Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in the order in which the amendments were offered, provided further that following the disposition of amendments, the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on the managers' amendment. I also ask that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes and that all votes after the first be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have a unanimous-consent agreement limiting the remaining number of amendments, with time agreements worked out. We would appreciate it if the Senators in sequence would be ready to go when the next amendment comes up. We anticipate a long session today. There will be other votes following completion of the immigration bill, including a vote on cloture on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh, U.S. circuit judge for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. We are now ready to proceed with the Cornyn amendment. I should announce further that it is our intention to stack the votes at the conclusion of the debate on remaining amendments.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had announced earlier that in the management of the bill we would stack the five votes we have remaining on the immigration bill. I think that is the most efficient way to handle the matter because we know when we have a 15-minute vote, and 5 minutes more, they frequently extend far beyond that time, not wanting to cut off Senators. We had two Senators out last night. We went to about close to 30 minutes, and I did not want to call for regular order. Evenings are a little more difficult. But it is very difficult to cut off Senators when the Senator is on the way. The Senator can be on the way for a very long period of time. But I cannot control the stacking of votes because it requires unanimous consent to set aside the Cornyn amendment before going to the next amendment. Anybody can object. So we are going to have a vote after the Cornyn amendment. We will then try to see if we cannot get consent to stack the remainder of the votes. But the earlier announcement that the votes would be stacked will not take place because objections have been raised to that procedure. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I, before the Senator from Massachusetts continues, ask that the proponent of the next amendment come to the--well, he will be in the vote, so I withdraw that suggestion. We will have just one vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, so that our colleagues will know the schedule, Senator Byrd has asked to speak to the body following this vote on his 69th wedding anniversary. He will be recognized for that purpose. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We will see if we can find a more convenient time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I regret being absent for part of this debate on the issue, but the Judiciary Committee has been meeting in a rather heated session to decide what to do about getting information from the telephone companies on the NSA program. I want to comment very briefly in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico. This amendment will substantially limit the ability of members of a family to accompany those who come into the United States and take jobs where they will be productive. I believe having family present is a very high value. This amendment, in putting a cap on, leaving no flexibility for family members to accompany the immigrant, is just basically a bad idea. We have sufficient room to accommodate the immigrants who are permitted to come in under the guest worker program, and accommodating the guest worker ought to include their family. They ought not to be separated from their family. We ought not to have a statute on this important subject which has that very undesirable family result. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Feingold amendment and debate precede the Sessions amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been advised that the objection to setting aside amendments has been withdrawn, so we will be able to stack the votes on the remainder of the amendments. While I have recognition, I would like to comment briefly in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. The standard of clear and convincing evidence, unless prohibited as a matter of law, is a very tough standard and I don't think ought to be imposed here. It is preferable to use the regular four-part standard, which includes a requirement that the petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits. This particular matter has been commented on by a number of very distinguished jurists. Judge Frank Easterbrook, appointed by President Reagan, said that the interpretation in the current bill--the interpretation that this amendment is designed to change--could require removal of an alien who was both likely to prevail in court and likely to face serious injury or death if deported. Judge Bruce Selya from the First Circuit, appointed by President Reagan, said that the very situation the current bill would create is, in his words, ``absurd'' and ``Kafkaesque.'' Judge Jerry Smith, another Reagan appointee on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, said that the situation the bill would create is ``peculiar, at best.'' I believe the interest of justice would be promoted by allowing the courts to utilize the current standards for granting stays and not imposing this extraordinary standard. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I anticipate this amendment will not require too much longer. Our final amendment in the sequence is the Ensign amendment. So I alert our colleagues to the fact that we should be starting on that amendment fairly soon. Senator Sessions has, I believe, 7 minutes left. Senator Kennedy and I will take just a few minutes in opposition to the amendment and then yield the remainder of the time back. Mr. President, it seems to me this is a fairly fundamental issue. We have the earned-income tax credit designed to provide tax relief for low-income families and individuals. And if you qualify for it, as a taxpayer, it seems to me, when you are obligated to pay the taxes and bear the burdens of the tax system, you ought to be entitled to the tax credit, and the fact that they are undocumented immigrants should not impose a penalty on them. We are dealing here with people of very limited means. We are dealing with people who ordinarily may--probably do--have large families. They are fighting rising costs of living and fighting to maintain their sustenance, and they are at the bottom end of the economic ladder. So if they are in line to get a modest earned-income tax credit, which, as the language says, they have earned, it is a tax credit that is an income tax credit they have earned. Just as they have to pay their taxes, they ought to get the benefits from the tax system. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. We yield back our time as well, so now we can go to the amendment by the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe the immigrants who are here 5 years or more ought to be treated like everybody else. It raises very similar considerations to the arguments which I raised on the amendment by Senator Sessions. Where they have overpaid in taxes, like any other taxpayer, they ought to be able to get it back. Where they have children who are entitled to the child tax credit, children born in the United States would be excluded under the Ensign amendment. They ought to be treated like anyone else. When Senator DeMint talks about resentment and fairness, I believe there would be a lot of resentment and a lot of questioning of the fairness of treating the immigrants who have been here for more than 5 years in a discriminatory fashion, not giving them back money they overpaid in taxes, or not according their children the child tax credit. I yield the Senator from Texas 5 minutes on my time.

Mr. SPECTER. I modify the unanimous consent request to that effect.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent Senator McCain be recognized for 7 minutes, the managers be recognized for 7 minutes, and the leader will speak at the conclusion on leader time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate is on the verge of passing landmark legislation. It has had a long, tortuous path. The McCain-Kennedy bill was the core proposition and went through very substantial hearings in the Judiciary Committee and a complex markup. It came to the floor at a moment when it was foundering, and we added to it Hagel-Martinez and their ideas to break a very complex logjam at that time. We have labored under the competing principles of rule of law and concern for immigrants who have come to the United States without complying with the law. On the other side, the rich tradition of the formation and development of the greatest country in the history of the world, the United States of America, made up of immigrants. Some came here illegally and some did not. But we are the melting pot, and the immigrants have contributed enormously and have made this the great country which it is today. As we approach the final moments of action in the Senate, we are aware that there are still very strident competing concerns, strident competing interests of those who continue to insist that our legislation is amnesty, contrasted with those of us who point to the facts. The definition of amnesty is forgiveness of some wrongdoing, which is not the case. There is a rigorous ladder which these undocumented immigrants have to pass through. They have to pay a fine, and that $2,000 fine in the underlying bill has now been increased to $3,250. They have to undergo a criminal background check, they have to pay back taxes, they have to learn English, they have to work for 6 years, and they go to the back of the line. It is genuinely earned citizenship by any measure. We have had a very constructive debate here. We have improved the bill. The bill has been improved not only by the bipartisan coalition in favor of it, but it has been improved by the critics. In committee we had a very rigorous debate. Objections were raised by Senator Kyl, by Senator Coburn, and by Senator Sessions. Their concerns have been taken into account in structuring the final product which we have. There has been a real balance for those who say that there ought to be border security before we consider a guest worker program or before we consider placing undocumented immigrants on the path to citizenship. We have provided very rigorous border safeguards. We have provided for enforceable employer sanctions to see to it that immigrants who do not qualify do not get jobs. There has been a reduction in the number of green cards, 325,000 to 200,000. We have made major concessions to those who have been looking for enforcement by itself. At the same time, we have structured a complex arrangement giving those here 5 years or more of the path to citizenship. We made a distinction based upon how deep their roots were here. Those who were here 5 years or more have an easier path, although they go to the back of the line. Those here 2 to 5 years have to touch back before coming back to a guest worker program and then on the path to citizenship. Those here for less than 2 years have to return to their native country and get in line if they want to come back to the United States. That cutoff was made on January 7, 2004, the date the President made a speech outlining immigration reform. So they were on notice that they would be in a different category. This is a practical approach. When we have 11 million people who are undocumented immigrants, we obviously do not want to create a fugitive class in America--an underclass. If anybody has a better idea, we have been open to it, and we are still open to it as this bill will go to conference. I am not pessimistic about the prospects of the conference. We have a bicameral legislature. We have to have agreement between both the House and the Senate. There is a genius in the American constitutional form of government in the separation of powers. No one has too much power. We have worked out differences in the past, complicated problems on the PATRIOT Act, complicated problems on other legislation where we have gone to conference with the House Judiciary Committee under the able leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner. We have had the leadership of the President on his nationwide speech at a critical moment in the progress of their bill. The President has been commended by all of those who have been in the leadership role on this bill. We look forward to the President's more intense participation. He is the leader. We have the House and Senate controlled by the Republican Party. There is an important political issue about the ability of Republicans to govern and whether we can do that. There is an election in November. Our leadership position as Republicans is on the line. I think that will weigh heavily in the conference. But most of all, I credit the bipartisan nature of what has been done. Every morning during the course of the 2 weeks of debate a group of Senators met, Democrats and Republicans, to work through the issues and to be prepared for the debate of the day. I am pleased to see the complex issues debated in the best traditions of the Senate. I look forward to a productive, constructive and successful conference with the House of Representatives, and ultimately a day when there will be a signing by the President of the United States of this important landmark legislation. I yield the floor. We are awaiting the arrival of the majority leader who should be here momentarily.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we have finally cleared away all of the underbrush on the managers' package. All I can say with the managers' package is it makes sausage look very good, but I think we are ready to proceed to a vote on a managers' package. People have asked for it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send the managers' package to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator Gregg, for offering this amendment. The concern which I have is whether it will be counterproductive, in putting such an increased burden on the undocumented immigrants, that they will not come forward. The fines and fees have been very carefully calibrated during the course of committee deliberation. On those who have been here for more than 5 years, we had assessed the fine or fee at $2,000, with $1,600 going to Border Patrol. With respect to those who were here 2 to 5 years, we have put on a fee of $1,000 less than those who were here more than 5 years because they have to return. And out of that $1,000, we have allocated $800 to border security. There are other fines, $500 for spouse and children on deferred mandatory departure and $400 on agriculture jobs adjustment status. It was the calculation of the committee, after considering the matter carefully, that that was the appropriate fine. It would always be a good idea to find some other source of revenue to help defray expenditures from the general Treasury, but what we are trying to do here is to calibrate a system where we will achieve the objective of imposing fines as much as we think the traffic will bear and still bring the undocumented immigrants out of the so-called shadows and not create a fugitive class. I intend to stick with the committee recommendation which is the committee bill. Therefore, as much as I respect and admire Senator Byrd, I am constrained, as chairman of the committee, to oppose the amendment. It is a judgment call as to what will be accomplished, a judgment call as to whether $2,000 is right or $2,500 is right or $3,000 is right. We don't want to get involved in an auction sale, obviously, but that is the position I take as manager of the bill. Next in line is the Gregg amendment. We ought to be prepared to move to that amendment at the conclusion of debate on the Byrd-Gregg amendment. I don't know how much longer the distinguished Senator from West Virginia will want to speak or whether the Senator from Massachusetts will speak. A unanimous consent request is being typed up now. We have 14 amendments to go. We are working through time agreements. We would like to have Senators on the next amendment lined up. That would be Senator Gregg. Beyond Senator Gregg, the next amendment will be Senator Landrieu's amendment. So we give notice to Senator Landrieu that she should be on deck. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Then I propose a unanimous consent request, Madam President, on the Byrd-Gregg amendment, that there be a 1-hour time agreement, with no second degrees in order, and that the 1 hour be equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. I did.