Good things brewing in Washington DC
Good things brewing in Washington DC
Date: Monday, June 19, 2006 2:31 PM
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1503 -- 06/19/2006 >>>>>
I have received quite a few inquiries about the status of the H-1B increase
in the Senate immigration bill. Until now there hasn't been much to report,
but now there are some good things brewing in Washington DC that I want to
share with you.
As I have explained many times, the Senate immigration bill (S. 2611) is a
poison dart aimed at the entire American labor force. The bill passed
through the Senate with massive increases in guest worker visas, H-1B and
employment based green cards and other new monsters like F-4 are included.
In May, the Senate passed this legislative atrocity, and sent it to the
House. We have been waiting ever since for a conference committee to be
formed so that the House and Senate can reach a compromise between the
Senate's guest-worker/amnesty bill (S. 2611) and the Houses
enforcement-only bill (H.R. 4437).
If the House and Senate were able to reach a compromise there would be very
little hope that the H-1B increase could be stopped because it would
probably be swept away in the amnesty debate. Any new immigration bill that
came out of conference would be bad news. The best case scenario is that
the conference committee never occurs, and as a result no immigration bill
could be passed. Remember that no immigration bill is better than anything
Congress might pass this year.
THE BEST CASE SCENARIO IS LOOKING LIKE A REAL POSSIBILITY!
I was with a group of local activists who visited Rep. J.D. Hayworth's
Arizona office to encourage him to oppose compromise on S. 2611. We were
informed that Hayworth not only opposes it, he is working with others like
Tancredo to torch all attempts at holding a conference committee. Remember,
no conference means no bill!
Keep in mind that anything can happen, so don't use this good news as an
excuse for inaction. You must urge your House members to oppose the
conference committee and all attempts at reaching a compromise bill.
Fortunately you now have the Constitution to argue your case, as you will
discover as you read the rest of this newsletter.
I hope all of you enjoy Sen. Reid's angst, because I sure am! One thing he
is right on, we don't want a conference, we want stalemate and gridlock.
"They think there's a problem because they want a problem,"
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday.
"They don't want to go to conference."
So just why are Reid and the open-border fanatics like McCain and Kennedy
so worried? Perhaps because they realize that if Congress fails to come to
an agreement before the summer recess, there is almost no hope of an
immigration bill passing. That's because Congress isn't about to unleash
this beast on the U.S. right before elections.
Let me share with you some excerpts from recent newsletters from Roy Beck
of NumbersUSA, and FAIR, as well as a few news articles that should bring
joy to your heart. Be sure to read Beck's good news items #1-5 because it's
not often we get something to cheer about.
I encourage all of you to work with NumbersUSA and FAIR to put pressure on
Congress. NumbersUSA is the most active grass roots organization fighting
this immigration monster, and they have lots of tools for you to use.
Go to these websites for more info:
http://www.numbersusa.com/
http://www.fairus.org/
Materials Used for this Newsletter
FAIR Legislative update, June 19, 2006
NumbersUSA Assessment June 19, 2006
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060806/immigration.html
Conservatives block immigration conference
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060602-121142-2773r.htm
Illegals' tax deal could kill bill
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=IMMIGRATION-06-06-06&cat=WW
Tax details delay talks on immigration bill
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From FAIR Legislative update, June 19, 2006
Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) Will 'Blue Slip' Senate's
Amnesty Plan
When the Senate passed their massive guest worker amnesty proposal in May,
they included tax provisions for former illegal aliens on their "path to
citizenship." The Senate sold the idea as illegal aliens paying back taxes
for at least three of the last five years they have been present illegally.
These back tax provisions quickly drew fire from House members because the
Origination Clause of the Constitution requires that all tax revenue
measures originate in the House of Representatives.
The House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over all tax provisions
in the House. Like other members of the House, Chairman Bill Thomas has
expressed his concern with the Constitutional implications of the Senate
tax provisions and has threatened to 'blue slip' the Senate's passed
immigration bill. This procedure called 'blue-slipping' allows a
Representative to offer a resolution to return the bill to the Senate
because it violates the Origination Clause. The process is called
'blue-slipping' because the resolution printed on blue paper. In response
to complaints from House members, Senate Democrats suggested the House
ignore the Constitutional issues raised by the tax provisions and simply
begin the conference committee. However, Chairman Thomas has confirmed he
plans to assert the House's Constitutional right to initiate tax
provisions.
It is uncertain how 'blue-slipping' will affect the looming conference
committee. There have been quiet discussions in the Senate about how to use
procedural maneuvers to avoid raising Constitutional questions.
Nevertheless, FAIR will keep you informed as Congress moves on immigration
policy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NumbersUSA Assessment June 19, 2006
HERE'S WHERE IMMIGRATION SITS IN CONGRESS AT THIS MOMENT (as best we can
assess the situation)
You -- the American people -- have gotten your message through to most
Members of Congress.
The most radical open-borders legislation in history (passed by the Senate
in May) has stalled -- for now.
We are asking all of you to step up your pressure on your 2 Senators and 1
Congressman/woman these next three weeks. After they go home for the week
of Independence Day and return to Washington July 11, we want them to be
even more sure that the popular will is AGAINST any amnesty and any
increase in overall immigration.
A reminder that at stake is a bill that would provide an amnesty path to
U.S. citizenship to around 10 million illegal aliens and would allow giving
permanent residency greencards to around 60 million foreign workers and
dependents over the next 20 years alone.
Your NumbersUSA Capitol Hill staff have been busily working directly with
top congressional staff, with the actual elected Members of both Senate and
House and even leading them on tours of the Mexican border.
Here is what we see at the moment:
GOOD NEWS #1:
House leaders have used technical procedure to force Senate to have to pass
its immigration bill AGAIN -- or drop it.
In April and May, the Senate open-borders champions were playing so fast
and loose with procedure -- and were in such a panic to pass a giant
amnesty/immigration increase before election season arrived -- that they
included provisions that would raise revenue.
Leaders of the U.S. House have cried foul and said those Senate provisions
violate the Constitution which allows only the House to start legislation
that raises revenue.
Despite the seriousness of constitutionality, this might have been allowed
to slide if all of you had not made the Senate amnesty so radioactive. Our
friends in the Senate have been working to use the procedural issue to bog
down the process of sending the Senate amnesty over to the House. And our
House allies have used an obscure produre called "blue-slipping" to refuse
to allow the Senate bill to go into a joint Senate/House Conference
negotiating committee.
This is forcing Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) and Senate Minority
Leader Reid (D-NV) -- both huge players in pushing the amnesty through last
month -- to try to come up with a way to re-craft part of the bill or pull
a parliamentary trick that could technically get it past constitutional
challenges.
But they have different political agendas for influencing their Party's
chances of taking the majority in the Senate in this fall's elections.
Fortunately for us, their lack of trust in each other and lack of interest
in true bi-partisanship is working in our favor. We don't want Frist and
Reid to see eye to eye.
GOOD NEWS #2:
Our Senate allies appear ready to use the second chance to slow everything
down.
I was in a small conversational circle at a Capitol reception last week in
which a Democratic Senator told Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) that he couldn't
see any way that the Senate amnesty could pass the Senate a second time
this summer.
The Senator said the chances for pro-borders Senators to use procedural
delays may bottle up the amnesty bill in the Senate where it would die.
If our friends in the Senate feel pushed by their constituents to keep
fighting against open borders at every turn, they could force four or five
procedural votes before the amnesty bill could get out of the Senate. And
they could force each of those votes to require long public debates. Sen.
Frist may not be pro-amnesty enough to want to use up so much of the summer
calendar. And open-borders Senate leaders of both Parties may not want to
further expose themselves to the public outcry they got when they voted for
the amnesty in May.
GOOD NEWS #3:
House Speaker Hastert says the Senate amnesty bill is so radically
different from the House enforcement bill that he probably would require
public hearings on the Senate bill.
The Speaker's announcement this last week surprised nearly everybody. It is
highly unprecedented.
But holding hearings would provide a far greater chance to publicize the
most controversial and radical parts of the Senate bill which were swept
under the rug by the news media and the majority of Senators in May.
And it would further slow things down.
The main effect of Hastert's announcement may have been to make Sen. Frist
even less eager to push the amnesty through the Senate again -- if it is
just going to get bogged down in the House.
GOOD NEWS #4:
American voters' phone calls and written messages are overwhelmingly on our
side.
Sweet music to our ears are the lamentations and crisis whines from the
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which did most of the
writing of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill that formed most of the
legislation passed by the Senate in May.
AILA has just sent out an urgent appeal to its thousands of lawyer members
and its allied open-borders groups. The emailed appeal was titled:
Anti-Immigrant Calls to Congress Outnumbering CIR Advocates 400 to 1! Call
and Email Today!!
We assume "CIR" stands for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The AILA
appeal said that "restrictionists are flooding" the phone lines, fax
machines, mail and email boxes.
Hmmmmm, I wonder who could be making THAT happen.
AILA said our immigration-reduction members are making:
"... angry demands that their Senators and Representatives vote against any
legislation that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants. Their calls for an enforcement-only immigration policy are
louder and more aggressive than ever and there are 400 of them for every 1
call from us (the open-borders side).
"The 400 to 1 intensity of the opposition to comprehensive immigration
reform is expected to crescendo into the November elections, making it a
likely voting issue at the polls. We cannot stop fighting now. We cannot
let the restrictionists hijack this national debate by painting the Senate
compromise as amnesty. We cannot be silent while they scream.
"Please, continue to fight for workable immigration reform that provides a
path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live and
work in the US. Start by emailing your Senators to thank them for
supporting S. 2611 or to rebuke them for opposing it. Next, call your US
Representative to express support for comprehensive immigration reform.
Then, encourage your friends, family, and colleagues to do the same."
I hope AILA's appeal -- the voice of the open-borders lobbyists -- gives
you a big pat on the back for all the phoning, faxing and office visiting
you have done the last three months.
But I also hope it reminds you that your efforts may be the only thing that
can stop a giant amnesty and immigration increase that is sought by
virtually all of Washington D.C.'s rich lobbying firms, by President Bush
and by the leaders of the Democratic National Committee and Republican
National Committee.
Those open-borders lobbyists recognize that your phone calls and faxes are
the elements stopping them from getting their open-borders dreams.
They are beginning to do everything they can to imitate your success.
It is essential that you not allow the open-borders lobbyists to drum up
more phone calls and faxes than our side is making.
If things seem bleak to your from our side, consider how much panic there
is on the open-borders side that they are going to miss their window of
opportunity this year!
GOOD NEWS #5:
Congressman Tom Tancredo's Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus now has
more than 100 U.S. Representatives as members.
Although it has a few Democrats, probably the most important aspect of the
caucus is that it is close to having half the Republican majority in its
membership.
Now, the Members of this caucus do not walk in lockstep with Rep. Tancredo.
In fact, several of the Members joined the caucus primarily to try to get
people like you off their back. Nonetheless, the size of the caucus gives
Mr. Tancredo a tremendous platform with the media and Republican leadership
in the House.
In the middle of last week, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) became the 100th
member of the Caucus. At the end of the week, Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH)
joined as its 101st member.
* As the IRC has grown so has the illegal immigration issue grown in
Americans consciousness," Tancredo said. "When I started the Caucus in
1999, we had few friend and allies in Congress. Today, the IRC is one of
the largest and most active caucuses in the House. Our size and the force
of our arguments dictate that we have a seat at the table.
* The IRC includes Republicans and Democrats from California to New
Hampshire. We represent the vast majority of Americans who want our borders
secured and illegal immigration stopped.
The Immigration Reform Caucus was established in May 1999 to review current
immigration policy, to initiate new immigration policy, and to create a
much-needed forum in Congress to examine both the benefits and negative
consequences of immigration.
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?
Your grassroots pressure on Members of Congress has been so overwhelming
that even many major news media commentators have begun to routinely say
that the citizens who are worked up about this seem to be mostly on the
restriction side.
As noted above, your pressure seems to be tying many Members of Congress
into knots.
But we cannot be complacent or assume that Members will continue to do the
right thing without more pressure.
We will keep you informed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060806/immigration.html
Conservatives block immigration conference
By Jonathan Allen
Monday June 19, 2006
Senate conservatives have emerged as the chief obstacle to an immigration
conference committee, but the bills backers insist they will be able to
get around the hard-liners.
GOP leaders need the assent of the conservatives to circumvent a
parliamentary hurdle arising from the bills inclusion of tax provisions,
which, according to the Constitution, must originate in the House.
Conservatives have yet to sign off.
"Im not anxious to move it to conference," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.),
chairman of the conservative Republican Steering Committee, said yesterday.
"The more we study the final product, the more convinced I am that it is
seriously flawed."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that he would think about being helpful to
the leadership but that hed "consider trying to block it, too."
The Senate passed its version of immigration legislation last month. The
bill would bolster border security, create a "path to citizenship" for
illegal aliens currently in the country and establish a guest-worker
program.
Many on the right would prefer a version more like the House bill, which
focuses solely on strengthening border security.
A thicket of procedural snags has prevented the appointment of conference
negotiators to this point.
If the Senate bill is sent to the House, it would be subject to a "blue
slip" - a vote of the House to reject it because it violates the
Constitutions "origination" clause on tax matters. The easiest way
around a blue slip is for the Senate to take up a House-passed tax bill,
strip out the existing provisions, insert the immigration bill into its
shell and pass it.
But Republican leaders have been unable to win unanimous consent to execute
the maneuver, and such a complex series of moves would give opponents
several filibuster opportunities. While cautiously covering their flanks,
Republican and Democratic leaders are working to get the bill to
conference.
The bills supporters say that if they can make significant progress on a
deal they will be able to overcome their opposition.
"I think were making progress," Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said
yesterday. "Were not there yet."
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), a harsh critic of the Senate bill, said
yesterday that he will not block efforts to move to conference.
"I want a bill," Ensign said.
"Youve got to have a conference," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). "If it
comes out close to this [Senate bill], well do everything to kill it."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060602-121142-2773r.htm
Illegals' tax deal could kill bill
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 2, 2006
The long-fought Senate immigration bill that opponents say grants amnesty
to 10 million illegal aliens is unconstitutional and appears headed for
certain demise, Senate Republicans now say.
A key feature of the Senate bill is that it would make illegals pay
back taxes before applying for citizenship, a requirement that supporters
say will raise billions of dollars in the next decade.
There's just one problem: The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits
revenue-raising legislation from originating in the Senate.
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives," according to the "origination clause" in Article I,
Section 7.
Republicans -- including the bill's supporters -- say this will kill
the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he's offered a simple
solution. He wants to attach the immigration bill to a tax bill that has
already passed the House. It would then proceed as planned to a "conference
committee," where negotiators from the House and Senate hammer out
differences between the two chambers' immigration bills.
"This is a procedural issue that we could overcome," said Carolyn
Weyforth, spokeswoman for Mr. Frist.
But Minority Leader Harry Reid won't go along with that fix. His office
said yesterday that the concerns raised by Mr. Frist and House Republicans
are "technical in nature" and can be ignored.
"If Republicans are serious about enacting comprehensive immigration
reform, I've got a deal for them," spokesman Jim Manley said. "All they
have to do is nothing. Just let the House and Senate bills go to conference
and let the conferees work their will."
The bill as written, however, will never make it to conference,
Republicans say. Under House rules, any member can introduce a "blue-slip
resolution" to return the legislation to the Senate. And although there are
plenty of House conservatives eager to kill the Senate bill any way they
can, Hill staffers say it would likely be done based on "policy-blind
constitutional issues."
"If there is a blue-slip issue, it is not about policy," said one House
aide familiar with the matter. "It's about procedure and the House's
prerogative to uphold the United States Constitution."
There is some debate about whether the constitutional ban on Senate
revenue bills pertains only to bills whose primary purpose is to raise
money or whether it also applies to bills that do so incidentally.
Republicans say that because the concerns already have been raised,
they expect the bill to be returned to the Senate.
They point to a 2002 report written by the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service that reveals how broadly the House interprets the
origination clause.
"In 1992, the House returned to the Senate a bill (S.884, 102nd
Congress) to require the President to impose economic sanctions, including
a ban on certain imports, against countries which fail to eliminate
large-scale driftnet fishing," according to the report. "In 1999, the House
returned to the Senate a bill (S.254, 105th Congress) effectively banning
the import of certain assault weapon attachments."
The policy of the House, according to the report, has been to interpret
"any meaningful revenue proposal" as subject to the origination clause.
To skirt the ban, Republicans say, the Senate easily could agree to
attach the immigration bill to the House-approved tax legislation. They see
Mr. Reid's refusal to fix the problem as an attempt to scuttle the bill,
and thus deny the Republican Congress a "victory" for passing immigration
reform before this fall's elections.
"We can solve this constitutional issue if Harry Reid would drop his
obstructionism and allow the comprehensive immigration legislation to move
past the Senate," Ms. Weyforth said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=IMMIGRATION-06-06-06&cat=WW
Tax details delay talks on immigration bill
By MICHAEL DOYLE and MARGARET TALEV
McClatchy Newspapers
June 06, 2006
WASHINGTON - While President Bush is promoting immigration reform this
week, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have found a new impediment to resolving
their differences.
Negotiations between the House and Senate have not begun this week - as
some hoped they could - because of a seemingly arcane but politically
potent tax wrinkle in the Senate's immigration bill.
Conservatives insist there is a serious constitutional flaw with the Senate
legislation passed May 25, but the fight now bursting into the open reveals
broader personal and institutional tensions that will complicate the coming
weeks.
"They think there's a problem because they want a problem," Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday. "They don't want to go to
conference."
In Congress, legislation dealing with tax revenue must originate in the
House. The House's border security bill does not deal with taxes. The
Senate's version of immigration reform, however, includes a provision
collecting back taxes for illegal immigrants seeking permanent residence.
Republicans say this could trigger a "blue slip," a formal objection by the
House issued on a blue sheet of paper that could shut down talks.
Wednesday, Bush is bringing his immigration reform pitch to Nebraska,
following stops Tuesday in Texas and New Mexico. He's urging a combination
of tougher border security with a comprehensive approach that includes
guest workers, and he's professing optimism.
"I'm going to work with Congress to pass a comprehensive bill I can pass
into law," Bush told Border Patrol agents at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center in Artesia, N.M. "We're making progress toward a
comprehensive bill."
With the House and Senate having passed separate immigration bills, the
next step is appointment of negotiators to work out the myriad differences.
The House, however, has not yet appointed negotiators to the so-called
conference committee because of the unexpected constitutional issue snaring
the Senate's bill.
There are several ways the parliamentary obstacle can be overcome.
On Monday, Reid quietly tried to correct the problem by hijacking the
House-passed border security bill. With few senators present, Reid sought
to take up the House bill, replace its language with the Senate-passed
bill, and then have the new package passed by voice vote.
Republicans blocked the maneuver.
"It will be a contentious conference, in any event," Sen. Mitch McConnell,
R-Ky., warned, adding it was important "we do not get derailed by some
parliamentary technicality."
Republicans in the leadership say the issue could be resolved by attaching
the Senate's immigration bill to an unrelated tax bill passed by the House
and sent over to the Senate.
Reid objected to that.
"If they just take a tax bill to conference, does that mean they're going
to repeal the estate tax there in the immigration bill?" he said. "Does it
mean they're going to do some of their other things for wealthy Americans,
cut taxes more for other people?"
Traditionally, so-called blue slip objections are raised by the chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee; in this case, Rep. Bill Thomas,
R-Calif.
Thomas has not yet indicated whether he would, in fact, blue-slip the
Senate immigration bill. Unlike a majority of House Republicans, Thomas
voted against the House's border security bill in December because he
favors a more comprehensive immigration approach.
Support this Newsletter and www.ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To View the Newsletter Archive go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window
Back to archives