Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Maybe I could direct the question to the Senator from Texas. Would it be out of line to identify the Senators we have in mind so we can direct them to the floor to get this resolved?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, they know who they are. We would ask them to come to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to congratulate my friend Senator Ted Stevens on becoming the longest serving United States Republican Senator in the history of the Senate. He has had a long and distinguished career in public service representing the State of Alaska in the Senate for over 39 years, casting over 14,000 votes, and never receiving less than 67 percent of the vote in any election. My recollections of Ted Stevens, during the 27 years we have served together in the Senate, focus on his chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, where he has done so much to promote our national security. For example, his management of the $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 earned him high praise by President Bush during the signing ceremony. Ted's temper is generally misunderstood except by those who know him well. He doesn't lose it, but he does use it--and very effectively. However, it is true that on occasion he makes Vesuvius look mild. I recollect one all-night session during Senator Howard Baker's tenure as majority leader when Ted expressed himself in an unusually emphatic way. As I recall it, the debate arose over Senator Proxmire's comments about submitting vouchers for travel expense in Wisconsin on his contention that Washington, DC, was his home base. That prompted a reaction from Ted, who was aghast at the thought of Washington, DC, being any Senator's home when he had the majestic Alaska to claim as his home. Some thought that the middle-of-the-night incident might have cost him a couple votes, which could have been decisive, on his election for majority leader in November of 1984, when the count was 28 to 25 in favor of Senator Dole, but it was reliably reported that his loss occurred because of the significant slippage in votes caused by the tobacco interests. In any event, Senator Stevens has had a profound effect on the Senate and the Nation in his roles as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, and as President pro tempore. It is also important to note that Senator Stevens' career in public service began even before he arrived in the U.S. Senate. He is a distinguished veteran of the U.S. Army Air Corps, having flown support missions for the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force during World War II, for which he was awarded numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. He had a strong academic career, graduating from UCLA and Harvard Law School. In the 1950s, he practiced law in Alaska before moving to Washington, DC, to work in President Eisenhower's administration. He subsequently returned to Alaska and was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1964 and soon became majority leader. Finally, in 1968, he was appointed U.S. Senator from Alaska and has represented his State ever since with pride and devotion. His recognition as ``Alaskan of the Century'' is a real tribute, and I have no doubt that when the passage of time calls for the designation of ``Alaskan of the Millennium,'' it will be Senator Ted Stevens.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Not now.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains under my control?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield that time to myself.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota. This identical issue was considered by the Senate a little more than a year ago, on May 16 of last year, when Senator Dorgan made a similar motion, and I, in my capacity at that time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, moved to table. The tabling motion was agreed to 69 to 28. I submit that the same reasons which justified the rejection of the Dorgan amendment last year are applicable here. We have a situation in the United States where according to the Bureau of Labor Statics, the national unemployment rate for April, last month, 2007, is 4.5 percent, which constitutes virtual full employment. So there is a need for extra workers. In structuring the bill, we have provided for flexibility so that the number can be raised or lowered depending upon what circumstances exist. We have taken steps to protect American workers who are available to fill the jobs with a statutory requirement that there will have to be extensive advertising before the guest worker program can be utilized and workers can be employed. Last year, the bill was considered by the Judiciary Committee. This year we did not follow that process. Perhaps it was an error. Instead, we had very extended meetings over the course of the past 3 months, hour upon hour, customarily with as many as 12 Senators sitting to work out the issues. This issue was considered at some length. But last year when the matter was before the Judiciary Committee, we had very persuasive, really compelling testimony by a number of prominent economists in support of the guest worker program. On April 25, 2006, we had Harry Holzer, professor of public policy, Georgetown University, April 25, 2006, before the Senate Judiciary Committee testifying that most economists believe immigration is a good thing for the overall economy, that it lowers costs, lowers prices, and enables us to produce more goods and services and to produce them more efficiently. We had testimony of a similar nature from Dan Siciliano, executive director of the program in law, economics and business at Stanford Law School on April 25 of last year. Similarly, Richard Freedman, professor of economics at Harvard University, testified on April 25, expressed his view: I think all economists believe from evidence 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 current residents in our country. This year, on May 3, earlier this month, the Assistant Secretary of Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor, Leon Segeuira, testified that there were three fundamental reasons the United States needs immigration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. SPECTER. The three reasons were the aging workforce we have, the necessity to maintain a higher ratio of workers to retirees, and, third, that immigrants contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship. So I think we have a record basis that this guest worker program is useful, helpful to the economy, and that it is very important to the economy to have an adequate workforce. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Six minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. I think there is 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am always fascinated by Senator Domenici's floor statements, about his immigrant parents. I will take just 60 seconds to talk about my immigrant parents. My mother came here when she was 6 years old in 1906. My father came in 1911 when he was 18. The Czar wanted to send my father to Siberia. He lived in Ukraine. That is where the Czar wanted to send all the young Jewish men, to Siberia. My father didn't want to go to Siberia because he heard it was cold there. He wanted to go to Kansas instead. It was a close call, and he got to Kansas where I was born. They didn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, but, fortunately, they didn't have any problems either. In Wichita, there weren't many big black cars, so the family lived happily ever after. On the issue before the Senate, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture to proceed. We have been engaged for the better part of 3 months in extraordinarily extensive and complicated negotiations. Every week from 4 to 6 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, we would meet. Those hours were extended. We are trying to tabulate the total number of hours we worked. So far, nobody can count that high. But we had 10 Senators working almost full time, and we came to a compromise and a combination, which is the way we work around here. I knew at the outset that working on immigration was going to be the third rail. The third rail is that rail that electrocutes you. We have long talked about Social Security as the third rail. Immigration is equally a third rail. There is no way to satisfy all facets of the political spectrum. We are accused on the right of amnesty. We have done everything we could to avoid that charge. I think we succeeded. Those undocumented immigrants will have to pay a fine, they will have to pay back taxes, they have to learn English, they have to fit into our culture, they have to hold jobs and be responsible, and go to the end of the line. They can't begin to qualify until 8 years have passed. It may be as long as 13 years which have passed. So it is not amnesty. Right now we have anarchy--anarchy. Those 12 million undocumented immigrants are going to be in this country one way or another. We can't deport them. If we have a registration procedure, there is a chance that we will identify undocumented immigrants who have criminal records who ought to be deported. It is possible to deport a small number, but certainly not all 12 million. The new program will have detention space for 27,500 people, but we can't begin to detain 12 million people, to litigate the deportation process. It cannot be done. But that is not stopping those on the right from calling it amnesty. Those on the left think it is not sufficiently compassionate and object to the provisions on the touchback and think that there is not sufficient emphasis on family unification. If I had my druthers, many of those provisions would not be in the bill. But every time we find a point which is objected to, that point doubtless is in the bill in order to get two other considerations that somebody would like. It is an accommodation. The old saying, you never want to see legislation or sausage made doesn't apply here because what we have had to deal with wouldn't even qualify for sausage. It would be so unpalatable really. But what we are really facing here is a broken system. We have anarchy. We have borders which are porous. This bill will fix that with fencing, with barriers, with 6,000 additional Border Patrol to the 12,000 there now, and we will eliminate the magnet for jobs for illegal immigrants because now we have a way to identify who is legal and who is not legal. So we are in a position to impose tough sanctions on employers who hire those who are illegal. We have the need for a workforce for restaurants, for hotels, for landscapers, for farms. The Chamber of Commerce doesn't like the bill because it doesn't provide a sufficient workforce. We have tried to calculate a point system. We have to produce a lot of green cards for the undocumented immigrants, and we have tried to provide a point system which will give due regard for the low-skilled workers for the workforce and due regard for the high-skilled workers so we can be competitive. We have also given consideration to family ties. So we have done the best that could be done under these circumstances. If anybody has a better idea, we are open to suggestions. At least we should be able to proceed to have a debate and to proceed to the consideration of the bill. If people have amendments, the Senate will work its will. We have a fragile coalition, however, it ought to be noted. The coalition is fragile. If the basic tenets of the proposed legislation are not fulfilled, some will withdraw their support. At a bare minimum, after what has been done in a very forceful, good-faith effort by Democrats and Republicans working very hard, very sincerely, in good faith to come up with a bill, we have one pending. At a minimum, it ought to be considered. Whether it will be passed remains to be seen, but we have drawn from all segments of the political spectrum, and the consideration of this legislation ought to proceed. I urge my colleagues to vote cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am advised Senator McConnell, our leader, is on his way to the floor, so he will be arriving shortly and we will use the balance of our time. Until he arrives, would either Senator on our side of the aisle care to make a statement? Well, if no one else will, I will use the time.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct, this is a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. This will enable the Senate to take up the bill. Again, I emphasize the very laborious efforts of more than a dozen Senators, meeting many hours, structuring what has occurred. It is easy for anyone to pick out a provision of this bill he or she would not like, but for every provision that is in the bill which the Senator might object to, that was probably placed there in consideration for other provisions in the bill which that Senator might agree to. There are many tradeoffs in coming to the conclusions which we have, so that when we proceed to the consideration of the bill, obviously any Senator may offer any amendment he or she chooses, but I would again comment that the coalition which has brought this bill to the floor is a very fragile coalition. If there are any changes on the fundamental so- called ``grand bargain,'' a term originated by Senator Lindsey Graham, we are going to run the risk of losing Senators. The issues are enormous. This is an enormous issue facing the country. No domestic issue is of greater importance than this one, and we ought to do our utmost to find an answer to it because today, on immigration, we have anarchy. There are people complaining about amnesty, but the 12 million will be here no matter what we do. When we take a look at the specifics, it is not amnesty. There are fines to be paid, there are taxes to be paid, there is English to be learned, there is hard work to be done, and undocumented immigrants are going to have to earn their way to citizenship. They start at the end of the line with a minimum of 8 years and perhaps as long as 13 years. Madam President, I am told Senator McConnell is within sight. How much time remains, Madam President?

Mr. SPECTER. Maybe we will head him off at the pass and tell him not to come. Senator McConnell is here, and he has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, according to the timekeeper. He may have some leadership time, who knows.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 2007, legislation providing a private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by the illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. markets. These unfair, and illegal, trade practices steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies, and economic growth from our economy. Dumping occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States at a price that is below that producer's sales price in its home market, or at a price that is lower than its cost of production. Subsidizing occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a good. Under current law, the International Trade Commission, ITC, and the Department of Commerce conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and 5-year reviews under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from dumped and subsidized imports. If Commerce finds that an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that the petitioning U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset the dumping or subsidies. However, since current administrative remedies are not consistently and effectively enforced, I am introducing private right of action legislation to enforce the law. My legislation allows petitioners to choose between the ITC and their local U.S. district court for the injury determination phase of their investigation. Doing so gives our injured domestic producers the opportunity to display their vigor as private plaintiffs in seeking enforcement of our trade laws. If injury is found, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would then assess duties on future importation of the article in question. The legal standard for determining dumping margins which is established by the Commerce Department would remain unchanged. I believe that introduction of this legislation will have an important deterrent effect on the practices of China and our other trading partners. Aggressive policy measures such as this legislation are necessary to prevent China, in particular, from causing a major crisis in the near future for our domestic steel industry. China has a well-documented history of engaging in unfair trade practices, as evidenced by the 61 antidumping orders in place with respect to various products as of October 23, 2006. The statistics on China's steel output are staggering. In 2005, China made more steel than the next four largest producers combined and data show that China continues to become more export-oriented. Through the first 10 months of 2006, China's steel tonnage exports to the U.S. market more than doubled over 2005. In total, Chinese steel output grew 26 percent or more than 71 million metric tons in 2005. The explosive growth of Chinese steel over the past decade would not have been possible without the support of the Chinese Government. This legislation is similar to legislation which I have introduced as far back as 1982 where I originally sought injunctive relief. Since its last introduction in the 106th Congress, several relevant statutes have been challenged at the World Trade Organization, WTO, prompting further modification to its current form. In each case, the United States has taken action to comply and avoid retaliatory actions by protesting WTO member countries. The United States took action in December 2004 to comply with WTO rulings on the Antidumping Act of 1916, which provided a private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping, by prospectively repealing the act. Also, the United States took action in February 2006 to comply with WTO rulings on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, CDSOA, which required the distribution of collected antidumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested parties in the underlying trade proceedings. In both cases, the WTO panel found that U.S. law allowed an impermissible specific action against dumping and subsidization. The legislation I introduce today adapts to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury in accordance with our international obligations. We have too long sacrificed American industry and American jobs because the executive branch, whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, has made concessions for foreign policy and defense interests. For many years, foreign policy and defense policy have superseded basic fairness on trade policy. I received a comprehensive education on this subject back in 1984 when there was a favorable ruling by the ITC for the American steel industry, but it was subject to review by the President. At that time my colleague Senator Heinz and I visited every one of the Cabinet officers in an effort to get support to see to it that the International Trade Commission ruling in favor of the American steel industry was upheld. Then-Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige was favorable, and International Trade Representative Bill Brock was favorable. We received a favorable hearing in all quarters until we spoke with then-Secretary of State Shultz and then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger who were absolutely opposed to the ITC ruling. President Reagan decided to overrule the ITC, and U.S. trade policy and workers again took second place to foreign policy concerns. I was reminded of this reality again in 2005 when I testified on behalf of the domestic pipe and tube industry in a section 421 safeguard case against China. This safeguard provision was inserted as a protective measure when unique and permanent trade status was granted to China, a measure which I opposed. It seemed to me that based upon the record that China had, that normal relations could not exist because they have a record of not observing the law. With these concerns in mind, Congress inserted the section 421 safeguard provision. The ITC agreed with the overwhelming evidence supporting the claim that a surge of imports from China were creating a market disruption. However, President Bush decided not to uphold the ITC's ruling. Since that time, jobs in my state have been lost. The Section 421 provision was included to provide protection for our domestic manufacturing base. Yet, none of the five petitions previously filed had been granted either. It is difficult to understand how safeguards for situations where China's conduct is excessive and unfair could be ignored, especially after giving special consideration by way of trade. While it is my hope that the administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would take a more objective look at trade remedies for our injured domestic manufacturers, I introduce this legislation today to provide a valuable tool for domestic industry. Strict enforcement of our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers have a fair shot at competing with foreign steel. In the current environment, I believe that it is necessary for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into Federal court and seek reliable enforcement of America's trade laws, which are currently not being enforced adequately. I ask my colleagues to join me now in supporting this legislation. I believe in free trade. But the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. Where you have dumping or subsidization, it is the antithesis of free trade. The significant advances made by our manufacturers are insufficient to compete in the face of illegal trade practices such as dumping and subsidies. Our steel industry is made up of some of the most innovative, skilled, and efficient producers in the world. Our industry can compete if the playing field is level, but if foreign exporters are not held accountable, and can freely undercut American producers with dumped goods and government subsidies, the future of our steel industry will be at risk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 2007, legislation providing a private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by the illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. markets. These unfair, and illegal, trade practices steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies, and economic growth from our economy. Dumping occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States at a price that is below that producer's sales price in its home market, or at a price that is lower than its cost of production. Subsidizing occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a good. Under current law, the International Trade Commission, ITC, and the Department of Commerce conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and 5-year reviews under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from dumped and subsidized imports. If Commerce finds that an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that the petitioning U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset the dumping or subsidies. However, since current administrative remedies are not consistently and effectively enforced, I am introducing private right of action legislation to enforce the law. My legislation allows petitioners to choose between the ITC and their local U.S. district court for the injury determination phase of their investigation. Doing so gives our injured domestic producers the opportunity to display their vigor as private plaintiffs in seeking enforcement of our trade laws. If injury is found, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would then assess duties on future importation of the article in question. The legal standard for determining dumping margins which is established by the Commerce Department would remain unchanged. I believe that introduction of this legislation will have an important deterrent effect on the practices of China and our other trading partners. Aggressive policy measures such as this legislation are necessary to prevent China, in particular, from causing a major crisis in the near future for our domestic steel industry. China has a well-documented history of engaging in unfair trade practices, as evidenced by the 61 antidumping orders in place with respect to various products as of October 23, 2006. The statistics on China's steel output are staggering. In 2005, China made more steel than the next four largest producers combined and data show that China continues to become more export-oriented. Through the first 10 months of 2006, China's steel tonnage exports to the U.S. market more than doubled over 2005. In total, Chinese steel output grew 26 percent or more than 71 million metric tons in 2005. The explosive growth of Chinese steel over the past decade would not have been possible without the support of the Chinese Government. This legislation is similar to legislation which I have introduced as far back as 1982 where I originally sought injunctive relief. Since its last introduction in the 106th Congress, several relevant statutes have been challenged at the World Trade Organization, WTO, prompting further modification to its current form. In each case, the United States has taken action to comply and avoid retaliatory actions by protesting WTO member countries. The United States took action in December 2004 to comply with WTO rulings on the Antidumping Act of 1916, which provided a private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping, by prospectively repealing the act. Also, the United States took action in February 2006 to comply with WTO rulings on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, CDSOA, which required the distribution of collected antidumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested parties in the underlying trade proceedings. In both cases, the WTO panel found that U.S. law allowed an impermissible specific action against dumping and subsidization. The legislation I introduce today adapts to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury in accordance with our international obligations. We have too long sacrificed American industry and American jobs because the executive branch, whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, has made concessions for foreign policy and defense interests. For many years, foreign policy and defense policy have superseded basic fairness on trade policy. I received a comprehensive education on this subject back in 1984 when there was a favorable ruling by the ITC for the American steel industry, but it was subject to review by the President. At that time my colleague Senator Heinz and I visited every one of the Cabinet officers in an effort to get support to see to it that the International Trade Commission ruling in favor of the American steel industry was upheld. Then-Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige was favorable, and International Trade Representative Bill Brock was favorable. We received a favorable hearing in all quarters until we spoke with then-Secretary of State Shultz and then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger who were absolutely opposed to the ITC ruling. President Reagan decided to overrule the ITC, and U.S. trade policy and workers again took second place to foreign policy concerns. I was reminded of this reality again in 2005 when I testified on behalf of the domestic pipe and tube industry in a section 421 safeguard case against China. This safeguard provision was inserted as a protective measure when unique and permanent trade status was granted to China, a measure which I opposed. It seemed to me that based upon the record that China had, that normal relations could not exist because they have a record of not observing the law. With these concerns in mind, Congress inserted the section 421 safeguard provision. The ITC agreed with the overwhelming evidence supporting the claim that a surge of imports from China were creating a market disruption. However, President Bush decided not to uphold the ITC's ruling. Since that time, jobs in my state have been lost. The Section 421 provision was included to provide protection for our domestic manufacturing base. Yet, none of the five petitions previously filed had been granted either. It is difficult to understand how safeguards for situations where China's conduct is excessive and unfair could be ignored, especially after giving special consideration by way of trade. While it is my hope that the administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would take a more objective look at trade remedies for our injured domestic manufacturers, I introduce this legislation today to provide a valuable tool for domestic industry. Strict enforcement of our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers have a fair shot at competing with foreign steel. In the current environment, I believe that it is necessary for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into Federal court and seek reliable enforcement of America's trade laws, which are currently not being enforced adequately. I ask my colleagues to join me now in supporting this legislation. I believe in free trade. But the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. Where you have dumping or subsidization, it is the antithesis of free trade. The significant advances made by our manufacturers are insufficient to compete in the face of illegal trade practices such as dumping and subsidies. Our steel industry is made up of some of the most innovative, skilled, and efficient producers in the world. Our industry can compete if the playing field is level, but if foreign exporters are not held accountable, and can freely undercut American producers with dumped goods and government subsidies, the future of our steel industry will be at risk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the pending efforts to structure a comprehensive immigration reform bill. There are many questions which are being asked today in the corridors by members of the media as to what is happening on the efforts to structure a bill to come before the Senate next week, where a cloture vote is scheduled for Monday afternoon to proceed. The efforts to structure legislation have been in process now for 3 months. There have been approximately 30 meetings held for durations customarily of 2 hours or longer, customarily attended by 8, 10, or 12 Senators. It is unusual to have a dozen Senators sit still in a room for 2 hours, but that has happened repeatedly as we have struggled through the very complex issues while trying for comprehensive immigration reform. We have bypassed the Judiciary Committee in this effort. Perhaps it was a mistake. In the 109th Congress, we laboriously worked through and produced a bill which came to the Senate floor and which was ultimately passed. There is a great deal to be said for regular order, where we have a text, amendments are proposed, there is debate, there are votes, and we move ahead through the committee system. The decision was made early on not to utilize regular order in the traditional committee system, and it may well have been an error, as we have been struggling to come to terms with a consensus. First, there were extensive meetings with Republicans alone. Democrats met separately. Then there have been the bipartisan meetings, as we have struggled to come to terms. The meetings have virtually gone round the clock. The staff has literally worked round the clock, the past weekend, both Saturday and Sunday, and the previous weekend. The administration has been dedicated; the President has been personally involved in the discussions. A group of us met with the President yesterday. Immigration was discussed. The administration has devoted the time of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce, who have been parties to these lengthy meetings, always present for the duration of the session. We think we are coming very close, but as we move through the analysis and discussion, it has been apparent that no matter what legislation is produced, it will be unsatisfactory to both ends of the political spectrum. The bill has already been criticized for being too lenient on undocumented immigrants and providing amnesty at one end of the political spectrum. It has been criticized at the other end of the political spectrum for not being sufficiently humanitarian and compassionate to the immigrants. Even though we have yet to produce a bill, it has been subjected to criticism. We have found that around the country some 90 cities have been engaged in legislative efforts with either passed or rejected laws trying to deal with immigrants' landlords. In my State, the city of Hazleton is trying to deal with the issue. Recently, we had a conspiracy by six men charged with a terrorist plot to attack the soldiers at Fort Dix. Three of those who have been charged are undocumented immigrants from Yugoslavia, illegal immigrants. There has been a virtual breakdown of law and order, as we have in this country an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. We have the criticism expressed at one end of the political spectrum that there is amnesty here. That is factually wrong. Those who will be placed at the end of the citizenship line will be those who do not have criminal records. Where we can identify those with criminal records, they should be deported. You can't deport 12 million undocumented immigrants who are here illegally, but you can deport those who have criminal records. Those who will be placed at the end of the line for citizenship will be those who have paid their taxes, those who have established a good work record, those who were contributing in a constructive way to the American way of life. When objections are raised as to amnesty, the question is returned: What more can be done with these 12 million undocumented immigrants? What more hurdles can be placed to be sure we do the maximum to avoid the charge of amnesty? We are still open for suggestions. But the consequence of not moving to a solution on this issue is that we have anarchy. We have uncontrolled borders. The legislation we are working on goes a long way. It increases the number of Border Patrol officers from 12,000 to 18,000. It will have 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing, 70 ground-based radar and camera towers, unmanned aerial vehicles, and detention space to hold some 27,500 daily on an annual basis. We have interior security provisions. We have tough employer sanctions because we are structuring a system where we can make a positive identification as to who is legal and who is illegal. This is an appropriate basis for imposing tough sanctions on employers if they hire illegal immigrants, because they are in a position to make a determination as to who is legal or who is illegal. At the other end of the political spectrum, there are objections that the program is not sufficiently humanitarian, not sufficiently compassionate, and does not sufficiently provide for family unification. If we are to handle the backlog of people who have been waiting to come into this country with the existing requirements to gain citizenship, and if we are to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants, we will have to have additional green cards. But there will have to be limitations so we do not have what is euphemistically referred to as chain immigration. We are working on a points system which we are trying to balance. It is very hard to satisfy all competing interests, to balance the demand for Ph.D.s and highly skilled people with the desire to provide opportunities for people who are not highly skilled. Certain points are being given to recognize the family, to have as many family members and as much on family reunification as we can, within a balanced system. The old adage that the devil is in the details is obviously present here. This morning one group of Senators met at a little after 9; another group of Senators met at 10:15. We are continuing the meetings as we try to come to grips and resolve these issues. The whole immigration issue is another third rail in politics. Social Security has been described as the third rail of our political system. There is no doubt that immigration is another third rail. It may supplant Social Security as the third rail of the political system because, no matter what we do here, both ends of the political spectrum will criticize us--criticize us for amnesty on one hand, criticize us on the other end of the political spectrum for not being sufficiently compassionate. Politically, it is a loser for those who are engaged in it. But we have a public duty to come to grips with this issue and to have comprehensive immigration reform. We can do that and insist on having border patrols and employer sanctions before we work through the guest worker program. It is truly, as we are structuring it, a temporary worker program, where people come to the United States for a period of time and go back to their native countries. It is a system where we are giving as much support and as much preference for families as we can on a balanced system, and as much to the high-skilled workers to balance off against the low-skilled workers. The most important thing, as I see it, is to move ahead and persevere, to try to structure a bill which is now 380 pages long--it is in text, thanks to the dedicated work of the staff--and to present it on the floor of the Senate and have the Senate work its will. Aside from the political perils, the object is to restore the rule of law and to bring these 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. The advantage to society generally is to eliminate this massive underclass, this massive number of individuals who are in the shadows, and to structure a system where they will, at the outset, have visas to stay here for as long as they like, so long as they comply with our laws and get into the citizenship line at the rear. We are looking to reestablish the rule of law and to avoid the anarchy which now characterizes our immigration system. I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I have sought recognition to comment on legislation to increase the authorized spending level for the ongoing consolidation project at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Pittsburgh Healthcare System. In May 2004, then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi announced the final results of the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services, CARES, plan, a nationwide effort to identify buildings and functions which do not merit continued operation and to create long-term budget efficiencies by getting rid of underutilized facilities while improving access to care. As a result of this process, the Highland Drive VA Medical Center, VAMC, in Pittsburgh was targeted for closure, and the facility's functions are to be consolidated within Pittsburgh's University Drive VAMC and H.J. Heinz VAMC. However, in order for this consolidation to move forward and for the VA to realize the desired savings, significant construction is necessary at the University Drive and Heinz campuses. Initial estimates placed the total cost for construction at these two facilities at $189.2 million. I introduced legislation which authorized construction at this level and have helped secure $102.5 million in appropriations towards this effort--$20 million in fiscal year 2004 and $82.5 million in fiscal year 2006. I have pushed for Congress to fully fund this project in order to avoid cost overruns and to help the VA realize long-term savings which can be used to better serve our Nation's veterans. Despite the Pittsburgh project being ahead of schedule and ready for additional funding, I was disappointed to see that the administration did not seek funding for any component of the Pittsburgh project in its fiscal year 2007 budget request. On February 28, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum and I wrote VA Secretary Jim Nicholson a letter seeking clarification on VA's future plans for funding the project. According to his May 8, 2006, response, ``Funding for construction of the mental health and research facilities at the University Drive VAMC and the ambulatory care center at the Heinz VAMC will be incorporated into VA's fiscal year 2008 budget request.'' The response also stated, ``. . . closure of the Highland Drive Division will not be accomplished until all construction is completed.'' I will ask that this letter be printed in the Record. However, I was disappointed to learn that the VA's fiscal year 2008 Budget request indicates that the estimated total cost to complete these projects has risen dramatically to $248 million. Further, the VA has only requested $40 million for these projects in fiscal year 2008, which would leave $105.5 million remaining to be appropriated to complete construction. I believe Congress should fully fund this project now in order to avoid additional cost increases in the future. This bill simply raises the authorization to the level indicated by the VA necessary to complete these construction projects. I urge my colleagues to support this technical legislation, which is intended to allow the VA to realize the savings envisioned by the 2004 CARES process on an expedited basis, making more money available for the care of our Nation's veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the February 28, 2006, letter Senator Santorum and I wrote to Secretary Nicholson and the Secretary's May 8, 2006 response be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Texas 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the subject matter at hand is the confirmation of Ms. Debra Ann Livingston for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and I urge my colleagues to confirm her. She has an excellent, outstanding academic and professional record. She was a superb graduate of Princeton, magna cum laude, 1980, Phi Beta Kappa; a graduate of the Harvard Law School in 1984, again, magna cum laude. She was editor on the Harvard Law Review, a law clerk to Judge Lumbard of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She practiced law with the prestigious firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison. She was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. She was a commissioner for the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board for some years, 1994 to 2003, and has been on the Columbia Law School faculty since 1994 as an associate professor, a professor in the year 2000, and vice dean from 2005 to 2006. She has been rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. I believe she is an extraordinary prospect to go to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There has been conversation, discussion, about the confirmation process. I commend the distinguished chairman for what he has done to date. We work together very closely. In the 109th Congress, he was ranking member. I liked it better when he was ranking member and I was chairman, but we have had bipartisan teamwork. The record for confirmations of circuit judges in the last 2 years of a Presidential term, when the control of the Senate is in the opposite party, has been in the 15 to 17 range. I am hopeful, perhaps even optimistic, that we can get there this year. A good bit remains to be done by the administration in submitting nominations. We have some 8 vacancies on the court of appeals which do not have nominations from the White House. Toward that end, there has been a leadership meeting with the White House counsel. We have tried to structure a plan which would enable us to go forward to confirm more circuit judges and to fill the vacancies of district court judges. Many of these courts are in the category of judicial emergencies. As a practicing lawyer for many years, I can attest firsthand to the importance of having judges on the bench so that litigants can have a speedy disposition of their trials. There is an adage: Justice delayed is justice denied. I think that is very true. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a prepared statement be printed in the Congressional Record following my extemporaneous remarks and that the specific text of my introduction be printed in the Record. Sometimes comments are made extemporaneous and then the written statement appears in the Record. If anybody reads the Congressional Record, they must wonder why there is so much repetition, so I would like to have an explanation included.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now intend to take some of the time allocated for the judicial issue to talk very briefly about the immigration question which is front and center in the Congress today. It is second only to the concerns about the Iraq war and the current funding impasse which we have in the constitutional confrontation between the Congress and the President, and the sustaining of a veto and our efforts to try to work that out. I believe there is a universal agreement that the immigration situation in the United States today is an unmitigated disaster. Strong language, but not strong enough for what is going on with immigration. We have a porous border and undocumented immigrants are coming into the United States. They pose a security risk. Terrorists are free to wander across our borders and come into our country and pose potentially grave threats to our national security. We find a significant number of incidents of crime among undocumented immigrants. Crime does not have a sole source, but it is a problem. We definitely need to get a handle on immigration. We worked very hard in the 109th Congress in the Senate. I give my colleagues in the House of Representatives credit for working very hard too. We produced a bill out of the Judiciary Committee. It was reported to the floor, and it passed the Senate. It was comprehensive reform, which is what was called for by the President, a bill which would deal with the 11 million undocumented immigrants, would provide for a Guest Worker Program, and would, as a preliminary to secure our borders, provide for employer sanctions if employers hired illegal immigrants. The House of Representatives chose a different course to provide only for border security, and it was embarrassing, in my judgment, that we were unable to have a conference and pass an immigration bill last year with both Houses--the Senate and House of Representatives--controlled by the Republicans and President Bush, a Republican in the White House. But we find ourselves this year with the unmitigated disaster of immigration, worse now than ever. There have been major efforts to try to find consensus legislation to present to the Senate for consideration. The first meeting was held on February 13 of this year, and the meetings have been held continuously right up to the present time, almost 3 laborious months. These were not abbreviated meetings. These meetings were held every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 4 to 6 o'clock. They were attended by an average of 8 to 10 to 12 Senators. They were attended also by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security, signifying the President's deep concern and deep interest in the issue. They started off with Republicans meeting separately, and then we moved into bipartisan meetings. Last week, illustratively, we had 12 Senators meeting off the Senate floor for 2\1/2\ hours. It is pretty hard to keep 12 Senators in one room for 2\1/2\ hours, but we did. We have come to what has been categorized as a ``grand bargain.'' That is a term one of our most active participants, Senator Lindsey Graham, gave to it because we had the overall structure of an immigration bill. We did not have all the aspects of it worked out, but we were proceeding to provide for real border security--border security which would increase the number of border guards from 12,000 to 18,000 and border security which would encompass a fence. We cannot have one across the entire border, but we can have a fence to secure our major metropolitan areas, illustratively San Diego and southern Arizona. We have worked laboriously to craft identification so an employer would know whether an applicant for a job was legal or illegal. When an employer has the opportunity to be certain of the legal status of those he hires, then the stage is set for tough sanctions on employers so that we can reduce the magnet to bring people to the United States for jobs when they are not legally in the United States. We have provided the mechanism for dealing with the 11 million undocumented immigrants. We have structured a program so it would not be fairly or accurately characterized as amnesty. The requirements of that program are that immigrants learn English, that the immigrants have roots in the United States, that they have held a job for a protracted period of time, that they pay a fine, and that there be a so-called touchback provision. It is still not decided as to the issue of back taxes, but that is a consideration which is on the table. We have provided for a Guest Worker Program which is what it says; that is, people come to the United States for the purpose of filling jobs and then will return to their native homes. We provided that if there are people living in the United States legally, citizens or legal immigrants, they would have the first opportunity at these jobs. We have held some 23 meetings over the course of the past 3 months. So I was a little surprised to see the statement by the majority leader at a press conference yesterday. Perhaps it was said partially in jest, but Senator Reid pointed out that there had been notice for some 2 months that the immigration bill would be taken up in the last 2 weeks before the Memorial Day recess. Then he said: And anyone who thinks that 2 months is not enough time to get ready should get another occupation. Maybe he said it in humor, but certainly I would fit into that category of looking for another occupation. The distinguished chairman of the committee has elected to have the matter go through the negotiating process which I have just described, so he doesn't have to seek another occupation. But there are many people on both sides of the aisle, under the Reid dictum, who now must seek another occupation. I think it is a fair representation to say we have worked tenaciously. The problem we face now is that the so-called stakeholders all want more than can be divided from what is available. There are stakeholders who want more green cards and who want the advantages of family admission on a widespread basis, and if it were left up to me alone I would be in favor of the broadest reach of family unification. But if we are to find the realism of enough green cards to accommodate the undocumented immigrants who are going to come through the process at the end of the line, there has to be some give somewhere. The critics of the immigration bill are descending on us from all sides before we even have an immigration bill. The Hill publication reports today of opposition from Members of the House of Representatives for Senate legislation when we don't even have legislation in existence. One Member of the House is quoted as saying: It is important that the Senate knows there will be strong bipartisan opposition to amnesty. Well, we don't even have a bill that could be accused of having included amnesty, and the outline which we are considering and contemplating is certainly not amnesty by any fair interpretation. The majority leader has said he intends to file under rule XIV today and go to the legislation on Monday. As I said yesterday, there is strong opposition to such a practice, at least on this side of the aisle. It is my hope that we will not face a contested motion to proceed. It is my hope we will not face the threat of a filibuster against the motion to proceed, which would doom immigration reform. We have encapsulated our views in a letter, following the majority leader's news conference of today, where a number of us are asking that we rethink the schedule we have. If we bring last year's Senate-passed bill to the floor, it is going to have substantial opposition. That has already been announced on both sides of the aisle. Both Democrats and Republicans who supported it last year are opposed to it. If we start there, the floor action is likely to be a free-for-all. I understand the problems of Senate scheduling, but I also understand the vicissitudes, problems, and pitfalls of proceeding where you don't have the structure of a bill which can be reasonably and realistically debated, with amendments, and then decided upon. We don't even have 2 weeks. We have to act on the supplemental before the Memorial Day recess if we are to provide the troops with the funding they need. So it is my hope the current process can be allowed to continue. There has been a massive good-faith effort by Republicans and Democrats meeting for very protracted periods of time to come to agreement on a bill and to reduce it to written form. I will concede that there has been a lot of wheel spinning in the process which we have undertaken. Perhaps it was an error to abandon the traditional committee process. But that is where we are, and we need more time to flesh out the grand compromise, the grand bargain which we have structured so far. If we are not able to legislate, we are not going to be able to provide for people who are interested in bringing 11 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, which is the main benefit that comes from those who want to proceed in the traditional American way to welcome the immigrants under a systemized plan. If we don't have comprehensive reform, we are not going to provide the border controls and the employer sanctions to stop illegal immigration. It may be this is our last best chance. I would urge all sides to take a deep breath and to rethink positions on all sides and try to find a rational, bipartisan way to proceed. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. SPECTER. Fifty-eight minutes remaining.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, do I understand the Senator from Vermont, the distinguished chairman, is proposing a grand bargain?