What will this new Senate agreement contain? How will it function? Over at the Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a very interesting scenario from one of her Senate sources:

Here is what we expect to happen next week, though it is far from clear yet. In short, we expect it to come up this week, and if Senators (as we expect) object to unanimous consent agreements, it will take the better part of 6-8 days to get this done. They will not get it done this week (but Reid threatens to stay in next weekend).

1. We expect Reid, in conjunction with support from McConnell, Lott and Grand Bargainers Kyl, Martinez, Graham and McCain, to introduce a brand new piece of legislation - and use Rule 14 to put the bill immediately on the Senate calendar without going thru committee - which of course, the first bill did not do as well.

* It is possible that Reid will choose a different procedural path - but we expect the effect to be the same.

2. We expect that the new bill's drafters (White House, Kennedy, Kyl, Graham, et. al.) will use close to the same language as the original substitute amendment (the first immigration bill) as amended by the 14 Democrat and 13 Republican amendments adopted the the first go round.

3. A new Rule 14 bill takes 1-2 days to ripen, and then we expect Reid to file cloture on the motion to proceed (a step he will need to take because numerous Senators are objecting to any unanimous consent agreements). The cloture motion takes time to ripen, so that adds a full day and change before the vote (60). Then, there is 30 hours of "post cloture debate" that a number of Senators will refuse to allow to be shortened.

4. When the 30 hours expire, Reid will have the vote on the motion to proceed to the bill (majority).

4. Once on the bill, Reid will again file cloture (to shut off debate - again, a number of Senators will continue to object to unanimous consent agreements) - this time on the bill itself.

5. The guessing begins at this point - but we expect Reid - with the help and support of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers - to do something that we believe has never been done in the history of the Senate... he will use an arcane Senate procedure that allows a single amendment to be divisible into many - in this case, into the 20-odd amendments the Grand Bargainers are trying to cobble together to keep 60 votes in support of the bill. Traditionally, that amendment has been used to protect minority rights - but in this case, it will be used to PREVENT the minority from getting additional amendments called up and from being able to fully debate the amendments in question. It is, to our knowledge, unprecedented.

6. Once the cloture motion ripens (again, another day and change), the cloture vote can occur (60 votes) and then, again, there is 30 hours of "post cloture debate" during which Reid will run, in order, through the panoply of amendments offered by way of the division.

7. Finally, there will be a vote on final passage.

If Reid does this, with the help of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers, they will shut off the ability of Senators with concerns of the bill to offer additional amendments and to debate the amendments in question.

In the end, this means that if they have 60 lined up to support it - there is little that can be done procedurally - so it has become far more important than ever for Senators to hear from their constituents.

Step 5 in this scenario seems a very interesting tactical move. Is this source referring to Senate Rule XV Section 3? This section reads:

If the question in debate contains several propositions, any Senator may have the same divided, except a motion to strike out and insert, which shall not be divided; but the rejection of a motion to strike out and insert one proposition shall not prevent a motion to strike out and insert a different proposition; nor shall it prevent a motion simply to strike out; nor shall the rejection of a motion to strike out prevent a motion to strike out and insert. But pending a motion to strike out and insert, the part to be stricken out and the part to be inserted shall each be regarded for the purpose of amendment as a question, and motions to amend the part to be stricken out shall have precedence.

UPDATE 6/17: A "leadership source" emails K-Lo. It is Rule XV (3):

your correspondent makes a point about an amendment procedure (often called a "clay pigeon" amendment) under Rule XV (3) of the Senate Rules that needs a bit of clarification. It is rarely used, but it has been used in the Senate as recently as last year. Sen. Coburn used the procedure last April in an attempt to strip pork from an appropriations bill.


Also, Reid won't need the help or support of any other Senator (leadership, grand bargainers or otherwise) to get this bill on the Senate calendar under Rule XIV. He can get the bill on the calendar under the rule with no help at all. To get it on the floor (under the motion to proceed) will require either unanimous consent (which it won't get) or a cloture motion. That takes 60 votes.

The Republican leadership gave Reid no assurances about cloture on the bill; the final makeup of the bill after amendments will determine whether or not cloture is invoked on the bill itself. And, unlike before the last cloture vote, the leadership was successful in getting another dozen or so Republican amendments pending to the bill. There will now be more GOP roll call votes on amendments than on last year's bill when the GOP was in charge (not counting the committee amendments).

Update 6/17: K-Lo's original staffer writes back. Says that he meant Sen. Reid's use of Rule XV would be "unprecedented" in its use of the rule to block minority debate. Otherwise quarrels with this "leadership" source's statements.

A variety of immigration-related laws passed (and not passed) in Tennessee:

*HB0600 passed. Bill would prohibit "the transportation of illegal aliens into the state, imposes a fine of $1,000 for such violation, and requires that money received from such fines be applied to the costs associated with deportation of such illegal aliens."
*HB0491 passed. Bill would require "the department of safety to negotiate an agreement with federal authorities to train certain highway patrol officers to perform certain immigration law enforcement functions; authorizes highway patrol officers certified as trained under such an agreement to enforce federal immigration and customs laws in Tennessee."
*HB0729 passed. Bill would create "the criminal offenses of recklessly employing an illegal alien, knowingly employing an illegal alien, and knowingly encouraging or inducing an illegal alien to enter the state for the purpose of employing such illegal alien." This bill has not yet been signed by the governor.
*HB0877 failed. Bill would have required "persons who hire employees on and after January 1, 2008, including contract employees, to verify immigration status prior to hiring an individual."

See also this list of other bills passed and failed in TN.

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) on the current agreement for amendments: There may not be a deal! In an interview with Ed Morrissey, Sen. Ensign said the following:

That is what people are talking about. We're a long way away from that deal getting done, because every time you hear that a deal's being done, it blows up, so ... We have to make sure we see the list of amendments first that are approved. You know, they can't just be phony amendments. I talked with Lindsey Graham, one of the big supporters of the bill yesterday, and he told me that he is not going to -- that he will withdraw his support of the bill unless we have the money for interior enforcement ...

In this interview, Ensign also stressed that he believed in a "comprehensive" solution to immigration problems. Ensign also "pledged to torpedo any bill that did not have actual funds for border security and that allowed illegal aliens to receive Social Security benefits that they fraudulently acquired." So, if the bill has those conditions, will he vote for cloture?

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), though skeptical of the "grand bargain," sounds like he will still vote for cloture. See this letter from Nelson to one of his constituents (and a helpful reader of this site)--I've italicized a telling paragraph:

Dear ------------:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Senators Kennedy and Specter's substitute
amendment #1150 to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S. 1348, also
referred to as the "Grand Bargain." I was glad to receive your thoughts.

As you may imagine, I received a significant amount of mail on the immigration
matter. I am very aware how frustrated you are, as is the case with many
Nebraskans, with this contentious issue. I, too, have shared your frustration. On
Thursday, June 7, 2007, the Senate voted on a motion to invoke cloture on the
substitute amendment (a move to end all debate and allow for a straight up-or-down
vote). The motion failed 45-50, with 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and permit
the full Senate to consider this measure. Upon failure to reach the 60-vote
threshold, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid removed the bill from further
consideration.

It is important to remember that a cloture motion is a procedural motion, not an
actual vote expressing support or opposition to a particular piece of legislation.
While I did vote for this cloture motion for the sole reason that I believe in moving
the legislative process forward, rather than stalling it through procedural tactics, I
am glad to see this legislation withdrawn. It is my hope the Senate will now focus
on the pressing needs of border security, which I feel Congress must handle first in
order to resolve the problems of illegal immigration.

Solving the immigration issue will certainly be a complex matter; but we are in a
hole, and it is time to stop digging. Properly securing our borders first is our best
means to begin resolving this situation. This past February, I witnessed firsthand
the border barrier construction and enhanced border security measures on the
Arizona-Mexico border. Increased patrols, physical barriers and "virtual fencing" -
composed of radar, sensors, and aerial and vehicle patrols in remote areas - are
already making a difference. In addition, border patrol agents have repeatedly noted
that the assistance of National Guard members deployed through "Operation
Jumpstart" has been invaluable. Each of these elements has contributed to a
reduction in border crossings in this region, from hundreds a day last fall to a
handful a month today. I will continue to push for measures promoting efforts such
as these to ensure that we properly secure America's borders and will keep your
thoughts in mind regarding any immigration proposal which may come before the
Senate in the months ahead.

Thank you again for contacting me with your comments on this important issue.
The legislative process will only work with the input of concerned citizens, and I
encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts and ideas.

Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator

A choice Sen. Nelson may have to face in the future: how much does he want to "move the legislative process forward," and how much does he wish to stop the present bill from becoming law?

UPDATE: And it may be a somewhat unorthodox legislative process that could be going forward as well.

Feeling the Squeeze in the Senate: Provocative story about the methods of proponents of the "grand bargain." Some key paragraphs:

An appearance by Bush on Capitol Hill this week to prod action on the measure — and his subsequent OK to immediately pumping a new $4.4 billion into border security — helped set the stage for its resurrection. But it was raw trolling for votes by key Republicans and Democrats that made the difference, said lawmakers and senior officials involved in the talks.

And:

Allowing votes on the proposals "has as its goal bringing more people on board," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, a lead Republican negotiator, said in an interview Friday. "They're going to get input that will make them feel better," Graham said of wavering Republicans.

"I do believe that with this new process, there will be enough votes to get to final passage, but the pressure's immense," Graham said. "I'll be going senator to senator" next week to persuade Republicans to back it.

Bush plans to keep blocks of time open next week in order to be able to jump in as needed with pointed remarks and calls or meetings with lawmakers, aides said.

Corker, Hutchison, and Alexander seem on the fence:

For some GOP holdouts, the promise of votes to make the bill more punitive toward the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who would get lawful status might be enough to persuade them to support moving ahead.

Negotiators hope that's the case for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who wants to toughen a requirement that unlawful immigrants seeking green cards return home to apply for permanent legal residency. Under the emerging framework, Hutchison would get a vote on her proposal — co-sponsored by Tennessee Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, two other Republicans regarded as potentially persuadable — to require all illegal immigrants to go home within two years in order to receive a Z visa to live and work lawfully in the U.S.

"Grand Bargain" Opponent Jim DeMint's not optimistic:

Seemingly resigned to the bill's passage, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., now says he plans to block a conference that would be needed to reconcile House and Senate versions before an immigration bill could be signed into law, his office said on Friday.

But this story also hints at the tenuousness of the coalition....time will tell....

Gingrich on Senate Immigration Bill: It's a "monstrosity" that is "fundamentally dishonest and impossible to implement."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi interview on the future of the immigration bill in the House:

MR. HUNT: The immigration bill is bogged down in the bitterly divided Senate. In July, will the House take up immigration no matter what the Senate does, or are you going to wait to see what the Senate does first?

REP. PELOSI: I've always said that we will wait to see what the Senate does. I have to commend President Bush. He has been very courageous on this issue. We won't have a bill though, unless he exerts more leadership in the Senate and in the House to pass the legislation.

MR. HUNT: If the bill as it stands should pass the Senate, what would be its prospects in the House?

REP. PELOSI: Well, it depends on what passes the Senate. We like the bill that passed in the last Congress. It was comprehensive; it was about securing our borders, enforcing our laws, protecting American workers, and providing a path to legalization for millions of people in our country. I don't know what form the bill will take in the Senate this year, because, as you know, the one bill was prevented from coming to the floor. So now they're at work on the next version.

MR. HUNT: But they had the basic compromise over there, the so-called grand bargain, which has pretty much stuck together with one or two exceptions. The broad outlines of the bill, can that pass the House right now?

REP. PELOSI: With some modification, but we'll work together in a bipartisan way. This bill affects too many people over a long period of time. We want it to be bipartisan and comprehensive.

MR. HUNT: And how many Republican votes would it have to get to pass the House?

REP. PELOSI: Well, I would like to see a strong bipartisan vote, but I would hope that it would be at least 50 to 70 votes on the Republican side. That doesn't mean that we would lose that many Democrats; it just means we'd like to see a show of bipartisanship.

Sen. John McCain, one of the most prominent proponents of the current "grand bargain" says that he is "guardedly optimistic" about the fate of the bill.

"Surprise" Vote in House of Representatives: This morning, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to a funding bill for Homeland Security (H.R. 2638) proposed by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Co) that would deny federal emergency services funding for "sanctuary cities"--cities which refuse to cooperate with the enforcement a variety of immigration laws. The Tancredo amendment passed 234-189. This amendment divided both parties, though it fractured Democrats more than Republicans: while 180 Republicans voted in favor of the amendment (with 9 voting against it), the Democrats split 49 for and 180 against. See also this Rocky Mountain News story, which labels the amendment's victory a "surprise" and has a roundup of reactions to it. According to the story, this is the first amendment denying funding to "sanctuary cities" that Tancredo has proposed and the House has agreed to. Interesting paragraphs at end:

Tancredo said he thinks his amendment is an indicator that the House would crush the reform plan if it passes in the Senate.

"If I were (Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi, I'd be asking if she could pass a vote on amnesty on the House side," Tancredo said. "If she lost 50 Democrats on this one, and she says she needs 70 Republicans to pass the immigration plan, this is an interesting indicator of things coming down the pike, and that the times, they are a-changing."

UPDATE: Will President Bush veto this bill? See this story. Lead paragraphs:

The House passed a $37.4 billion fiscal 2008 Homeland Security spending bill Friday on a 268-150 vote in the face of a White House veto threat over its price tag that is $2.1 billion above President Bush's request.

Forty-five Republicans crossed the aisle to support the bill but not enough to override a veto if Bush follows through on his threat.

Could the passage of this amendment be a way of putting some pressure on the president--to rally enough Republicans to the bill to defend it?

An interesting ABC News story on how "Spanish language media" proponents of the current "grand bargain" bill are changing their strategies to advocate for the bill.

A "Path for Citizenship" denied to legal immigrants: From Mississippi, represented by Sen. Trent Lott:

"There is no path for us to become American citizens at all," said Alex Hynes.

When Newscenter 11 met with the couple, they were joined at their Lauderdale County home by some friends. The Hynes live in Mississippi under a work visa issued through Canada. It has to be renewed every five years for a total cost of just over $6,000 each time.

Alex had thought, once he worked hard to build up his business and began paying taxes, that would easily transition into American citizenship. Right? Wrong.

"Immigration in Jackson has told us there is no path for us to go," said Alex.

See the full story to read the Hynes' response to the current "grand compromise" bill.

As President Bush makes himself a central player in immigration debate, a newly released Rasmussen poll puts support for his handling of the immigration issue at 15%. This result comes at a time when, again according to Rasmussen, only 20% of the American public wants the Senate to return to the current "grand bargain" bill; 51% would prefer "smaller steps" in reform and 16% would like the whole process to wait another year. 69% of those polled would support an approach that "focuses exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.”

Along with Feds, States Consider Immigration Legislation: This Christian Science Monitor story has a roundup of some immigration laws that various states are considering. Interesting statistic:

Through mid-April, legislators in all 50 states had introduced a record 1,169 bills dealing with illegal immigrants – more than twice the number put forward in all of 2006. Eighteen states had enacted 57 of those bills as of April 19, two-thirds of the number of immigration laws adopted by states last year, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) in Washington.

I don't know if this is "responsible journalism" or not, but one of the nation's "largest nonpartisan seniors groups" (with 1.2 million members), TREA Senior Citizens League, has announced a "$966 Billion loophole" in the present Senate immigration bill:

The immigration bill being debated by the Senate would allow over two million illegal workers who received Social Security numbers prior to 2004 to receive more than $966 billion in Social Security benefits by 2040.

Despite a provision in the bill that would prevent individuals who performed illegal work and then obtained a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years, the legislation does nothing to prevent aliens who illegally obtained "non-work" Social Security numbers prior to 2004 from claiming benefits.

I don't know how helpful their statistics are, but they do seem like a legitimate organization...

UPDATE 6/17: I've been (sort of) responsible and followed up on this story! See here.

Lamar Alexander proposes an amendment: Have the "border governors" sign off on the fact that the border is secure before some of the provisions of this bill go into effect. The question is: which provisions? Details, details...He still seems skeptical about the current "grand bargain," but how skeptical?

Those Georgians! Brothers in arms!: From the AJC's Political Insider (again), a prediction about how Sen.'s Chambliss and Isakson will vote:

We’re betting that both Isakson and Chambliss — despite their strong roles in the negotiations — will vote against the bill, and that it will still pass.

Whatever the two senators do, they’ll do together. This particular strategy may be the salvation of Chambliss, who’s up for re-election next year.

By linking themselves arm-in-arm on this issue, they’ve sent a message to the most militant opponents of the immigration deal: To attack one, you must attack both.

But will they vote for cloture? They're still toss ups, it seems to me....

Interesting NYT story about lobbying for bill. Two salient paragraphs:

The Republicans he [Pres. Bush] will likely be targeting include Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, both of Georgia, who were closely involved in drafting the deal but have yet to fully commit, and perhaps John Ensign of Nevada and John Cornyn of Texas, who are undecided.

and

Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., said he doesn’t expect much movement from the 11 Democrats and one independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, who voted against the decisive third cloture motion. Even Durbin has reservations, saying he voted to end debate “purely for process reasons.”

Based on this story, it seems wise to keep the Georgians in "toss up" category; maybe make the 11 D's and 1 I who voted against cloture a little less likely to switch--just a little (assuming Durbin isn't merely lowering expectations).

NYT on New Deal for Amendments and Lott Strikes Out: According to this story, the Senate will vote on 22 amendments--11 from Republicans and 11 from Democrats. And the Republican Senate leadership seems ready to bring the hammer down on Republican dissenters:

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”

[6/15 CORRECTION: Changed amendment numbers]

Reid and McConnell release statement on immigration bill:

“We met this evening with several of the Senators involved in the immigration bill negotiations. Based on that discussion, the immigration bill will return to the Senate floor after completion of the energy bill.”

Wakey-wakey: Senate leaders have agreed to bring back "grand bargain bill." Forbes has some of the details.