May 25 2007
Immigration Bill Rolls On
The Immigration Bill is rolling ahead in the Senate.
By a vote of 66-29, senators rejected an amendment by Republican Party legislator David Vitter to eliminate a provision that offers legal status to most of the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
…
The Senate also narrowly rejected a proposal by Republican Norm Coleman to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to help enforce immigration laws.
I have issue with some things changed or not included – especially Coleman’s proposal. Hopefully it will go back in at conference. Of course, if the hard right would vote to strengthen the bill instead of gutting it things would be better. Coleman lost by 2 votes. Perfect is the evil of good and continuing with the status quo is dangerous. So as along as the ability to deport criminals stays in under a one-strike-your-out feature this bill is keeping my support. That feature alone makes this bill worth keeping. But we need the guest worker program to get background checks (criminal records) and to provide IDs to those checked and cleared. So far good enough.
Update: Myth busting the myth peddlers:
FACT: The bill would, for the first time, give the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) tools to keep certain aliens out of the United States solely on the basis of their participation in a gang.
No conviction is required – if an individual has associated with a gang and helped “aid” or “support” its illegal activity, then he or she is not allowed to remain in the country – even if he renounces his gang affiliation.…
ACT: After the family backlog is cleared in the first eight years after enactment, the bill will eliminate about 190,000 extended family visas per year. By contrast, the category of “extreme hardship” cases is capped at 5,000 visas per year.
…
FACT: Illegal workers who ignored deportation orders are not eligible for the Z visa program, except in exceedingly rare cases in which they can demonstrate their departure would “result in extreme hardship.” FACT: The determination of what constitutes “extreme hardship” lies entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, who has no interest in allowing this exception to be abused.
Unlike the cries of that the sky is falling from the right, these concerns from the far left are serious concerns. They are not getting what they wanted. Seems to me all the right people are pissed off on this bill. How many times did Cons hit liberals for incidentally allying themselves with al Qaeda on Iraq? Tons of times. Seems some kettles are going around calling some pots ‘black’. Look at the alliances against the bill – uber nationalists and anything goes lefties. No wonder this bill’s time has come.
Update: The hardliners are killing the GOP:
For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie. One conservative commentator claims that the law is “going to erase America” — an ambition even beyond Ted Kennedy’s considerable powers. Another laments that “white America is in flight” — and presumably not just to Jackson Hole or Nantucket for the summer.
…
If a Republican presidential candidate doesn’t get about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide, he or she doesn’t stand much of a chance on an electoral map where Florida and the Southwest figure prominently. A nativist party will cease to be a national party.
Breaking 40 percent is possible for Republicans. President Bush did it in 2004. Republican momentum among Hispanic voters has been strong in the past decade — until Rep. Tom Tancredo and his allies began their conflict with the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.
Conceding Latinos to the Democrats in perpetuity is a stunning failure of political confidence. If the Republican Party cannot find ways to appeal to natural entrepreneurs, with strong family values, who are focused on education and social mobility, then the GOP is already dead.
Well, some of it is dead anyway. The question is whether the condition is fatal or correctible. For our nation’s sake in the fight against al Qaeda I hope it is correctible. My fear is ,from what I have seen the last week, is it is probably fatal – to all of us. We will surrender to al Qaeda because some folks got all worked up over documenting undocumented workers. Just crazy.
FE, yes, I am against it. And quite frankly, I don’t care what label anyone wants to attach to me – hardliner, bigot, racist, blah.. , blah… , blah…
I am none of those things, and I will not be deterred by people attempting to intimidate me with that tactic.
They don’t have to become a citizen or assimilate, and yet we are going to give them, non-citizens, the right to vote?!?! They don’t even have to WANT to be a citizen. They could hate this country and get their jollies by casting votes that they feel will harm the country. They could live here for 12 years, vote every election, attempt to sabotage our country with their vote, and then go home to wherever they came from LAUGHING ALL THE WAY at our unbelievable stupidity!!!!!!!!
WTF!!!!
Just how stupid are our Republican Senators and Congressmen???
FE, I didn’t actually answer your question. Sorry about that.
Yes, I am in favor of the enforcement of our laws. All of them. And more than that, I am in favor of the consistent and uniform enforcement of all of our laws. I am appalled at what has happened to Libby. It is incomprehensible and reprehensible what crap Fitzgerald has already pulled and is attempting to pull.
Anyone who has watched the Libby trial should be in favor of the consistent and uniform enforcement of our laws. You can’t pick and choose which laws you think should be enforced and which should not. That isn’t the way it is supposed to be.
FE,
Did anyone outside the liberal fringe say immigrants, let alone illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote? How is anyone supposed to take your fantasies seriously when you all go off half cocked like that.
And you wonder why you folks have no place at the debate table anymore? Get real. And I mean REAL! No conservative is pushing this silliness. We just are allowing them documents to work here after they pay their fines and if they have a clean criminal record. When you BS beyond those simple goals you are not making a fool out of those of us working to defeat you exaggerators. And make no mistake about it – we are out to defeat the serial exaggerators.
If the politicians and pundits are to be believed, only about half of all the illegal immigrants will *want* to become US citizens.
And yet we are going to give ALL of them the right to vote?!?!?!
ApacheIP is short for Apache Helicopter Instructor Pilot. I spent years reading and deciphering Federal and DOD Regulations. And after I became an Instructor Pilot, I taught others how to read and interpret those regulations. I am reading this correctly.
Let me walk everyone through it. The key is to break the sentence into its most simple form: noun and verb and any critical adjectives or adverbs. I will bold those. I will only bold the minimum necessary to prove my point.
Try reading only the bold parts aloud to yourself.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the sum of [$100] million to carry out the mission and operations of the Office of Citizenship and Integration in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the patriotic integration of prospective citizens into–
(1) American common values and traditions, including an understanding of American history and the principles of the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) civic traditions of the United States, including the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the flag of the United States, and voting in public elections.
Checkmate! As you would say AJ. If the language of the law says that, I’m pretty sure we’re going to have millions of new voters next election. By the way, I know that you don’t see it that way, but lets just suppose that Apache was right, would you still be for this bill?
I showed this section, 706, to my wife. She is an ex-Army ADA Officer. Yes, we met in the Army. She disagrees with my interpretation. The sticking point we disagree on is the word “including”.
Here interpretation is this –
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the sum of [$100] million to carry out the mission and operations of the Office of Citizenship and Integration in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the patriotic integration of prospective citizens into–
(1) American common values and traditions, including an understanding of American history and the principles of the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) civic traditions of the United States, including the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the flag of the United States, and voting in public elections.
She believes that in subparagraphs (1) and (2), “including” has a different meaning than it does in the preceding paragraph, (a).
I can see how she could interpret it that way and she may be right. But I think it could also be interpreted my way. I applied the same meaning of “including” that I believe they mean in paragraph (a) to the following subparagraphs, (1) and (2).
My distrust of our politicians may be clouding my judgment on this one, and I want to publicly recognize that fact.
This is one poorly written law. I can see court challenges to this. This could come down to which judge gets the case.
Wow, everybody jumped on this:
Apache, what you’re against illegal aliens having the right to vote? you must be a hardliner. (another word for those that want laws enforced
Didn’t anyone recognize that I’m was kidding Apache for pointing out that the comprehensive bill GIVES illegal aliens the right to vote?
AJ to answer your question:
Did anyone outside the liberal fringe say immigrants, let alone illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote? How is anyone supposed to take your fantasies seriously when you all go off half cocked like that.
Should be allowed to vote? Well the ‘comprehensive- give illegal aliens amnesty- immigration bill’ certainly gives them the right to vote as Apache has done an excellent job of pointing out.
We are talking illegal aliens, not illegal immigrants.
and: And you wonder why you folks have no place at the debate table anymore? Get real. And I mean REAL! No conservative is pushing this silliness. We just are allowing them documents to work here after they pay their fines and if they have a clean criminal record.
I agree that no REAL CONSERVATIVES are pushing this thing. Real conservatives don’t want illegal aliens voting.
and ‘for the record’ i am a moderate, real conservative, and a hardliner(by your definition) .
The more you write about this immigration bill demonstrates very clearly that you either have not read it at all or you definitely misunderstand what is in it. It says very clearly on the very first page that EVERYONE is immediately given probationary benefits which include the right to work, vote, not be deported, yada,yada, yada and these probationy benefits exists until the full legal string of appeals run out. Who, in the government, is going to be interested in pursueing a single case for years?
ApacheIP I have to go with your interpretation of the bill vs your wife’s interpretation. Here’s why:
From the bill, lifted from Apache’s post:
The first section clearly says that the money is appropriated for the DHS to carry out their duties which include making these people, that the bill is all about, citizens
and then the following two sections are to clear up what they mean by that: to learn American History and to learn about the US Constitution and:
to assist them in observing civic traditions of saying the pledge of allegiance, respecting the US flag and voting in elections.
It doesn’t make sense that it would be only to “teach” them about these things, why would you ‘teach’ someone about learning American History? wouldn’t you actually teach the History?
why would you teach them what the Constitution is about? why wouldn’t you actually teach them the Constitution? Why would you ‘teach’ them about voting? wouldn’t you spend the money to ensure that they are voting?
After this weekend cycle of news watching, Pres Bush is the only reputable person I’ve seen(on TV) that is still pushing the bill. I say that because I admire and respect him very much. I give him a lot of credit for his wisdom, that’s why it baffles me that he is for it. I think he is overlooking the fact that these ” probationary benefits” totally destroy the bill. I believe that if that were eliminated and the illegals only got the benefits “after” the process then we could have a good bill. Unfortunately, once the probationary benefits kick in,(immediately) they never go away and the Dimmicrats win because they get all the votes.
Note: The opinion of a hardliner(another word for those that want laws enforced)
AJ
When you BS beyond those simple goals you are not making a fool out of those of us working to defeat you exaggerators. And make no mistake about it – we are out to defeat the serial exaggerators.
Defeating serial exaggerators should be simple just quote the ‘truth’ directly from the bill. You will notice that what I say and what ApacheIP says is lifted from the bill. If you don’t think the bill gives the illegal aliens the ‘right to vote’ then interpret those sections that Apache posted for us, Show us the ‘truth’.
What does this ‘really’ mean?
(2) civic traditions of the United States, including the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the flag of the United States, and voting in public elections.
Is voting in public elections. code for NOT voting in public elections?
FE, I knew you were being sarcastic with the whole “hardliner” thing. Sorry for not making it clear that I got your humor.
Well, I had a good night’s sleep and I have just finished a nice cup of freshly brewed coffee. I have read this section again, for about the 30th time, and it clearly says they will assist integrating them in “voting in public elections”. I know it is hard to believe, I’m having a hard time believing it myself, but that is what it says. That may not be what they intended, but it is what it says.
including the patriotic integration of prospective citizens into–
(1) American common values and traditions, including an understanding of American history and the principles of the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) civic traditions of the United States, including the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the flag of the United States, and voting in public elections.
“Voting in public elections” is a “civic tradition” of the United States.
And the bill clearly says “the integration of prospective citizens” into civic traditions of the United States, including “voting in public elections”.
Nowhere in that section is the word EDUCATION. It says INTEGRATION.
AJ,
I am quoting directly from the bill. I apologize if you consider quoting directly from the bill “exaggerating”.
If you think that is “exaggerating”, wait until you see the 15 uses of “subject to the availability of appropriations” in this bill. I am working on a consolidated list. The list is complete, I am just trying to clean up the ugly formatting.
These will be more gross exaggerations of direct quotes where I cite page numbers from the bill.
Apache
while we’re in defining what the bill includes, I think we need this definition:
“subject to the availability of appropriations†means, “it ain’t gonna get done.”
Apache, while we’re defining, in this statement:
And the bill clearly says “the integration of prospective citizens†into civic traditions of the United States, including “voting in public electionsâ€.
What do you take the words “prospective citizens” to mean?
It seems, to me, to mean people that have the prospect(no matter how remote) of becoming citizens.
So if they prospectively may become citizens, then does that mean that they are not currently citizens? ie, illegal aliens?
Shouldn’t the bill say:
And the bill clearly says “the integration of newly naturalized citizens†into civic traditions of the United States, including “voting in public electionsâ€.
Shouldn’t we wait until after citizenship?
AJ,
I am not attempting to exaggerate or scare anyone. I am attempting to figure out, completely on my own (without the “assistance” of any politician or pundit or talking head) what is in this bill. I am personally reading it and deciphering the legalese. I am fortunate in that this isn’t the first time I have had to do this.
I quoted verbatim from the bill. I added nothing and left nothing out.
Integration is a verb. To integrate implies an object or person to integrate and something to integrate into.
The proposed bill says – integrate PROSPECTIVE CITIZENS into civic traditions of the United States, including … voting in public elections.
Voting is also a verb.
Now if you have another way this section can be reasonably interpreted, I would love to hear it.
Like I stated before, I too am having a difficult time believing that this is what they intend – with the exception of some key Democratic politicians and their attorneys. I have no doubt this is precisely what they intend. But I believe that most politicians haven’t read the whole bill and they do not intend for this to be a consequence of the bill. But all of the good intentions in the world can’t change what it says.
I know you disagree with me, and I respect that. I also respect that you allow us with a dissenting opinion to continue to post here. But I suspect that you would prefer that we not. You are paying for bandwidth so that others can post an opinion which is completely contrary to yours. So I will set up my own site where people can talk and express their opinion solely about this proposed legislation. The site isn’t ready yet, very busy today, but it will be here – http://mysite.verizon.net/apacheip/
To all who may be interested, be forewarned that calling other posters names and personal attacks will NOT be tolerated at my site.
I knew that if Ted Kennedy was involved and if the bill was 300+ pages, it couldn’t possibly be good for America. The only question was where did Ted hide the paragraphs that would screw the Republican party and the American people. I was *shocked* to discover that it was near the very end of the bill. Just shocked.
FE said –
“subject to the availability of appropriations†means, “it ain’t gonna get done.â€
Yes, that is the practical result. I call it the “politician escape clause”.
Put more precisely, it means that whenever they change their mind, they simply don’t appropriate funds for it and they haven’t broken the law. And they haven’t lied either. They will however, fool everyone who isn’t paying attention, because they won’t publicly point out to the American people how they plan on securing our border and hiring more border patrol “SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS”.
They will go on all of the talk shows that will have them and never, ever mention that very key little phrase – “subject to the availability of appropriations”.
FE said –
What do you take the words “prospective citizens†to mean?
Well, “prospective citizen” would be a very broad category. Normally, when something is really important, they will define it in the “definitions” section of any regulation. The word “prospective” only appears 5 times in this bill. The other 4 appearances all involve “prospective employee”.
There doesn’t appear to be a definition of “prospective citizen” in the bill, so I have no clue who would be included in that category. I would imagine, since this whole bill is about legalizing all of the illegals, it would definitely include all of them. No matter what country they are from. To include all of the suspected terrorists that have already made into the country.
Yes, even suspected terrorists who are not actual citizens (they could claim they want to be a citizen and *poof* they would be a “prospective citizen”) could vote in our elections. And I am sure they have our best interests at heart when they vote. Just like all of the illegals who actually hate this country and are here just for the jobs.
Okay, I don’t know how this will look after I post it. I am hoping for the best. The text is VERBATIM and I encourage people to not take my word for it and verify it yourself.
I have modified the formatting by taking out all of the line numbers. I have attempted to keep the remaining formatting in tact.
I have found 17 instances of “subject to the availability of appropriations”. There may be more. If I missed any it was unintentional.
“subject to the availability of appropriations” means precisely what it says. In short, it may be funded, or it may not. So let’s have a look at all of the items that may be funded or may not be funded. It is an eye opener, I assure you.
instances 1, 2 and 3
page 3
TITLE I—BORDER ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A—Assets for Controlling United
States Borders.
SEC. 101. ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) Additional Personnel-
(1) U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS –
In each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the
Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, increase by not less than 500 the number
of positions for full-time active duty CBP officers and
provide appropriate training, equipment, and support to
such additional CBP officers.
(2) INVESTIGATIVE PERSONNEL-
(A) IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATORS- Section 5203 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public
Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3734) is amended by
striking `800′ and inserting `1000′.
(B) ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL- In addition to the
positions authorized under section 5203 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004, as amended by subparagraph (A), during each
of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Secretary
shall, subject to the availability of appropriations,
increase by not less than 200 the number of
positions for personnel within the Department
assigned to investigate alien smuggling.
(3) DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS- In each of the
fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Attorney General
shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, increase
by not less than 50 the number of positions for full-time
active duty Deputy United States Marshals that assist in
matters related to immigration.
instance 4
page 4
`SEC. 5202. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL
AGENTS.
`(a) Annual Increases- The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall, subject to the availability of appropriations for such
purpose, increase the number of positions for full-time active-
duty border patrol agents within the Department of Homeland
Security (above the number of such positions for which funds
were appropriated for the preceding fiscal year), by not less
than—
instance 5
page 5
SEC. 102. TECHNOLOGICAL ASSETS.
(a) Acquisition—Subject to the availability of appropriations for such
purpose, the Secretary shall procure additional unmanned aerial
vehicles, cameras, poles, sensors, and other technologies necessary to
achieve operational control of the borders of the United States.
instance 6
page 23
SEC. 131. DOCUMENT FRAUD DETECTION.
(a) Training- Subject to the availability of appropriations, the
Secretary shall provide all U.S. Customs and Border Protection
officers with training in identifying and detecting fraudulent
travel documents. Such training shall be developed in
consultation with the head of the Forensic Document Laboratory
of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
instance 7
page 24
SEC. 132. BORDER RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Grants Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary is authorized to award
grants, subject to the availability of appropriations, to an
eligible law enforcement agency to provide assistance to
such agency to address–
(A) criminal activity that occurs in the jurisdiction of
such agency by virtue of such agency’s proximity to
the United States border; and
(B) the impact of any lack of security along the
United States border.
instances 8, 9 and 10
page 37
TITLE II–INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 201. ADDITIONAL IMMIGRATION
PERSONNEL.
(a) Department of Homeland Security.—
(1) TRIAL ATTORNEYS.—In each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2012, the Secretary, subject to the availability of appropriations
for such purpose, shall increase the number of positions for
attorneys in the Office of General Counsel of the Department
who represent the Department in immigration matters by not
less than 100 compared to the number of such positions for
which funds were made available during the preceding fiscal
year.
….
(b) Department of Justice.—
(1) JUDICIAL CLERKS—The Attorney General shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations for such purpose, appoint necessary
law clerks for immigration judges and Board of Immigration
Appeals members of no less than one per judge and member. A
law clerk appointed under this section shall be exempt from the
provisions of subchapter I of chapter 63 of title 5 [5 USCS §§
6301 et seq.]
(2) LITIGATION ATTORNEYS.—In each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2012, the
Attorney General, subject to the availability of appropriations for
such purpose, shall increase the number of positions for
attorneys in the Office of Immigration
Litigation by not less than 50 compared to the number of such
positions for which funds were made available during the
preceding fiscal year.
instances 11, 12, 13 and 14
page 38
(3) UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.—In each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2012,
the Attorney General, subject to the availability of appropriations
for such purpose, shall increase the number of attorneys in the
United States Attorneys’ office to litigate immigration cases in
the Federal courts by not less than 50 compared to the number
of such positions for which funds were made available during the
preceding fiscal year.
(4) IMMIGRATION JUDGES.—In each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2012, the
Attorney General, subject to the availability of appropriations for
such purpose,
shall—
(A) increase by not less than 20 the number of full-time
immigration judges compared to the number of such
positions for which funds were made available during the
preceding fiscal year; and
(B) increase by not less than 80 the number of positions
for personnel to
support the immigration judges described in subparagraph
(A) compared to the number of such positions for which
funds were made available during the preceding fiscal
year.
(5) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS MEMBERS.—The Attorney General
shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, increase by 10
the number members of the Board of Immigration Appeals over
the number of members serving on the date of enactment of this
Act.
(6) STAFF ATTORNEYS.—In each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2012, the
Attorney General shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations for such
purpose—
(A) increase the number of positions for full-time staff
attorneys in the Board of Immigration Appeals by not less
than 20 compared to the number of such positions for
which funds were made available during the preceding
fiscal year; and
(B) increase the number of positions for personnel to
support the staff
attorneys described in subparagraph (A) by not less than
10 compared to the number of such positions for which
funds were made available during the preceding fiscal
year.
instance 15
page 39
(c) Administrative Office of the United States Courts.—In each of the
fiscal years 2008
through 2012, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts,
subject to the availability of appropriations, shall increase the number
of attorneys in the
Federal Defenders Program who litigate criminal immigration cases in
the Federal courts
by not less than 50 compared to the number of such positions for
which funds were made
available during the preceding fiscal year.
instance 16
page 131
SEC. 306. INCREASING SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF IDENTITY
DOCUMENTS
(a) Purpose- The Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish
the State Records Improvement Grant Program (referred to in this
section as the `Program’), under which the Secretary may award
grants to States for the purpose of advancing the purposes of this Act
and of issuing or implementing plans to issue driver’s license and
identity cards that can be used for purposes of verifying identity under
this Title and that comply with the state license requirements in
section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (division B of Public Law 109-
13; 49 U.S.C. 30301 note).
(b) States that do not certify their intent to comply with the
REAL ID Act and implementing regulations or that do not submit a
compliance plan acceptable to the Secretary are not eligible for grants
under the Program. Driver’s license or identification cards issued by
States that do not comply with REAL ID may not be used to verify
identity under this Title except under conditions approved by the
Secretary.
(c) Grants and Contracts Authorized—
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary is authorized to award
grants, subject to the availability of appropriations, to a
State to provide assistance to such State agency to meet
the deadlines for the issuance of a driver’s license which
meets the requirements of section 202 of the REAL ID Act
of 2005 (division B of Public Law 109-13; 49 U.S.C. 30301
note).
instance 17
page 207
SEC. 411. COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATORS.
(a) The Secretary of Labor, subject to the availability of appropriations for such
purpose, shall increase, by not less than 200 per year for each of the five fiscal years
after the date of enactment of [name of bill], the number of positions for compliance
investigators and attorneys dedicated to the enforcement of labor standards,
including those contained in sections 218A, 218B, and 218C, the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) in geographic and occupational areas in
which a high percentage of workers are Y nonimmigrants.
Apache, it came out fine, thanks for the effort. I remember a few days ago when I pointed out that the ‘sponsors’ of the bill expected the border enforcement provisions to be in place in 18 months, including adding 18000 additional border agents and then I point out in the bill itself where they only have plans to add 14000 and that is thru the year 2012 (–just a bit outside– 18 months by my calendar) and then they say, subject to the availability of appropriations and it’s you and me that don’t think they are serious.
My question, if the bill calls for 18000 and it only provides for 14000, where are the other 4000 coming from? and shouldn’t the bill state that funds WILL be made available to fund the addition?