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.