The Associated Press
IN BRIEF

MESA – Former state Rep. Steve May has dropped out of the Republican primary race against incumbent U.S. Rep. John Shadegg in the 3rd Congressional District.

May said Wednesday that he needs to focus his attention on business matters after the planned sale of his company fell apart.

May, 36, entered the race last month after the 58-year-old Shadegg first announced he planned to retire from public office then changed his mind and announced he planned to seek an eighth term.

At the time, May said he was prepared to spend $1 million in personal funds on the campaign. He was banking on using the proceeds from the sale of his company, which distributes a natural sweetener.

May said he spoke to Shadegg last week and told him that he planned to drop out of the race. He also told Shadegg he would support his re-election.

If Sen. John McCain wins the presidency, Shadegg would be a likely candidate for McCain’s Senate seat and May could be in a strong position to run for the vacated U.S. House seat in 2010.

“It’s not in the back of my mind. It’s in the front of my mind,” May said. “The political landscape will be significantly different two years from now. My personal situation should be significantly different two years from now, so yeah, I intend to run.”

The Associated Press

Citizen Staff Writer
FROM OUR BLOGS

The Rothenberg Report has said what major media outlets are not: That Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., is in for a tough fight against Arizona Senate President Tim Bee, if she wants to keep her seat in Congress.

It’s in the numbers. Republicans outnumber Democrats in her district and Bee can unite the party. Giffords’ first Republican challenger, Randy Graf, was painted as too conservative for the district and enough Republicans deserted him to get her the seat.

Also, Bee is developing a bipartisan, get-things-done résumé in the Legislature.

What’s more, the Republican National Committee has weighed in and supported Bee wholeheartedly, warning off potential primary challengers.

Yet Giffords has not really made any rookie mistakes in her first term. She and has been visible in the district. This may be the toughest year to be a Republican since 1974, when Nixon’s Watergate scandal about ruined the GOP. Yes, (John) McCain at the top of the ticket may help Bee in Arizona. But watch out for ticket-splitting independents, who may not want to vote for too many Republicans.

BLAKE MORLOCK

• For more blogs, go to tucsoncitizen.com/blogs.

Citizen Staff Writer

BLAKE MORLOCK

bmorlock@tucsoncitizen.com

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., just completed her first year in Congress as part of a new Democratic majority, and it’s been a whirl of activity producing mixed results.

The war that Democrats were elected to stop has been expanded, immigration reform died a painful death and Congress has dismal approval ratings.

From her junior position, Giffords, who represents the 8th Congressional District, has been a bolt of energy.

Seven bills and amendments she introduced were signed into law. She settled a border dust-up over a checkpoint south of Green Valley, held off the Federal Emergency Management Agency from declaring Marana a flood plain and has been a force behind federal support for solar power.

“I knew I had to prove I could produce right out of the gate,” Giffords said at a Tucson Citizen Editorial Board meeting Wednesday.

Her work in her district has been the most rewarding, she said.

Green Valley residents were upset with a Border Patrol plan to build a 10-acre permanent checkpoint six miles south of the retirement community. Giffords said she got a group of residents to sit down with the Border Patrol and hammer out a compromise reducing the size of the checkpoint.

FEMA’s plan would grind Marana development to a standstill, but the Congresswoman managed to get the feds to hold off while Marana officials show how Interstate 10, the Union Pacific railroad tracks and berms along the Central Arizona Project canal can protect the area from flooding.

She’s also gathered southern Arizona solar power experts together in a long-haul effort to improve the potential of the energy source.

“I ask community leaders to come together and take responsibility for success, rather than tell them what to do,” she said.

She faces a likely Republican challenge from State Senate President Tim Bee of Tucson, who formed an exploratory committee last year to raise money.

She said she’s as frustrated as her fellow Democrats over failure to restrain the Bush Administration’s escalation of the war in Iraq.

Salette Latas’ husband Jeff Latas ran against Giffords in the Democratic primary on the platform of ending the war. The Latases, he’s a former fighter pilot and she’s an Air Force air traffic controller, had a son serving in Iraq who died of leukemia this past summer.

They have both become leaders among “progressive” Democrats in Pima County and in the state. Both are frustrated that Giffords and other Democrats have not cut off funding for the war.

“Democrats need to show some backbone,” Salette Latas said. “The American people sent Congress and the Senate to Washington to end the occupation of Iraq.”

But the votes just aren’t there in the Senate to cut off the funds for the war, Giffords said.

“It’s very difficult to articulate to the American people why Democrats have a majority but can’t end the war,” Giffords said. “We just don’t have the votes.”

Paul Eckerstrom, former county Democratic Party chairman, said he also is frustrated that Democrats haven’t been more confrontational with the president but doesn’t blame Giffords because she represents a plurality of Republican voters.

“I can’t fault her for voting with her district,” Eckerstrom said. The district includes all of Cochise County, Green Valley and the eastern and northern sections of the Tucson metropolitan area. Republican Jim Kolbe held the seat for more than 20 years before Giffords.

Citizen Staff Writer

GARRY DUFFY

gduffy@tucsoncitizen.com

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee has recommended that $14 million be earmarked for the ongoing flood control project to tame Arroyo Chico on the Southeast Side.

The committee approved the funding Tuesday. It would go to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project to build four connected detention basins to handle runoff from the wash, which extends from Alvernon Way to the Santa Cruz River between 22nd Street and Broadway.

The funding would cover much of the $19 million estimated cost of the second phase of the Arroyo Chico containment project, Suzanne Shields, director of the Pima County Flood Control District, said Thursday.

The county is coordinating the project with the Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the city.

The project began its second phase this month. Work is expected to take about 18 months.

The funding still must be approved by the Senate later this month and then signed off by President Bush before it would be available. Details of the allocation and the project will be discussed at a news conference at 11:30 a.m. Friday at the Reid Park Clubhouse, 600 S. Alvernon Way.

Citizen Staff Writer

Blake Morlock

Public opinion polls show the American people hated everything about the Senate immigration reform bill, except for what it actually proposed.

Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? Sure. Tougher border enforcement? Absolutely. Workplace enforcement? Go get ‘em.

A bill that contains all that? No way.

Democrats and compromising Republicans got out-argued by the right, said U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.

“We didn’t message well,” Grijalva said. “We needed to not be so academic about it.”

From “tax and spend” to “amnesty,” the Democrats always seem scared of the tough debate. They’re boxers, not brawlers, and on immigration they bobbed and ducked.

“There was a feeling that it’s not good to be on the wrong side of this issue,” Grijalva said.

Next up is discussing what to do about the war in Iraq.

Democrats in Congress have had very little impact on the war – the issue that put them in power – even though they could simply refuse to pay for it. But that would open them up to attacks from the same voices who sank immigration reform.

That’s a big oh-fer on the two dominant issues in American politics today.

They will take on the war again, perhaps this month. Will they muster the strength to brawl?

What is most important to Democrats is protecting their majority in the House and Senate, Grijalva said.

Of 38 freshmen Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 23 represent districts President Bush carried in 2004. One of them is Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, where Democrat Gabrielle Giffords will almost certainly face a tough re-election bid.

Republicans believe they have a good chance to unseat Giffords and have already run ads in southern Arizona against her.

Democratic freshmen need Republican support, and that leaves them at the mercy of talk radio voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage – so the reasoning goes.

It’s hard to imagine even the most moderate Republican weighing how mad they make lefty filmmaker Michael Moore.

Congressional majorities rarely suffer for acting. The “do-nothing” Republican majority elected in 1946 was trounced in 1948.

The Republican majority elected in 1994 whirred with activity, including the fabled Contract with America and a “rescission package” of midyear spending cuts. Their majority stood for 12 years.

Democrats point to successes such as money for children’s health care, Gulf Coast relief money, emergency wildfire funding and budgeting measures that require Congress to pay for new spending measures.

“These issues aren’t high profile,” said Fernando Cuevas, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of congressional Democrats. “These are issues that benefit day in and day out the working families of America.”

It’s not clear if the public has noticed.

Polls show Congress’ approval percentage in the mid-20s, lower than Bush’s dismal popularity, unchanged since the GOP controlled Congress.

The Democratic leadership in the Senate did very little “whipping” of votes on immigration. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t do any arm-twisting on immigration until enough Republicans signed on, so Democratic representatives wouldn’t be labeled soft.

On the war, Pelosi expended a lot of effort to pressure liberal Democrats to support funding the war through 2008 – again, so her party wouldn’t be called soft.

Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the Democrats’ inaction will cost them.

“They asked for the American people to make them the majority party in America,” Spain said. “They are failing to deliver on anything.”

The Democrats may have help from across the aisle as they take up the war. A growing number of Senate Republicans – Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Warner of Virginia and Pete Domenici of New Mexico – are suggesting the time has come to leave Iraq.

The bet is that Republicans won’t want another campaign that mentions “stay the course,” so Democrats may have political cover from the right whether they like it or not.

But how does the oldest party start setting the agenda, instead of just reacting?

All Grijalva could say is:

“I don’t know.”

Blake Morlock can be reached at 573- 4692 and bmorlock@tucsoncitizen.com. Visit his blog – “Is this thing on?”- at www.tucsoncitizen.com.

MIKE MADDEN

Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON – Six months into the new Congress, neither of Arizona’s two freshmen House members seems to be easing into the job.

Both former Arizona state senators, Harry Mitchell of Tempe and Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson came to Washington as part of a wave of new lawmakers chosen in the Democratic sweep of last fall’s elections. Now, both are trying to balance the demands of their party’s majority against the challenges inherent in representing swing districts – where many of their constituents are Republicans – as Congress’s overall approval ratings sink to near-record lows in national polls.

“If you had to place them on a scale within the Democratic caucus, they’d probably be right in the middle as far as ideology between the party’s liberals and the party’s moderate-to-conservative members,” said David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington. “I think that serves them well in the districts they represent.”

Mitchell and Giffords have broken away from Democratic leaders several times to vote with Republicans, though never in cases where the party depended on them to prevail. Despite their attempts to establish themselves as relatively independent voices in an extremely partisan Congress, GOP critics say both are more liberal than their 2006 campaigns would have led voters to believe.

Mitchell defeated former Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth to win his seat, while Giffords won in a district where former Rep. Jim Kolbe, a Republican, had retired after 22 years.

Each has had some early success politically. Giffords ranked 38th among House members in fundraising in the first three months of the year. She was also tapped to join the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of mostly fiscally conservative Democrats.

Mitchell also ranked in the top 100 in fundraising.

Both say the job is a thrill and that their frequent trips back to Arizona help keep them connected to voters at a grass-roots level.

“It’s exciting to come to work in a place like this,” said Mitchell, who taught government and civics courses at Tempe High School and Arizona State University while serving in public office in Arizona. “This is a museum. Less than 11,000 people have ever been elected here. This is an exciting place to be, and when I come into the halls . . . I have flashbacks to some of the movies that I used to show in classes.”

Despite the early focus on next year’s election, still about 16 months away, Giffords said she isn’t worried about politics.

“Whether I’m here for two years or 22 years, my job is to represent southern Arizona to the best of my ability,” she said. “I feel that if I do an adequate job, the voters will want me back.”

Republicans, hoping to regain control of the House next year, have placed both in the top tier of Democrats they’re challenging, said Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the GOP’s House campaign branch. The NRCC has already run ads targeting both candidates and has devoted a section of a campaign Web site called “The Real Democrat Story” to each one.

“There’s a chink in their armor now that they are members of the majority and have records they have to stand by,” Spain said. “They can’t afford to toe the party line, and in some cases, they’ve done so to their detriment.”

Both vote with Democrats less reliably than other members of their party in the Arizona delegation, according to an online database maintained by The Washington Post. Mitchell voted with Democrats 89 percent of the time through this week’s recess, while Giffords did so 91 percent of the time. Reps. Ed Pastor and Raúl Grijalva, in contrast, cast more than 97 percent of their votes with the party.

The GOP’s Spain highlighted Giffords’ vote for a Democratic budget plan that would phase out some of President Bush’s tax cuts, and the two freshmen’s support for a supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war in Iraq that included billions in domestic spending.

Mitchell – who voted against the budget – brushed off those charges. He, along with Giffords, also voted against a spending bill to fund Congress, though the bill passed despite their opposition.

“Since the Democrats are the majority, they control the agenda,” Mitchell said. “Unless I voted against everything that was up there, certainly you’re going to vote for things that the leadership put up.”

Both meet regularly with House Democratic leaders, who have established weekly sessions with freshmen to ensure the caucus stays in touch with what its newest – and possibly most vulnerable – members are thinking.

For Giffords, her posts on the Armed Services and Science and Technology committees mean she technically oversees all aspects of her fiance Mark Kelly’s career as an astronaut and a naval aviator – a coincidence she says she teases him about frequently.

Like Mitchell, Giffords says she’s focusing on energy and border security. She was named to a U.S.-Mexico inter-parliamentary working group that Kolbe used to chair. She was also one of the first freshmen House members to visit Iraq.

The pace of legislation this year, with many bills stuck in the Senate before passage, has frustrated both new members.

“My slogan was, ‘Change can’t wait,’ ” Giffords said. “I still believe that. Change is happening, but we need more change.”

So far, she has had slightly more success pushing legislation through than Mitchell. Her first bill, which would ban sales of F-14 parts – because only Iran’s air force still flies the jet – passed the House two weeks ago. A second Giffords bill, which would set up a research program into solar power, is now part of a sweeping energy plan Democrats plan to push this month.

Citizen Staff Writer

Anne T. Denogean

Citizen Columnist

There was a story out of Washington last week that got little attention as the media rightly focused on the immigration reform bill and embarrassingly obsessed over Paris Hilton’s release from jail.

It shed light on the firing of Paul Charlton from his position as U.S. attorney for Arizona. But, more important, it also suggested that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – chief law enforcement officer of the land – is overzealous, and possibly cavalier, in his pursuit of the death penalty.

Charlton testified Wednesday before a Senate subcommittee reviewing the use of the federal death penalty.

In the still-pending case against Jose Rios Rico, whom Charlton described as a methamphetamine dealer charged with killing his drug supplier, Gonzales ordered Charlton to seek the death penalty over Charlton’s repeated objections.

The case relies on the testimony of witnesses who have pleaded guilty to other charges and agreed to testify against Rios Rico, Charlton said. There is no forensic evidence directly linking the defendant to the victim’s death. There is no gun, no ballistics and no victim’s DNA on the defendant.

“In fact,” he testified. “There is no body.”

Informants told the government the victim is buried in a landfill in Mobile. The Department of Justice refused Charlton’s request to cover the $500,000 to $1 million cost of exhumation. Charlton said it was wrong for the government to seek the death penalty if it wouldn’t pay to obtain evidence that could strengthen or weaken its case.

Based on the lack of forensic evidence, Charlton didn’t want to seek the death penalty. Even a slight risk of executing the wrong man is “too high.”

“If a government seeks to take another person’s life, it should do so only on the best of evidence,” he said.

He submitted a detailed memo and had the prosecutors assigned to the case argue against seeking death in front of the Department of Justice’s Death Penalty Committee.

Under former Attorney General John Ashcroft, when the committee disagreed with Charlton, he was given a chance to provide more input before a final decision.

Not this time. Instead, he received a letter from Gonzales “authorizing” him to seek the death penalty.

Charlton spoke with various people in the AG’s office to have the decision reconsidered. Eventually, he received a call from Mike Elston, chief of staff for Deputy AG Paul McNulty.

Charlton testified that Elston said McNulty had spent significant time on the issue with the AG, “perhaps as much as five to 10 minutes,” and the AG’s mind was unchanged.

Charlton’s request to speak personally with Gonzales was denied.

The Washington Post article on Charlton’s testimony – relegated to Page A7 – also reported on an e-mail sent from Gonzales’ then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, to Elston about the episode:

“In the ‘you won’t believe this category,’ Paul Charlton would like a few minutes of the AG’s time.”

Charlton said in a phone interview Friday that the e-mail represented the failure of the process, “that in an issue as important as whether or not to take another person’s life, my request to the AG would be treated that way.”

Aside from the Post, NPR covered the testimony. None of the bigwigs of network or cable news or any of the major talk radio personalities has called Charlton to follow up on his eyebrow-raising account of how justice is administered in the U.S.

Charlton, appointed in 2001 by President Bush, was one of nine federal prosecutors asked to resign last year. He was willing to go quietly until his DOJ bosses suggested he and the others were fired for poor performance.

Since then, it has come out that policy disputes, such as the one over the death penalty, and the Bush administration’s desire to replace the fired prosecutors with loyal Bushies were the more likely motivations.

After being fired, Charlton joined the Phoenix law firm of Gallagher & Kennedy. He focuses on corporate compliance law and is developing an Indian law practice.

But he said he’s dismayed at how politics touched the DOJ, where he worked for more than 16 years.

“One of the terrific aspects of being a prosecutor, one of the things that makes it a noble profession is that your single goal should be to do the right thing (without) any consideration for someone’s political loyalty and agenda . . . .

“What happened as the result of the resignations is that now when federal prosecutors make charges against political figures, especially those in an opposing party, the claims of unfair prosecution or lack of integrity are gaining traction. That’s a great personal disappointment to me because I loved the Department of Justice.”

The State Bar of Arizona honored Charlton on Friday with the Michael C. Cudahy Criminal Justice Award, recognizing his prosecutorial work as representing the public’s interest with integrity, fairness, brilliance and professionalism.

Somehow, I don’t think such words will be used to describe Gonzales when he leaves his post.

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogean@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her column runs Tuesdays and Fridays.

• Read Anne T. Denogean’s past columns and blog at www.tucsoncitizen.com.

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Senate resurrected the immigration bill that could legalize millions of unlawful immigrants Tuesday, but the delicate compromise faces the same threats that derailed it earlier this month.

The White House and Republican and Democratic architects of the bill hailed the crucial test vote that revived the legislation, and they predicted approval of the measure by week’s end.

Their victory was fleeting, though, giving way just hours later to stalling tactics by GOP foes. Conservatives succeeded in delaying until Wednesday consideration of a package of amendments designed to pave the way for a final vote on the bill.

They did so by using Senate rules to insist that the entire 373-page package be read aloud, relenting only when Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to postpone action on the amendments.

That was just the first in a series of formidable obstacles in the bill’s path. The Senate is slated to consider 26 amendments, mostly from senators seeking to change key elements of the bill, that have the potential to either sap its support or draw new backers.

After that, the legislation must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday. And there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract enough support to pass.

Republicans and Democrats alike are deeply conflicted over the bill, which also would create a temporary worker program, strengthen border security and institute a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces.

Masking those divides, the Senate voted 64-35 to revive the bill, which stalled earlier this month when it failed to muster the 60 votes it needed to scale procedural hurdles.

Twenty-four Republicans, including Arizonans John McCain and Jon Kyl, joined 39 Democrats and independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut to move ahead with the bill. Opposing the move were 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

New requirements to track down, deport and permanently bar people who overstay their visas would be added to a broad immigration bill under a GOP bid to attract more Republican support.

The amendment, which also would prevent illegal immigrants from gaining lawful status until they pass a background check, is one of those the Senate will consider next week when it returns its attention to the immigration measure. The bill is likely to see a final vote by month’s end.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., an architect of a broader deal to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants, said Friday that the amendment “will help substantially” in persuading his Republican colleagues to support the compromise.

He is sponsoring the proposal with GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mel Martinez of Florida.

The legislation has sparked outrage among conservatives who contend it gives amnesty to lawbreakers, and it has been met with deep suspicion by Republicans, who say their constituents have no faith that laws cracking down on illegal immigration will be enforced.

Kyl said the outcry in the country is such “that senators appreciate the fact that we’ve got to show that we’re serious now.”

To assuage the concerns, Democrats and Republicans already have added $4.4 billion in mandatory spending to the bill to be used for border enforcement efforts and weeding out illegal workers from U.S. workplaces.

Still, the enforcement amendment is necessary “to illustrate to people that we’re really serious about making this bill as good as it can possibly be,” Kyl said.

Senate leaders plan to revive the stalled immigration measure on Tuesday, with a test vote and consideration of a limited list of amendments designed to win enough converts to carry it to passage by the end of the week.

Many GOP waverers targeted as potential supporters are saying they won’t back resurrecting the measure.

Meanwhile, some Democrats are critical because they perceive the bill to be overly punitive and unfriendly to families.

They are trying to make sure that family members of low-skilled immigrants are treated as well as family members of highly skilled immigrants.

Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON – Members of Congress spend $25 million in taxpayer money each year sending newsletters, fliers and postcards directly to your mailbox.

If a new reform effort works out, all that mail would have a price tag on it.

Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who has tried to battle excessive spending, introduced legislation Wednesday he hopes will contain such mailings. It would put each mass mail piece’s cost on its face for recipients to see.

Under laws dating back to the earliest days of Congress, lawmakers can send out official mail to constituents free. That privilege, called “franking,” is supposed to help lawmakers answer questions from voters and keep the people they represent up to date on business in Washington.

A commission of lawmakers is responsible for ensuring members comply with a 72-page set of rules designed to keep mail focused on official business. But much of the franked mail that goes out in a typical year, an average of nearly $22 million from the House and $3.2 million from the Senate, looks more like the campaign mailings that pile up in mailboxes in election years. Glossy, full-color, heavy cardboard stock fliers featuring photos of members and carefully planned quotes are common.

The regulations prohibit mailings within 90 days of an election, but that still leaves the rest of the year to send out specifically tailored messages to any constituents members want to reach. A Congressional Research Service report found mass mailings peak just before the deadline, as members rush to squeeze in more publicity.

“By the very fact of placing a story in your junk mail newsletter that you’re doing so many good things for your district, that’s already building positive regard,” said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Alexandria, Va., that advocates for lower taxes and objects to franked mail’s cost. “It subverts the principle that challengers and incumbents ought to be on a reasonably equal footing under the law. They’re not.”

The group produces an annual study of House office expenses, focusing closely on franked mail. The most recent study found House members spent almost half as much money on taxpayer-funded direct mail to voters in the 2003-04 election cycle as challengers for office spent on their entire campaigns.

The average House member spent more than $50,000 on mail in 2006 while the average Senate office spent about $34,000, according to the Congressional Research Service study.

Flake believes that is too much. He expresses even more concern over the type of mail lawmakers send out.

“I see some of the pieces that go out, and it just makes me sick,” Flake said.

The National Taxpayers Union’s 2005 study found Flake spent just $4,782 on mail that year, the vast majority on letters, not mass mailings. He admits his bill might not get very far in a Congress where Democrats and Republicans alike indulge in franking. Party leaders sometimes encourage members to send out mailings in private meetings. Flake hopes better disclosure about the costs might shame some lawmakers into restraining their postage costs.

That could be tough, though. An entire industry of direct-mail consulting firms that honed its skills on campaign mail has branched out into franked mailings in recent years.

“Franked mail, if used wisely, is essentially a congressionally sponsored direct mail campaign, used by members to stay ‘top-of-mind’ with their voters,” read one brochure to solicit business provided by Flake’s office.

Consultants who work on franked mail said it serves a valuable purpose – even the glossy, expensive pieces.

“There are certainly members of Congress out there whose offices send out franked mail, and it might look like a letter on a piece of letterhead,” said Pam Fielding, president of 720 Strategies, a direct-mail and e-mail firm based in Washington. “All of us tend to glaze over from the mail that comes in our mailboxes. I think there’s something to be said for a member of Congress, in the position they hold, to communicate in a professional manner.”

Even if it became law, Flake’s bill might not make a dent in the flood of mail coming from Capitol Hill.

“If it does matter (to voters), it will matter to a small segment of the population,” said Michael Buie, vice president for creative services at 720 Strategies.

But Flake is pushing forward nonetheless.

“Every decade or so, it just becomes so blatant or so bad that the pendulum swings back the other way, and I think we’re there, or we’re almost there,” he said.

MIKE MADDEN

Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON – Facing a federal investigation into his business dealings, Rep. Rick Renzi got an extension from House officials and won’t have to file detailed financial information until next month.

Renzi, an Arizona Republican, was one of 70 House members who got permission to miss a May 15 filing deadline for personal financial disclosures. Forms filed on time were released to the public Thursday. Renzi will have until July 16 to file.

The FBI raided his family businesses in April, seeking information in an investigation that has been under way for over a year. Federal campaign regulators also recently disclosed that Renzi had paid more than $320,000 in back taxes to help settle charges that his businesses improperly loaned money to his campaign during his first run for office in 2002.

Investigators are looking into land deals that would have been authorized by legislation Renzi sponsored, exploring whether a campaign contributor and former business partner of Renzi’s might have benefited from the real estate swaps.

Renzi has maintained all along he did nothing wrong, but he resigned from all three of his committee assignments after the FBI raids. His office did not respond to a request for comment about his personal financial disclosure forms Thursday, nor did his lawyer.

But longtime critics said they weren’t surprised about the extension.

“With someone who is under federal investigation, better that they’re late than that they’re wrong,” said Naomi Seligman Steiner, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that has named Renzi to its list of most corrupt lawmakers. “I don’t think he’s trying to hide. A lot of his wrongdoing is already out – you can read it on the World Wide Web. Who knows what else he has to hide – but I don’t think this is the vehicle for doing so.”

Renzi’s filing should be available for the public within days after the House receives it.

Members of Congress are required to file annual financial disclosure statements, but they may report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges rather than specific amounts. They do not have to report the value of their homes or their congressional salaries, which is $165,200 for most members. Members also are required to report trips paid for by others as well as any boards or foundations they serve on.

The rest of the Arizona delegation filed their reports on time. Here are some highlights of what they disclosed:

• Rep. Jeff Flake, a Republican, reported that he and his wife, Cheryl, bought a rental townhouse in Provo, Utah, and a spec home in Lehi, Utah, last year, spending between $250,001 and $500,000 on each. Flake also reported owning between $50,001 and $100,000 of stock in computer and iPod manufacturer Apple Inc.

• Rep. Ed Pastor, a Democrat, reported taking a three-day trip to Honolulu and Kona, Hawaii, in January, paid for by the Association of Airport Executives. Pastor also went to Montego Bay, Jamaica, in late February, on a trip paid for by the nonpartisan Aspen Institute, a think tank. The U.S.-Mexico Chamber Education Foundation also flew Pastor to Mexico City in late November.

• Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican, filed dozens of pages of statements from Citigroup Smith Barney, his financial adviser, going well beyond the disclosure requirements.

Citizen Staff Writer

Blake Morlock

Washington is growing into an increasingly principled town – maddeningly so, a true politician could say.

In the old days, a bill would be introduced, words would be measured, positions hedged, someone’s nephew would get a job as an undersecretary, a bridge to nowhere would be built, and presto! Just like that, legislation is birthed into imperfect creation.

Today, opinions are formed ahead of time, battle lines drawn, hardballs thrown, ideology defended in puritanical terms and no one’s mind is going to be changed by anything.

It’s hard to say that an immigration reform bill supported by political opposites such as Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is too liberal or too conservative.

Yet immigration reform is in the ethereal plane between life and death. Principle put it there.

Kyl and Kennedy promised Friday to resurrect their old-school “grand bargain” on immigration reform.

A day before, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the bill from consideration after a second vote to end debate failed to get the 60 votes needed.

Senators fixated on what they couldn’t abide.

On the left, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said it didn’t do enough to protect U.S. workers and would create a permanent underclass.

In the middle, Jim Webb, D-Va., wanted to cut back on who could stay in the country legally. Jon Tester, D-Mont., called it amnesty. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., joined Kyl in arguing the issue deserved more time for debate, which Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, would not give.

On the right, it was all amnesty all the time. Giving millions of illegal immigrants a mulligan, so long as they pay a $5,000 fine, was just too much “amnesty” to stomach.

The battle within the GOP was brightly illustrated in Arizona.

Both the state’s senators are Republicans and both supported the bill. Their base literally went off the hook, with phone calls coming in 20-to-1 against the bill, said state GOP Chairman Randy Pullen.

“This bill was blanket amnesty and the majority of the Republican Party opposed it,” he said.

So the state Republican organization took a stand against the bill, like a number of other state party organizations.

“In poll after poll,” Pullen said, “people say they want to secure the border. I don’t know why we can’t pass a bill that secures the border.”

The answer, even Pullen knows, is because there aren’t enough votes to secure the border without providing those who came here while we left the door open some legitimate status.

Nor are there votes to provide legitimate status to illegal immigrants without cracking down at the border.

The country is too divided to produce the one-party dominance that gave America the New Deal or the Great Society.

The wings need each other to get what they want but they would rather the other side not get what it wants, so they’ll settle for nothing at all.

This isn’t opinion. It’s observation.

Kyl, in negotiating the bill, understood.

“Do I want to stand on the sidelines or get into the game and affect the outcome?” he said the night he, Kennedy and others finished their compromise.

Republicans such as Pullen wanted Kyl either on the sidelines or crafting an enforcement-only bill that had no chance in the Senate even when Republicans controlled it last year.

Democrats also took hits from their base for accepting less than “open borders and blanket amnesty,” said U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.

“They (some Democrats) are being horribly unrealistic and aren’t doing any favors to millions who are trapped right now,” he said.

The social conservatives are scaring moderate Democrats who don’t want to get in an amnesty argument, Grijalva said. And he’s hearing from leadership that the House now may not even take up immigration.

“I would be real disappointed if the House tucked its tails between its legs,” Grijalva said. “You’ve allowed one side to capture the attention of the debate. It’s created a lot of fright.”

If it’s not done this year, don’t look for immigration reform to come back until presidential politics, campaign promises and midterm elections aren’t in the mix. That would be between noon and 3 p.m. Feb. 9, 2011?

Immigration reform is a white-hot issue. So is health care reform, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, balancing the budget and energy independence. A majority of lawmakers can find a holy cause to defend to the death in any of those issues.

Until the principled learn to play well with others, purity will be the limit of their success.

Contact Blake Morlock at 573-4692 and at bmorlock@tucsoncitizen.com. See his blog – “Is This Thing On?” – at www.tucsoncitizen.com.

• Past Blake Morlock columns at www.tucsoncitizen.com

Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON – A sweeping overhaul of immigration laws crashed to defeat in the Senate on Thursday, threatening to end chances for passage this year.

After nearly two weeks of debate over a fragile bipartisan compromise, supporters lost two procedural votes that they had to win to move the bill toward a final vote on passage. Daylong negotiations failed to end a deadlock over how to handle amendments from the bill’s opponents, mostly Republicans.

Supporters said they would try to revive the bill later. The bill’s collapse was a setback for advocates for immigrants and business groups who called it vital – as well as for President Bush, who has made immigration reform a priority for years.

Republicans said Democrats tried to rush the bill through without allowing enough debate on amendments, while Democrats said Bush and GOP leaders had failed to quell outrage among conservatives over the proposal.

“The fault lies on both sides, and it didn’t have to be . . . if we had just thought about it a little more clearly,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a key player in negotiations that produced the bill. Kyl voted to allow more amendments from conservative GOP members. Arizona Sen. John McCain voted against more ammendments.

But Democrats blasted Republican foes. The GOP simultaneously insisted on more votes on amendments and refused to allow the Senate to take them up.

The bill would allow millions of illegal immigrants to gain legal status and establish a new temporary worker program. It would beef up border security and require companies to verify that employees are legally permitted to work here. The system for distributing immigrant visas, which now go mostly to relatives of U.S. citizens and immigrants, would be replaced with a merit-based system.

Citizen Staff Writer

Anne T. Denogean

Citizen Columnist

It was sweaty weather Saturday morning as Rep. Gabrielle Giffords stood outside a Tucson grocery store. But that didn’t stop the constituents she was there to meet from turning up the heat.

“You had the power to put a stop to it and you Democrats in Congress didn’t do it,” said Ben Coronado, 77, of Giffords’ recent vote to continue funding the Iraq war.

Giffords was holding her fifth “Congress on Your Corner” event, in which the Democratic congresswoman meets one on one with anyone willing to stand in line for the opportunity.

The sessions, held so far in Tucson, Oro Valley and Sierra Vista, allow constituents to look her in the eye and give Giffords a pat on the back for a job well done or, just as often, a piece of their mind.

The events have attracted up to 250 people. Saturday’s session drew about 100. Though Giffords officially schedules two hours, she stays longer to talk to everyone in line.

She wisely wears flat shoes.

On Saturday, constituent concerns ranged from immigration to Medicare to (no kidding) gardening, but the topic du jour was Giffords’ May 24 “yes” vote on the Iraq war supplemental funding bill. The bill pays for the war through September. In Arizona, just Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor voted against it.

Giffords passionately defended her vote, saying she could not in good conscience have allowed the military to run out of money while our troops are being attacked every day. The troops must have equipment and resources.

Coronado, a Korean War veteran, responded that Democrats could have funded the troops but should not have backed down on the timeline for withdrawal.

The bill included benchmarks for political, economic and reconstruction progress, which Giffords calls the first step in creating accountability. President Bush is free to waive the measures.

Eighteen benchmarks “is not a free-funding bill,” Giffords said.

Giffords told retired Tucsonan Martin Kaplan, 73, the vote didn’t mean Democrats are rolling over.

“But it looks like you are,” he said.

If Congress voted against the funding, wouldn’t we have to bring the troops home? he asked.

“It’s not that easy,” she said.

If Congress does that, Bush spins it as Congress not supporting the troops, Giffords said.

She elaborated on that theme with another unhappy constituent, explaining that Congress didn’t have the votes to override a presidential veto of a funding bill that included a withdrawal date, and time had run out.

“I’m not going to take it out on the troops. We can’t play political football with the soldiers,” she said.

Karen Clifton, who declined to give her age, waited in line with a sign that said she felt betrayed.

“She could have stood up for what she believed in. She could have stood up for what I believed she believed in when I voted for her,” Clifton said.

Giffords spokesman C.J. Karamargin suggested it’s primarily “the left” that’s angry with Giffords over her vote.

Huh?

“The left” is the most vocal. But it’s not alone in its disappointment at the Democrats’ failure to rein in the disastrous reign of war-bent King George.

Democrats were swept into Congress in 2006 on a tidal wave of anti-war sentiment. Giffords told voters on the campaign trail it was possible to get the troops home by the end of 2007.

It’s not Giffords’ fault that it’s not happening. She’s a freshman legislator. The Democratic leadership failed to find a strategy that would both fund the troops and force the president to accept a timeline for getting out.

But the people who elected Giffords were liberals, moderate Democrats, independents and the (moderate) Republicans for Giffords contingent, all part of that majority of Americans who want us the heck out of Iraq.

While the political tide was in her favor in 2006, Giffords also earned her decisive win (54-42 percent) because she’s smart, articulate and not Randy Graf.

But the most likely Republican candidate for the District 8 seat in 2008 is state Sen. Tim Bee, who, by the way, is also smart, articulate and not Randy Graf.

Giffords promised her constituents that the effort to end the war is still alive.

She’s right.

There will be a new battle over fiscal 2008 war funding in September after Gen. David Petraeus gives his report on the progress made in Iraq since Bush’s surge went into effect.

We’ll see then if Giffords and the Democrats have a resolve of steel . . . or tin.

And I’d hate to be Giffords at the “Congress on Your Corner” that follows, or in the 2008 election, if the Democrats show they are made of the softer metal.

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogean@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her column runs Tuesdays and Fridays.

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Advocates of a bill promoting openness in government are fuming that an Arizona senator is blocking a vote.

Dozens of journalism and advocacy groups supporting the Open Government Act argue it would speed up the government’s response to public requests for information under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., says the Justice Department is concerned that it could force it to reveal sensitive information.

In a statement Thursday, Kyl said the Justice Department’s “uncharacteristically strong” opposition is reason enough to think twice about the legislation, and he will block a vote until both sides can work out the differences.

Supporters of the bill are irate.

“This is a good government bill that Democrats and Republicans alike can and should work together to enact. It should be passed without further delay,” said the bill’s sponsor, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Frustrated, Leahy is pressing senators to clear the bill for a vote.

Advocates who range from the Society of Professional Journalists to the Humane Society of the United States are especially frustrated because Kyl had objected under a Senate rule that allows members to hold legislation anonymously.

Kyl revealed his name Thursday, days after the bill’s backers launched an e-mail and telephone campaign, urging their supporters to help in “smoking out ‘Senator Secrecy.’ ” They pointed out the irony that an open government bill was being blocked using a rule that allowed secrecy.

Supporters say the bill would plug loopholes in the FOIA law by, among other things, clarifying when federal agencies would have to pay attorney’s fees if they miss deadlines to provide information, and bolstering deadlines for the government’s response to requests under the law.

The Justice Department objects strenuously to several provisions. Chief among them is a section that would eliminate exemptions allowing the government to deny access to privileged or law-enforcement sensitive information.

Kyl said he raised concerns when the Judiciary Committee voted on the bill in April, and Leahy agreed to work with him and the Justice Department to see if they could reach a consensus.