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.
