Durbin bill triggering lobby blitz

The immigration battle may reignite this week over Senate legislation that would allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to achieve legal status after attending college or enlisting in the military.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, wants to offer the legislation, dubbed the DREAM Act, as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, which the Senate could vote on this week.

{mosads}But the Illinois Democrat has yet to strike a deal with Republicans, who may block the amendment from consideration, and he faces intense competition from Senate colleagues fighting to attach other provisions to the defense bill.

Although procedural obstacles could bottle up the amendment, the possibility of a vote has spurred groups on both sides of the immigration debate to ratchet up their lobbying efforts, three months after sweeping immigration reform collapsed in the Senate.

NumbersUSA, which was instrumental in sinking the earlier Senate legislation, has alerted its 550,000-strong activist network to the prospect of a vote on the DREAM Act and on Thursday it flooded lawmakers with more than 260,000 faxes opposing the legislation, according to a spokeswoman for the group, Caroline Espinosa.

Meanwhile, the roster of Hispanic, civil rights, church and labor groups that have been pushing for a relaxation of the immigration laws are supporting the legislation. They are joined by new allies, such as the National Education Association and the American Council on Education, that believe the legislation will help keep talented students in school. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, is not throwing its weight behind the DREAM Act because it doesn’t do enough to help businesses, the group’s director of immigration policy, Angelo Amador, said.

Durbin’s legislation would allow only those illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came to the U.S. at least five years before the date of enactment to apply for permanent residency. Also, candidates must display “good moral character” and have completed two years of college or military service.

 Because it would allow undocumented immigrants to join the military, Durbin contends that the defense authorization is an appropriate vehicle for the legislation. Spokesmen for the Defense Department have voiced support for the DREAM Act, arguing that it would help the military meet its recruiting goals.

Proponents portray the DREAM Act as a targeted measure that would give a limited group of high-achieving immigrants a chance at legal status, while critics say it will lead to untold cases of fraud and encourage more illegal immigration.

“It’s narrower, yes, but it’s still an amnesty,” Espinosa said. “If you seek to reward illegal immigration, you’ll only encourage more of it.”

To persuade his Republican colleagues to allow a vote on his amendment, Durbin added the maximum-age provision and stripped out language that would allow states leeway on granting undocumented immigrants in-state tuition.

Last week, the Illinois Democrat said he has gone as far as he is willing to go. “To some people, there aren’t enough concessions to make. They’re never going to support it,” he said.

Supporters of the DREAM Act note that the legislation was adopted unanimously as an amendment to the immigration legislation that passed the Senate in the last Congress and was also included in the Senate’s broader immigration bill earlier this year.

However, critics contend that the current legislation faces a tougher environment due to the earlier legislation’s failure. Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter controls on immigration, believes that the majority whip will have a hard time wooing Republicans and moderate Democrats who otherwise might have supported narrowly tailored immigration relief. Positions have hardened on the issue, he said: “I think it’s a more difficult sell for Dick Durbin than it would have been had they not tackled broader legislation.”

Meanwhile, the House is scheduled to vote on legislation to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which remains $20 billion in the hole after the hurricanes that ripped through the Gulf Coast in 2005.

 The bill has strong support from the National Association of Realtors and the homebuilder trade association, but has sparked a mixed reaction from the insurance industry lobby, which is nearly united against a provision attached by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) that would allow homeowners and businesses to purchase coverage for wind damage under the federal program.

Last month, Taylor successfully persuaded the Democratic leadership to attach his language to legislation containing broadly supported reforms to the NFIP, such as raising the cap on coverage for homes, abolishing subsidized coverage for vacation homes, raising premiums and set aside funds or the federal program to update its flood maps.

The Mississippi congressman has sided with industry critics who say insurers unjustly refused to cover the cost of wind damage following Hurricane Katrina, shifting the burden onto homeowners and the NFIP. He has noted that insurers have pulled out of the Gulf Coast.

The leading property and casualty insurance trade groups strongly support shoring up and reforming the NFIP, but argue that the federal government should not get into the business of insuring against wind damage, saying it would saddle taxpayers with huge costs and disrupt the private market.

“You would create a giant tax-advantaged entity that would compete with the private sector,” one lobbyist said.

But two large insurers, AllState and Nationwide, have voiced cautious support for adding wind coverage to the federal program, sending separate letters to Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), the chairwoman and ranking member of the House subcommittee of jurisdiction.

House, Senate to pass SCHIP bill

The House and Senate this week also are expected to pass legislation to reauthorize and add $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). President Bush has promised to veto the bill, so Congress will have to extend the current authorization, which expires Sunday. The absence of Medicare provisions originally passed by the House means many healthcare interest groups might lack a strong motive to put lobbying muscle toward passing or obstructing the measure.

Nevertheless, the SCHIP bill enjoys the endorsements of groups such as the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans, which staged a joint press event Monday with the liberal advocacy group Families USA and other healthcare associations to promote the legislation. Because of the 61-cent cigarette tax increase, anti-tobacco groups such as the American Cancer Society will be active in lobbying and grassroots outreach.

Jeffrey Young and Manu Raju contributed to this report