Thread: CNN: Senate immigration bill suffers crushing defeat

Senate immigration bill suffers crushing defeat

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opponents effectively killed President Bush's long-fought and emotion-laden Senate immigration bill Thursday when members voted against advancing the controversial legislation.

The tally was 46 to 53, 14 votes shy of the 60 needed to end debate.

The president, who visited the Capitol this month to push hard for overhauling the nation's immigration laws, delivered a brief statement shortly after the vote saying he was "sorry" Congress could not reach agreement, calling its "failure to act" a "disappointment." (Watch Bush explain why he was disappointed by the vote)

"Congress really needs to prove to the American people that it can come together on hard issues," Bush said.

The bill aimed to create a path to citizenship for some of the 12 million illegal immigrants and to toughen border security.

Explaining his reasons for voting against the bill, GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, a leading critic of the measure, said "it would not work."

"Our analysis was that it would result in 8.7 million more people in the next 20 years here illegally," said the Alabama senator.

Thursday's vote represented a "sad day for America," said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. (See how your senators voted)

"Everyone knows that our immigration laws are broken," Schumer said. "And a country loses some of its greatness when it can't fix a problem that everyone knows is broken. And that's what happened today."

Supporters and opponents of the controversial legislation said that it probably won't be resurrected until after the 2008 elections. (Read how each member voted on Thursday's critical measure)

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff echoed Bush, expressing his disappointment.

"I'm disappointed about the fact that there were some necessary tools which we needed to be able to do more than we can currently do in enforcing the law that were left on the floor of the Senate today," Chertoff said.

Among those tools, Chertoff said, were a mandatory employment verification system, tamper proof cards for undocumented workers, additional penalties, procedural tools and $4.4 billion in additional funds "that would have been a welcome resource."

Enforcement issues were a main concern for Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, who said his vote against the bill sent a crystal clear message "that the American people want us to start with enforcement, both at the border and at the workplace, and don't want promises. They want action, they want results, they want proof, because they've heard all the promises before."

Sessions said there would be "no permanent hard feelings over this among the people who wanted to pass a bill they thought would help America."

Backers of the bill, Sessions said, were simply "trying to work a compromise to pass something" and called on members next time to pass legislation that "will work."

The controversial bill won support and derision from both sides of the political aisle. Those voting in favor included 12 Republicans. Sixteen Democrats voted against it and 18 senators switched their votes from an earlier vote to advance the bill on Tuesday.

Those who voted no Thursday included three Democratic freshman -- Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb -- who won close races last year against conservative Republicans.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy expressed optimism that the fight over immigration was a step forward that could ultimately lead to new laws within the next few years. "You cannot stop the march for progress in the United States," he said. "And on this issue, I have every hope and every expectation that we'll be ultimately successful."

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid said the defeat is "not a time for pointing fingers. It's not a time for casting blame. It's a time for recognition that immigration is a problem that needs to be fixed."

On Wednesday, supporters beat back a number of potentially fatal amendments.

Proponents won a major victory with defeat of an amendment removing the bill's most controversial feature -- a path to legalization and eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country, which critics charge amounts to amnesty.

Also defeated Wednesday was an amendment by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, that would have required adult illegal immigrants to return to their home country within two years in order to apply for a new type of visa that will allow them to stay in the United States indefinitely.

CNN Correspondents Dana Bash and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06 ... .congress/

Did anyone hear Sen. Arlen Specter speaking just before the vote? He was spewing such lies and twisted logic it was absurd. He said that because such a huge number of calls being made to the Senate were strongly opposed to the amnesty bill, it meant that the American public really wanted it to pass. How did he figure this? He said that people only call on a bill when they oppose it, and since huge numbers were calling to defeat the bill, that meant an even larger 'silent majority' of supporters who didn't call wanted the bill to pass. Can you believe the logic of this treasonous moron??

Then he goes on to say that doing what the American public wanted was not their job, that if they just followed the will of the people, they wouldn't even need a Senate, they could just take polls and save the country the cost of their 'fat salaries'. He actually said 'fat salaries'. Well, I guess he did tell one truth, Congress do get 'fat salaries'.

Did anyone hear Sen. Arlen Specter speaking just before the vote? He was spewing such lies and twisted logic it was absurd. He said that because such a huge number of calls being made to the Senate were strongly opposed to the amnesty bill, it meant that the American public really wanted it to pass. How did he figure this? He said that people only call on a bill when they oppose it, and since huge numbers were calling to defeat the bill, that meant an even larger 'silent majority' of supporters who didn't call wanted the bill to pass. Can you believe the logic of this treasonous moron??

I did hear Sen. Spector's remarks, and like you I was stunned. He also said the calls were made by a 'small but loud' group. I can't cite his exact words but I felt like he was criticizing the judment of those who opposed the bill and more or less calling them (us) troublemakers. It is interesting to me that he and Sen. Kennedy took the lead in this effort. They are both more or less bullet-proof. Spector is 77 and has had cancer. Kennedy is 75. While neither of them has announced retirement they probably feel like they can't be hurt. Others who are more vulnerable certainly took to the hills.

80 plus percent of Americans calling is a small group to him?

So is is saying that most Americans are insignificant.

Look at the vote result Mr. Specter. Who is the insignificant one now?

Then he goes on to say that doing what the American public wanted was not their job, that if they just followed the will of the people, they wouldn't even need a Senate, they could just take polls and save the country the cost of their 'fat salaries'. He actually said 'fat salaries'. Well, I guess he did tell one truth, Congress do get 'fat salaries'.

Who the hell does he think put him in office and pays his salary? This old fart sounds like he needs to voluntarily resign. As for the fat salary, amen to that one. If I did the same pathetically lousy job most of them do, I'd be on welfare. Oh and BTW they just voted themselves a raise yesterday.