Fact Checking The Sunday Shows - July 18, 2010

Fox News Sunday

CLAIM: Rep. Pence Suggested That The Recovery Act Did Not Include Tax Cuts

REP. MIKE PENCE (R-IN): The American people know what's necessary to get this economy moving again. It's fiscal discipline in Washington, DC and across-the-board tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms. All we're getting from the Democratic majority in Congress and from this White House is more bailouts, more spending, more planned stimulus, more deficits and debt, and the American people have had it.

FACT: The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Included Roughly $288 Billion In Tax Relief

PolitiFact: "Nearly A Third" Of Recovery Act Is Tax Breaks. According to PolitiFact.com: "Nearly a third of the cost of the stimulus, $288 billion, comes via tax breaks to individuals and businesses. The tax cuts include a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual. The tax cuts aren't so much spending as money the government won't get — so it can stay in the economy. Of that $288 billion, the stimulus has resulted in $119 billion worth of tax breaks so far." [PolitiFact.com, 2/17/10]

FACT: The Recovery Act DID Provide "Across-The-Board Tax Relief For Working Families"

The Recovery Act Cut Taxes For 95% Of Working Families.  According to PolitiFact.com:

Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.

The tax cut was part of Obama's campaign promises. During the campaign, Obama said he wanted $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples. Since the final number was a bit less than he promised, we rated his promise a Compromise on our Obameter, where we rate Obama's campaign promises for fulfillment. 

During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. [PolitiFact.com, accessed 2/17/10]

CLAIM: Rep. Pence Suggested The Recovery Act Is Not Creating Jobs

REP. PENCE (R-IN): Look, the reality is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that is that part of government that tracks our economy, when people are hired and fired, says that since the Stimulus was passed we've lost three million jobs overall, about two-and-a-half million jobs net. The reality is unemployment today, over 14 million Americans are unemployed today, that's exactly what it was a year ago. I mean this-the American people know, we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.

FACT: Recovery Act Reversed Job Loss Trend Over The Past Year, Slowing Net Job Losses.

CBO: Recovery Act Saved Or Created 1.2-2.8 Million Jobs. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office:

CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA's policies:

• Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
• Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further during calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012.

[CBO.gov, 5/25/10]

Job Statistics Trend Shows Recovery Act Is Working. Below is a graph prepared by the Speaker's office showing not job gains or losses per month since December 2007.

[Job Totals Per Month Since Dec 2007, The Gavel, 7/9/10]

Meet the Press

CLAIM: Sen. Cornyn Made Misleading Claims About Obama's Share Of The National Debt

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): The last year that President Bush was in office, 2008, the deficit was 3.2% of the Gross Domestic Product. Today it's 10%. Just, uh, we just hit the $13 trillion cap on national debt, two-point— 2.3 trillion since Obama—

DAVID GREGORY (host): Lemme just stop you, Senator, where did some of that debt come from? The President of the United States was George Bush when they passed a huge, uh, TARP, which was to bail out the banks. I mean that's what ran up a lot of debt as well, you're saying a Republican?

SEN. CORNYN (R-TX): You're ignoring the stimulus that was, uh, failed according to the President's own standards, he said it was supposed to keep unemployment at 8%. A $2.6 trillion health care bill, which I agree with Pete will bankrupt not only the private sector, but the states and the federal government, creating a new entitlement program. My point is that um, y'know, unemployment was roughly 6.9% when President Obama was elected, now it's 9.5%. The deficit was 3.2% the last year President Bush was in office, now it's 10%. The debt was $2.3 trillion lower when uh, in 2008 than it is now because of runaway spending and debt.

FACT: Bush Policies Like Tax Cuts For The Wealthy And Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan Are Driving Massive Public Deficits

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Obama Policy "Costs Pale Next To" Bush-Era Policies. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today's record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO's and other organizations' budget projections.

[CBPP.org, 6/28/10, emphasis added]

CBPP: TARP, Recovery Act Costs Fade Quickly. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

The government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in September 2008. In October of that year, the Bush Administration and Congress enacted a rescue package to stabilize the financial system by creating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Together, TARP and the GSEs accounted for $245 billion (including extra debt-service costs) of fiscal 2009's record deficit. Their contribution then fades quickly.

In February 2009, the new Obama Administration and Congress enacted a major package — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — to arrest the economy's plunge... Since then, policymakers have enacted several smaller measures to spur recovery and aid the unemployed. By our reckoning, the combination of ARRA and these other measures account for $1.1 trillion in deficits over the 2009-2019 period (including the associated debt service). Their effects are highly concentrated in 2009 through 2011 and fade thereafter, delivering a boost to the economy during its most vulnerable period.

[CBPP.org, 6/28/10, emphasis added]

Bush Tax Cuts And Wars On Two Fronts Will Continue To Drive Deficit For Decades. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs...

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade.

[CBPP.org, 6/28/10, emphasis added]

Bush Tax Cuts Are Primary Deficit Driver Over The Coming Decade. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has a chart showing the major contributors to the national debt from 2009-2019, with the Bush tax cuts in dark orange:

[CBPP.org, 6/28/10]

CLAIM: Rep. Pete Sessions Falsely Claimed The Tea Party Movement Is "One-Third Democrat, One-Third Republican"

REP. PETE SESSIONS (R-TX): I think it's clear to me that what, uh, when I look at the Tea Party it's about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican, one-third Independents. But 100% of them are sure that the agenda that is taking place in Washington DC is about extremism, and is about bankrupting this country and every state within this country.

FACT: Polling Shows Tea Party Activists Are Overwhelmingly Republican

Spring 2010 Gallup Polling: Tea Party Is 79% Republican, 15% Democrat. In a report on polling from March, May and June of 2010, Gallup published this chart:

[Gallup.com, 7/2/10]

April CBS/New York Times Poll: Tea Party Supporters Are 54% Republican, 5% Democrat, 66% "Usually" Or "Always" Vote Republican. According to the New York Times: "Supporters of the Tea Party movement are more likely to be men, over the age of 45, white, married, and either employed or retired. Few are unemployed. They are more affluent and more educated than most Americans. Almost all said they are registered to vote, and most are Republicans."

[New York Times, 4/14/10]

March Quinnipiac Poll: 74% Of Tea Party Supporters Identify With GOP. In a report on polling done in March, the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute wrote:

Looking at voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement:

• 74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican;
• 16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic;
• 5 percent are solidly independent;
• 45 percent are men;
• 55 percent are women;
• 88 percent are white;
• 77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008;
• 15 percent voted for President Barack Obama.

[Quinnipiac.edu, 3/24/10]

Gallup: "Tea Party Movement Is More A Rebranding Of Core Republicanism Than A New...Entity On The American Political Scene." In a summary of polling from March, May and June, Gallup's Frank Newport wrote: "There is significant overlap between Americans who identify as supporters of the Tea Party movement and those who identify as conservative Republicans. Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene... Conservative Republicans outnumber moderate/liberal Republicans in the general population by about a 2-to-1 margin; among Tea Party supporters, the ratio is well more than 3 to 1. More generally, almost 8 out of 10 Tea Party supporters are Republicans, compared with 44% of all national adults." [Gallup.com, 7/2/10]

State of the Union

CLAIM: Sen. McConnell Falsely Claimed That Allowing The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy To Expire Would Affect 50% Of Small Business Owners

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): So we're not talking about extending tax cuts, we're talking about raising taxes. And then Candy, they'll come back and say well we're only talking about raising taxes on the top income earners. Well if you do that, you will capture the income of 50% of small businesses in this country, the ones right now who are not expanding and hiring.

FACT: The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Affect Only 1.9% Of Small Businesses

CBPP: "98.1% Of Small-Business Filers Have Income Too Low To Be Subject To Either Of The Top Two Tax Brackets." According to the report "Big Misconceptions About Small Business And Taxes" by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: "First, critics charge that allowing the 2001 tax cut's reduction in the top two marginal income tax rates for individual taxpayers to expire as scheduled would affect a large proportion of small-business owners. In fact, only 1.9 percent of filers with any small-business income are projected to face either of the top two income tax rates in 2009... In other words, 98.1 percent of small-business filers have income too low to be subject to either of the top two tax rates. By contrast, a substantial percentage of filers with small business income are in the lowest tax brackets. According to Tax Policy Center data, 34 percent of filers with small-business income either are in the 10 percent bracket or are not subject to income taxes because their incomes are too low." [CBPP.org, 2/2/09, emphasis original]

CLAIM: Sen. McConnell Blatantly Lied In Saying The Obama Administration Took 70 Days After The Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Exploded To Send Skimming Vessels To The Gulf

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Although I must say, this is mainly a failure of the administration. BP caused the spill. It's BP's responsibility to plug the leak. The federal government is in charge of trying to keep that oil off the shores of the United States. It took the administration 70 days to order skimmers down to the Gulf. You can't-my point is, you can't legislate competence.

FACT: Timeline Shows There Were Skimmers Operating In The Gulf Within Three Days Of The Rig Explosion

April 20 (10 p.m.): Oil Rig Explosion. According to ABC: "An overnight explosion in the Gulf of Mexico rocked the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the Louisiana coast, sending spectacular bursts of flame into the sky. The fires were still raging today." [ABCNews.com, 4/21/10]

April 21: After Briefing, President Dispatched Deputy Secretary of Interior, Coast Guard To The Region. In a statement, Robert Gibbs said: "The President was briefed in the Oval Office this afternoon by a number of senior officials including Department of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, Admiral Thad Allen, United States Coast Guard Commandant, Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar...as well as a host of senior white house officials... The United States Coast Guard informed the President that search and rescue efforts are ongoing. The President made sure that the entire federal government was offering all assistance needed in the rescue effort as well as in mitigating and responding to the environmental impact and that this response was being treated as the number one priority... Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes was dispatched to the region yesterday to assist with coordination and response." [WhiteHouse.gov, 4/22/10]

• BP Confirmed U.S. Coast Guard Was "Leading The Emergency Response." In an April 21 press release, British Petroleum stated that it was "working closely with Transocean and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is leading the emergency response, and had been offering its help - including logistical support." [BP.com, 4/21/10]

April 23: Coast Guard Deployed "Hoss (High Volume Offshore Skimming System) Barges, Oil Skimming Vessels" To Region. According to the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command's official site: "Mid-morning Thursday, there was a second explosion causing the MODU to settle below the surface.  There were 700,000 gallons of diesel in enclosed tanks inside the pontoons at the time of the initial explosion.  At this time, it is not known if the diesel remains contained, if it was released as part of the secondary explosion which occurred yesterday just prior to the MODU's sinking, or consumed in the fire. Members from the Coast Guard National Strike Force are on scene monitoring the situation and assets deployed for ongoing and potential pollution response include dispersant airplanes, Hoss (High Volume Offshore Skimming System) barges, oil spill skimming vessels, and ancillary equipment and personnel as necessary." [D8ExternalAffairs.com, 5/23/10]

Coast Guard "Focused On Mitigating The Impact Of The Product Currently In The Water." On April 23, the Coast Guard stated:

The Department of the Interior, MMS [the U.S. Minerals Management Service], and the Coast Guard continue to support the efforts of the responsible parties to secure all potential sources of pollution. Both federal agencies have technical teams in place overseeing the proposals by BP and Transocean to completely secure the well. Until that has occurred and all parties are confident the risk of additional spill is removed, a high readiness posture to respond will remain in place. 

Although the oil appears to have stopped flowing from the well head, Coast Guard, BP, Transocean, and MMS remain focused on mitigating the impact of the product currently in the water and preparing for a worst-case scenario in the event the seal does not hold. Visual feed from deployed remotely operated vehicles with sonar capability is continually monitored in an effort to look for any crude oil which still has the potential to emanate from the subsurface well.

"From what we have observed yesterday and through the night, we are not seeing any signs of release of crude in the subsurface area. However we remain in a 'ready to respond' mode and are working in a collaborative effort with BP, the responsible party, to prepare for a worst-case scenario," Landry stated early Friday morning.

[D8ExternalAffairs.com, 4/23/10]

April 25: Storms Delayed Response Efforts. According to the Associated Press: "Stormy weather delayed weekend efforts to mop up leaking oil from a damaged well after the explosion and sinking of a massive rig off Louisiana's Gulf Coast that left 11 workers missing and presumed dead... The bad weather began rolling in Friday as strong winds, clouds and rain interrupted efforts to contain the spill. Coast Guard Petty Officer John Edwards said he was uncertain when weather conditions would improve enough for cleanup to resume. So far, he said, crews have retrieved about 1,052 barrels of oily water." [AP, 4/25/10 via SunTimes.com]

April 26: Skimming Operations Resumed After Adverse Weather. According to the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command's official site:

Following adverse weather that went through the area, response crews are anticipated to resume skimming operations today. Assets currently being used to respond to the incident include:

- More than 1,000 personnel,

- 14,654 gallons of dispersant have been used with another 119,734 gallons on stand by,

- 21,340 feet of containment boom is place at the spill site,

- 10 offshore response vessels,

- 7 skimming boats,

- 1,152 barrels/48,384 gallons of oily water have been collected.

[D8ExternalAffairs.com, 5/26/10, emphasis added]

Face the Nation

CLAIM: Arizona Republican J.D. Hayworth Suggested That Arizona's Immigration Law Does Not Allow Profiling

J.D. HAYWORTH: There is no effort at ethnic profiling. The law itself says that the civil rights of all persons will be respected. And when it comes to a variety of lawyers, I have to say this, uh, the law is a bit like economics. Just as you could lay all the economists in the world end to end and still never get a conclusion, of course you're going to have legal advocates largely on political arguments try to throw a monkey wrench into this. [...] The law is clear. The civil rights of all persons will be respected. And when you enforce the law, people obey the law.

FACT: The Arizona Law's "Reasonable Suspicion" Standard Makes Racial Profiling Possible

PolitiFact: Reasonable Suspicion "Leaves Open Several Possibilities" For Profiling. In a lengthy examination of a previous claim made by Arizona State Sen. John Huppenthal, PolitiFact.com consulted legal experts and concluded that the law does not prohibit profiling:

Perhaps the ambiguities of the law will one day be settled in the courts. But we think that a close reading of the statute and the views of the experts we contacted allow us to draw some conclusions.

Huppenthal's position — that the police must suspect that something illegal is being committed before asking someone for proof of legal status — is not correct. The law says the police officer just needs "reasonable suspicion'' that the person is an alien that is unlawfully present in the United States. The police are prohibited from using a profile based solely on racial or ethnic factors, but that standard can be sidestepped. In addition, some seemingly innocuous behaviors like getting in a car or making a gesture or nodding could be seen by a law officer as "reasonable suspicion" of the newly enacted prohibition against seeking work while in the U.S. illegally.

The passage in the law citing racial profiling does provide some protection, as does the difficulty of defining a profile for illegal immigrants that could pass legal muster, but the law leaves open several possibilities for police questioning individuals without seeing or suspecting a specific crime. So we rate Huppenthal's statement False.

[PolitiFact.com, 4/26/10, emphasis added]

FACT: Proponents Of The Law Have Suggested That Accents And Physical Appearance Should Be Used To Profile Suspected Illegal Immigrants

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA): Law Enforcement Will Identify Illegal Immigrants By "The Kind Of Dress You Wear...Right Down To The Shoes." In an April 21 appearance on MSNBC's Hardball, Rep. Bilbray had the following exchange with host Chris Matthews:

Chris Matthews: ...like what, like what?  Give me a non-ethnic aspect that would tell you to pick up somebody.

Rep. Bilbray:  They will look at the kind of dress you wear, there's different type of attire, there's different type of ...right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes.  But mostly by behavior it's mostly behavior, just as the law enforcement people here in Washington, DC does it based on certain criminal activity there is behavior things that professionals are trained in across the board and this group shouldn't be exempt from those observations as much as anybody else.

[Hardball, 4/21/10 via PoliticalCorrection.org]

Rep. Steve King (R-IA): Law Enforcement Should Identify Illegal Immigrants Based On "Shoes," "Grooming," Accents, or "A Sixth Sense." In a June 14 floor speech, Iowa Congressman Steve King said: "It's just a common sense thing. Law enforcement needs to use common sense indicators. Those common sense indicators are all kinds of things, from what kind of clothes people wear — my suit in my case — what kind of shoes people wear, what kind of accident [sic] they have, um, the, the type of grooming they might have, there're, there're all kinds of indicators there and sometimes it's just a sixth sense and they can't put their finger on it. But these law enforcement officers, if they were going to be discriminating against people on the sole basis of race, singling people out, that'd be going on already." [Rep. King Floor Speech, 6/15/10, emphasis added]

FACT: Modifications To The Bill Maintain The "Reasonable Suspicion" Standard

AZ Gov. Brewer Signed Follow-On Legislation To "Quell Concerns" About Racial Profiling. According to the Associated Press: "Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that makes revisions to the state's sweeping law against illegal immigration. She said the changes should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling. The law requires local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally, and it makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally." [AP via New York Times, 4/30/10]

Follow-On Changes Do Not Include Definition Of What Constitutes "Reasonable Suspicion." According to the Arizona Capitol Times:

H2162 prescribes a few key changes to the new immigration law, clarifying both the definition of lawful contact and guidelines for municipalities, as well as lowering the minimum — not the maximum — fine that can be assessed to cities that have so-called "sanctuary city" policies. It also restructured some of the punitive actions that a court would apply to those charged under the new law.

[....]

One of the changes to S1070 removes the word "solely" from the description of the new law's lawful contact, when it comes to race. So, now race, color or ethnicity simply cannot be used as part of reasonable suspicion.

[....]

The last change outlined in H2162 concerned a phrase that said lawful contact can include an officer's use of the new immigration law "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.

[Arizona Capitol Times, 4/27/10]

Immigration Law Expert: "Reasonable Suspicion" Is "Vague" And "Gives Institutional Cover For Selective Immigration Enforcement." According to UCLA School of Law professor and immigration law expert Hiroshi Motomura, writing in the New York Times: "In judging whether immigration enforcement adheres to the rule of law, it is most important to examine how laws are enforced. From this perspective, it is deeply troubling that Arizona's new law uses a vague 'reasonable suspicion' standard. This standard gives institutional cover for selective immigration enforcement through racial and ethnic profiling, and for this reason it will lead to constitutional violations if the statute goes into effect." [New York Times, 4/26/10, emphasis added]

American Immigration Lawyers Association Leader: 'Reasonable Suspicion' In AZ Law "Effectively Requires" Racial Profiling. According to AILA President-elect David Leopold, writing for The Wonk Room:

Frankly, [the law's co-author Kris] Kobach is intellectually dishonest to claim that "reasonable suspicion" will not turn Arizona into a "show me your papers" state by effectively forcing the police to use racial profiling. What Kobach fails to point out is that law enforcement may question anyone under the Arizona law whom they suspect is an undocumented immigrant once they have made "lawful contact." Arizona law does not define what "lawful contact" means and, therefore, the phrase is open to very broad interpretation by the police. It does suggest some limit, but that limit is well short of the "reasonable suspicion" standard (articulable facts, along with rational inferences that arise from those facts) set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. Why else would the drafters of the Arizona legislation have felt the need to use the term "legal contact" and as a pre-requisite to "reasonable suspicion" rather than "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity? For example, if someone approaches a police officer on the street, there is "legal contact". If the person then speaks English with an accent or "looks Latino" that might raise "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not documented. While "reasonable suspicion" under Terry v. Ohio is based on criminal activity, "reasonable suspicion" under S.B. 1070 is based on a subjective notion of a person's status. The Arizona law not only doesn't prohibit racial profiling, it effectively requires it.

[The Wonk Room, 4/29/10, emphasis added]

FACT: The Follow-On Law Expands The Basis For Reasonable Suspicion To Include Municipal Ordinance Violations

The Follow-On Legislation Allows Officers To Pursue Immigration Questions During Enforcement Of Local Ordinances. According to the Los Angeles Times: "Lawmakers on Thursday night also added a provision extending immigration enforcement to local ordinances, which critics warned could permit police to check the immigration status of people guilty of nothing more than a poorly tended lawn." [Los Angeles Times, 5/1/10]

"Cars On Blocks In The Yard" Could Lead To Immigration Inquiries. According to the Arizona Republic: "Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said those two changes help clarify the bill, and lighten its impact somewhat. But she called a third change 'frightening.' That change clarifies that a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would also be required to determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. City ordinance violations vary by municipality but could include things like loud parties, barking dogs, cars on blocks in the yard or too many renters." [The Arizona Republic, 4/29/10]

FACT: Lawyer Who Helped Draft The Law Wanted To Make Sure Police Could "Initiate Queries" Based On "Cars On Blocks In The Yard."

Kris Kobach: "We Need To...Allow Police To Use Violations Of Property Codes (e.g. Cars On Blocks In The Yard)...To Initiate Queries." According to The Wonk Room:

Wonk Room recently obtained an email written by Kris Kobach, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute — the group which credits itself with writing the bill — to Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), urging him to include language that will allow police to use city ordinance violations such as "cars on blocks in the yard" as an excuse to "initiate queries" in light of the "lawful contact" deletion:

 

[...]

More importantly, Kobach is basically admitting to Pearce that by allowing police to use the violation of "any county or municipal ordinance" as a basis for inquiring about a person's immigration status, the bill will still cast a wide enough net to help offset the effect of omitting the "lawful contact" language which would've allowed police to ask just about anyone they encounter about their immigration status.

[Wonk Room, 4/30/10]

See our complete investigation of Kobach's record HERE.