Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Disaster Prevention and Prediction Subcommittee be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on the 2006 Hurricane Forecast and At-Risk Cities.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 10 a.m. on NTSB reauthorization.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we are now ready to vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we are now prepared to vote on the final amendment in this sequence.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to move to the amendment by the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time would Senator Craig like?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you like 2 more minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes. That will be the fastest way to proceed.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to return to No. 4144, Senator Boxer's amendment. We had a brief debate, and it appeared we might be able to work it out. I believe we have. The Senator will need to modify her amendment. I ask unanimous consent she be permitted to modify her amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I wonder if I might inquire of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia if he would be willing to enter into a time agreement on the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Of course. But if we could enter into a time agreement, I would suggest 1 hour equally divided. We are trying to work through-- no one knows better than Senator Byrd, who was the distinguished majority leader for many, many years, and the President pro tempore, what is involved in trying to work through time agreements. I do not know that we will need all that time, but it would be my suggestion, if it is acceptable to you, I say to Senator Byrd and Senator Gregg, that we have a 1-hour time agreement equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request. It has been coordinated with the Democrats, and it is appropriate to propound it at this time. I ask unanimous consent that following the debate in relation to the Byrd amendment, it be temporarily set aside and the Senate proceed to the following amendments: Senator Gregg, 60 minutes equally divided; Senator Landrieu No. 4025, 20 minutes equally divided; Senator Hutchison No. 4046, 30 minutes equally divided; Senator Sessions, Budget Act point of order and a subsequent motion to waive, 1 hour for Senator Sessions, 30 minutes for Senator Kennedy, 30 minutes for myself; I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of the above mentioned times, the Senate proceed first to a vote on the pending motion to waive the Sessions budget point of order, to be followed by votes in relation to the above listed amendments in the order offered; provided further that there be no second degrees in order prior to the votes, there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate between the votes, and finally, all votes after the first vote in this sequence be limited to 10 minutes in length, with the times for voting rigidly enforced.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are about to go to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, with 20 minutes equally divided. This is an amendment which relates to adoption procedures. It has been reviewed by both Senator Kennedy and myself. We are prepared to accept it. But I understand there are some who oppose the amendment. If anybody wishes to speak in opposition, they ought to come to the floor now because we gave notice a couple of hours ago that this amendment was going to come up under the unanimous consent agreement after we concluded with the Byrd amendment. Anybody who wants to oppose the amendment should come to the floor at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I already stated, I think it is a good amendment. As I also stated, there may be some who object to it who are not here to raise their objection. I suggest that we just keep it listed on the vote order. When it comes up, unless somebody reserves the remainder of the time, and when it comes up on the vote order, unless somebody objects or wants to be heard, we will simply accept it at that time. And if somebody calls for a vote, we will go to a vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Our schedule is as soon as we conclude this we turn to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, for 30 minutes equally divided. She will finish at about 2:45. Then we would go to Senator Sessions' point of order under a time agreement of 2 hours, which would be 4:45. But my sense is that there will be some time yielded. It won't go all the way to 4:45. That is the approximate timeframe.

Mr. SPECTER. We will vote in this sequence when the votes start at 4:45, or earlier.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest that we conclude the consideration of the Landrieu amendment and now move to the Hutchison amendment. Amendment No. 4101

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time would remain, then?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to waive all applicable points of order under the Budget Act and the budget resolutions.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the effort by those raising the budget point of order is pure and simple: Another effort to defeat this bill. There have been a series of amendments, call them killer amendments, call them poison pill amendments, which are directed to defeating a comprehensive bill by those who are interested only in border security. The fact is that the comprehensive bill which we have proposed is a moneymaker. The direct spending costs over a 10-year-period are $54 billion; the legislation produces $66 billion. So there is a net surplus of $12 billion. The budget resolution is a very complex resolution relating to $5 billion in expenditures in any 10-year-period between 2016 and 2056. I am advised by the Parliamentarian that in the calculation on this budget point of order--and the Parliamentarian is listening so I am subject to corrections--that it is the expenditures which are calculated but it is not the revenues to offset those expenditures in making this arcane, esoteric, complex, convoluted procedure under the Budget Act. Over half of the fees collected from the guest worker program goes to border security. The reality is, an orderly flow of guest workers into the United States is--``vital'' is not sufficiently strong--is indispensable for the American economy. We had hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the impact of this bill on wages and economic benefit to the country. The views were unanimous that this legislation will stimulate the economy. We have an economy where a great many industries rely upon immigrants, including the agriculture field, which has been attested to repeatedly during the course of this debate regarding the need for agriculture workers. Also, the hotel industry and the construction industry rely upon immigrants. If we were to take away the 11 million undocumented immigrants, there would be a tremendous shortage of necessary labor. As a Senator from a State with 12 million people, a whole procession of constituents have talked to me about what would happen if the immigrant workers were suddenly eliminated in the United States, in my State, Pennsylvania. In this legislation we have an orderly way to handle the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in this country. Putting them on the path to citizenship is a key ingredient. Specifying that they have to work for substantial periods of time. They have to be employed, contributing to the economy, contributing to the tax base. That is in addition to passing a criminal check and paying their back taxes and the very, very substantial fees which are collected. So there is no doubt, no doubt at all, in the aggregate, the immigrants play a vital part in making our economy expand and thrive. If you take it in the macro sense, where would this country be in the year 2006 without immigrants? For one thing--and perhaps a minor matter--Arlen Specter would not be here because both of my parents were immigrants, and perhaps most of the Senators would not be here, maybe even Senator Sessions. His ancestry goes back to 1850. I know because I made a trip to the Amazon with him, and we traced the path taken by an uncle. He is quoted in today's newspaper as still being angry that Abraham Lincoln killed one of his ancestors. But immigrants produced Senator Sessions. Immigrants produced everybody in this room, and virtually everybody in the country. Now, where would we be if the immigrants had not come to make this a thriving capitalistic country? Where would we be? The same thing applies to the future. If you are going to cut off the immigrants, the 11 million who are here now and a calibrated guest worker program, it would be devastating to the economy, taking into consideration all of the ramifications. So just because there is a scintilla--that may be an overstatement: ``a scintilla''--that the budget point of order can hang on, on section 407 of the Budget Act--I do not know of any substance smaller than a scintilla or I would cite it; perhaps a molecule is smaller than a scintilla. Scintilla is a legal term, which does not amount to very much when you talk about $5 billion over a 10-year period from 2016 to 2056. We have some very serious business at hand; and that is passage over an immigration bill to protect America's borders and to see to it that America's economy is strong. It would be tragic if this bill were to fail on an arcane technicality. And I am concerned that this vote may be close. I urge my colleagues to look at the broad picture here and, most fundamentally, not to use this artifice, this tactic to defeat an important bill. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.