Here's how your Senators voted on final amnesty bill
ed
Here's how your Senators voted on final amnesty bill .. REASONS
NOT TO DESPAIR
WE ARE IN FAR BETTER POSITION TO STOP THIS AMNESTY BECAUSE OF
YOUR ACTIVISM
Like all of you who have phoned and phoned and phoned the last
two weeks, I'm a bit tired right now. I just returned from an all-evening
session on Capitol Hill with representatives of allied anti-amnesty
organizations and with congressional staffers. We were analyzing our current
situation and planning our offense over the next several weeks.
You and I will have more time to communicate over the next few
days in more depth.
For now, though, I want to tell you that the 62-36 vote for the
giant S. 2611 amnesty and immigration increase was a sad day for the U.S.
Senate and for this country. You have every reason to be disappointed.
But that was one battle lost. We have every opportunity to stop
anything like this legislative monstrosity from ever becoming law.
BE SURE TO SEND NEW FAXES TO YOUR STATE'S TWO SENATORS
COMMENTING ON THEIR FINAL VOTE
Within a very short time of the vote, your NumbersUSA team had
put up new faxes for you to send. Thousands of faxes all evening have been
going into the 100 Senate offices thanking the good guys and expressing
outrage at the Senators who voted for an increase in permanet immigration
from 1 million to 2 million a year, plus amnesty for 8 or more million
illegal aliens, plus many other increases in foreign workers.
If you haven't sent your faxes yet, please go to your Action
Buffet corkboard at:
www.NumbersUSA.com/actionbuffet
It is extremely important that all Senators and their staffers
see that their consituents know how they voted and that their activism has
not ended.
We will be providing you with a series of opportunities to make
sure that those Senators who voted YES on the the S. 2611 amnesty feel the
disgust and disapproval from their constituents for a long time to come.
HERE ARE THE SENATORS WHO VOTED TO ADD MORE THAN 60 MILLION
FOREIGN WORKERS AND DEPENDENTS TO OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES OVER THE NEXT 20
YEARS
Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 2611 As Amended )
Vote Number: 157 Vote Date: May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006 )
Vote Counts: YEAs 62
NAYs 36
Not Voting 2
YEAs--62
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
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)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
COURAGEOUS SENATORS WHO STOOD UP AGAINST POWERFUL FORCES AND
VOTED AGAINST THE S. 2611 AMNESTY.
HERE ARE 4 DEMOCRATS WHO BUCKED THEIR ENTIRE PARTY LEADERSHIP.
AND THE 32 REPUBLICANS WHO TURNED THEIR BACKS ON A FULL-COURT-PRESS APPEAL
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THEIR OWN PARTY AND FROM THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
BACKBONE OF THEIR PARTY.
NAYs--36
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 2
Rockefeller (D-WV)-recovering from back surgery
Salazar (D-CO)
WHAT YOUR CALLING AND FAXING DID: MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO
VOTED 'NO' WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THIS GREEN LIST A YEAR AGO -OR EVEN LAST
FALL
We have gotten a lot of emails from many of you today indicating
a frustration and belief that all of your efforts in recent weeks and months
have come to nothing because we lost this vote.
But our side (for sensible immigration levels) is in the process
of gaining strength. We obviously do not yet have the strength it will take
to turn back the overall immigration numbers.
Consider this, however: Our analysis group tonight over dinner
recalled that in one of our weekly meetings in the middle of last autumn, we
were told by staffers of some of our best Senate allies that they could not
count on more than 8 Senators to stand against the McCain/Kennedy amnesty if
it were to reach the floor for a vote.
Not more than 8 of 100 Senators!
The Senate was a vast wasteland, devoid of almost any sense of
the effect of the current 47 million foreign workers and dependents allowed
into our country.
So, how did we get 36 Senators voting NO today? Literally,
thousands of phone calls, hundreds of personal visits to home-state Senate
offices and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes were the key cause of the change
of position.
Said one person tonight, "Most of these Senators would have
voted YES if it hadn't been for fear of their constituents."
Every one of you who has a Senator from your state in that GREEN
list above should take great credit for having helped bring that Senator
around to our side.
There are many small miracles on that list.
WE REACHED ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT GOALS -A STRONG MAJORITY OF
THE REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY VOTED 'NO' ON THE AMNESTY
You will recall that I said our first goal was to get a majority
of Republicans voting against the amnesty bill.
We did that with flying colors!
23 Republicans voted FOR the amnesty.
But 32 Republicans voted AGAINST the amnesty even though Pres.
Bush and the White House lobbied them hard for two weeks to support the
bill.
So, we won 32-23 among the majority Republicans. That is a 58%
majority against amnesty and against increasing immigration levels.
Why is that important? It provides a powerful context for the
joint Conference committee meetings in which Senators and Members of the
U.S. House of Representatives will try to work out the differences in the
Senate bill and the enforcement-only bill passed by the House last December.
In the House, 93% of Republicans voted for the H.R. 4437
enforcement-only bill. Our success today allows Republican Senators on our
side to go into the conference allying themselves with House Republicans
while noting that they represent the majority of Senate Republicans.
For all of us who are Democrats or Independents, we have to
accept that the only hope this year of blocking this terrible amnesty is for
the majority within the Republican Party from both chambers to stand
together.
In that sense, S. 2611 has to be known as a Democratic bill,
primarily written by Sen. Kennedy's (D-MA) staff and then SUPPORTED
overwhelmingly by the Senate Democrats and President Bush-but OPPOSED
overwhelmingly by the Republicans in Congress.
Your success in getting so many Republican Senators to stand on
our side really plays into our hope of House Speaker Hastert using his
significant power to block this amnesty.
He has continued to say that he will not bring a massive
immigration increase to the floor of the House if the majority of
Republicans there oppose it.
Well, he is strengthened in that stand now that such a strong
majority of Senate Republicans has opposed the amnesty/immigration
increases.
Republican House Members have been repeatedly rebuking Karl Rove
in his visits from the White House to try to get support for the
Kennedy/Bush amnesty.
But there are many dangers ahead that will require all of us to
take a number of additional actions. We will build on the strengths that we
have.
I will later send you more analysis of the difference between
the McCain/amnesty wing of the Republican Senate and the
majority/anti-amnesty Republican wing.
THANKS FOR ALL THAT YOU DID THESE RECENT WEEKS,
-ROY
P.S. Read all the final amendment results and find links for all
the votes at:
You will recall that I said our first goal was to get a majority
of Republicans voting against the amnesty bill. We did that with flying
colors! 23 Republicans voted FOR the amnesty. But 32 Republicans voted
AGAINST the amnesty even though Pres. Bush and the White House lobbied them
hard for two weeks to support the bill. So, we won 32-23 among the majority
Republicans. That is a 58% majority against amnesty and against increasing
immigration levels. Why is that important? It provides a powerful context
for the joint Conference committee meetings in which Senators and Members of
the U.S. House of Representatives will try to work out the differences in
the Senate bill and the enforcement-only bill passed by the House last
December. In the House, 93% of Republicans voted for the H.R. 4437
enforcement-only bill. Our success today allows Republican Senators on our
side to go into the conference allying themselves with House Republicans
while noting that they represent the majority of Senate Republicans. For all
of us who are Democrats or Independents, we have to accept that the only
hope this year of blocking this terrible amnesty is for the majority within
the Republican Party from both chambers to stand together. In that sense, S.
2611 has to be known as a Democratic bill, primarily written by Sen. Kennedy's
(D-MA) staff and then SUPPORTED overwhelmingly by the Senate Democrats and
President Bush-but OPPOSED overwhelmingly by the Republicans in Congress.
Your success in getting so many Republican Senators to stand on our side
really plays into our hope of House Speaker Hastert using his significant
power to block this amnesty. He has continued to say that he will not bring
a massive immigration increase to the floor of the House if the majority of
Republicans there oppose it. Well, he is strengthened in that stand now that
such a strong majority of Senate Republicans has opposed the
amnesty/immigration increases. Republican House Members have been repeatedly
rebuking Karl Rove in his visits from the White House to try to get support
for the Kennedy/Bush amnesty. But there are many dangers ahead that will
require all of us to take a number of additional actions. We will build on
the strengths that we have. I will later send you more analysis of the
difference between the McCain/amnesty wing of the Republican Senate and the
majority/anti-amnesty Republican wing.
Posted in general | Edit| No Comments »
Senate activity on Thurs 5/25
May 25th, 2006
STATUS: On May 25, the Senate concluded work on S. 2611, the
"compromise" amnesty bill, when it passed by a 62-36 vote. If the bill
became law in its current form, it would create the largest immigration
increase in U.S. history - a disaster for American workers and taxpayers. S.
2611 would increase legal immigration by 60 million people over the next 20
years and grant amnesty to an estimated eight to 10 million illegal aliens.
The Senate passed the bill despite recent polling indicating that Americans
oppose amnesty and want legal immigration numbers reduced. The next step
could be a conference committee with the House, which passed a strong
enforcement-first immigration reform bill last December.
Before passing S. 2611, the Senate voted on six final amendments. An
unsuccessful amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX; SA 4097) would have
affected the confidentiality of information from DREAM Act-related amnesty
applicants in cases where an application was denied and appeals were
exhausted. Sen. Jeff Bingaman's amendment (D-NM; SA 4131), which passed the
Senate, would cap the number of employment-based visas for workers, spouses
and children at 650,000. Another amendment that Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI;
SA 4083) had passed deletes a provision in the bill that would have
prohibited courts from staying removal of any alien except in certain cases.
Sen. Jeff Sessions' unsuccessful amendment (R-AL: SA 4108) would have
prevented illegal aliens, whether granted amnesty or not, from being
rewarded for their illegal activity by way of a tax credit. A similar fated
amendment (SA 4136) by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) would have prevented illegal
aliens granted amnesty from being rewarded for their prior illegal activity
by way of a tax credit for tax years before 2006. Finally, Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) was able to pass a manager's
amendment (SA 4188) that included language from a number of agreed-to
amendments, although no public notice was provided as to which amendments
were included.
On May 24, the Senate overrode the wishes of the majority of Americans
through two procedural and highly political moves. First, the Senate voted
to invoke cloture, which limits debate on the bill (i.e., no more than 30
hours) in preparation for final passage, and limits further amendments to
ones that are germane and agreed to in advance. Had 40 Senators voted to
reject cloture, the bill would have, effectively, been stopped.
Subsequently, the Senate rejected a budget point of order raised by Sen.
Wayne Allard (R-CO), which, if accepted, would have slowed progress on
passage of this amnesty-guestworker "compromise" proposal. Beyond these
actions, the Senate voted on eight other amendments, with five of them being
adopted. A successful amendment by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV, SA 4127) requires
aliens to pay DHS an additional $500 fee before receiving that amnesty or
"guestworker" status. An amendment by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH, SA 4114) was
endorsed that reallocates visas made available through the Visa Lottery to
allow more "high-skill" workers in through that program. An amendment by
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA, SA 4025), which was adopted by voice vote,
encourages adoption of children from other countries by U.S. citizens and
creates a new nonimmigrant classification for an adoptable child. Also
adopted by voice vote were: (1) an amendment by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA, SA
4144), which requires employers who seek to hire H-2C "guestworkers" to meet
specified notification and posting requirements to recruit U.S. workers for
the position for which the H-2C "guestworker" is sought; and (2) an
amendment by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT, SA 4124), which requires the Census
Bureau to report to Congress on how to ensure that illegal aliens are not
counted for purposes of House seat apportionment. An amendment offered by
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX, SA 4101, which would have established a
SAFE "guestworker" visa for citizens of CAFTA-DR and NAFTA nations, was
rejected, as was - by a narrow margin (48 for and 49 against) - a proposal
by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND, SA 4095), which would have sunsetted the H-2C
"guestworker" program after five years. Senators voted to table an amendment
by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA, SA 4084), which would have restricted aliens'
access to the proposed "blue card" agricultural "guestworker" program.
On May 23, the Senate voted down an amendment by Sen. Diane Feinstein
(D-CA; SA 4087) that would have replaced the bill's "earned legalization"
amnesty and Deferred Mandatory Departure provisions with a one-tiered scheme
in which all aliens illegally present in the United States on or before
January 1, 2006, are granted amnesty and an "orange card" (instead of the
normal "green card") if they are otherwise admissible. That amendment would
have added 2 million illegal aliens to the amnesty already contained in the
bill. Members succeeded in tabling an amendment (SA 4117) by Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT) that would have opened up a dangerous loophole for terrorists
to enter the United States. An amendment (SA 4177) by Sen. Charles Grassley
(R-IA) passed which revised the bill's mandatory employment verification
provisions. The Senate also tabled two other amendments. Sen. Ted Kennedy's
amendment (D-MA; SA 4106) would have affected employer sanctions and
enforcement under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sen. Richard Durbin's
amendment (D-IL; SA 4142) would have provided another waiver from the
removal process for family hardship.
On May 22, members voted to table an amendment sponsored by Sen. Saxby
Chambliss (R-GA; SA 4009) that would have required an employer applying to
hire H-2A workers, or utilizing "blue card" status temporary agricultural
workers, to pay the greater of the local prevailing wage for that occupation
or the minimum wage. The Senate endorsed an amendment by Sen. John Ensign
(R-NV; SA 4076) that would authorize border state governors to have their
National Guard troops train annually on the border, although the troops
would not directly participate in the apprehension of illegal aliens.
The Senate adjourned on Friday, May 19, after briefly debating S.
2611, the "compromise" amnesty bill. No votes were held. On Thursday, May
18, the Senate adjourned after voting on ten amendments to S. 2611, the
"compromise" amnesty bill. The Senate passed an amendment by Sen. Ted
Kennedy (D-MA; SA 4066) that retracts provisions of a positive amendment (SA
3965) passed the night before. SA 4066 removes a provision requiring Federal
certification of an employer's need to import foreign workers. An amendment
by Sen. Ensign (SA 3985) would have cut off access to Social Security
benefits for most illegal aliens, but the amendment was tabled. Sen. Daniel
Akaka (D-HA; SA 4029) succeeded in passing an amendment that exempts
children of naturalized Filipino World War II veterans from numerical
limits. An amendment (SA 3964) by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was adopted that
would remove the ability of illegal aliens to prove their employment history
through reasonable inference. This would greatly reduce the potential for
fraud. An amendment (SA 4064) by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) would have made
English the official language of the United States. Although the amendment
passed, it was displaced by a subsequent amendment by Sen. Ken Salazar
(D-CO; SA 4073) that was more symbolic than substantive in nature. SA 4072,
sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), would have used funds targeted for
administration of the amnesty and temporary worker programs to reimburse
state and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens
as well as for health care and educational services related to non-citizens.
That amendment failed but a related one (SA 4038) by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
passed that would impose fees on amnestied aliens to fund health care and
educational services for non-citizens. The Senate tabled SA 3969, an
amendment by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), which would have removed the automatic
path to citizenship for "guestworkers." Members concluded the day by passing
an amendment (SA 3998) by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) that would increase
detention space for apprehended illegal aliens.
May 16 was the first full day of debate on floor amendments to S.
2611. An unsuccessful amendment offered by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would
have prohibited the implementation of any guestworker or amnesty scheme
until DHS could certify that necessary border security measures and
increases in Federal detention space were fully operational. A somewhat
similar but much weaker amendment by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) was adopted. It
would authorize the President to trigger implementation of guestworker and
amnesty provisions by certifying that such programs would strengthen
national security. The most contentious discussion of the day surrounded
Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) proposal to strike the controversial guestworker
provisions from the bill, which after lengthy debate, was tabled
permanently. Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment capping the number of new
guestworkers at 200,000 per year was agreed to by voice vote after an
attempt was made to table it. This removed the most out-of-control part of
the bill, but still would lead to more than 60 million immigrants over the
next 20 years. The Senate also adopted an amendment by Sen. John Kerry
(D-MA) to add 1,000 Border Patrol agents.
On May 15, the President for the first time before a national audience
stated what most secure-borders advocates have long believed - that
President Bush supports citizenship for illegal aliens. He stopped short of
endorsing S. 2611 by name but supported its contents. He also called for
stationing 6,000 National Guard troops at the border for one year to assist
in installing surveillance technology, analyzing intelligence about human
and drug trafficking and installing fences. The full Senate also began
debate on S. 2611.
CLICK HERE
to see the Heritage Foundation report
A study released May 15 by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector
estimates that S. 2611 will allow 103 million persons to immigrate legally
to the United States over the next twenty years, fully one-third of the
current population, and cause increased government spending of at least $46
billion per year.
On May 11, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced the full Senate would take up S. 2611 and
outlined an agreement on the selection of a potential conference committee
with the House. The Senate portion of the conference committee would include
26 members - an unusually large number - including14 Republicans and 12
Democrats. The seven most senior Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
Committee (Sens. Specter, Orrin Hatch (UT), Charles Grassley (IA), Jon Kyl
(AZ), Mike DeWine (OH), Jeff Sessions (AL), and Lindsey Graham (SC)) and the
five most senior Democrats (Sens. Patrick Leahy (VT), Ted Kennedy (MA),
Joseph Biden (DE), Herbert Kohl (WI), and Diane Feinstein (CA)) would be
members of the conference committee. The rest of the conferees would be
selected individually by Frist and Reid.
see more at www.numbersusa.com
Posted in general | Edit| No Comments »
Senate needs to get permission from Mexico to build any border fence ?
May 25th, 2006
Senate needs to get permission from Mexico to build any border fence ?
This was a last minute amendment slipped in
Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania
emial Senator Arlen Specter at http://specter.senate.gov
see his own rambling below..........
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania's senior U.S. Senator, was elected to the
Senate in 1980, is currently serving his fifth term and recently became
Pennsylvania's longest serving U.S. Senator. He is Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and a senior member of the Appropriations and Veterans
Affairs committees.
Senator Specter has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
since he came to the Senate. Now the Committee's Chairman, he has played an
instrumental role in many of the Senate's most important issues, including
the confirmations of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales. In early 2006, he presided over the nomination hearings of
Judge Samuel Alito to serve as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senator Specter has also shepherded through the Judiciary Committee
legislation on asbestos litigation reform to absolve what the Supreme Court
once called an "elephantine mass" clogging our judicial system. Senator
Specter has worked in a bi-partisan fashion to reauthorize key provisions of
the USA PATRIOT Act, an important tool in United States' war on terror. He
has also authored legislation to help consumers better protect the privacy
of their personal information in the face of recurrent data security
breaches across the country.
see/">http://ww.mccainalert.com">see more on broken borders
www.mccainalert.com for more on the borders
Posted in general | Edit| No Comments »
Senate watch day 8
May 25th, 2006
Day 8
The Senate reconvened at 8:30 am on May 24, 2006 to renew debate on
S.2611, the guest worker amnesty legislation authored by Senators Specter,
Hagel, and Martinez. A variety of votes were taken, including a vote to end
debate, which passed 73-25. The following is a summary of the day's events.
Senator McConnell began by offering amendment #4085, which would
require all persons to present a photo ID that meets the REAL ID standards
before being allowed to vote. It also includes a grant program to states to
help fund IDs for indigent people who can't afford them. Senator McConnell
explained his amendment was based on the recommendations of the bipartisan
commission on election reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter
and former Secretary of State James Baker. That commission recommended
using a photo ID to ensure that individuals presenting themselves to vote
are in fact the same as individuals listed on the voter lists.
Senator McConnell argued that his proposal has bipartisan support and
the support of the American people. He noted that in a Wall Street Journal
poll, over 80% of Americans approved of using photo IDs to establish
eligibility for voting and only 7% opposed the idea. The Senator added that
presenting photo IDs to vote is not a new concept. At least 24 states have
passed such a requirement.
Senator Kennedy strongly opposed the McConnell amendment. He said
that this amendment was only tangentially related to the immigration bill
and that there had been no hearings or debate on Senator McConnell's
proposal. The Senator said that 25 minutes of debate is insufficient for
such an important matter.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McConnell amendment was similar to
imposing literacy tests and poll taxes, both of which were struck down as
unconstitutional. He stated that Senator McConnell hasn't even shown that
voter fraud is a problem in the United States. There hasn't been any
evidence. The Senator noted one 12-state study by a nonpartisan
organization on election fraud which concluded that voter fraud is very
rare.
The Senator continued by arguing that the McConnell amendment doesn't
truly follow the Carter-Baker Commission recommendations. He said that the
Commission recommended that new photo ID requirements be implemented in 2010
so states have time to adjust. However, the McConnell amendment requires
photo IDs to be displayed by 2008-the year of a presidential election. The
Commission also recommended that the government ensure that poor people are
able to get photo IDs free of charge, but the McConnell amendment doesn't
actually achieve this because it gives money to states only to "promote the
issuance" of IDs free of cost. Finally, the Commission recommended that a
"back-up" method of voting be implemented for instances where there are
problems with photo IDs, but the McConnell amendment doesn't address that.
Based on this, he said, the amendment violates the 14th Amendment by denying
equal protection and also violates the 24th Amendment because it is
equivalent to a poll tax.
Senator Obama strongly opposed the McConnell amendment. He said there
is no more important right than the right to vote. He said history had not
been kind to certain groups and referred to poll taxes, literacy tests, and
property requirements. The Senator said that considering the delicate
balance of the immigration bill, this amendment could not have come at a
worse time. He stated that this language would impose the most restrictive
voter ID bill ever enacted. Senator Obama said he knew there was a certain
simplistic appeal to the amendment, but argued that there was no showing of
a significant problem of voter fraud and that the result of the amendment is
to hurt those who have historically been disenfranchised-the indigent,
elderly, disabled, and minorities. He said what studies had been done on
voter fraud showed that statistically one was more likely to be killed by
lightning than to find a fraudulent vote.
Senator Dodd also opposed the McConnell amendment. He said that the
amendment not only imposed the requirement that an individual present a
photo ID when voting, but that the photo ID meets the REAL ID standards. He
argued that most states haven't even enacted legislation to conform to the
REAL ID Act and that if the ID requirements were imposed by 2008, there is
potential for 142 million voters to be disenfranchised because they are not
able to get a REAL ID. He reiterated the argument that there was no
evidence of a voter fraud problem and argued that historically we have
always erred on the side of access.
Senator Bond rose in support of the McConnell amendment. He said
there had definitely been studies in Missouri showing problems with voter
fraud. He argued that if your legitimate vote is cancelled out by a
fraudulent vote, then your vote is meaningless.
Senator Kennedy argued that if we are going to pass language that has
the potential to impact every voter in America, we ought to take more than
50 minutes to consider it. This is a major rewriting of our national voting
laws and we should have hearings and a debate.
Senator Dodd quoted the Carter-Baker Commission as stating there is no
evidence of extensive voter fraud. It could occur but it hasn't yet. The
Senator stated that the amendment essentially provides that if a voter does
not have a REAL ID by 2008 he/she cannot vote, no matter what. He also said
he felt it was unwise to open up the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) on the
immigration bill.
Senator McConnell stated that there was Democratic support for
requiring photo IDs for voting. The Senator said voter fraud is a
significant problem in America and with many more people entering the
country under this bill, we should address it. He asked whether Congress
cares about the franchise and said it is nonsensical to suggest that a photo
ID should not be used to protect one of our most sacred rights.
Senator Dodd moved to table the McConnell amendment. The motion
failed, 48-49.
Senator Byrd continued the immigration debate by proposing amendment
#4127, along with Senator Gregg, Senator Thomas and Senator Cantwell. This
amendment would add a source of funding to help secure the borders. He began
by pointing out important facets of S. 2611, as well as various statistics.
Senator Byrd discussed that of the 12 million illegal aliens here, 1 in 4 of
these aliens was lawfully admitted, but overstayed their visa. He pointed
out that this is important to note, as out of the 19 terrorists that
committed the 9/11 attacks, 4 were illegal aliens who overstayed their
visas.
Senator Byrd said that 400,000 illegal aliens have been ordered to be
deported, but they have disappeared. He stated that this has occurred
because "law enforcement agencies have consistently received fewer resources
that are necessary to do their job." The pending bill would grant amnesty
for up to 12 million aliens by rewarding them with working status, and
eventually allow them legal permanent status. In terms of enforcement, he
stated that the bill authorizes appropriations of $25 billion over the next
5 years, but he doubts such funds will ever be made available.
Senator Byrd discussed how President Bush has "consistently
under-funded border enforcement," and has consistently opposed replacing
those funds in the appropriations process. It has been neglected so much,
that the President has had to employ the National Guard to the border. He
pointed out that if this amnesty proposal is carried out, national security
will be very bad, and that funds are critical to back enforcement. The
proposed amendment would require illegal aliens who would benefit from the
amnesty bill to help pay for its costs, by requiring them to pay a fee of
$500 in addition to other fines and penalties already proposed in this bill.
He said that this fine is not so costly considering how much the aliens
would benefit from S. 2611.
Senator Byrd stated that these fines would make available almost $3
billion over the next 2 years. This would provide monies to make sensor
technology available, as well as to increase air and marine intervention,
fund various construction projects, train law enforcement personnel,
increase maritime activities, and improve customs. All of these have been
neglected for too long, and continue to be neglected. He said that the fees
of this amendment are reasonable because it is the illegal aliens that have
created the needs for these funds in the first place, so they should help
finance them. He said that this amendment would help carry into effect the
law enforcement amendments of this bill.
Senator Byrd stated that "it is not enough to authorize border
security, it needs to be funded." He went on to say that the Senate must
ensure that aliens who are supposed to leave are made to leave, and that the
agencies responsible for that have enough funds to do so.
Senator Gregg rose in support of the Byrd amendment, pointing out that
the fees proposed by this amendment will not actually be called upon unless
the Appropriations Committee says that it needs the money to improve border
security, although this would most likely occur. He continued, saying that
"this money is still only a small portion of what will be necessary." He
described the different areas that need large amounts of funding, including
the $2 billion needed to implement technology sensors, another $2 billion
for a fully integrated communication system, and an additional $2.4 billion
to update the air fleet, which is ancient and outdated.
Senator Gregg continued to say that there is a "great need for funds
to adequately secure the border." He noted the consensus of the American
people-the first effort should be to secure our borders, especially the
Southern border. He argued that if illegal aliens are to obtain earned
citizenship, an element of that earning, since they are already here
illegally, is to pay a fine for violating the law. He outlined that the
current fine is $2750 (including the Cornyn amendment). He said that the
additional $500 proposed in the amendment would increase the total fine to
$3250-$500 of which would go to securing the border. He stated that "this is
a reasonable fee to pay to be an American citizen," especially if they
already have a job and want American benefits. He went on to say that "if
all good intentions and words aren't backed up by resources, you simply
cannot accomplish the goal of securing the border." The Senator described
the necessary factors such as electronics, boots on ground, aircraft, Coast
Guard utilized for enforcement, and explained that all these factors take
dollars.
Senator Specter thanked Senators Byrd and Gregg for offering
amendments, but voiced his concern on whether it will be counter productive
to put "such an increased burden on the undocumented immigrants" that they
will not want to come forward. He said that the fines in S. 2611 as is have
been "very carefully calibrated." The Senator explained that for those
illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for over 5 years, $1600 out of
the total $2000 fine would be used for border security. For those who have
been here between 2-5 years, and will be required to leave, $800 of the
total $1000 fine would be allocated for border security.
Senator Specter opposed the Byrd amendment. He stated that while he
believes it is always a good idea to find another source of revenue for
security, it should be a priority to bring the undocumented immigrants out
of shadows, and not create a new fugitive class.
Senator Kennedy applauded Senator Byrd's concern over funding for
security, as well as areas of detention, and legal enforcement. He went on
to "reluctantly oppose" the amendment, because he believes that
significantly raised fees on immigrants would be a huge burden. He stated
that those who will be adjusting their status have nothing to do with border
security because they are already here, so it is not fair to impose these
fees on them. In addition, he explained that S.2611 as is would raise $18
billion, the Cornyn amendment adds $5-6 billion, and Byrd's would be another
$3 billion on top of that.
The Senator said that while he opposes this amendment, he will give
personal assurances to keep in close contact with Byrd about funding.
Senator Byrd replied by saying S.2611 as is, authorizes $25 billion
over 5 years in appropriations, and that his amendment funds only $3 billion
dollars of that amount. He said that "this is a modest sum and a modest
amendment." The Senator argued that the pending bill would provide amnesty
for illegal aliens, and would provide them with a path leading to U.S.
citizenship, and access to taxpayer funded benefits, such as unemployment
compensation, Medicare, and other benefits. He continued, saying that
illegal aliens would benefit and gain much more than what is asked of them
from the system. He stated that it is not much to ask of them to help fund a
system that they undermined. He explained that the purpose of the amendment
is to provide a source of funding for border security, and to do it as
quickly as possible, because we can't afford to delay this critical funding
any longer.
Senator Gregg rose to bring up amendment #4114, which he co-sponsored
with Senator Cantwell. He explained that the purpose of the amendment is
very simple, stating that we are about to give a large group of people who
arrived here illegally the opportunity to get in line and earn citizenship.
Those that arrived here illegally were not sought out to perform certain
jobs. He continued to say that we have a lottery program where we say to
people they can enter the lottery to apply for a green card. People in this
lottery should be people that make us stronger socially and economically, he
argued. The Senator outlined that his amendment would reserve 2/3 of lottery
for people with advanced degrees, leaving the remaining 1/3 for the rest of
the world population at large. He proposed to "bring people in who will
create jobs because they have abilities and skills that we need," since they
are highly educated.
Senator Gregg noted that as of now, the existing H-1B program, which
also helps to bring highly skilled and educated immigrants to the U.S.,
requires people to be sponsored by a family member or employer. However, he
argued, there are a lot of people who do not have family members to sponsor
them, even if they have a high degree. He went on to say that the countries
that currently qualify under the diversity visa program have a lot of
unskilled workers, many of who are already here illegally, and will be
getting in line to live here permanently. He suggested that immigrants
should "bring a skill" if they are coming through the lottery system, and
that people of other skill levels may already be here illegally, or can
compete for the other 1/3 of the lottery system. The Senator explained that
"we can become more powerful and compete with other countries by having
stronger minds and better ideas," by having the best and the brightest here,
and that the lottery system should be built around that concept. He also
pointed out that most other nations require some sort of qualifying talent
to immigrate, and that attracting people who have talent and ability should
be our purpose.
Senator Schumer opposed the Gregg-Cantwell amendment, which he said
"would do away with the purpose of the diversity visa program." He went on
to explain that the diversity visa program exists because there is a large
number of people in foreign countries whose opportunities to enter the U.S.
are overshadowed by family reunification restrictions. He stated a majority
of those people are coming from Caribbean or Asian countries, limiting those
in Europe and Africa who do not have relatives or employers petitioning
their entrance. The Senator said that the diversity visa program provides an
opportunity for those people to be able to immigrate to the U.S., and argued
that the city of New York has greatly benefited from this program.
Senator Schumer noted that he is "all for highly-educated and skilled
visas," but not at the expense of the diversity visa program. S.2611 already
provides for highly educated and skilled immigrants to come to the U.S. and
the Gregg-Cantwell amendment is not necessary. The Senator said he believes
immigrants are good for America. He asked, why do we "rob Peter to pay
Paul?" He continued by saying that even Microsoft, who has led the charge
for highly skilled people and engineers is very unhappy with the amendment.
He concluded by saying we certainly need more scientists and engineers, but
we also need new people to start new businesses at different skill levels,
which overall benefits America.
Sen. Alexander rose in response, giving the Gregg-Cantwell amendment
an A+. He voiced his support saying that "we are in a competitive
environment,", and that "Gregg and Cantwell are exactly right." The Senator
argued that we are talking about admitting millions of people, and that if
the diversity lottery which is just 50,000 visas, 2/3 of those positions
should be dedicated to highly skilled and educated people. We need to make
it easier for the most talented people in the world to stay in the U.S. and
study here, he continued. "If we're going to have 50,000 more people, let
them be the best and the brightest."
Senator Kennedy rose to describe the diversity visa program in the
United States and all of the benefits of the program. The purpose of the
program "is to preserve this nation's heritage as a true melting pot." He
stated how unique the program is and that without it immigrants would only
apply from a handful of countries. This legislation, he said, already
addresses those with "special skills." Senator Kennedy emphasized that 40%
of those accepted into a diversity program come from African countries. He
believes the Gregg Amendment would eliminate these high numbers of African
immigrants and give visas to wealthier countries. He stated that 800,000
skilled immigrants already come to this country every year; however, 8
million people apply for the diversity program every year. To eradicate the
diversity program would destroy hope of accomplishing the American dream for
many people.
Senator Kennedy also focused on the issue of the jobs that these
skilled immigrants are taking from Americans. He said that the amendment
puts a high priority on families and future employment for immigrants, but
wondered why Americans aren't being educated for these jobs.
Senator Durbin opposed the Gregg Amendment. He lauded the diversity
program because it takes a hard worker from another country and gives him or
her the chance to provide for their family. "It is one of our strengths,
not our weaknesses." This is the only program that offers visas to people
that would otherwise not have the opportunity. Senator Durbin also worried
about the troubled countries like the Philippines that America often uses to
employ nurses or other similar occupations of which this country has a
shortage. "You could argue that it's good for us, but as I already told
you, it's at the expense of someone else." He urged his colleagues to
oppose the amendment.
see more at www.numbersusa.com