to move forward on immigration reform. They are good discussions. We continue to have those discussions with them to find a way we can move forward. And it's also an election year, and we should put aside politics and work together to get this done for the American people. And that's another thing the President has been emphasizing.
Now, the second part of your question on -- what was it?
Q Is the President concerned that some of the intense advocacy of stricter border patrols run the risk of making the party appear anti-immigrant?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that you've seen the President express his views on this issue and emphasize that we are a nation of immigrants and we have been a welcoming country, going back to our founding. And the President believes we should continue to be a country that welcomes people who are coming here for the right reasons. And that's one of the aspects that ties into this comprehensive immigration reform.
You've got a lot of Republican leaders in Congress that are committed to moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform. And there's going to be a lot of back-and-forth on this issue. It is a difficult issue. But the President is committed to getting it done, and that's why he is continuing to raise the profile on this issue.
This is an area where I think a lot of people recognize the system is broken, it needs to be fixed. Now, there are a lot of different ideas about how to go about that. The President has spelled out very clearly what his views are. And we will continue to work with members who are committed to getting this done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.