Thread: US Senate Convenes (9:33am ET) - Getting Starting

Clerk calls roll... (pause)

[transcriber break]

Pause - continues through 8:55am Pacific

(deliberations resume)

Sen Kennedy (Fatboy) has floor...

Dealing with message from House (translators for military in Iraq, etc)

Resuming...

Request for committee meetings


Clerk calls roll...

[quote=the_patriot]

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Originally Posted by "the_patriot":3pbdo7dq

Originally Posted by alisab

Way to go GRASSLY . . . YOU GET IT!!!

Wait, didn't he vote YES on the cloture vote Monday? If so, is he changing his mind?!?!?

Yes Grassley did vote yes the other day

So is he changing his stance now?[/quote:3pbdo7dq]

I don't know its hard to tell since they are introducing and voting on amendmants, I don't trust anyone who voted yes to proceed with this bill, we need to hammer them as hard as we can until it is over or they give us a a confirmed absolutly positively they will vote to kill this bill so it won't go to the house.

Originally Posted by PhredE

[transcriber break]

PhredE, aren't they having a Quorum call, in other words there has to be a certain number of congressmen/women present to proceed??Is that right?

For those that don't know...

quorum - The number of Senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.

[Transcriber note - Votes on Grassley and Bingaman Amendments scheduled for 2pm ET (11am PT) ]


Bingaman has floor...

Asks for pending amendment to be set aside.

Asks for substitute to be submitted.. S1159->S1150

Further reading be dispensed with.

Amend: to reduce the # of visas to be reduced each year to 200k / yr.

Co-sponsor: Feinstein, Dodd, Durbin -

Same debate as last year (79 senators)


Context: Temp Workers (TW)s

Kyl-Kennedy amend allocates 400k/visas yr.
Increased mechanism to allow increase to 600k.

Workers allowed to stay 6 yrs. - work 2yrs, leave 1yr, work 2yrs etc.

Bill contains 3 TW programs:

1. "True' TW programs - ie. seasonal work.; Now 66k / yr
About total of 135k now doing such work. Under new bill, would be increased to 100k, 200k... also, in law, provision that 200k number does not include people already here working in previous 3 years.

2. Ag workers program - no limit on this. Opportunity large for TWs here.

3. New GW program - misnomer. These are permanent jobs to be filled.
We are just bringing people in on temp basis.


Several problems with GW program in bill:

> Anticipates way too many people in - under new program.
Nothing comparable exists in current law. His amend. holds off increases until law proves itself and is known effects.

> Structure of visit/leave/visit/etc. - not good for employee, employer - not realistic.

> No real avenue for individs to ever gain legal status. Creates group or workers that when time is up - go home. Likely that many will overstay visas. Change from previous bill.

Opportunity under previous bill, that some avenue exists for people to pursue c-ship.

Most significant problem - is to reduce the number

(Shows chart - bar chart; showing number of GWs by year)

Chart shows gradually increasing numbers over time...

Have tried to show here, how many GWs under current program how many people would actually be in the country.

1st yr 400k
2nd yr 820k
3rd yr ...
:
5th yr 1.958k mil
:
10th yr 3+ million
(Under current assumption - that NO OVERSTAYS HAPPEN!
Tremendous potential for large increases )

Does not support Dorgan's Amendment - for 0 GWs.


Wants lower numbers 200k first year, and only 200k more each year after.

Even at lowered level, in 8th year would still provide 1.2 million people in country working as GWs (assuming NO OVERSTAYS - questionable assumption)


Some say this is terrible - to limit GWs increases.
Points out, there are other ways GWs can come and work here.

This is amend makes a lot of sense. Had strong support last year in debate. Hopes it can be adopted.

Also contains provision for review of program in bill. Is another reason we shouldn't be building in automatic increases in GW levels.

That is gist of argument, hopes colleagues will support.

Yields floor...


Fatboy speaks...

Commends Bingaman on proposal.

the_patriot wrote:

So is he changing his stance now?

Even though we would have preferred the Senators to vote against cloture on the compromised amnesty bill, a vote for it didn't necessarily mean they supported it. Remember, there were a number of Senators that voted for cloture on S. 2611 but ended up voting against the whole package when all was said and done. I predict Sen. Grassley will vote against this bill. He has said repeatedly that he would not vote "yea" on another amnesty bill. Furthermore, he has said that he would not repeat the same mistake he made in 1986 when he voted "yes" on the Immigration Reform Comprehensive Act of 1986 (amnesty bill).

While the "yes" vote on cloture did signal the probable intentions of many in regards to the compromised amnesty bill, it is not an accurate measuring device to gauge all of their feelings on the bill. I think it's safe to say that some that voted "yes" to cloture will end up voting against the bill in the end (let's hope it's a large number).

Originally Posted by MW

the_patriot wrote:

So is he changing his stance now?

Even though we would have preferred the Senators to vote against cloture on the compromised amnesty bill, a vote for it didn't necessarily mean they supported it. Remember, there were a number of Senators that voted for cloture on S. 2611 but ended up voting against the whole package when all was said and done. I predict Sen. Grassley will vote against this bill. He has said repeatedly that he would not vote "yea" on another amnesty bill. Furthermore, he has said that he would not repeat the same mistake he made in 1986 when he voted "yes" on the Immigration Reform Comprehensive Act of 1986.

While the "yes" vote on cloture did signal the probable intentions of many in regards to the compromised amnesty bill, it is not an accurate measuring device to gauge all of their feelings on the bill. I think it's safe to say that some that voted "yes" to cloture will end up voting against the bill in the end (let's hope it's a large number).

Got it. Thanks for the explanation.

I have a feeling there are a few senators in the same lines.

That means we need to keep the pressure on folks! Keep the pressure on them!