House GOP Fails to Warm to Bush Border Proposal

Key Republican lawmakers responded coolly Tuesday to President Bush’s new push for overhauling immigration laws, saying they still had reservations about elements of his vision, including a guest worker program and legalization measures.

Bush’s nationally televised speech Monday night from the Oval Office emphasized improving border security in a bid to produce enough momentum to overcome the divisions on immigration policy within the GOP on Capitol Hill.

And the administration pressed its case Tuesday as Bush promoted his plan to use the National Guard to help secure the border, Homeland Security officials elaborated on the proposal’s logistics, and Vice President Dick Cheney called in to the Rush Limbaugh radio show to defend the initiative.

Still, the day after the president offered Americans his most personal and detailed views on the immigration issue, the prospects that he would get a final bill to sign remained uncertain, at best.

In the House, where an enforcement-only immigration bill passed easily in December, there was little sign that Bush’s call for broader legislation had made much headway among Republican leaders who, on most issues, are steadfast administration supporters.

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) offered general praise for Bush’s speech, but gave no indication that he or the chamber’s other GOP leaders were embracing the White House approach.

“I thought the president’s tone last night was very good,” Boehner told reporters Tuesday. “Beyond that, as you know, there are some serious disagreements over the issue of the guest worker program and how it would work, and the issue of providing a path to citizenship.”

He also said, “I understand what the president’s position is. I have made it pretty clear that I have supported the House position.”

The bill the House passed last year concentrates on beefing up the enforcement of existing laws against illegal immigration and toughening border security. It includes no provisions for a guest worker program or a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens, and many House Republicans have stressed their opposition to such proposals.

Rep. David Dreier of San Dimas, a member of the House Republican leadership, said, “It remains to be seen” whether a majority of the GOP rank-and-file would go beyond an enforcement-only bill.

Gaining that support seems essential to the administration’s hopes for a broader bill because House GOP leaders have refused in the past to bring any bill to the floor that is not backed by a majority of their caucus, which currently numbers 231 members.

Senior White House political advisor Karl Rove is scheduled to meet privately with House Republicans at the Capitol today to continue Bush’s lobbying effort.

Bush did score two significant victories in Senate votes on proposed amendments to an immigration bill Tuesday. But discord among Republicans was evident in the showdown over one of the provisions.

Senators rejected an amendment by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) that would have bent the bill toward the enforcement emphasis favored by the House. The amendment would have required U.S. officials to certify that the nation’s borders were secure and that new detention facilities for illegal immigrants were operating before guest worker and legalization programs would take effect.

Isakson argued that without his proposal, the Senate bill would not effectively stem illegal immigration. Instead, he said, it would represent “a wink and a nod one more time” to those entering the U.S. unlawfully.

The amendment was defeated, 55 to 40. But those voting for it included most of the Senate’s Republicans, 33 out of 55.

In its other key vote, the Senate derailed a bid to exclude a guest worker program from the bill. That effort was defeated, 69 to 28.

“I hope my colleagues understand the importance of this vote,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said before the roll call. “If we did take [a guest worker program] out, at least in the view of most experts that I know, the rest of the reforms would not be applicable or enforceable.”

The votes boost the chances that the Senate will produce legislation that closely tracks what Bush wants. But it would then have to be reconciled with the starkly different measure approved by the House.

The Senate bill includes border security measures but, in line with Bush’s positions, also offers steps toward legalization for most of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and a guest worker program that allows some participants to apply for legal status.

In their reactions to Bush’s speech, a number of House Republicans said those proposals did not reflect the majority sentiment of their districts.

Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican, said he believed the chamber was “unwavering in its position that we cannot even discuss a guest worker program until we have secured our borders.”

Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) said in a statement that Congress’ priority must be enhanced border security. “Nothing can be done about the immigration problem until our borders are first secured.”

But some expressed optimism that the House’s focus on enforcement left room for a compromise agreement on a broader bill.

“I think there are a lot of people in the House who recognize that we’re not going to get border security unless we get some kind of package done,” Dreier said.

The administration’s continuing efforts to mollify its conservative base as the immigration debate proceeds included Cheney’s phone call to Limbaugh’s talk show.

The vice president said he and Bush were aware of what Limbaugh called “the dissatisfaction” over illegal immigration within the country at large and among Republicans.

Steering clear of discussing the president’s interest in a sweeping immigration bill, Cheney noted that the administration had already deployed sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles on the border. He also said Bush’s plan to post 6,000 National Guard troops to aid with enforcement efforts on the Mexico border was “not a be-all and end-all of the operation.”

Bush, in comments to reporters at the White House, stressed the temporary nature of the National Guard deployment, saying it would “enable the Border Patrol to do its job better” until the number of border agents was boosted.

“It’s very important for the American people to know it’s the Border Patrol that’s going to be on the front line of apprehending people trying to sneak into our country,” Bush said.

He said that deploying the Guard would not “put a strain on our capacity to fight and win the war on terror, as well as deal with natural disasters.” And he said that border states would be reimbursed for the costs.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger continued to express skepticism about the plan.

“So what if they have 6,000 National Guard at the borders and we find out the same amount of people are coming across?” Schwarzenegger asked. “Does it mean [Bush] will increase it to 12,000, to 15,000, to 50,000? We don’t know. I have no idea. We were not consulted in that, and we were not included in the decision-making process.”

White House spokesman Tony Snow said administration officials “take seriously what Gov. Schwarzenegger has to say about the issue,” and that there had been consultation “on the staff level.”

*

Times staff writers Maura Reynolds and James Gerstenzang in Washington and Robert Salladay in Sacramento contributed to this report.