GovernmentExecutive.com

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., contends any chance of passing comprehensive immigration legislation this year rests with President Bush's personal involvement, especially corralling reluctant GOP members to support the effort.

In a CongressDaily interview, Leahy said he told the administration he will not mark up a comprehensive immigration bill "until the president gets involved personally and strongly." Leahy said he is concerned that momentum for a comprehensive measure peaked before last year's congressional elections, when GOP lawmakers alienated Democrats by passing a bill authorizing a 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico.

"I don't doubt his commitment on a comprehensive bill. I had a long, long talk with him last time [the matter was discussed]," said Leahy, who spoke favorably of Bush's knowledge of the topic. "You are not going to have Republicans involved unless the president is involved ... We're going to lose Democrats, too, because not every Democrat is going to be in favor of a comprehensive bill," he said.

Leahy said he would like to move other business-related measures, such as one to create a national standard for data security breaches and another that would remove the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry.

On data security, Leahy said chances for passage rest with public outrage over breaches at businesses such as shoe retailer DSW Inc. and BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. and government agencies such as the Veterans Affairs Department -- which have not galvanized Congress. Six committees in both chambers have jurisdiction over the issue, complicating passage because of potential territorial fights.

"If it is left to the special interests, the companies that don't want to make changes, then you have a difficult time. Because with three committees [in the Senate], it's too easy to keep the ball in the air," he said.

Leahy also has sponsored legislation with Republican Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania that would remove the antitrust exemption for insurers and would place them under FTC oversight. Leahy is aided in his quest by Lott, who has made it a personal mission to bring more accountability to the insurance industry in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

His house was destroyed and State Farm Insurance did not cover his wind damage claims. "It is interesting we have strange bedfellows on this, myself and Trent Lott, we tend not to be lumped philosophically together ... I think that's probably worrying some of these companies as much as the chairman is doing it," Leahy said. "Trent is working this very, very hard on his side of the aisle."

COMMENTS

• Tom, Not sure if you are talking to me or not. Just to be clear, I am not 'taxpayer' and am in no way affiliated with him. a taxpayer and a federal worker Posted March 8, 2007 1:06 PM
• Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, is on a path that if successful will mean that no one in any area of high risk will be able to obtain insurance in the future. Trent Lott is on the war path because State Farm (a mutual company owned by its policy holders) says the damage to his house was from flood while Trent says it was from wind. This dispute is why we have courts - Trent should sue State farm and the court should decide who is right. Trent will argue that that takes too long but he does not want to speed up the court process! He is so used to getting money that he simply goes after the money and forgets the contract he had that did not cover flood damage. If Trent and Pat have their way, the society will face the loss of any insurance on property along rivers or coasts subject to floods. I think State Farm should stop writing any new policies in these areas until and unless the person purchasing the property insurance also purchases and maintains flood insurance as well. In California, State Farm should require everyone to also purchase earthquake insurance or provide nothing at all. This is a major problem for an organization such as State Farm or Allstate or Nationwide and should be looked at in an overall perspective and not just by Trent trying to get paid off because he has political power. Of course these guys should be concerned with this problem but should look to the future and not the past. Courts can handle the past. In the future the insurance companies should require home owners to have flood insurance and earthquake insurance before they provide any form of homeowners insurance. The industry can being to solve the problem itself if they would but in the absence of the industry doing anything, congress should require flood and earthquake insurance for property owners in areas along rivers and coasts and in California, Missouri, Tennessee and Arkansas. I think the insurance industry also needs to exempt themselves from volcano related damages and sinkhole damages. Save us from Congress Posted March 7, 2007 7:38 AM
• Yes I do! The person is "taxpayer," come on! Cure all that is wrong with America taxpayer, you sure do know what won't work so that means you know what will! Tom Posted March 6, 2007 5:09 PM