Vote Is Not On Corker-Hoeven As Standalone, But To Accelerate Entire Substitute Bill
1,200-page substitute provides immediate amnesty without enforcement; legalization for convicted criminals; no border surge or fence requirement; further weakens ICE; ‘sweeteners’ to obtain votes
Sessions: “The vote tomorrow is not a vote on just the Corker-Hoeven amendment. The vote tomorrow at 5:30 pm is a vote on Majority Leader Reid’s procedural motion to shut down debate on a 1,200-page substitute bill no one has read. The Corker-Hoeven amendment no longer exists as a standalone proposal. The amendment and the bill have been merged into a single 1,200-page substitute proposal. They are now one and the same. And the Majority Leader’s motion will stifle amendments and accelerate the vote on final passage before anyone has vetted the modified legislation.
A vote for cloture is therefore a vote for silencing debate on 1,200 pages of provisions including:
-Immediate amnesty without enforcement
-Weakened interior enforcement
-Legalization for gang members and convicted criminals
-Unprecedented amnesty for future visa overstays
-There is no border surge—agents aren’t required until 2021 which means it will never happen—and DHS retains the explicit waiver authority to build no fence and install no technology at all.
-A dramatic increase in low-skill legal immigration that CBO says will reduce wages for US workers
A vote for cloture is also a vote in favor of a process that has included a series of earmarked provisions as ‘sweeteners’ to obtain votes, including: $1.5 billion in federal stimulus spending for the vote of just one single senator and changes to visa rules to benefit industry in a single state.
Senator Rubio said he wouldn’t support a process that was rushed and that was not transparent. I hope that he, and all members who believe in open process, will vote against Majority Leader Reid’s motion to silence debate on a bill no one has read. And I would further issue a challenge to the sponsors of this bill: if your proposal is so good, then why not commit to extensive, open debate on it? Why do we have to pass this out of here before Members go home to face their constituents over July 4th? Whose interests do we serve?”