Senator Salazar (D., Colorado) told his colleagues tonight that a vote for the Inhofe amendment was "a transparent attempt to undo Executive Orders under Bush and Clinton" and that the Inhofe amendment endangered the compromise.

The Inhofe amendment passed anyway, 64 to 33, a gain of two "aye" votes since last year's May 18th vote of 62 to 35 on a similar amendment offered by Senator Inhofe. (Originally, the vote was 63 to 34, but one week later, Senator Landrieu (D., Louisiana) officially switched her vote from "aye" to "nay".)

The increased support for the Inhofe amendment was more remarkable because the voters replaced six Republican Senators with Democrats and Republican lost another Senator, the late Craig Thomas (R., Wyoming) this week.

Senator Salazar also offered his amendment to protect Clinton Executive Order 13166, which passed 58 to 39, the same margin by which it passed in 2006. Under the Salazar amendment, illegal aliens could not even be required to apply for amnesty in English.

Meet the members of the 2007 Weathervane Caucus

In 2006, 23 Senators voted to both codify and repeal Clinton Executive Order 13166 by voting for both the Salazar amendment and the Inhofe amendment. In 2007, 24 Senators voted to both codify and repeal E.O. 13166.

Among the brand-new Senators, Cardin (D-MD), Klobuchar (D-MN), McCaskill (D-MO), Tester (D-MT) and Webb (D-VA) voted for both the Salazar and the Inhofe amendments.

First-time members of the Weathervane Caucus in 2007 are Lugar (R-IN), Mikulski (D-MD) and Bennett (R-UT). Each voted for both the Salazar and Inhofe amendments.

Sixteen Senators who voted for both the Inhofe (anti-E.O. 13166) and Salazar (pro-E.O. 13166) amendments in both 2006 and 2007 were Murkowski (R-AK), Lincoln (D-AR), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Brownback (R-KS), Landrieu (D-LA)*, Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), Coleman (R-MN), Baucus (D-MT), Hagel (R-NE), Nelson (D-NE), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Specter (R-PA) and Warner (R-VA) [*Landrieu officially changed her 2006 vote on Inhofe from "aye" to "nay" one week after the initial vote.]

[Note: a chart comparing the 2006 and 2007 votes referenced above is available here.]

Behind the Scenes at Wednesday Night's Immigration Debate

Late in afternoon of June 6th, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, joined a meeting of the "Gang of 12" to see if they avoid or defang some of the controversial amendments which might "undo the bargain."

Constantly ringing phones in Senate offices provided the sound track for their meeting. By 6:00 PM, the phones and fax machines were jammed.

Amendments by Senate Democrats Menendez (more family reunification) and Clinton (quicker immigration for children and spouses) were each rejected on budget points of order, which required 60 votes to overcome. Still Menendez received 55 votes, Clinton 44.

Similarly, amendments by Senate Republicans were also rejected, but many received more than 40 votes needed to block cloture on the bill. A Cornyn amendment to permanently bar terrorists and gang members lost 46 to 51, while a McConnell amendment to require ID when voting lost 41 to 52.

Senator Session's amendment to render guest workers ineligible for the Earned Income Credit passed 56 to 41. A Cornyn amendment to allow law enforcement to investigate the data on Z (amnesty) visa applications passed 57 to 39. Ted Kennedy called the Cornyn amendment a "report to deport" amendment and its passage "a serious mistake."

It was clear this evening that neither side can be sure if there were sixty votes to limit debate ("invoke cloture") on the Senate's immigration bill.

A cloture vote remains scheduled for Thursday morning, June 7th after the Coburn amendment is considered. That may change.

Now what?

Assuming the Senate passes the underlying immigration bill, and the House of Representatives passes its own immigration bill, a conference committee will decide between the Inhofe amendment, the Salazar amendment, some combination of the two, or neither.

You can donate via secure server to support the work of English First here.

If this e-mail was passed on to you (which we encourage) and you would like to receive future alerts directly, you can sign up here.