Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, last week and up to our vote yesterday has been, I think, a very productive week for the Senate. We had 17 rollcall votes: 11 by Republicans, 6 by Democrats. We had 8 voice votes evenly divided: 4 by Democrats, and 4 by Republicans. We moved through some very contentious issues. I think the debate was of a high caliber. I thank the Democratic leader, who is on the floor of the Senate, for his cooperation, and I thank all Senators for their cooperation and I am looking forward to similar activity. I think we are poised to complete action on this bill this week as contemplated. We have maintained a delicate perhaps even tenuous coalition in support of the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee as we have worked through the underlying contentious issue as to how to handle 11 million undocumented immigrants with a view not to creating a fugitive class of Americans, remembering our roots as a nation, that we are a nation of immigrants, and recognizing the contribution which the undocumented immigrants, although here illegally, the contribution which they make to our economy. We have faced a significant resistance to the bill on the ground that it constitutes amnesty. As I have contended before, it is not amnesty. We can't repeat that too often to remind people that amnesty is when you forgive transgression or forgive a wrong or forgive a crime. The undocumented immigrants will have to pay a fine. They will have to pay back taxes. They will have to go through criminal background checks. They will have to learn English. They will have to hold a job for a protracted period of time. And the reality is that they will earn their citizenship. We have worked through some difficult amendments. Some could have gone either way without destroying the delicate coalition, and others would have perhaps been killer amendments which would have fractured the bill, which has not happened. For those who are opposed to the bill or want to limit immigrants, the Bingaman amendment reduced the number of future guest workers from 350,000 to 200,000. We had a very spirited and contentious debate on an amendment by Senators Cornyn and Kyl which would have precluded H-2C guest workers to self-petition. Then Senator Kennedy came back with a modification which opened up self-petitions which, in my view, is indispensable if we are not to put the immigrants at the mercy of the employer and provide the background for unfair treatment by employers to hang the sword of Damocles over the heads of the undocumented immigrants. We had a very spirited debate on what to do about English, whether it is the national language or the common and unifying language or how to categorize it. In my view, there was not a great deal of difference between the amendments offered by Senator Inhofe and Senator Salazar. We do know that we are looking for English to be a unifying factor. There is in the law today a series of procedures where other languages are printed for balance in a variety of contexts, but I think ultimately we will work that through on a satisfactory basis. There was an amendment by Senator Kyl to strike the provisions that the green card by H-2C workers would be a path to citizenship. That was a very important amendment not to adopt but to keep that path open consistent with the remainder of the bill. The amendment to allow undocumented immigrants to receive credit for Social Security even though those payments were made during the time of illegal status, I think, was decided properly, although a close vote, 50 to 49. So that survived. Yesterday, we rejected the amendment offered by Senator Chambliss on a very complicated matter as to how we deal with the prevailing wage or adverse effect, and I think we are moving forward. The amendment by the distinguished Senator from California is now on the floor. There is a great deal to recommend in favor of it, in a sense, because it would open up more generously the path to citizenship. But I believe if it were to be adopted it would fracture the very tenuous and delicate coalition which we have on this bill. I compliment the Senator from California for her work on this bill. She has been a major contributor in the Judiciary Committee generally, and she brought forward the agriculture provisions which have been adopted. She is an effective fighter and, as always, the presenter of important and constructive ideas. I am constrained to oppose the amendment because I think if we were to allow everybody who has been in this country since January 1, we will destroy the coalition, and we have made a distinction for those here longer than 5 years from those here 2 to 5 years on a principle basis--that those who are here longer and who have roots ought to be accorded greater consideration. We have drawn a line on January 7, 2004, because that was the date the President made a speech on immigration and people who came to the United States in illegal status after that date were on notice, you might say, maybe constructive notice, if they didn't know about it exactly, but they were on notice that they would not be accorded the same status as those who have been here earlier. We have used that as a cutoff date. My view is that we are working on legislation which is of great importance to our country. We face a real test as to whether we will retain our principle of a welcoming nation to immigrants who earned their status to become citizens. I think we have worked through the Judiciary Committee where we had a very difficult markup, and one marathon session to meet the timetable established by the majority leader. The bill has been vigorously debated on both sides. I think there has been some concession of significance from the votes to those who are opposed to having an expansive view of guest workers and an expansive view according to immigrant status to move toward citizenship. We have a great deal more work to do. I am confident, or optimistic or perhaps even hopeful that we will pass this bill in the Senate, and then we will look forward to the conference with the House of Representatives which has evidenced a very different view. But we have worked through with the House, with Chairman Sensenbrenner, difficult issues on the PATRIOT Act and other matters, and our bicameral system has worked for America. We will move ahead to forge legislation which is principled but recognizing that there are different points of view, and accommodating as many views as we can. Where there is a basic disagreement, we vote to express the will of the body. I have spoken a little longer than usual, but I wanted to summarize where we are on the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is with reluctance that I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from California because if this amendment were to be adopted, I believe the very delicate and fragile coalition we have for this bill would fail. We are going to be looking for a cloture vote tomorrow, and if we were to go back to before the tenuous agreement that has been worked out to date with the three subdivisions--those here 5 years or more, those here 2 to 5 years, and those here less than 2 years--I think our efforts at cloture would fail and the prospects for failure of the bill would be very high. We have structured the bill on a matter of principle, that those who are here the longest have the most roots and deserve the most consideration. The top tier was those who have been here 5 years or more. Selecting the date of January 7, 2004, as a cutoff date was done because that was the date of the President's speech on immigration reform. And anybody who came to the United States was on notice that they would be treated differently. Under ideal circumstances, if we didn't have a tenuous coalition and we didn't have a conference prospectively with the House, I would be very sympathetic and inclined to support what the Senator from California has done. The reality is that it is going to be very difficult to find people who are here and not turn them into a fugitive class. The theory is that those people will not be able to find jobs and that they will, therefore, return. But this legislation is on the edge of the ledge as it is. To keep the coalition intact--and I think that was the thrust of what Senator Kennedy had to say, if I understood him, and I think others in the coalition are of the same mind--it is with reluctance that I oppose what the Senator from California has said. As a nation of immigrants, it would be nice to include everybody on the path to citizenship, but we face a lot of opposition, realistically, on the charge of amnesty, which I have dealt with on the floor. The bill is not amnesty; it is earned citizenship. How much time do I have?

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Death of Senator Lloyd Bentsen

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

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be given 10 minutes to speak on the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following first-degree amendments be in order: First, Senator Leahy on No. 4117, with 20 minutes equally divided; Senator Grassley on title III, with 20 minutes for Senator Cornyn, 5 minutes for Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes for Senator Obama, 5 minutes for Senator Kyl, and 10 minutes for myself; Senator Lieberman, No. 4036, with the time agreement to be determined; Senator Durbin on a humanitarian waiver amendment, with time to be determined; Senator Kennedy, No. 4106, with the time agreement to be decided. I further ask, following those amendments, the next first-degree amendments be in order: McConnell, 4085; Gregg, 4114; Hutchison, 4101; Burns, 4124; Chambliss, 4084; Cornyn, 4097; Sessions, 4108; Kyl, 4134. Provided further that it be in order to have first-degree amendments offered by the Democratic leader or his designee between each of the preceding Republican amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the bill and if any of the above listed amendments have not been offered prior to the expiration of time under rule XXII, it be in order to call that amendment prior to third reading of the bill. I further ask consent that it be in order any time during the consideration of these amendments to consider a managers' amendment which has been cleared by both managers and notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII. I think I specified on Senator Leahy's amendment 4117 that the 20 minutes equally divided would be followed by a tabling motion.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I always listen with great care to anything the very distinguished Senator from Vermont has to say, but in order to get consent to this unanimous consent agreement, it was found to be necessary to insert the language, which I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that last comment come out of Senator Leahy's time?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is the third version of this amendment that has been circulated on this bill. It may well be that an earlier version of this basic idea would merit support from Senators, but in its present form, it is not worthy of support because it redefines what is material support. What constitutes material support is a complex issue. Before the Senate passes on it, there ought to be an analysis and hearings. The Judiciary Committee has had a whole series of hearings but none on this subject. The amendment further narrows the definition of what constitutes a terrorist organization. There, again, it is a complicated subject. It ought to be analyzed and considered at a hearing so that Senators have a record basis for making a determination as to whether it ought to be adopted. These are hardly the kinds of complex issues which can be decided without a record, without a hearing, and without analysis. The Senator from Arizona has cited the Taliban, but there are many other citations that could be given. Kurdish terrorists in Turkey might be admitted under this amendment because they pose no threat to the United States of America. Basque terrorists in Spain might be admitted because they pose no threat to the United States of America. Hamas, which poses a deadly threat to Israel, might be admitted to the United States because they arguably pose no threat on the face of it to our national security. So we have an amendment which is very broad and changes really fundamental definitions, in redefining material support. In the collateral field of what is a material witness, the definition takes enormous analysis, which I have seen in the criminal law. And to narrow the definition of what is a terrorist organization, so that organizations which would be considered terrorist without this amendment but not terrorist under this amendment, is just not the sort of thing that ought to be done by the U.S. Senate without a full hearing, without analysis and a record basis for making such a broad, important distinction. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time do I have?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Leahy on one important point. That is, he does not intend to offer an amendment to let terrorists into the United States. But his amendment does. Senator Leahy's intentions are pure because I know Senator Leahy. But the most revealing part about Senator Leahy's last rebuttal was that he didn't deny my basic contention that it redefines what is material support, what constitutes material support, or the complexity of that issue. Senator Leahy does not deny that it narrows the definition of what constitutes a terrorist organization, nor does he deny that on the face of his language, Kurdish terrorists who are terrorizing Turkey might come into the United States or Basque terrorists who are terrorizing Spain might come into the United States or the example of Hamas terrorizing Israel might come into the United States. The fact is that the existing law is adequate to keep out such individuals, and supporters of this amendment have not met the burden of showing that the law should be changed in the way they have proposed. Secretary Rice recently exercised the waiver to pave the way for the resettlement of 9,300 ethnic Karen refugees housed in a camp in Thailand who backed the Karen National Union. So we have, under existing law, methods for recognizing that some individuals may be acting under duress, that they may not be terrorists. That is the kind of an analysis which can best be made by the Secretary of State, as opposed to the very different concept of litigating such matters. And when you are dealing on the floor of the Senate with redefining material support, redefining what is a terrorist organization, that simply is not the way to legislate. I have great respect for Senator Leahy. He and I have worked together to craft this immigration reform bill. He and I have structured the hearing list and could have had a hearing on this, had it been deemed important and had it been deemed necessary to correct a major problem, but it wasn't because existing law is satisfactory to address the problem of individuals providing material support under duress. It is difficult for me to oppose Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the committee, with whom I have worked so closely. But I do not want to sow confusion in this very important matter on the floor of the Senate by redefining very basic concepts in a few minutes in a way which is not intelligible. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 1 minute to Senator Kyl.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my capacity as manager of the bill, it is my intention to move next to the Grassley amendment under title III. We will stack votes later because we have a whole series of amendments. I think our time can be most effectively used. So at this time I move to table the Leahy amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. I withdraw the motion to table.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are looking for stacked votes at 5:30, as mentioned during the discussion with Senator Leahy. If we cannot get another debate completed on another amendment before 5:30, we will only have the two votes. But if it is possible to have Senator Lieberman come to the floor or Senator Durbin, it would be appreciated by the managers to try to move the bill along. We now have 5 minutes for Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes for Senator Obama, and 5 minutes for Senator Kyl. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have just conferred with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, and we are going to yield all time back on--we had time listed, as I announced a little while ago, for 5 minutes for Senator Obama and 5 minutes for Senator Kyl, but Senator Obama has spoken and Senator Kyl spoke on the preceding amendment. Let's yield all time back.

Mr. SPECTER. And now we will proceed to Senator Kennedy's amendment No. 4106. I ask unanimous consent that we consider the Kennedy amendment under a 30-minute time limit, equally divided, with no second-degree amendments.

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

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

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