Sessions tries to object. Says proponents of the bill have had too much time--tries to cut Reid off. Is Reid stalling as arms keep getting twisted? Are they still trying to round up some more votes?

BREAKING: Will Smith (R-OR) switch to be pro-cloture? Twist, baby!

Reid goes on the floor. There's still some wheeling-and-dealing going on, I think, behind the scenes. How many arms are about to pop out of their sockets?

Specter tries to convince individuals to vote in favor of cloture and against the bill later. Says that a vote on cloture is a vote to kill the bill. Is he trying to sway Webb here, who says that he still wants the bill to work (even if he has reservations)? Does Webb think that the present debate process (clay pigeon, "grand bargainers" and all) will improve this bill, though?

Is Gregg still on the fence? Malkin wonders...

Specter's up. Appeals to the "silent majority" as a way of discounting those who call up the Senate or email. Says that we do not run our republic based on "public opinion"--so the "silent majority" is in favor of this bill, and, if it isn't, public opinion doesn't matter!

Kyl's up again. Says that action is the only way to restore confidence in Congress.

Will any D's switch? Lowry says that Reid might pressure some. Who wants a twisted arm!?

Martinez on the floor. Says that this bill will stop the "illegal system."--gets another 3 minutes from Specter. Calls the debate over this bill "festering" and "at times ugly."

Kennedy back on floor. Associates this bill with the "great march of progress." Says that we may now secure our borders. Says the bill is "strong," "fair," and "practical." Asks if the Senate will "vote for the future" or "vote for the past."

Durbin on the floor saying that the "stark" voices against this bill are "not American."

Sessions claims the friends of the bill get 40-50 minutes to support their side and that opponents of the measure get only 10 minutes: that's why we've seen so many proponents of this bill and so few opponents.
Sessions also says that the Sergeant-at-Arms has informed him that the Senate phone lines are broken down due to the intensity of the phone call volume.

John Hawkins has a roundup of backroom maneuvers for this immigration bill from his GOP source. On Graham:

He told me that he thinks Lindsey Graham is just running scared at this point. He's up for re-election in 2008, his poll numbers are plunging, and talk radio and the conservative blogs are mercilessly beating him up every day. So, he's looking for some kind of fig leaf to use as protection. He added that unfortunately for Graham, the touchback provision probably wouldn't cut it. For the most part, the base isn't impressed with it, and most of the people who support that provision are already inclined to support amnesty anyway.

On Jim Webb (e.a.):

From there, he noted that James Webb has told multiple senators that he voted in favor of the first cloture vote because he had his arm twisted, but he didn't like how he was treated, and had no intention of voting for the second one. Still, he said don't count Webb as a definite vote against cloture because he might get his arm twisted again.

So far this morning, this debate has seemed to break along two lines: proponents of the bill emphasize the importance of doing something, opponents of the bill criticize doing this.

Graham on the floor. Says that Congress deserves 20% approval. Tells opponents of this bill to "remember this day"--say that they will never get this bill again.

There's pressure on Cochran, who voted against cloture last time (but said he would vote in favor of cloture). He's from Lott's home state of MS, and Lott's pushing hard for this bill.

A Senate source says that leaders of the opposition to this bill think they have 6 confirmed switches against cloture.

Ensign has declared against cloture, a Senate source confirms. (Also, H/T a reader for telling me that Ensign's office told him he would vote against cloture.)

Interesting from Specter's speech on the floor: 23 Senators changed their votes on the Baucus amendment. This amendment was the amendment that, in DeMint's words, "derailed the train" of part of Reid's "clay pigeon" strategy. While Reid tabled other amendments, he couldn't table Baucus's, so the Senate is, as Reid said, still "stuck" on considering and, potentially debating, this amendment while it considers this bill.

Twisting arms out of sockets. From an Senate source email to Rich Lowry (e.a.):

Webb's arm was twisted out of socket on cloture on motion to proceed, and rumor is he will vote no on cloture motion... But honestly I think he's a toss up.

And:

Burr supposedly came out publicly as no on cloture - I didn't hear or see... But rumor is that he'll be a no on cloture...

Bond I think is good...

Rumor is that Bayh is potentially a flip which would mix things up a bit...[Bayh--flipped to be against cloture last time...--NA]]

Though, I would add Nelson in too... I think Bond is most solid and then Domenici, Burr and Nelson (55/45)... Then Webb (50/50), then Ensign (45/55)...

Bloomberg article is right that Gregg, Bingaman, Murkowski, Pryor, Stevens are undecided but possible...

Burr now seems publicly against cloture as is Nelson. So we seem to be at 3 pretty well confirmed switches--Domenici, Burr, and Nelson--against cloture, and Bond seems pretty strongly against cloture. So we seem to be at 4 switches.....Does any one have any others?

In addition to FOX News, readers who call Ben Nelson's office are also being told that he will switch to be against cloture.

And so it begins today. The cloture vote is scheduled for around 10:50 AM.
Sen. Kennedy is speaking now.

On the Eve of Cloture Vote: As reports swirl that the fate of the bill may be troubled, the failure of cloture seems far from a done deal. Proponents of cloture need 60 votes; they got 64 last time, so there needs to be a net change of 5 votes in order to hold off cloture. A Senate source suggests these votes could be crucial (among senators who voted in favor of cloture last time):

Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Domenici (D-NM)
Gregg (R-NH)
Ensign (R-NV)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AL)
Webb (D-VA)

Of those 9, Bond and Domenici seem fairly strong against cloture, and Webb and Burr seem like they may be leaning in that direction. Domenici may pull his fellow New Mexican Bingaman with him. With rumors that, over the past few days, funds have dried up at the National Republican Senatorial Committee because its chair, Ensign, voted in favor of the bill, he seems to be feeling some pressure. Nelson says he usually support cloture motions, but we've been getting a lot of mixed signals from him...See UPDATE below: Burr and Nelson tell FOX they're against cloture...UPDATE: Webb may still be leaning in favor of cloture

Whom else could I think of as a possibility for switching to be against cloture? Some guesses:

Brown (D-OH): with labor's opposition to this bill, I think he could be a possibility...
Coleman (R-MN): up for re-election, may switch against cloture if he feels cloture will fail anyways
Collins (R-ME): up for re-election, seems under a fair amount of pressure
Conrad (D-ND): fellow N. Dakotan Dorgan is a leading critic of this bill
Murkowski (R-AK): says she has reservations....

Who could switch from being against cloture to being in favor of it? Guesses:

Bayh (D-IN)
Cochran (R-MS): said he was going to vote in favor of cloture but then switched--very unpredictable...
Hatch (R-UT): I don't know how much pressure he's feeling...
Stabenow (D-MI): switched to vote against cloture last time--she was against last year's Senate immigration bill, but she was also up for re-election last year...

But this is a very hard-fought bill, and there's so much pressure being applied on both sides, that I wouldn't be surprised if there were some unlisted switches going on.
As a Senate source suggested to me, it will be very uncomfortable for any Senator who votes in favor of cloture if cloture gets only 60 votes--then every attack ad against a pro-cloture senator could call that Senator the "deciding vote" in favor of cloture.
UPDATE: Bloomberg News lists the following undecided votes:

Republicans Richard Burr of North Carolina and Christopher Bond of Missouri and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska said they oppose permitting a vote on final passage. Virginia Democrat Jim Webb and Republicans John Ensign of Nevada and Pete Domenici of New Mexico said they were leaning that way.

......

Five other senators who voted to resume the debate said they are undecided on the next procedural test. They are Republicans Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Democrats Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Brownback talks against the bill--but where does he stand on cloture?

UPDATE: (Via a reader) A group supporting the "grand bargain" sends around this "action list" of senators they're concerned about:

• Senator Bingaman (D-NM)
• Senator Bayh (D-IN)
• Senator Domenici (R-NM)
• Senator Coleman (R-MN)
• Senator Brownback (R-KS)
• Senator Bennett (R-UT)
• Senator Gregg (R-NH)
• Senator Bond (R-MO)
• Senator Murkowski (R-AK)
• Senator Stevens (R-AK)

UPDATE: Well, according to FOX News Nelson is anti-cloture--as is Burr:

Late Wednesday, two Republicans, Sens. Kit Bond of Missouri and Richard Burr of North Carolina, told FOX News that they will switch their vote and not try to prevent the filibuster. One Democrat who never votes against cloture, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, also told FOX News that he will vote "no" this time.

"Enough is enough. There have been seven cloture votes I've voted yes on. This is an extraordinary circumstance. But enough is enough. ... This clay pigeon is looking like a dead duck," Nelson said.

And the Senate adjourns....until 9:30 tomorrow....

Sen. Sessions on the Senate floor says that he predicts support will erode for cloture on this bill, thinks some pro-cloture Sen.'s will switch to be opposed to cloture. Whom could he be thinking of?
Possibilities:

Bennett: maybe it's a possibility...
Bingaman: If Domenici's switched, Bingaman may, too
Bond: Amendment tabled, seems like he'll switch to vote against cloture maybe
Burr: Sounds like he could be wobbling
Coleman: amendment won't be voted on (if it's voted on at all) until after cloture motion...
Domenici: has declared to be opposed to cloture
Nelson: some think that he's a "maybe," but I'm not so sure yet...he still sounds pro-cloture so far...
Pryor: Voted for cloture last time, but has been a bill skeptic
Webb: Amendment was tabled...

Other possibilities: Could Maine Republicans Collins and Snow switch? I've heard they're under a lot of pressure. Conrad? What about Ensign? Will he switch to be against cloture?
Will Baucus, Hatch, Bayh, etc. continue to stand against cloture?
At the Corner, a source tells Jim Boulet that, because Reid failed in his attempt to table the Baucus amendment, the Senate will not consider any more amendments until after the cloture motion. So all senators who say their support for the bill and cloture depend upon the fate of certain amendments may not know about these amendments until they cast their cloture votes...it could be close....

Malkin has an update from a source about what the success of the Baucus amendment means:

this is a big deal because Reid’s Clay Pigeon strategy relied on killing amendments so that he could continue his vice grip on the Senate floor. The result of this vote was the Baucus amendment remained alive and the clay pigeon strategy was temporarily derailed and thus Senators’ rights were restored. The remaining amendments in the clay pigeon will not be voted on now before the cloture vote. In all likelihood Reid will give up on the clay pigeon strategy and move that the next vote be on cloture tomorrow morning because he does not want this bill to be debated under regular Senate order. So now the Senate is moving fast towards a Thursday morning cloture vote (probably at 10:30) that is still a de facto vote for final passage of the amnesty bill.

Hmmm....will other senators--especially the fence-sitting ones--go along with this?

Senate's back to "morning business"-style debate for the moment.

Baucus amendment is not tabled: 45-52.....Quorum call!

Specter announces that the Senate will now move to vote on tabling two more amendments. Says that the leadership has been unable to negotiate a time agreement for debate on amendments. Says that the fall-through of unanimous consent agreements has led to these difficulties...
Now it's 3 amendments: Grassley, Baucus, and Domenici (who's now switched to be against cloture).

Sen. Kennedy declares that the new system put in by the "grand bargain" will have a number of "glitches."

Discussion on Grassley amendment. Kyl speaks on opposition: accuses this measure of breaking down information sharing, being unworkable, and unduly protecting employers of "illegal aliens."

While we relax the the soundtrack of a quorum call, let's have a brief review. The following senators switched to vote in favor of cloture and had their amendments tabled (seemingly dismissed):

Webb
Bond

Hutchison had an amendment for a touchback proposal, but that was tabled as well. The failing of this amendment may have influenced Domenici to switch against cloture. Will Webb still vote in favor of cloture?

So far, every amendment has been tabled.

Keeping the pressure on: Malkin hears a rumor:

Behind the scenes, the vote-trading deals are ongoing. A source tells me that some senators who were promised that their amendments would be included in the Reid amendment package are now being leaned on by Kennedy and the Grand Schemers to guarantee cloture votes in return. John Ensign is one of those senators.

So they might have to trade not one but two cloture votes for a vote on their amendments. Will this work even if no amendment so far has had a full debate and every so far has been tabled?

On the floor, Sessions claims that the identification-card program proposed in the "grand bargain" can do little to weed out an un-fingerprinted individual who applies under a false name, so even individuals on terror and criminal watchlists can apply for these ID's and receive them. These ID's can then be used to do such things as open bank accounts, board planes, etc. Cites an individual calling this "grand bargain" the "Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007."
Sessions claims American public supports more incremental measures for immigration changes...

According to sources, critics of the bill are still trying to get more time to read over the new amendment package, the text of which they may have gotten around 11:30AM this morning. A text of the amendment package was released yesterday; critics got enough time to read that over last night, but then the "grand bargain" coalition released a new text of the amendment package (since there seemed to be some mistakes in the last one). Members and staff are still trying to find out what's in the newest amendment package. The text of the newest 400+ pages amendment has not yet been released to the public as far as I know...

Menendez amendment tabled; Sessions takes the floor for 30 minutes--for debate only (so he can't propose any other motions). He asserts that this bill will "not provide enforcement" and quotes the CBO estimate that the present bill will only reduce "illegal immigration" by 25%.

Also, the Bond amendment's been tabled...as has Dodd's....the motion to table Menendez's amendment is being voted on now...

DeMint's office releases a statement saying that the $4.4 billion supplemental could be used not only for enforcement but for implementation of the Z-visa legalization plan (emphasis added):

“This is just another example of how this bill claims to do one thing but does something else entirely. It’s another example of an empty promise being used to buy votes for amnesty,” said Senator DeMint. “The supporters of this bill have been running around trying to convince people that this money will be used to secure the border first, but now we know that’s not the case. If you read the fine print, the bill says this money can also be used for amnesty.”

According to the CRS report provided to Senator DeMint, the mandatory spending in the bill could immediately be used for Z visas. It says, “(r)eceiving, processing, and adjudicating applications for the Z visa authorized by Title VI of the Act is one of the trigger mechanisms outlined in Section 1; this means that funding from the Immigration Security Account could be used for this purpose.”

In addition, the report says the funds could be used for Y visas and other programs once the trigger mechanisms have been met but it does not require the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify the trigger. The report says, “S. 1639 does not explicitly stipulate whether the certification required by Section 1 would have to take place prior to funding being made available for the additional purposes outlined in Section 2(C).”

“Not only can this money be used for things other then border security and enforcement, it looks like another backdoor trick to promote amnesty,” said Senator DeMint. “If Congress appropriates money later this year for the border, the money provided in this bill will turn into a slush fund the Administration can use to ensure illegal immigrants are legalized.”

Update on floor debate: Webb amendment has been tabled. Voting on tabling the Dodd amendment....

I've heard from Domenici's people, and they confirm that he will vote against cloture tomorrow--especially now that Hutchison's amendment has been tabled. See also this.
By the way, my thanks to a reader for reporting that he was told Domenici would vote against cloture when he called his office; that's what caused me to write to his staff.

So here's the guess-sketch of the Senate strategies so far: It seems that Reid is trying to keep a tight control on Senate proceedings; he's very wary about debate on the Senate floor getting out of hand. So he's managing his time carefully and trying to shoot down the objections of those Senators who want more time or even want to speak in some cases. Example: Vitter had asked for 5 minutes to discuss any part of the bill he wanted, and Reid objected strenuously. He was willing to give him 5 min. to debate on a particular amendment like Webb's but not a free-ranging debate. As Reid's tightly controlling time, he also seems to be tightly controlling the flow of information. On the Hutchison amendment, for example, there was only a single copy of the amendment available at the Senate desk, and the new text of most amendments has not even been revealed yet. Critics of the bill like Vitter and Sessions are trying to open up these tight channels.

Webb amendment's up next. An hour of debate on it is proposed.
Vitter and Sessions offer some would-be objections. Sessions has been promised some time to speak and doesn't want that time to be in the "wee hours of the night" or morning. Quorum call! Negotiations...
Update: Specter calls for Webb amendment to be tabled. After this vote, Sessions gets recognized for "Morning Business" style debate until around 2:30.

Hutchison amendment is tabled and removed from Senate consideration.

Graham Threatens (Sort of): Lindsey Graham, one of the most prominent proponents of the Senate "grand bargain" now threatens to pull his support of the bill if his supposed "touchback" amendment is not accepted, according to this CQ story:

South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, a Republican negotiator of the compromise legislation, said he would withdraw his support if the chamber fails to adopt one of the amendments he has offered. Graham’s proposal would require at least all illegal immigrants’ heads of households to “touchback” in their country of origin within three years of the bill’s enactment and before they receive Z visas that enable them to stay indefinitely in the United States.

But he's not threatening so much:

Graham said his position to back away from the bill if the amendment is not adopted should not be interpreted as speaking for the coalition of senators, the so-called gang of 12, that put the bill together.

“That means Lindsey Graham won’t vote for it,” he said. “What I have tried to do is put together an amendment at the end to address legitimate constructive criticism that will make this bill much stronger in the enforcement arena.”

So he might vote against the bill--but he's not saying he'll vote against cloture. And many skeptics of the bill think the "touchback" proposal is "fraud." Still, one wonders if even Graham is worried about his dropping approval ratings as a result of his support for this bill...

Vote currently on to "table" Hutchison's amendment--tabling a measure removes it from Senate consideration.

Ensign's Conditions: Geraghty has a report on the the conditions for Ensign to switch to vote against cloture:

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., has two big amendments/criteria, according to his office. The first is an amendment to close a loophole for Social Security benefits; as the bill is written now, it allows immigrants to collect Social Security if they've committed identity theft or fraud. Ensign contends the bill as it stands encourages identity theft and fraud. The second is another amendment, part of interior enforcement package, is to create an "exit tracking system." Forty percent of illegal immigrants arrive here legally and overstay their visas. Ensign wants to have an exit tracking system to know who's here, who's left.

Bond (h/t a reader) also has his own condition for switching.

Reid introduces modified amendment. Vitter calls for Yeas-and-Nays. It seems like the Hutchison amendment may be up....

Sessions protests on the floor.

DeMint on Senate floor: Another version of the amendment package is coming. This new version could be 400 pages. According to him, this is still being written. Calls this "clay pigeon" a "moving target"--and he wants to stop this "moving target."
Vitter says that this new package might be substantively different from the released version. He wants 5 hours to read new "mega-amendment." Reid objects.

Debate update so far: Reid speaks, Specter defends bill, Webb proposes his amendment (and says that, ultimately, he wants this bill to succeed), Kennedy and Feinstein go back-and -forth pointing out what they take to be the virtues of this bill and attacking the status quo (asserting both that present "undocumented immigrants" live in fear and a condition of "silent amnesty"). Hutchison
speaks now on her own amendment: the "touchback."

So who will switch--will anyone? I've got a random guess list at the end of this post, but those are only momentary guesses. My suspicion tends to be--and perhaps this is why opponents of the bill wanted to stop it with the first cloture vote--that, with this amendment process (if the process goes forward), we're in a somewhat different ballgame. The fate of these amendments could give all sorts of senators all sorts cover for voting however they want, and, in this bill, these senators seem to want as many options for cover as they can get. So former anti-cloture folks might use the so-called "touchback" provision (if it's adopted) as a way of defending a vote in favor of cloture to end debate, or pro-cloture folks could be turned off by changes in the guest worker provisions. So I think there could be a surprising amount of movement in both directions. I guess.


Random list: This is (as usual) some very uninformed speculation, but, at the moment, if I had to pick some key swing votes for cloture, here's whom I'd maybe pick for votes opponents of this bill could gain: maybe Bingaman, Bond, Brown (if Bayh switched, so could he), Brownback, Burr, Conrad, Ensign, Levin, Pryor, and Webb. I also guess Coleman and Bennett could still switch if they felt the bill was going down...From reports I'm hearing, Nelson is still insisting that he will always vote to move the process forward on a bill (even though he did vote against cloture for an amendment just this May), so he still sounds like he'll support cloture.
Here are some votes they could lose: Bayh, Cochran, Hatch, maybe Stabenow, and maybe Tester.
But who knows? I certainly don't!

And the House Republican Conference voted 114-23 to express its disapproval of the present Senate "grand bargain." But it seems a number of (R) reps sat out...

Ed Morrissey offers some commentary on a number of points in the immigration amendment package. He thinks there may be some surprises in the text.

TLB has a text of the amendment package that is linkable and searchable. I've added it to the link bar, too.

Webb's not committed to cloture for next time. From his press people (emphasis added):

Washington, DC– The following is a statement issued by Senator Jim Webb on his vote to proceed to debate on the Immigration Bill. His vote has been consistent with past cloture votes to proceed to and continue debate on the Senate floor:

“I voted today to initiate debate on the immigration reform bill just as I voted on May 21 to initiate debate the first time the bill was brought up. Once amendments are considered, I will decide whether to vote on cloture to end debate, as I did on June 7 when I voted against cloture.

“I have introduced an amendment that narrows the scope of the bill by creating a path to legalization for those who have put down roots in this country and strikes the unworkable ‘touchback’ provision. I believe my amendment holds promise of finding a solid middle ground on which to base meaningful immigration reform. I look forward to a rigorous debate this week on my amendment and others.”

Truce (for the moment): It seems like the leadership has agreed to put off votes on the amendments until at least tomorrow in order to give various senators time to read the amendment package. They're still negotiating....

Let the Clay Pigeon Soar--Maybe: 26-amendment package flies! Reid announces on the Senate floor. An objection initiates the reading of the amendments...at the edge of the C-SPAN cameras, you can see senators plotting strategy...UPDATE: C-SPAN identifies Sen. Coburn (R-OK) as the one who raised that objection...it can take a long time to read through 373 pages...could this be part of an effort to slow this process down and get more time for debate? Or is this part of a move to get some more time for critics of the bill to renegotiate the amendment package? Both?

A Peek Inside the Egg: K-Lo posts a (tentative) text of the new amendment package.

UPDATE on CT In-state Tuition Bill: Gov. Rell (R) vetoes a bill (HB5656) giving in-state tuition to "illegal aliens."

Why is the Senate in recess at the moment. A source offers Malkin a tip:

“The move to put the Senate in recess was preemptive on Reid’s part. Putting the Senate in recess ensures that bill opponents cannot seek recognition on the Senate floor and thereby offer amendments or opposes the bill in any way. In sum, it is just one more tool Reid is using to silence dissent. So there you have it. The Senate is closed on a Tuesday afternoon on a day when we are dealing with the massive-in-scope immigration ‘reform’ bill.”

After all, we wouldn't want debate to get out of hand...

We're still waiting as the clay pigeon hatches, it seems. Rich Lowry publishes an email from a Senate source (emphasis added):

Right now, the United States Senate stands in recess... WHY? Because the Grand Bargainers (and make no mistake about who these folks are - Republicans hell bent on getting the deal done... ) are working to finalize a 300 plus page amendment (yes I said over 300 pages) which we have not even seen yet. Copies may appear sometime soon, but "only for the Grand Bargainers" until a little later...

If ever there is a time for Senators to be specifically put on the spot for a breach of faith with the American public, it is now... the process is terrible, the substance is terrible and if you think for a minute we should rely on the House of Representatives to stop the bill, think again.

At least the Republican leadership seems very intent on pushing this bill through...I wonder what this cute little (or maybe not so little) pigeon will look like!

How precisely the "clay pigeon" might be launched: Via Pajamas Media, a memo from former Secretary for the Majority and Minority in the U.S. Senate Elizabeth B. Letchworth (emphasis added):

If 60 Senators vote to make S. 1639 the pending business in the Senate on Tuesday, June 26 [As they did this afternoon--NA], Sen. Reid will immediately take the floor of the Senate and offer a 1st degree amdt. to S. 1639, and ask for the yeas and nays. This guarantees a roll call vote will occur on this amdt.
He will then send a 2nd degree amdt to the desk and ask for the yeas and nays. This achieves the same for the 2nd degree amdt. He will then ask that the amdt. to be divided.
This amdt will automatically be divided into sections that can stand alone as individual amdts. In other words, his second degree amdt. may have 18 sections [Though I've heard that there are now maybe 24 amendments in this package--NA], and by using this procedure, he has now put in place 18 amdts. Since the yeas and nays were ordered, so he has now been guaranteed a roll call vote will occur on all of these sections by using the Rules of the Senate.
These sections are presumably going to contain the text of amdts he believes Republican and Democratic Senators wanted to offer when the Senate debated the last immigration bill a few weeks ago.
Now no other amdts are in order since he has placed his amdts in these specific places in the amendment process allowed by the Senate Rules. No other Senator can stop him from using these maneuvers since Sen. Reid has priority recognition over all other United States Senators. By Sen. Reid using this amendment process and calling for a division of his amdt., he can guarantee Senators that votes will occur on issues he has chosen to offer and on issues he believes will please enough Senators as to earn the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture and pass the bill.
Sen. Reid will then send a cloture motion to the desk setting up the cloture vote for Thursday. The bill is now pending but no Senator can offer amdts because he is blocking them by using his priority recognition and offering his own amdts.
If 60 Senators vote on Thursday to limit debate on S. 1639, at the end of the 30 hours allowed by Senate Rule 22, votes will automatically begin, without further debate, on all of the Reid amdts in a back-to-back sequence. The final vote will be a vote on Final Passage of S. 1639, the Kennedy Immigration bill.

This move may be made at 3:50...

Reid is waiting for legislation from what he calls a "legislative council." Asks to be recognized at 3:50.

So how did my list hold up? Well, the proponents of cloture pretty much swept all the way from "Very Likely to Switch" to some of the toss-ups.
Here's part of the breakdown from my guess list:

Very Likely to Switch
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Craig (R-ID)
Gregg (R-NH)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bond (R-MO)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Coleman (R-MN)

Likely to Switch
Collins (R-ME)
Snowe (R-ME)
Domenici (R-NM)
Stevens (R-AK)
Warner (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Burr (R-NC)
Could very well switch
Hatch (R-UT)
Toss-ups
Webb (D-VA)
Ensign (R-NV)

And here's the list of anti-cloture to pro-cloture switchers:

Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS) [didn't vote last time]
Burr (R-NC)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Gregg (R-NH)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

So there's a lot of overlap. I had Pryor as "Could Very Well Not Switch," so I was a little off with him, and I had Hatch as "Could Very Well Switch" (he eventually voted against cloture), so they were a little out of the order of my guess list. Also, I had Cochran as "Very Likely to Switch" because reports had him declaring in favor of cloture, but apparently he changed his mind (or leadership let him change his mind).
Bayh was a bit of a surprise to switch to be against cloture, but Stabenow's switch against cloture was a little more expected. Now, will both Bayh and Stabenow stay against cloture for ending debate on the bill?

Vote List is up. Here it is (analysis below):

YEAs ---64
Akaka (D-HI) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)	Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---35
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bunning (R-KY) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)	Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Dorgan (D-ND) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Landrieu (D-LA) McCaskill (D-MO)	Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

So who switched? Bayh and Stabenow voted to switch against cloture. The following switched to favor cloture:

Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS) [didn't vote last time]
Burr (R-NC)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Gregg (R-NH)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

So we're looking at 21 switches for cloture + 2 switches against cloture = Net gain of 19 votes for cloture (19+45=64).

Big surprise? Bayh switch to vote against cloture. Semi-surprise? Pryor switching to vote in favor; a lot of people had him as an opponent of cloture.

The Politico has more on the anti-"grand bargain" resolution pending for House Republicans. Minority Leader Boehner (OH) says "I won’t say [the White House was] happy about [the measure].”

K-Lo has a list of switchers:

Yea to Nay (1)

Stabenow

Nay to Yea (17)

Bennett

Bingaman

Bond

Boxer

Burr

Coleman

Collins

Domenici

Ensign

Gregg

Lott

McConnell

Murkowski

Snowe

Stevens

Warner

Webb

NV to Yea (1)

Brownback

NV to Nay (3)

Barrasso

Coburn

Enzi

High Noon: Liveblogging the cloture vote.
Everyone's working the floor!...
Interesting changes: Bennett, Burr, Coleman all for cloture
Murkowski: Aye on cloture
Bayh against? Never mind...I misheard...UPDATE: No, I didn't; he did vote against cloture
Tester stays against...Baucus stays against....
Nelson (D-NE) stays in favor of cloture...
Brownback backs cloture...
Webb and Warner back cloture....
Levin backs cloture; Stabenow turns against
Ensign backs cloture
64-35: Cloture passes
Action resumes at 2:15 EST

With the upcoming vote, I've revised my cloture guess list. We'll see how these guesses pan out! Any last-minute updates?

Reid emphasizes that the "grand bargain" needs "Republican support." Says it is not a "Democratic bill." Says President Bush has given complete support to the "grand bargain." Says that Senate Democrats need 25 Republicans to pass this measure.

Dole, DeMint, Vitter, and Sessions reply to Majority Leader Reid (D-NV). They say that the cooperation of the White House and Senate GOP leadership with Reid's "abusive practice" may "give [him] comfort, [but] it does not justify [his] actions."

Sen. McConnell says something on the Senate floor that some opponents may try to use against him: "The way we do things in this country is just as important as what we do." (Or something like that.)

Sen. Salazar (D-CO) defends "grand bargain." Says that, this time, immigration measures will be enforced. Asserts that the present bill is not "amnesty."

Via Malkin, has Norm Coleman (R-MN) declared in favor of cloture?

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), speaking on the union card check measure, talks about declining median wage. What does he make of Sen. Sessions's claims or the "guest worker" program?

Sen. Sessions just got off the floor. Called the bill a bad bill. Criticized "illegal immigration" for driving down wages.

Via Hot Air, a GOP leadership aide does not think that the proposed $4.4 billion supplemental will cover expenses for newly authorized enforcement programs:

However, one Republican leadership aide told FOX News that the $4.4 billion is not nearly enough money to cover these substantial increases, warning against any guarantee that the provisions will be paid for down the road. "There's no way that's enough. So they'll have to appropriate more, and there's a big difference between authorizing and appropriating."

The question a number of bill skeptics might ask: will those new authorized measures ever be funded?

Geraghty reports that sources still think opponents of the present bill have around 35 committed votes against cloture; House Republicans plan on voting on a resolution "critical" of the "grand bargain" immigration bill.

The Washington Times reports today that Sen. Cochran (R-MS) and Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) will switch to vote in favor of cloture. Today at least. These senators are 4 of the 12 "swings" opponents of the bill said with decide the bill's fate today.

CQ story on expectations leading up to tomorrow's cloture vote. In it, Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) says that she will vote in favor of cloture tomorrow--but hasn't made up her mind beyond that.

Z-Visa Maneuvers: WaPo story about how members of the "grand coalition" are now backing an amendment to the present immigration bill that may require the heads of "illegal-immigrant households" to leave US national territory (which may include visiting a foreign embassy on US soil) in order to apply for the Z visa, which would grant legalization. Some critics of the present "grand bargain" label such a "touchback" provision a "fraud," so it's unclear how much a provision would win over critics. But other paragraphs in this story might cause critics to be won over even less by the inclusion of this provision:

"It would be a huge blow, an enormous bill, if this [the touchback provision amendment] happens," said Cecilia Muñoz, vice president for policy at the National Council for La Raza, the largest Latino rights group.

But Muñoz and members of other immigrant rights groups said they will still support the bill's passage, while pressing for changes in the House or in eventual House-Senate negotiations.

"If this was the final bill, if this was going straight from the Senate floor to the Rose Garden signing ceremony, there would be full-throated opposition, but it's not. We still have another chamber to go through," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, which supports the bill.

So even if it passes the Senate this time, forces will work to ensure that this "touchback" provision does not make it into the final bill.

Reid to Critics: The White House and McConnell Back Me: Malkin has posted a copy of a letter that Vitter, Dole, DeMint, Sessions, and Cornyn sent to Majority Leader Reid. These senators were concerned about Sen. Reid's use of the "clay pigeon" to shut off debate. Sen. Reid replies (H/T Geraghty; emphasis added):

Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint:

Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my efforts to bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the Senate floor.

As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated efforts to call up further amendments to the bill. Following the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter, came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a large number of additional amendments could become pending to the bill.

The so-called “clay pigeon” procedure is unusual, and I would not have considered employing it in this instance without the full support of Senator McConnell. It seems to me appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow the full Senate to debate an important national issue like immigration. The White House made clear that it also favors such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of President Bush’s top priorities.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend to “shut off the debate” and that the procedure in question will “silence amendments instead of facilitate their debate.” On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill. In contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as few as five amendments during the earlier debate. The American people can see clearly who wants to debate immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate.

Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate amendments which I “hand select” is plainly untrue. The dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not by me.

In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter but consider them misplaced. Senator McConnell and I have worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by President Bush.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid

Geraghty claims:

This is a very big deal, because it means that several senators on the fence, who had felt that their amendments were the make-or-break factor in the bill, won't know whether their amendments are in the ones approved by McConnell.

UPDATE: Malkin also comments on Reid's letter.

Sen. Boxer (D-CA) will back cloture, the OC Register reports:

Sen. Barbara Boxer will vote today to let the immigration bill return to the floor but California's Democratic junior senator has not yet decided if she will support the comprehensive measure.

She moves to "Very Likely to Switch."

Will Domenici (R-NM) back cloture and the bill itself? Via the Politico's Immigration Map (which offers sound-bites on immigration from some senators):

Domenici has said that the bipartisan agreement reached on a comprehensive border security and immigration reform package represents the “best chance” to fix a broken U.S. system.

If he calls it the "best chance," then it sounds as though he's likely to vote for cloture and, probably, the bill itself. He voted for last year's immigration bill.

Cloture Votes Update: Ben Nelson (D-NE), though he says he will vote "No" on the final passage of the bill as it now stands, sounds like he will continue to vote for cloture based on reports that I'm getting. Rich Lowry reports that Kit Bond (R-MO) will switch to vote in favor of cloture to bring the bill to the floor (he's undecided about the second cloture vote--he'll vote against cloture if his amendment fails).
Via Hotair.com, Burr is still on the fence; Boxer (D-CA) may still vote against cloture. Also, a reporter has suggested to Hot Air that Cochran (R-MS) and Bingaman (D-NM) will switch to vote in favor of cloture.

As a total, Lowry says reports suggest that there seem to be 34 somewhat solid votes against cloture. A source tells K-Lo:

Likely Republicans that are on the fence or undecided: Bond, Hatch, Burr, Coleman, Brownback, Ensign, Warner, Cochran, Collins, Snowe, Domenici, Murkowski, Stevens...

Though it seems that Bond, at least, will vote in favor of the first cloture motion....but also, as K-Lo's source says, there's a lot of movement....

Will Webb stay against cloture? Via Krikorian:

A reader just sent this:

Because I live in Virginia, I've been calling all of Senator Webb's offices to register my opposition to cloture on the immigration bill. I haven't been able to get through to his Washington office, but I actually got a live person on the phone at his Hampton Roads office. She told me that nothing has been officially announced, but that he'll be voting no on cloture. I don't know what that's worth, but if you want to post that online so that people can keep on calling him, I think it would be helpful. Keep the pressure on!

Would any Day In, Day Out readers who live in Virginia care to follow up?
UPDATE: Check out this ALIPAC forum. A number of posters report that Webb's office is telling them he will vote against cloture.

UPDATE II: Webb's still undecided. I just received this message from someone in his office:

The Senator has not disclosed whether he will vote for cloture or against it –– so I can deny that rumor.

Please let others know that he has not stated that he will vote against cloture. If that was conveyed in a call to our office, it was a misunderstanding.

So he's still on the fence (at least publicly)!

Is support for the "grand bargain" wobbling? Is the White House getting anxious? See this Corner post:

Someone following the immigration issue closely says White House representatives have been up on Capitol Hill in force today, trying to arm-twist as many "no" votes as possible. (Either the White House's claim of having 61 "yes" votes for closure is bunk, or they want a few extra for insurance.) For wavering senators, it's the phone lines ringing off the hook vs. the administration men sitting in their office lobbies.

Paging Chertoff!

Something somewhat related to immigration: A variety of different think tanks--from Brookings to Heritage--have pooled some of their talent and resources to form The Economic Mobility Project, which will study the role and possibilities of economic mobility in the USA. Immigration will be one of the topics considered. The project's most recent press release: New Analysis Sees Men Failing To Reach Income Levels Of Previous Generation.

Update on Brownback: A source tells Geraghty that Brownback will be around for the cloture vote, but it's unknown how he'll vote.

The public response continues to be skeptical of the Senate immigration bill. According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 22% of the public supports the "grand compromise"; 50% are opposed. Contrary to some claims that only "right-wing Republicans" are disappointed with the bill, this poll shows similar levels of dissatisfaction among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents:

It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

John Hawkins has a roundup of polls for the bill and some of its leading proponents and offers some speculation on the political implications of this bill for Republicans.

Vote total update (maybe): If, as a senate source heard below, there are only 55 pledged votes in favor of cloture, and, as Geraghty hears, there may be 33-35 against cloture, are there about 10 votes in play?
If there are 10 in play, these twelve senators may be amongst them according to some Hill sources:

Bond (R-Mo.), Bingaman (D-N.M.), Burr (R-N.C.), Boxer (D-Calif.), Cochran (R-Miss.), Conrad (D-N.D.), Ensign (R-Nev.), Levin (D-Mich.), Gregg (R-N.H.), Nelson (D-Neb.), Hatch (R-Utah), Webb (D-Va.).

Though I think that Gregg is only in so much play: he says he'll vote in favor of proceeding to the bill (i.e. against cloture).

What may be upcoming in the next few days: A cloture vote is scheduled for tomorrow in the morning (it seems) that will be needed to return the present immigration bill to the floor. If that cloture motion passes (even though opponents are hoping it doesn't and perhaps growing more optimistic that it won't), it then gets a little murky. Originally it seemed that Sen. Reid (D-NV) would then call for a second cloture vote to end debate and, then, in the hours that remained, he would launch the "clay pigeon" of 22 amendments. Debate and votes on these amendments would run out the clock until there had to be a final vote on passage of the bill.

But this seems to have changed. It still sounds like there will be an initial cloture vote tomorrow, but, now, it sounds like there will be debate and votes on some amendments before the second cloture vote is called. From the Roll Call story cited below:

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a key supporter of the bill, told reporters on Friday that negotiators had agreed to try to consider as many amendments as possible before forcing a final cloture vote on the bill.

“Most Members would like to have an idea of what has passed or failed,” before deciding whether to support an end to debate.

Also, from the National Journal's Congress Daily:

While Senate leaders have agreed to a list of 24 immigration amendments that will receive floor votes, the procedures for how and when that occurs is still in flux.
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl of Arizona, who helped write the bill, said last week that leaders want to dispense with as many amendments as possible before a second cloture vote.

So it does seem as though some of these 24 (22 were originally reported) amendments will be voted on before the second cloture vote but which ones may be voted on before or after seems unknown at the moment.

What does this change mean? It's hard to say, but it could be a sign that the leadership is trying to shore up support for the bill and the second cloture motion: rather than agreeing to a second cloture motion without knowing the fate of some of the amendments, some senators may be insisting on waiting until after some votes.

This change could also be a way of trying to gain support for the first cloture motion. If there wouldn't be any votes on amendments in between the first and second cloture motions, a senator who voted "yes" on the first cloture would then have a harder time switching to vote against cloture on the second motion (and this second cloture would then lead to an up-or-down vote on the bill itself). By letting some votes happen on some amendments between the cloture motions, the leadership may be trying to say to reluctant senators, "At least vote in favor of the first cloture motion--let us bring the bill to the floor--and, then, if you're unhappy with the amendment results, you can then decide to vote against cloture the second time if you want."

So maybe the leadership and backers of this bill are maybe just a little worried about the success of the first cloture motion (let alone the second...). But who knows!? There are just so many layers to these maneuvers!

Of course, as Jim Geraghty reports, this worry about the success of the first cloture motion would be gratifying to opponents of the immigration bill:

Some Republicans on the fence are going to try to have it both ways - vote to bring it back to the floor, so they can get their amendments considered, but not necessarily promise to vote for a) cloture to cut off debate and b) passage. Nonetheless, bill opponents should not forgive a vote to bring it back to the floor, I'm told. They're within a few votes of killing the deal before it comes back; why take the chance on a later vote?

2. The fact that senators are announcing how they will vote on a "procedural" vote is a huge sign of how much pressure they're feeling. For opponents, it's reason for very cautious optimism.

3. A loss tomorrow means there are still two more chances to kill the bill; still, a good opportunity will have been missed.

And, Geraghty suggests, these pre-second cloture amendments may not be that significant for the bill as a whole:

The cloture vote may come before, or after, consideration of certain amendments. Skeptics should not be all that impressed with amendments approved by Reid and Kennedy. Less likely than "poison pills" are "fig leaf" amendments that improve the bill in cosmetic ways, but don't significantly address the real problems with the bill.

UPDATE: From today's Senate "Whip Notice" (emphasis added; H/T a reader):

Tuesday, June 26 and Balance of the Week:

On Tuesday at 11:30am, the Senate will proceed to a Roll Call Vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 800, the Card Check bill. If cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 800, the motion to proceed will be agreed to. The Senate will then immediately vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1639, the Immigration bill. If cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 1639, the motion to proceed will be agreed to. After the disposition of all post-cloture debate time on S. 1639, there will be 20 minutes of debate, equally divided, on a motion to waive the Budget Act in response to a budget point of order made by Senator Sessions or his designee. If the Senate is considering S. 1639 on Wednesday, June 27, Senator Sessions will be recognized to speak for 2 hours.

If cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to the Immigration bill; it is expected that the Majority Leader will file a cloture motion on the bill itself on Tuesday night.

-Roll Call Votes are expected throughout the week with late nights possible.

However, if the motion is filed on Tuesday, the vote on the cloture motion itself will "lie over" for a little bit; perhaps a vote may be expected on that motion on Thursday.

Even as Voinovich (R-OH) may be wavering in his support of cloture, Judd Gregg (R-NH) declares in favor of cloture. Gregg moves from "Likely to Switch" to "Very Likely to Switch."

The Perception Game: Will the cloture motion needed to bring the immigration bill to the floor not even pass? From an email from a Senate source (emphasis added):

I can’t emphasize enough to you how important the perception game is in this town...I’ve heard that they only have 55 votes on this, and no one wants to be the 58^th or 59^th vote for amnesty.

And how do we get to this 55? From this Roll Call story (hidden behind a subscription wall and emphasis added):

Even so, Durbin has warned Republicans repeatedly that Democrats will be able to muster no more than 37 votes of the 60 needed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill.

“Thirty-seven votes is our high-water mark,” said Durbin on Friday. “We may not be able to get that again.”

But even if Democrats can deliver those votes, Republicans will still have to produce at least 23 votes — a feat GOP backers of the bill said is doable but not assured.

Is Durbin trying to play the expectations game himself here and lowball the support for cloture among Democrats, or is he offering an accurate estimation of Democratic support? If so, presuming that there are 49 Democrats (and 2 Independents), that means 13 Democrats may vote "no" on cloture (or 12 may vote "no" and Tim Johnson [D-SD] may not vote at all). Last time, 37 Democrats voted in favor of cloture, so is anyone switching one way or another? Or is Durbin being coy....or is he counting Lieberman and Sanders as "Democrats"**? Last time, 7 Republicans voted in favor of cloture, so they may need 16 more Republican votes...And if my Senate source has heard right, and there are only 55 pledged votes in favor of cloture, have only 18 to 16 Republicans pledged their votes? 18's still 5 votes away from 23....

But back to the "perception game." Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Bob Bennett (R-UT), who both voted against cloture last time, may be susceptible. A lobbyist emails Mark Krikorian about them (e.a.):

they pretty hopeless but that we should continue to pound them as if they are a possibility. If they feel cloture is close to failing they may decide they are politically better off to switch.

So do Coleman and Bennett want to be votes 58 and 59 for cloture? Especially now that Sen. Voinovich (R-OH), who voted in favor of cloture last time, may now be unsure about voting in favor of cloture (H/T Malkin)?


**Counting Lieberman as a "Democrat," 38 Democrats voted in favor of cloture. Sanders seems, from reports, to be a cloture skeptic, but I don't know for sure.

Taking it to the People: While Mickey Kaus wonders about YouTube videos targeting Senators who are in favor of cloture and the present immigration bill, the White House (h/t a reader) plans on hosting an online discussion on immigration with Commerce Sec. Carlos Guteirrez on Monday at 2:30 EST.

The Washington Post has a roundup of some immigration measures being considered by the various states.

This Bloomberg story has some interesting information about some of the groups lobbying for the present Senate immigration bill.

Technology companies such as Google Inc., the Mountain View, California-based owner of the most popular Internet search engine, and Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, are concentrating on Republican senators such as Christopher Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Bob Bennett of Utah.

And:

Religious and Latino groups have also kicked into high gear. Kevin Applebee, director of migration and refugee policy for the Washington-based U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said his group is focusing on about eight senators, including Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, and John Warner of Virginia.

(Emphasis added in both quotes)
Have they been making progress?

Setting up expectations: A variety of debates about immigration on the Sunday talk shows today. Sen. Sessions (R-AL) asserted that support for the "grand bargain" immigration bill “continues to erode," but Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) predicts that the bill still has enough votes to pass. On FOX News Sunday, Sen. Lott (R-MS) and Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), both backing the "grand bargain," talk about immigration and talk radio. In this discussion of talk radio, Chris Wallace, the moderator, asks about the "fairness doctrine," and Sen. Feinstein says she may be interested in bringing it back:

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

A variety of forces are lobbying against Arizona bill HB 2779, which would punish those who hire workers illegally. The bill was passed with significant support by both branches of the Arizona legislature. Gov. Napolitano (D) has not said yet whether she will veto the bill or not. From this Arizona Republic story:

The two-strike bill amounts to a death penalty for any business caught dealing in illegal labor two times in three years. First-time offenders would have their license suspended.

Plenty of people are hoping she does veto this bill:

The phone calls came in English and Spanish, offering not-so-subtle advice on a bill the governor has until July 3 to act upon. On Friday alone, the Governor's Office received 28 phone calls asking her to sign House Bill 2779 and 128 requesting a veto.

But the real full-court press begins Monday when members of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce plan to coordinate their efforts in pressuring Napolitano by phone and e-mail and in person.

The message: Wait for federal reform and send the state proposal packing.

Steve Levy and the "Global Thought": Steve Levy (D), the Suffolk County (NY) Executive profiled by the NYT a few weeks ago, is in the news again. Members of the New York state legislature's "minority caucus" are threatening to deny new tax revenue to Suffolk County due to Levy's opposition to "illegal immigration" and refusal to fund a center for "day laborers." According to this Newsday story:

Millions of dollars in sales tax revenue for Suffolk were imperiled Thursday by a dispute between Levy and the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus, a group of minority members of the Assembly upset over his unbending stand against illegal immigration and his opposition to a hiring hall for laborers.

In a rare move, the minority lawmakers forced a sales-tax bill for Suffolk to be tabled in protest of Levy. He has responded angrily, vowing not to bow to pressure by worker advocates to open a hiring hall for day laborers. He said he would rather forgo the estimated $300 million the county would generate if the bill became law.

On Friday, caucus Chairman Darryl Towns (D-Brooklyn,) said the caucus had to get involved. Members represent a political alliance that strives to give minorities, middle-class, the poor and the working poor a voice in state government.

"Some of the positions that he's taken concern us, especially being sons and daughters of immigrants," Towns said. "We wanted to take an opportunity, to put him back in the global thought. We're state legislators and the caucus has expanded to the point that we are not just legislators from New York City."