The judge ordered Jefferson to surrender his passport and post a $100,000 bond. Ellis said he would allow Jefferson unrestricted travel between the Washington area and Louisiana, but he must get the judge's approval for other trips.

Jefferson was accused of soliciting millions of dollars in bribes from nearly a dozen companies.

The business ventures included telecommunications deals in Nigeria and Ghana, oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea, satellite transmission contracts in Botswana, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo, and a Nigerian sugar plant.

According to the indictment, an FBI witness gave Jefferson $100,000 in cash intended as a bribe for an unnamed Nigerian official in 2005.

It said Jefferson put in his home freezer $90,000 of the cash, which was separated into amounts of $10,000, wrapped in aluminum foil and concealed inside various frozen food containers.

Representative Jefferson has not responded directly to the indictment, but his lawyer, Robert Trout, stated that his client was innocent and would "fight this indictment and clear his name." Acknowledging the comprehensive investigation carried out against his client, as detailed in the 94-page indictment, Trout pointed out that legislative action was not involved. "There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations," said Trout. "There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts."

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi expressed some concern over the allegations. "The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious," said Pelosi. "While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power."

If found guilty of the charges ultimately, Representative Jefferson faces a maximum sentence of 235 years.

Gerberding's recommendations follow an ongoing investigation of US citizen Andrew Speaker who traveled from Italy back into the United States by the way of the Czech Republic and Canada despite being instructed to cancel all his flight plans following a diagnosis of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB). Speaker also testified at the hearing by phone. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the CDC had requested that the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detain the patient upon his re-entry into the US, but according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a Border Patrol agent ignored the flag and allowed Speaker to reenter the US. He remains in quarantine under the authority of the Denver County health officials.

There is truth in all their allegations. That this bill was imperfect is without dispute. Only a few politicians - Bush and McCain among them - were strongly vocal in urging passage, but they, too, had reservations about the compromise. House Democratic leaders were tepid in their support, demanding Republicans bring at least 60 votes for the measure in order to offer their freshman members from marginal districts the cover to vote "no."

Reid warned Thursday hours before the bill collapsed that he would not seek to revive the issue. Later, he pledged to work hard "in the next few weeks" to resurrect a deal. Perhaps, once people step back from what happened, they will try again. Perhaps they will succeed on their third try.

Loss of nerve

No one ever believed passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill would be easy. As McCain said in Tuesday's Republican debate in New Hampshire, "It's our job to do the hard things, not the easy things." But for a long time, Washington politicians have flinched at hard things, preferring to engage in political combat aimed at gaining partisan advantage first.

There is little time for progress on difficult issues before Bush's lame-duck status reduces his power even more and before the 2008 presidential and congressional campaigns turn the country into a partisan battlefield. Immigration provides one clear test for the system before that reality locks in. So far the system is losing.

If there is no attempt to revive the immigration bill, the issue will become fodder throughout the long campaign ahead. Already it is shaping the Republican presidential debate, with McCain on one side and his leading opponents all on the other.

Public opinion suggests an electorate open to, but by no means wildly enthusiastic about, comprehensive reform that provides the 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, but only if there is an effective border security plan already in place.

Republicans are clearly divided, but not perhaps as the heated rhetoric of the campaign trail suggests. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that, on the question of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, the public narrowly approves: 52 percent to 44 percent. Democrats back such a plan by 57 percent to 38 percent and independents by 51 percent to 45 percent. Republicans are opposed, by 53 percent to 43 percent - significant but not overwhelming.

In its fight for LaSalle Bank, Bank of America [ticker: BAC] said in an appeal filing that it was “shocking” that the Dutch court would disregard fundamental European Union law.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank has accused a Dutch court of unlawful action by blocking its $21 billion purchase of Dutch banking giant ABN Amro’s U.S. unit.

In support of calls from investors, last month a Dutch commercial court froze the deal between Bank of America and LaSalle Bank in order to allow for a shareholder vote.

The Dutch Supreme Court is hearing appeals by both ABN and Bank of America over the frozen deal and will rule later this month or in early July on whether the sale can take place.

According to the DOJ, Sapsizian admitted to paying the bribes to a director at Costa Rica's Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, in order to secure mobile telephone contracts for his company. Alcatel was eventually awarded a $149 million mobile phone contract in August 2001, the department said.

Sapsizian had been employed by Alcatel and its subsidiaries for more than 20 years. Alcatel merged with Lucent Technologies in late 2006 and the joint company is now known as Alcatel-Lucent.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation continues to investigate the matter, the DOJ said.