Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The essential point is that undocumented immigrants, if they are victims and make a report, or if they are witnesses, or if they have information about dangerous people--terrorists, illustratively--should have confidence and feel free to come to the police. Well-intentioned as this amendment is, I think it would be counterproductive and unwise. Amendment No. 1190 Mr. President, I think we are in a position to accept the McCain amendment when Senator Kennedy returns to the floor. The thrust of the amendment offered by Senator McCain, No. 1190, would provide that undocumented immigrants would have an obligation to pay Federal back taxes at the time their status is adjusted under the provisions of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor to the McCain amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from North Dakota in the Chamber, who intends to speak, so I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Analysis of Amendment Requiring local law enforcement to inquire about immigration status undermines both law enforcement efforts and raises national security concerns: ``Meeting public safety objectives is only possible when the people trust their law enforcement officials. Fear of negative consequences or reprisal will undermine this important element of successful police work.'' [Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, Written testimony to SJC, 7/5/06 hearing, p. 1.] ``Crime does not discriminate. Requiring immigration enforcement by local Departments will create distrust among persons from foreign lands living in the United States. Undocumented immigrants will not report victimization or cooperate in solving crimes or testifying for fear of deportation.'' [Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, Written testimony to SJC, 7/5/06 hearing, p. 1.] ``If an undocumented person is a victim or a witness of a crime, we want them to come forward. They should not avoid local police for fear of deportation.'' [SJC 7/5/06 hearing transcript, p. 31, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson.] ``It is imperative that immigrants who may be witnesses to or victims of crime not suffer repercussions as they attempt to give and receive assistance from law enforcement.'' [Letter from Philadelphia Mayor John Street to Sen. Specter.] ``Do we really want people who could have information about criminals, including potential terrorists, to be afraid to go to the police?'' [SJC 7/5/06 hearing transcript, p. 27, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.] ``It will also undercut homeland security efforts among immigrant communities, in that those who that may know persons who harbor knowledge of terrorist activities will no longer be willing to come forward to any law enforcement agency for fear of reprisal against themselves or their loved ones.'' [Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, Written testimony to SJC, 7/5/06 hearing, p. 1.] Immigrants who live in fear of local authorities may undermine public health efforts: ``In the event of a flu pandemic or bioterrorist attack, the City would provide prophylaxis to all of its infected residents regardless of immigration status. The immigrant population, due to fear, might refrain from identifying themselves if infected, potentially resulting in the spread of disease leading to a public health crisis.'' [Letter from Philadelphia Mayor John Street to Sen. Specter.] ``Do we really want people with contagious diseases not to seek medical treatment? Do we really want people not to get vaccinated against communicable diseases?'' [SJC 7/5/06 hearing transcript, p. 27, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.] Local law enforcement officials who inquire about immigration status may subject themselves and their offices to civil litigation and claims of racial profiling: ``[A]ll Police Departments are susceptible to civil litigation as a result of civil rights suits. . . . [T]ime in court on a civil suit equates to fewer officers of our streets and settlements, court costs, and Plaintiff's rewards all cost all citizens precious resources. With questionable federal law authority to enforce such immigration laws, and with a precedent of local police being sued for assisting in the enforcement of immigration law, the probability of civil suits against local departments as primary enforcers is a major concern.'' [Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, Written testimony to SJC, 7/5/06 hearing, p. 2-3.]

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think it is acceptable for the Senator from North Dakota to ask that the pending amendment be set aside. I will not object, and I am the only Senator on the floor--unless the Presiding Officer objects.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, recognizing the good-faith interest of the Senator from North Dakota in proposing this amendment, I nonetheless believe it should be rejected by the Senate. What the Senator from North Dakota has here is a fallback position. He offered an amendment yesterday to eliminate the guest worker program. Having failed there, he has a fallback position of trying to have it sunsetted. There is no doubt about the need for guest workers in our economy. Last year in the Judiciary Committee, we held extensive hearings on this matter. We did not hold hearings this year, and we did not process this legislation through the Judiciary Committee, which in retrospect may have been a mistake, but here we are. But we have an ample record from last year. We had the testimony of Professor Richard Freeman from Harvard outlining the basic fact that immigration raises not only the GDP of the United States because we have more people now to do useful activities, but it also raises the part of the GDP that goes to the current residents in our country. We heard testimony from Professor Henry Holzer of Georgetown University to the effect that immigration is a good thing for the overall economy. ``It does lower costs. It lowers prices. It enables us to produce more goods and services and to produce them more efficiently.'' The executive director of the Stanford Law School program on law, economics, and business, Dan Siciliano, testified that there is a ``mismatch between our U.S.-born workers' age, skills, and willingness to work, and the jobs that are being created in the economy, in part as a function of our own demographics, whether they be elder care, retail, daycare, or other types of jobs.'' There is no doubt that there is a tremendous need for a guest worker program in our restaurants, hotels, on our farms, in landscaping, wherever one turns. The Assistant Secretary of Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor testified earlier this month before the House Immigration Subcommittee that there are three fundamental reasons the United States needs immigrants to fuel our economy. That is the testimony of Assistant Secretary Leon Sequeira. The reasons he gives are that we have an aging workforce; we do not have enough people of working age to support the economy and support the social welfare programs, such as Social Security for the aging population; and immigrants contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship. The chart which had been posted shows that the guest worker program is being treated fairly. Senator Kennedy has outlined in some detail the review and analysis of the program, so the Congress is in a position to make modifications, if necessary. After the laborious efforts in producing this bill, it would be my hope that we would not have to revisit it on an automatic basis in 5 years. If we find a need to do so, we will be in a position to undertake that review and to have congressional action if any is warranted. But on the basis of the record we have before us, I think this amendment ought to be rejected, and I urge my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield to me for a very brief unanimous consent request?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to Hutchison amendment No. 1168 be modified to read ``on page 7, line 2.''

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask only that the Senator from Massachusetts amend the request to give Senator Coleman 5 minutes before the 12:15 vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, following the entry of that unanimous consent request, I would ask the Senator from Massachusetts if we could call up the McCain amendment with the modification change which is at the desk and ask that it be adopted.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the McCain amendment with the modifications which are at the desk.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes. As I had explained earlier this morning, the McCain amendment has a provision for the payment or a requirement of the payment of back Federal taxes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it calls for payment of back Federal taxes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think we are in a position to accept the amendment of the Senator from Vermont as modified. What I propose to do is to speak very briefly on the Vitter amendment, and then it would be my expectation that we would move to Senator Sessions to have an opportunity for him to offer his amendment. He has been on the floor a great deal today trying to be recognized. He has been at a markup on Armed Services so he couldn't be here earlier. I have been informed there are some objections to the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont. We will have to process them and see what we will do. It is not unusual that the information given to us is that we can accept and then others come forward. But we will try to work it out. Amendment No. 1157 Briefly, Madam President, I oppose the Vitter amendment. The core of the legislation is to provide for border security, employer verification, a guest worker program, and a way to handle the 12 million undocumented immigrants. The Vitter amendment strikes title VI, which provides for the way of handling the 12 million undocumented immigrants, which is, if not the heart of this bill, a vital organ of the bill. Without this provision, the bill doesn't have the import which is necessary to deal with the immigration problem. The 12 million undocumented immigrants are going to be in the United States whether we deal with them in a systematic, appropriate way or not. The only question is whether we eliminate the anarchy, having them, as the expression is often used, living in the shadows, living in fear. If we systematize the approach, they come out of the shadows. They register. We will have an opportunity to identify the criminal element, deport a reasonable number when we identify those who can be, should be deported, and then deal with the balance as the bill provides with the Z visas. Stated briefly, if you were to accept the Vitter amendment, there would be nothing left but a shell of this bill. The whole bill is an accommodation of border security, employer verification for what we do in the guest worker program, and the 12 million undocumented immigrants. For those reasons, I vigorously oppose the Vitter amendment. I believe we are now ready for the Senator from Alabama to offer his amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a word or two. I think it is a good amendment. I commend the Senator from Vermont. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is obviously hard to calculate what is the precise figure among the Senators who crafted the so-called ``grand compromise.'' We thought the figure we had here was correct. We are aware that the Senator from New Mexico offered an amendment last year and was successful in reducing the amount to 200,000. But I think either figure would be understandable. But I will stand by what we have worked out in the bill. In arriving at the compromise legislation which has been proposed, there was a great deal of give-and-take. While we are facing a tremendous number of objections from both sides of the political spectrum, for every point someone does not like, there were concessions made by others for some points the person does like. There is no doubt that we are facing very substantial criticism in the initial stages of the consideration of this bill. The criticism came before the bill was even printed. The criticism has continued after it was printed, before people had a chance to read it. There is a great deal of analysis and consideration being undertaken at the present time. I think Senator Lott has expressed the issue very succinctly; that is, do we have a problem? The answer to that is, categorically, yes, we have an enormous problem. We have a border which is porous. We have anarchy in the way the immigration system works at the present time. People are complaining that it is amnesty. In my legal judgment, it is not. It is not amnesty because people have to pay a fine, people have to have a job, people have to contribute to our society, people have to pay their taxes, people have to learn English, people go to the very end of the line, are not even considered until they have been here 8 years, and it may take as long as 13 years. That is not amnesty. But the fact is that these 12 million undocumented immigrants are going to be here whether we pass this bill or not. The only difference will be whether they will be here in a way where we regulate their presence here. If we have a registration system, we will have an opportunity to identify people who ought to be deported. It is not practical to deport 12 million people. But when we cull through the list, we may find those who should be deported, if in a practical sense they can be deported. To deport someone, you have to take them into custody. Then you have to have detention facilities, and then you have to have judicial proceedings. It is a total impossibility to think of deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants, but at least we would move toward regulation. As part of the comprehensive system, we are structuring border security as outlined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. The entire border would be covered either by fences, by obstacles, or by drones. So the entire border would be covered, fences covering the populated areas. It is not possible to structure border security so that no one slips through, but by moving toward employer verification, we will be eliminating the magnet. Until we have a system to positively identify who is legal and who is illegal, you cannot impose tough sanctions on the employers. But now that we have that system, those tough sanctions can be imposed, and that has the objective, a realistic objective, of eliminating the magnet. There is great distrust, and understandably so, as to whether the enforcement procedures will occur. Bear in mind that there are preconditions to having the guest worker program or the processing of the 12 million undocumented immigrants. I think it is fair criticism that since the 1986 legislation, no administration, Democratic or Republican, has enforced the law. There are ideas which are now being formulated to move to a very prompt appropriation immediately after the bill is passed--if and when it is passed--so that we have a structure here. Senators Lott's first question is: Do we have a problem? Yes. Is this bill an improvement? Yes. Again, categorically. Will there be a better chance at a better time to improve the system? Categorically, no. If we do not get it done at this setting, as we are moving ahead, hopefully shortly after the Memorial Day recess, then we are off into the appropriations process, and next year is an election year. So that if not now, if not never, certainly not soon. When we come to the Bingaman amendment, as I say, my preference is to stick with the bill. A certain understanding has been reached among those who were parties to the negotiations of the structuring of the bill to stand together on it. If the Bingaman amendment is adopted, then it is my hope we will retain the adjustment features so that if we find that more or fewer guest workers are necessary for our economy, realizing they perform a very vital function in so much of our economy, in the restaurants and the hotels, on the farms, landscaping, so many facets--talked about that yesterday with the hearings which we held in the Judiciary Committee last year, cited the economists who testified about the importance of immigrants in our economic structure--I hope we will at least retain the so-called adjustor factors so we can make adjustments should that become necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I do. Mr. President, I believe I have 1 minute of argument?

Mr. SPECTER. May I amend that, Mr. President, to request a full minute?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the 400,000 figure was decided after a very careful analysis and consideration. We had hearings in the Judiciary Committee where prominent economists stepped forward to testify about the importance of immigrant help. We have an economy which relies on immigrants for hospitals, for hotels, for restaurants, for farms, for landscapers, and many lines. One crucial feature of the Bingaman amendment would take out the adjustment factor, which is important, where we say the needs rise and fall. If the Bingaman amendment is adopted--and I know it was adopted by a large vote last year--at least I hope we will return to provide for the adjustment factor so we can raise or lower the number depending upon the needs of the economy. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think it is an excellent idea. Do we have Senator Grassley's amendment to voice vote?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is satisfactory.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Feinstein amendment has been cleared on this side of the aisle. I agree with Senator Kennedy, we can voice- vote it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire. The changes he makes are only modest in nature. I think they are not directed to accomplish a significant change: from 1,800 Border Patrol agents to 2,000; from 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 70 ground-based radar and camera towers, he moves for 300 miles and 205 ground-based radar and camera towers. He changes the detention service from 27,500 to 31,500, and a change in some additional protection. This has been very carefully calibrated. We are looking for an 18- month period for the completion of these triggers. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has assured us, in testimony before the committee and in the extensive negotiations, that these are realistic. We have questioned Secretary Chertoff about whether it can be done within this period of time because they are conditions precedent. Until these barriers and fencing and Border Patrol agents are in place, the balance of the bill cannot go forward. That is the assurance to those who wonder if we are serious about securing our borders before going ahead with the other parts of the program. We do not want to tamper with what the Secretary has articulated. The additional requirements obviously will take longer to complete. We have this bill in place. I urge my colleagues to stay with the negotiated arrangement and to reject the Gregg amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I believe we are now prepared to turn to the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if the Senator from Texas will yield for a question. We are trying to determine what is going to happen on the balance of the evening. Senators, understandably, at 6 o'clock, are asking if there is going to be a vote this evening. I understand from our conversation in the cloakroom that there are two Senators who are considering joining with you and you are not now prepared to enter into a time agreement. But if those Senators would come to the floor and let us know what they intend to do, we will be in a position to see if we can vote. We wish to vote this evening, but we don't want to keep people around here if we are not going to vote.