Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. By way of reply, I can understand the concerns of the Senator from North Dakota about the loss of American jobs. I compliment him for speaking about this subject with some frequency with some effect in the Senate. I agree totally with the Senator from North Dakota that we ought not to export American jobs. I also agree with the Senator from North Dakota that we ought to retain American jobs in America to the maximum extent that we are able to do so. The Judiciary Committee had a hearing and had four witnesses testify. Without going into their testimony in great detail--it is all a matter of record--the net conclusions were that there would not be a significant impact in the loss of American jobs. It is frequently said that the immigrants handle jobs that Americans do not want. As a generalization, that is true, but not universally true. We have had considerable suggestions and contentions by Senators from agricultural States about the indispensable nature of immigrant workers. Anecdotally, I have many from my home State come to me and tell me about the need for agricultural workers.

Mr. SPECTER. I would on his time.

Mr. SPECTER. I am not unaware of that, but it goes to the overall point of the experts who testify as to whether we would be taking away jobs American workers would want. The experts further testify that although there was some impact on the wages, there would not be a significant loss in wages. When the Senator from North Dakota talks about the costs of bringing in 10 million people, that simply is not what title IV does. The title he wishes to eliminate as to any immigrants coming into the country in the future is only open to those now in the country. Title IV provides that there be an annual cap of 325,000, with each guest worker employed for up to 3 years, renewable for an additional 3 years. Then the approach is that those individuals will return to their home country unless they can otherwise qualify to stay here. The guest workers will enjoy travel privileges in and out of the United States and portability between jobs. We allow workers to obtain green cards by self-petitioning, if they qualify, and allow students with advanced degrees in science and math to stay in the United States. Title IV exempts workers with advanced degrees in science and math from green card caps, and it increases the annual allotment of H-1B professional worker visas from 65,000 to 115,000, with a fluctuating cap. Title IV is important as part of a balanced program. If we do not provide for guest workers who can fill the needs of the American economy, then we are going to create a vacuum and a situation where illegal immigrants will come in to fill those needs. But if we calibrate the number of guest workers which can be accommodated by our economy, which are needed by our economy, then we will discourage illegal immigrants from coming in and taking jobs, finding jobs, which would otherwise be filled by the guest workers who come to this country legally. This title has been crafted very carefully by the Judiciary Committee. There is substantial support for it, as I understand it, on the other side of the aisle, even as there is some opposition on this side of the aisle. But if there are other Senators who wish to come and debate on this side of the aisle, I invite colleagues to debate and move ahead, and perhaps yield back time if that time is not to be used. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts. But before doing so, I urge other Senators to come to the floor to offer amendments. It is thought that if we focus on the guest worker provisions, we can finish them up this afternoon. Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn actually have precedence, but if they would be willing to yield to the other Senators on guest worker, I think we would finish this entire category. And perhaps we can find a way to work out Kyl-Cornyn in the interim. We will be looking for an amendment from Senator Bingaman who wants to reduce the number of guest workers. We have an amendment by Senator Obama which is on a related issue, I am told, on labor protections. And we have an amendment by Senator Feinstein on having some sunset provisions. Then it is hoped we can get agreement on Senator Kerry's amendment and be able to accept that. If we could finish this grouping, we would be well on our way. So if those Senators can come to the floor, we can work out time agreements and proceed in an expeditious manner. Meanwhile, Senator Kennedy has requested 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am going to make a few comments briefly in rebuttal. Then I understand Senator Dorgan is prepared to yield back time and so will I. The other Senators whom we had talked about, when they come to the floor, will be ready for their amendments momentarily--Senators Bingaman, Obama, and Feinstein. If they are not here, Senator Vitter can be recognized or Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn.

Mr. SPECTER. The essence is a statement that: There seems little doubt, then, that any negative effects of immigration on earnings are modest in magnitude and mostly short-term in nature. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Professor Richard Freeman, Harvard University, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. His conclusion was: The gains to native complements exceed the losses to native substitutes, so that immigration--like trade and capital flows--are a net boon for the economy. The Senator from California had made the argument that American employees are disadvantaged by cheaper costs from immigrant employees, and that is not so under the express terms of the statute. The bill, S. 2611, does protect U.S. workers and eliminates incentives for employers to hire foreign workers, unless no U.S. worker is available. The bill provides that employers must at least pay the higher of the actual wage paid to other employees with the same skill so that immigrant workers are paid the same or, the prevailing wage for that job. Employers must provide the same working conditions and benefits that are normal to similar jobs, and employers must provide insurance if State workers' compensation doesn't cover all the workers. So that under the pending legislation, an employer has the same cost to hire a foreign worker as a U.S. worker. How much time remains on my side?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Senator Kennedy. Let me get to this point that the Chairman has made, Dan, with your analysis. You gave us some projections. You talked about the limitations in terms of productivity, the numbers in the labor force, retirement issues, and then the job growth. And you talked about GDP, 14 percent and 11 percent. You talked about legal and the illegal. Maybe you could just flesh those figures out a little bit. What you appear to be saying is that if you consider the numbers of both legal and illegal, you get a certain rate of growth, and without them you get another different rate of growth. And that is what I would be interested in. Maybe we cannot parse between the legal numbers the Chairman talked about, whether that is 500,000 or we are looking at just the general range of numbers now. Could you expand on that? Mr. Siciliano. Sure. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. I think this also answers Chairman Specter's question in part, which is: What is the true net economic contribution and where does it come from and why? And so from my viewpoint, and in light of the demographic numbers, it appears that our economy is on the trend growth rate, we hope, at 3 percent or better. Now, that growth rate of GDP is reliant on many factors. One of the key factors is available workers to fill the jobs that are created. So even while at the high-skill level you have Nobel Prize winners and other people inventing companies, somebody needs to build the buildings, clean the buildings, you know, service the lavatories in which these people are operating. And this is a part of the capacity for GDP to grow. So to put a finer point on it, if you look at the fiscal economic impact, which is the Government coffers impact, it might be true that lower-skilled workers, just like all of us on average, actually, at the moment because of deficit spending, have a negative impact on the fiscal bottom line. But that should not be confused--and this would be a mistake to confuse this. That should not be confused with the economic impact. It is a little like my younger sister who recently said, ``I am earning more, but look at all the taxes I am paying. I am paying more taxes.'' I said, ``Yes, but you are earning more.'' And so we may have a modest net negative fiscal impact for all low-wage workers in the United States, not just immigrants. That is not unique to immigrants, documented or undocumented, but what we do know is it helps us achieve a higher rate of growth and national income goes up, which benefits everybody. It becomes your challenge, I think to talk about how to, you know, work that out at who shares and how at the pie level. But it is clear that this divide between available workers and the demand for workers will slow down economic growth if we do not manage it appropriately. Senator KENNEDY. Let me just get to the high skilled/low- skilled. I think most of us would like to believe that we are going to train our own people to be able to take these high- skilled jobs. And we have under our current programs training resources that are paid into the fund to try to continue to upgrade skills for Americans. But we are not able to get quite there at the present time. Other countries, industrial countries, have required training programs. They pay--what is it?--in European countries a percent and a half, other countries, so that they have required training programs, which we do not have, continuing training programs which we do not have. So how are we going to adjust? What is your sense about how we are going to--we have seen a significant--actually, we are getting the skills, but where people that are going to into these high-skilled programs, but how are we going to get Americans up to speed so that those Nobel laureates are going to be the sons of native workers rather than foreign workers? What can you comment on that? Mr. Siciliano. I think there are two issues. One, you know, the expanded H-1B program with the continued diversion of monies into special training programs is a good start, so we need the talent in the first place. We need that high-skilled talent to maintain our competitive edge, which gives us some runway into which to develop and train native talent. It cannot happen overnight. So the first question is: What do we do to make sure over the next 20 years we still get the world's absolute bet and brightest, lure them to our best universities, have them pay for that education, make them enamored of the United States, and then they stay here and then have children. Now, you divert that money and you direct it into targeted training, and that is a bigger issue, I think, to entice U.S.-born workers into the difficult and long-term training that will prepare them for a modern, very knowledge-based economy. But the start is to make sure we keep the industries here because we lure the right talent here, and then we do something over the next 20 years so that the 5-year-olds right now do end up getting the double Ph.D., electrical engineering and applied physics, and go on to win the Nobel Prize. But you are talking about the 5-years-olds, not the 25-year-olds. We need the 25-year-old to get an H-1B, have their own Government pay to go to Stanford University, get that Ph.D. there, and then work at Google, stay here. Good deal for us. Senator Feinstein. Let me mention another point. I happen to believe that the weakest part of the bills that I have supported is the guest worker program. From a California perspective, it is impossible to say to somebody you can come here for at least six years by renewing your guest worker permit, but at the end of six years you have to go home. The experience we have had is quite simply people do not go home. Therefore, it seems to me that the H-2A program, where you bring someone for a limited period of time, has a much better opportunity to work because then they do go back and forth across the border What do you believe is the optimum amount of time that an individual will come as a guest worker and then actually go home at the end of that period of time? Mr. Siciliano. Senator Feinstein, I think one thing to consider is that by limiting the amount of time that an employer may utilize a guest worker, it alters their behavior in terms of their incentives to invest even in a low-skilled guest worker. So even a low-skilled worker will require a certain amount of training and investment, and the shorter the duration of that opportunity for employment, the less investment there is, which is bad for everyone. I think one of the possible alternative views here is to recognize some of the limitations that occur if you create a temporary guest worker program and then instead try to identify those lesser-skilled individuals who, in the long run--if you created boundaries of wage and hour rules, allowable behavior on the part of businesses, and then screened up front for who you would allow to enter on that basis and create some path, assuming continuing employment, and a very high bar for behavior and civic behavior, then perhaps you can solve both problems, because I believe the evidence demonstrates and I think a lot of the arguments assume that the economy will work it out. If there are no opportunities, people will go back. Senator Feinstein. But that is difficult to do. Therefore, if you take the 10 to 12 million people that are here already that work in agriculture, construction, landscaping, housekeeping, et cetera, and provide a steady stream of employment and enable them to have a pathway to legalization, are you not really doing the best thing possible economically to see that there is economic upward mobility? Mr. Siciliano. I see. With that subset, yes, I would argue that that is the right path, and then on the other question I would defer. I am sorry that I don't have a solution. . . . Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator Kyl. Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel. One of the arguments for not being as tough in enforcing the law especially at the border is that in the years past there was a lot of circular migration especially from Mexico and Central America, people who came here, worked for a while and then went back home. It wasn't hard for them to continue that process, but once we began strong border enforcement, then they were stuck and stayed. I don't know that there is any evidence to support that or refute it, but it has been the basis for a lot of people talking about this concept of circularity, and I want to get back to that concept and also ask you this question in view of the fact that at least a couple of you are very skeptical that a temporary worker program really ends up being temporary because people don't want to go home. I mean, what I just said may to some extent refute that, but clearly there are people that probably fall into both categories. What we haven't talked about here is the differentiation between a time like today when we are at very high employment and a time when in the future we will have a recession and we will have high unemployment. And let me stipulate for a moment, even though there is a little bit of argument about mechanization, and so on, that in the lettuce fields of Yuma County, it has always been hard to get Americans to do that work. It has been traditionally work done, by the way, by people who live in Mexico and come across everyday and go back home by and large, although there are some that stay longer. In Arizona, we can't find enough people to build houses today. Under the bill that Senator Cornyn and I have, we would be issuing lots of temporary visas right now. But we have also seen many economic downturns when you can't get a job in construction, no matter how skilled an American citizen you are. In that case, under our bill we wouldn't be issuing temporary visas. We would let the ones that are here expire; we wouldn't issue any more. I am troubled by the fact that all of you seem to be so skeptical that people would return. One concept was that, well, when there is not work, they will return. But isn't it just as likely that what they will do is under-bid Americans for those same jobs? I have gone through enough political times when we were in that high employment situation where Americans were looking for work. It is not a pleasant thing. So I am concerned about a program that lets people come in under today's circumstances, but who may not have a job, or at least there won't be enough jobs for everybody in tomorrow's circumstances. Given that fact, doesn't it make sense to consider the economic realities in how many permits you issue, and especially if you are saying folks won't go home, to be very careful about the number of visas that you issue for these low-skilled workers because you have to consider tomorrow's lack of employment opportunity as well as today's full employment opportunity? I have sort of posited several different thoughts and questions inferred there. If you could just each give me your general take on what I have said. Mr. Siciliano. let me throw in one item, as well, to clarify. For all we know about business cycles, we still don't know a lot. One of the things, I think, to observe is that as we go into a down business cycle, we make macro adjustments to the cost of capital as a way of spurring the economy potentially and creating jobs and creating businesses through capital formation. It is worth thinking about--and I don't think it is a conclusive answer for you, but it is worth thinking about the fact that available labor supplies during a downturn is its own form of self-corrective mechanism. And I would fear second-guessing at a micro level the small and medium-size businesses who might be reformulating strategies to alter their response to global competition and need the liquidity that is provided by available workforce. And we do suffer through a terrible time which is short and hence has changed, but it might be akin to cost of capital. Labor is one of the critical inputs to all of economic development and we tinker with it at a micro level, we might inadvertently prevent ourselves from emerging as quickly as we might otherwise have from a recession. Senator Kyl. I appreciate that. In view of the fact that there is only one more to question, might I just offer a comment? All of that there is fine in economic theory. As I said, I have had to stand in town hall meetings with 3 or 400 Americans that don't have jobs. Senator Sessions. I am not sure wno to ask this question to, but if anybody would speak up and give me a thought on it, I would appreciate it. Is there a difference economically in the effect of a temporary or a permanent worker? Does anybody have any thought about that? Mr. Siciliano. Senator Sessions, I will address one small part so that others can comment, and that is I think we know intuitively that renters and owners treat their properties differently. Renting to own may be a compromise, but I would say that we have recent evidence citing Giovanni Peri's paper out of UC-Davis in November that we know that the entrepreneurial behavior of those immigrants who feel that they have some possibility of being here in the long term is increased because they are more likely to invest their capital here in the United States to engage in skill-building that resonates better in the United States and they get better returns on. So my one comment would be we know we sometimes get very efficient and good behaviors for our national interest from immigrants of all skill levels if the think they may have a long-term role to play here both about themselves and their children. Senator Sessions. Would it be in our interest, therefore, to attempt to identify the people that bring the most skill sets and the most ability to the country when we allow whatever limited number we have to come here legally? Mr. Siciliano. Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the the [Center for Immigration] study. I can answer the specific question, if I may. Chairman Specter. Go ahead, Professor Siciliano. Mr. Siciliano. Thank you. That particular study has two types of expenditures--direct payments to immigrants and immigrant households, so it includes sometimes U.S. citizen children, and indirect attributive costs which are the general expenses by the government divided by the number of households in the United States. The study is actually dominated by the general government expenditures component of those costs. So, in other words, you take the government expenditures, you divide it by the number of households, and then you take that number. And that number is a large number right now because we have high levels of expenditures relative to tax collections. That is why it is driven by our fiscal state as a Federal Government, as opposed to simply the behavior of the immigrants. The direct payments are an important component, but they are actually dominated by and outweighed by the general expenditures share, which is interesting, but I think it overstates the interest of that particular number that you have cited. It is not irrelevant. Chairman Specter. The President of the Dominican Republic was very interested in the money coming back to the Dominican Republic. The estimates are the immigrants in the United States send home about $39 billion a year in remittances. So on one hand, there is a concern about what that does to our economy. That purchasing power is not being used in the United States. The other aspect is that our foreign relations are very complicated. We heard a great deal about the difficulties with Venezuela and President Chavez. A vote of the Andean countries on protecting property rights was three-to-two, with the United States winning. We have trade there to try to strengthen our foreign relations. We heard a lot of talk about their recognizing the leaders of the foreign governments, recognizing our rights to control our borders, but also looking for a humanitarian approach that we have. How big an impact is it, Professor Siciliano, if $39 billion is remitted from the United States to the home countries? Mr. Siciliano. Well, as a component of the overall economy, I actually think it is a fairly small number, but it obviously has tremendous impact for the countries who receive the remittances. Two points. One, the transmission of that money actually generates substantial revenue and profits for U.S.-based business, primarily financial institutions who serve as the intermediaries to make that happen. I don't think we want to forget that. The second issue is that the money lands in the hands of individuals who are nationals of obviously that country and some of it recycles as demand for our goods and services, hence jump-starting, we hope, the ongoing trade relations which may mitigate some of the foreign national risks you have identified. So I think it is a small piece in a big global economy and one that shouldn't dominate the thinking about how we decide to move forward on the immigration de- bate . . . Chairman Specter. Professor Siciliano, do you have a brief comment? Mr. Siciliano. Yes, two key points. I think anecdote in the hands of the economist is a dangerous weapon, so let me just give two kinds of actual points of data. First, in the 1960s we know that roughly half of the U.S. workforce lacked a high school diploma, and now about 12 percent of the native-born workforce lacks a high school diploma. This skill set difference is driving the comment that I think is true, which is it is not the case that immigrant labor is displacing by and large U.S. labor or depressing wages, and there are two key points to highlight that. Nevada and Kentucky, arguably similar in cost of living in many ways--7.5 percent of the population of Nevada right now is estimated to be undocumented. The average high school drop-out wage is $10 per hour. In Kentucky, less than 1 percent of the population is estimated to be undocumented, and yet the high school drop-out wage is $8.73 per hour. It can't be simplified into simply saying immigrant labor shows up and it hurts U.S.-born labor. It is much more complex than that. I think, net, it clearly benefits U.S. labor . . .

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will yield back. Is all time consumed by Senator Dorgan?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield my time. I move to table the Dorgan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is always difficult to make a determination as to what is the right figure. The committee came to the figure of 325,000, after a great deal of analysis and thought. It is the result of a compromise that was worked out, with some figures being substantially higher than that, some lower. But that is the figure the committee came to. The amendment offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Feinstein would also eliminate the fluctuation which is to allow for a 20-percent increase if we hit the top. What we are trying to do in this legislation is to accommodate the market, if there is demand for these guest workers. So the fluctuating cap is perhaps even more important than the difference between 325,000 and 200,000. When we considered the Dorgan amendment, we were debating the issue as to the way the guest worker program fits into overall comprehensive reform so that if we were able to accommodate the needs of the American economy with these guest workers, then we fill the jobs. They are not open. We do not create a vacuum on jobs so that immigrants who are in this country illegally would be available to take the jobs. This is a regulatory approach which accommodates for the needs of the economy and is the figure that we best calculate to accommodate them. I think if we had come in at 200,000, we would be looking at an amendment for 125,000 or at some other figure. There is an obvious give and take as to whatever figure we have. Somebody has a different figure to make it lower. I have great respect for those who say we ought to protect American jobs and that we ought not to have guest workers who are going to take those jobs or lower the compensation for the people who hold American jobs. We put into the Record on the Dorgan amendment testimony from three expert witnesses. I will not repeat it and put it into the Record again. But the essential conclusion was that there would be minimal impact on taking American jobs and minimal impact on compensation. The statute is carefully constructed to protect American workers, taking away any incentives for employers to hire foreign workers. For example, the employees must be paid the higher of what is the actual wage paid to other employees with the same skill or the prevailing wage rate for that job. So the law requires the employer to pay the immigrants the same as they would pay somebody else. And the employers must provide the same working conditions and benefits that are available for similar jobs. You don't have a class of immigrant workers who are being taken advantage of. The employers must provide insurance if the State workers compensation doesn't cover all of these workers. So you have a situation where there are no incentives to lose American jobs. We think this figure is a fair figure and a realistic figure arrived at by the committee after very long deliberation and after a compromise. We think this figure should stay. In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I would inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. I put my colleagues on notice that this is going to be a strict 20-minute vote because we have Members who have planes to catch.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been engaged in extensive discussions to try to move the schedule along. What we plan to do is to take Senator Kerry's amendment and accept it, with 15 minutes to Senator Kerry. He says he will try not to use all of it. Tomorrow morning we will go to Kyl-Cornyn, and since people are still looking at it, we do not have a time agreement. Senator Kennedy says he will make a good-faith effort to limit debate to 30 minutes tomorrow. Then we will go to the amendment of Senator Obama, and once we have had a chance to analyze it, we will see if we can accept it. Then we will go to Senator Sessions. The majority leader has authorized me to say that there will be no further votes tonight.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think it is a good amendment to increase the number of Border Patrol agents. We accept the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. PRESIDENT, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Monday, May 15 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony relating to implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005's electricity reliability provisions.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his comments, and I thank him for his statements today suggesting a bipartisan approach to this very important piece of legislation. The leader of the Democrats is accurate when he has characterized the work which Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the full committee, and I have done on this bill. It has been 16 months of cooperation on some of the tough issues, including moving ahead with bankruptcy reform, class action reform. Through very strenuous efforts, we were able to steer this Senate away from a confrontation and a filibuster in the so- called constitutional option. We moved through the confirmation of two Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, which could have been very problematic. We were able to work through the PATRIOT Act. We were able to work through the asbestos reform bill where there are still issues of controversy that I hope we will be able to address in the not too distant future. And then, as the distinguished leader of the Democrats commented, moving this immigration bill out of committee was a very strenuous effort on the final Monday, with a marathon session. Now the bill is back in the Senate, and with the spirit of cooperation which the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, and the distinguished minority leader, Senator Reid, have articulated, we are in a position to go forward. But we have a great deal of hard work to do. As manager of the bill, along with Senator Leahy, it appears we will have some 30 amendments. That is a lot of amendments but a manageable number if we address them with time limits so the arguments can be made on both sides and we can proceed to votes. There will be other business which will have to be considered at the same time this bill is on the floor. We have pending the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The prospects are there will be debate and an up-or- down vote, and that will have to be worked into our schedule. The nomination of General Hayden is pending for Director of CIA. What the timetable will be there remains to be seen. But that is an important position, and it may be that action will be possible on that nomination up or down before we adjourn for the Memorial Day recess. But the core work which we have to do will be the amendments on this immigration bill. I have discussed the timing of votes with the majority leader, who is prepared to back the managers of this bill on time limits on the votes. We have a 15-minute time limit on votes and a 5-minute grace period. It is our expectation we will be enforcing those limits rigorously. When we have stacked votes, as is our custom, we have 10-minute votes and 5-minute extensions. We will be enforcing those limits rigorously. There have been some occasions when the votes have languished for very protracted periods of time. In the past, when we have rigorously enforced the time limits, it is something which I think meets with virtually unanimous approval among the Members. Even those who occasionally miss a vote appreciate the fact that they do not have to wait for 10, 15, or even more minutes after the vote is supposed to have ended until the next vote starts and the next debate starts. So everyone should be on notice that we intend to proceed in that manner. We return to the debate on the immigration bill, after a period where we could not come to terms on the structuring of debate before the last recess. But now we are in a position to go forward. This bill is an outgrowth of the core provisions of the McCain- Kennedy legislation, then reported out by the Judiciary Committee with substantial modifications, putting the so-called 11 million undocumented immigrants at the end of the line, making provisions for border enforcement, making provisions for employer enforcement, and making provisions for judicial reform. Then we have had additional modifications made by the amendments offered by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez, so that we now have an amalgam of legislation, trying to work through the ideas of many Senators on very hotly contested items, and items which are very emotional. There have been questions raised about what will happen beyond a Senate-passed bill, which will be a comprehensive bill, which will include a guest worker provision, which has been advocated by President Bush, also advocated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert. With that guest worker provision, and with other provisions, the Senate bill will be significantly different from the House bill. We have worked cooperatively with Chairman Sensenbrenner in the past on complex legislation. With the good faith which I know will be present by both bodies, I believe we can craft, under our bicameral system, a legislative package in conference which will be acceptable to both the House and the Senate. There have been those who have said they will reject any major changes in the Senate bill. I believe the core provisions in the Senate bill--finding an answer to the 11 million undocumented immigrants, an answer to their status, is indispensable on immigration reform. We cannot create a fugitive class in America. We do need immigrants, guest workers to handle very important jobs in our economy. I believe within a broad ambit we can reach agreement with the House of Representatives. We are looking at this large group of undocumented immigrants, estimated by the Pew Hispanic Center to be between 11 and 12 million individuals. We know these undocumented immigrants constitute almost 5 percent of our labor workforce. We know, according to the Center for American Progress, the total cost to, so-called, round up every illegal immigrant within the United States would be $200 billion to $230 billion over 5 years, without the capacity to house people once they are arrested and under very difficult circumstances. The legislation we are considering today is not amnesty. That is a pejorative term, really a smear term used to denigrate the efforts at comprehensive immigration reform. This is not amnesty because amnesty means a pardon of those who have broken the law. That is not the case here. These undocumented immigrants will have to pay a fine. They will have to undergo a rigorous criminal background investigation to be sure we do not have a criminal element subject to staying in the United States and being on the citizenship track. They will have to learn English so they can integrate into our society. They will have to have a job for 6 years. They will then be at the end of the line. When the comments are made about enforcing our borders, the first amendment which will be offered by the proponents of the bill will be a border security certification, which provides that: The Secretary may not implement any program authorized by this Act or by any amendments made under this Act which grants legal status to any individual or adjusts the current status of any individual who enters or entered the United States in violation of Federal law unless the Secretary has submitted a written certification to the President and Congress that the border security measures authorized under title I and the increases in Federal detention space authorized under section 233 have been fully completed and are operational. Now, this certification really is directed to those who have said we ought to have border security in place and employment sanctions in place before we consider what we do with the 11 million undocumented aliens, immigrants, or what we do on a guest worker program. Well, that is the cart-before-the-horse argument. This border security certification puts the horse in place before we move ahead to the cart and I think, when implemented, as implemented, will answer that point. This bill, which we are laying down today, provides very material items on border enforcement. For example, it increases Border Patrol by 400 per year for 5 years; authorizes technologies to create a so-called virtual fence along the southern border; authorizes physical barriers for highly trafficked parts of Arizona's border and California's border, and highly trafficked parts on other borders; provides for a study of a possible new fence along the southern border; and creates crimes for eluding immigration inspectors; and it ends the catch-and- release practice for other-than Mexicans. We also have very substantial provisions on interior enforcement. It eliminates gang members from admissibility for citizenship and deports those gang members. It clarifies and strengthens alien smuggling laws with increased penalties. It provides criminal penalties for various immigration-related document fraud. It provides for 20 more alien detention facilities, with the capacity for 10,000. In title III we have employment enforcement. One of the major failings of the 1986 legislation was the failure to have employment enforcement. We have provisions for a guest worker program. We have provisions for family-based and employment-based green cards. We have title VI: work authorization and legalization of undocumented individuals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my oral remarks, the full outline of S. 2611 be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. We have created, under the work authorization and legalization of undocumented individuals, three separate categories: a category for those who have been in the United States for more than 5 years before April 5, 2006; a second category, category 2, for those who have been in the United States for less than 5 years before January 7, 2004, which does have a ``leave country and touch base'' requirement. The Senator from Nevada, the leader of the Democrats, raised his concerns about this provision as to whether it ought to stay in the bill and said there will be amendments to remove it. It is a controversial provision. There is a real issue as to whether it accomplishes something which is worthwhile. But in cobbling together and crafting a bill, it has been necessary to put in provisions which are not universally accepted. And that is the nature of legislation, that there are accommodations, and everyone does not get everything they like. But we will subject this particular provision to very careful analysis and debate, and the will of the Senate will be worked on it. There is a third category of those who entered the United States after January 7 of the year 2004. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have talked long enough to have noted the arrival of the distinguished ranking member, who I know will shortly be seeking recognition. Before he does, let me repeat for him the comments made by the distinguished leader of the Democrats, complimenting the work Senator Leahy has done, complimenting the work which we have done jointly generally in the Judiciary Committee, and complimenting the work especially of the Judiciary Committee on this immigration bill. Senator Leahy and I appeared together earlier today in a tribute to fallen police officers and commenting about the need for bulletproof jackets. He and I have worked together on a great many matters, with our collaboration having originated before either of us got to the Senate at the National District Attorneys convention in Philadelphia in 1969, when he was DA of Burlington and I was DA of Philadelphia. Our efforts on bipartisanship, I think, have been followed by other Senators, and I think it has been in the interest of the Senate and the country to have that kind of cooperation. We will be handling the amendments one at a time. But we invite Senators who have amendments to be offered tomorrow to come to the floor this afternoon to debate those amendments. The chief of staff, the staff director, and general counsel, Michael O'Neill, has already been in touch with a number of those Senators, urging them to come down, following the comments of the distinguished ranking member, to start to talk about amendments so we can have abbreviated debate when we conclude the first amendment. Exhibit 1 S. 2611, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 title I--Border enforcement Increases border patrol by 400 per year for 5 years (Feinstein-Sessions) Authorizes technologies to create a ``virtual fence'' along the Southern border Authorizes physical barriers for highly trafficked parts of Arizona's border (Kyl) Provides for a study of a possible new fence along the Southern border. Creates crimes for eluding immigration inspectors (Sessions) and constructing border tunnels (Kyl, Feinstein) Ends the ``catch and release'' practice for other-than- Mexicans (Sessions) title II--Interior Enforcement Makes suspected gang members inadmissible to, and deportable from, the U.S. Clarifies and strengthens alien smuggling laws and increases penalties Adds criminal penalties for various immigration-related document fraud Provides 20 more alien detention facilities with a capacity of 10,000 (Sessions) title iii--employment enforcement (subject to a Grassley substitute amendment to Title III on the Floor) Establishes a nationwide, mandatory verification program for hiring workers Limits the number of acceptable hiring documents along with REAL ID standards Makes the standard for hiring illegal workers ``knowingly'' or ``with reckless disregard'' Authorizes 2,000 worksite enforcement agents and 1,000 anti-fraud agents Title IV--Guest worker Program Creates a new guest worker program (called H-2C) for future workers Provides the following in the guest worker program: 6-year duration with an annual cap of 325,000 Travel privileges in and out of the U.S., and portability between jobs Allows workers to obtain green cards by self-petitioning Allows students with advanced degrees in science/math to stay in the U.S. Exempts workers with advanced degrees in science/math from green card caps Increases the H-1B professional worker visa annual cap from 65,000 to 115,000 (with a fluctuating cap) Title V--Family-based and Employment-based Green Cards Family-based visas/green cards: Exempts Immediate Relatives (spouses, minor children, parents) of U.S. Citizens from the 480,000 numerical cap Recaptures unused green cards from past years to reduce the processing backlog Increases the per country limits on visas to add fairness in the overall allocation Employment-based visas/green cards: Increases the numerical cap from 140,000 to 450,000. This increase sunset after 10 years reverting to 290,000 Exempts spouses and children from counting against the numerical cap Recaptures unused green cards to help reduce the processing backlog Eliminates the 5,000 visa limit on unskilled workers who seek a green card Title VI--Work Authorization and Legalization of Undocumented Individuals Subtitle A--Access to Earned Adjustment and Mandatory Departure and Reentry Cagtegory I--Access to Earned Adjustment--In the U.S. more than 5 years before April 5, 2001 Security and criminal background checks Employed for at least 3 out of the 5 years ending on April 5, 2006 and must work at least 6 years after the date of enactment Pay all applicable back taxes Demonstrate knowledge of English language and U.S. history and government Pay $2,000 fine (and all applicable fees) Must wait until the current green card backlog is cleared (approximately 6 years) Exempt from current green card numerical limitations Category II--Mandatory Departure and Reentry--In the U.S. less than 5 years but before January 7, 2004 Security and criminal background checks Must apply within 3 years of date of enactment Must be employed before January 7, 2004 and must be continuously employed for at least 60 days If departure within 1st year, no fine; if departure within the 2nd year, $2,000 fine; and departure within the last years; $3,000 fine Application fee of $1,000 Grounds of Ineligibility Ordered excluded, deported, removed, or agreed to depart voluntarily from the U.S. Failed to comply with any request for information by the Sec of DHS ``Leave Country and Touch-Base'' Requirement--Must exit the country and reentry through any U.S. land port or through U.S. Visit. Category III--U.S. after January 7, 2004 Required to immediately depart the United States and return in applicable legal channels. Waives the current bar denying illegal immigrants admission and allows them an opportunity to return to the United States. Subtitle B--Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Creates a ``blue card'' program for legalization and adjustment of status for agricultural workers (Feinstein) Reforms the current H-2A (temporary guest worker program for agricultural worker) Subtitle C--DREAM ACT Provides for students here undocumented in the U.S. to obtain a green card (Durbin) Title VII--Miscellaneous Subtitle A--Immigration Litigation Reduction Increase immigration judges and personnel Increases the number of judges on the Board of Immigration Appeals Provides for a GAO study on consolidation of immigration appeals Subtitle B--Mikulski (citizenship assistance for the armed services) Subtitle C--Kohl (State Court Interpreter Grant Program) Subtitle D--Domenici (Border Infrastructure/Technology Modernization) Subtitle E--Lautenberg (Family Humanitarian Relief) Subtitle F--(Other Matters): Frist (Non-citizen membership in the armed forces) Collins (P visa for minor league athletes) Mikulski (H-2B extension) Nelson (Surveillance Technologies Programs) Isakson (Comprehensive Immigration Efficiency Review) Cantwell (Northern Border Prosecution Initiative) Hutchison (Southern Border Prosecution Initiative) Harkin (Grant Program to Assist Eligible Applicants) Allard (Terrorist Activities) Levin (Screening of Municipal Solid Waste) Stevens (Access to Immigration Services in Areas) Thomas (Border Security on Certain Federal Land) Kennedy (Family Unity)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, to start the debate, if I may, as I have referred to earlier, I send an amendment to the desk and will ask for its consideration when we debate the amendment further tomorrow and proceed to a vote. It is an amendment that has been summarized briefly which would require border security arrangements to be in place before we move ahead to the handling of the 11 million undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program. I yield the floor for my distinguished ranking member.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that George Farmakides, Seth Moore, Juria Jones, and Joe Jacquot be given floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of S. 2611.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to support moving to legislation which would address the serious problems faced today by doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals who provide medical services, including obstetrical and gynecological services, while providing fair treatment to people who are injured in the course of medical treatment. While most of the attention has been directed to OB/GYN malpractice verdicts, the issues are much broader, involving medical errors, insurance company premiums and insurer investments. I support caps on noneconomic damages so long as they do not apply to situations such as the paperwork mix-up leading to an erroneous double mastectomy of a woman or the death of a 17-year-old woman on a North Carolina transplant case where there was a faulty blood type match or comparable cases in the OB/GYN services area. An appropriate standard for cases not covered could be analogous provisions in Pennsylvania law which limit actions against governmental entities or in the limited tort context which exclude from the caps death, serious impairment of bodily function, and permanent disfigurement or dismemberment. Beyond the issue of caps, I believe there could be savings on the cost of OB/GYN malpractice insurance and other malpractice insurance by eliminating frivolous cases by requiring plaintiffs to file with the court a certification by a doctor in the field that it is an appropriate case to bring to court. This proposal, which is now part of Pennsylvania State procedure, would be expanded federally, thus reducing claims and saving costs. While most malpractice cases are won by defendants, the high cost of litigation drives up OB/GYN malpractice premiums and other premiums. The proposed certification would reduce plaintiff's joinder of peripheral defendants and cut defense costs. Further savings could be accomplished through patient safety initiatives identified in a report of the Institute of Medicine. On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report entitled: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. The IOM report estimated that between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However, only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence; most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a nationwide mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development of a non-punitive culture of safety in health care organizations. The report called for a 50 percent reduction in medical errors over 5 years. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, held three hearings to discuss the IOM's findings and explore ways to implement the recommendations outlined in the IOM report. The fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS appropriations bill contained $50 million for a patient safety initiative and directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to develop guidelines on the collection of uniform error data; establish a competitive demonstration program to test best practices; and research ways to improve provider training. These initiatives were funded at $55 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and $84 million in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, for a total of $412 million. There is some evidence that increases in OB/GYN insurance premiums and other premiums have been caused, at least in part, by insurance company losses, the declining stock market of the past several years, and the general rate-setting practices of the industry. As a matter of insurance company calculations, premiums are collected and invested to build up an insurance reserve where there is considerable lag time between the payment of the premium and litigation which results in a verdict or settlement. When the stock market has gone down, for example, that has resulted in insufficient funding to pay claims and the attendant increase in OB/GYN insurance premiums. A similar result occurred in Texas on homeowners insurance where cost and availability of insurance became an issue because companies lost money in the market and could not cover the insured losses on hurricanes. In structuring legislation to put caps on jury verdicts in malpractice cases, due regard should be given to the history and development of trial by jury under the common law where reliance is placed on average men and women who comprise a jury to reach a just result reflecting the values and views of the community. Jury trials in modern tort cases descend from the common law jury in trespass, which was drawn from and intended to be representative of the average members of the community in which the alleged trespass occurred. This coincides with the incorporation of negligence standards of liability into trespass actions. This ``representative'' jury right in civil actions was protected by consensus among the state drafters of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. The explicit trial by jury safeguards in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution were adaptations of these common law concepts harmonized with the Sixth Amendment's clause that local juries be used in criminal trials. Thus, from its inception at common law through its inclusion in the Bill of Rights and today, the jury in tort/negligence cases is meant to be representative of the judgment of average members of the community, not of elected representatives. The right to have a jury decide one's damages has been greatly circumscribed in recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. An example is the analysis that the court has applied to limit punitive damage awards. The Court has shifted its Seventh Amendment focus away from two centuries of precedent in deciding that federal appellate review of punitive damage awards will be decided on a de novo basis and that a jury's determination of punitive damages is not a finding of fact for purposes of the re-examination clause of the Seventh Amendment--``no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.'' Then, in 2003, the Court reasoned that any ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 9:1 will likely be considered unreasonable and disproportionate, and thus constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property in non-personal injury cases. Plaintiffs will inevitably face a vastly increased burden to justify a greater ratio, and appellate courts have far greater latitude to disallow or reduce such an award. These decisions may have already, in effect, placed caps on some jury verdicts in malpractice cases which may involve punitive damages. The pending bills are a starting point for analysis, discussion, debate and amendment. I am prepared to proceed with the caveat that there is much work to be done before the Senate would be ready, in my opinion, for consideration of final passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Presidemt, I have sought recognition to cosponsor and speak in support of legislation introduced by Senator Santorum called the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. This bill would authorize research into deriving stem cells using alternative methods that would not result in the destruction of a human embryo. This legislation, which Senator Santorum and I have drafted in close partnership, represents a good faith effort to find common ground among those who support human embryonic stem cell research and those who do not. This bill is fully complementary to legislation that Senators Harkin, Hatch, Feinstein, Smith, and Kennedy have introduced--the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005--which would allow Federal funding for research on additional human embryonic stem cell lines. It will move forward research that could potentially eliminate the objections that some have to embryonic stem cell research while achieving the same goals. However, let me be clear, this legislation is not a substitute for supporting H.R. 810, the House-passed version of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. I believe medical research should be pursued with all possible haste to cure the diseases and maladies affecting Americans. In my capacity as Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have backed up this belief by supporting increases in funding for the National Institutes of Health. I have said many times that the NIH is the crown jewel of the Federal Government-- perhaps the only jewel of the Federal government. When I came to the Senate in 1981, NIH spending totaled $3.6 billion. In fiscal year 2006, NIH received a little over $29 billion to fund its pursuit of life- saving research. The successes realized by this investment in NIH have spawned revolutionary advances in our knowledge and treatment for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, ALS and many others. It is clear to me that Congress's commitment to the NIH is paying off. This is the time to seize the scientific opportunities that lie before us, and to ensure that all avenues of research toward cures--including stem cell research--are open for investigation. In 1998, I learned of the discovery of human embryonic stem cells. These cells have the ability to become any type of cell in the human body. Another way of saying this is that the cells are pluripotent. The consequences of this unique property of stem cells are far-reaching and are key to their potential use in therapies. Scientists and doctors with whom I spoke--and who have since testified before my Appropriations Subcommittee at 17 stem cell-related hearings--were excited by this discovery. They believed that these cells could be used to replace damaged or malfunctioning cells in patients with a wide range of diseases, This could lead to cures and treatments for maladies such as Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular diseases, and spinal cord injury. Senator Harkin and I took the lead on making Federal funding available for this promising research. On the issue of funding human embryonic stem cell research, I along with Senators Harkin, Hatch, Feinstein, Smith, and Kennedy are the Senate sponsors of the Stem Cell Research Act of 2005, which we hope will soon be coming up for a vote in the Senate. That critical bill would enable Federal funding of stem cell research with new human embryonic stem cell lines. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that would otherwise have been discarded. During the course of in vitro fertilization--IVF-- therapies, sperm and several eggs are combined in a laboratory to create 4 to 16 embryos for a couple having difficulty becoming pregnant. The embryos grow in an incubator for 5 to 7 days until they contain approximately 100 cells. To maximize the chances of success, several embryos are implanted into the woman. The remaining embryos are frozen for future use. If the woman becomes pregnant after the first implantation, and does not want to have more pregnancies, the remaining embryos are in excess of clinical need and can be donated for research. Embryonic stem cells are derived from these embryos--destroying the embryo in the process. This process raises concerns for some, including my distinguished colleague Senator Santorum. Although I disagree with the calculus that embryos should be discarded rather than used in research, I recognize and appreciate these deeply felt objections. In fact, I took the lead on creating an embryo adoption awareness campaign in fiscal year 2002, and continue to include $2 million for that campaign in the HHS appropriation. If these embryos are likely to be donated to families that cannot conceive, I want this to be the first choice. However, with 400,000 frozen embryos in IVF clinics around the country, the supply far exceeds the demand and embryos are being discarded. Nonetheless, I want to pursue this and other options to address the objections of some of my colleagues. When the President's Council on Bioethics reported on several theoretical methods for deriving stem cells without destroying embryos, I immediately scheduled a hearing to investigate these ideas. On July 12, 2005, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee heard testimony from five witnesses describing several theoretical techniques for deriving stem cells without destroying embryos. All five witnesses supported moving forward with the alternative methods without abandoning embryonic stem cell research. The alternative stem cells would theoretically also have the key ability to become any type of cell. Let me briefly mention several of the techniques discussed at the hearing. Dr. Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technologies claims to have derived stem cells from a single cell extracted from 2-day-old, eight-celled mouse embryos. This single cell is called a blastomere and its removal from human embryos does not destroy the original embryo. Scientists know a single cell can be taken from a 2-day-old embryo without destroying it, because it is routinely done in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Dr. William Hurlbut, a Stanford University bioethicist, supports a technique where a cloned embryo would be created whose DNA is mutated such that it cannot develop into a baby. This altered embryo would be destroyed for its stem cells. Since the embryo never had the potential to produce a baby, some of the objections normally raised with embryonic stem cell research would be circumvented. Several scientists have suggested deriving stem cells from technically dead embryos. When embryos frozen during in-vitro fertilization are thawed, some never resume dividing and thus are discarded. Many scientists are attempting to turn back the clock on older cells so they again become ``pluripotent,'' the scientific term for the ability to turn into any tissue. Scientists already are trying to do this to some degree through ``adult stem cell'' research, such as turning blood-making cells into cells that produce liver or muscle tissues. The legislation, which Senator Santorum and I have drafted, is meant to encourage these alternative methods for deriving stem cells without harming human embryos. The act amends the Public Health Service Act by inserting a section that: (1) Mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall support meritorious peer-reviewed research to develop techniques for the derivation of stem cells without creating or destroying human embryos. (2) Requires the Secretary to issue guidelines within 90 days to implement this research and to identify and prioritize the next research steps. (3) Requires the Secretary to consider techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics, such as altered nuclear transfer and single cell derivation. (4) Requires the Secretary to report yearly on the activities carried out under this authorization. (5) Includes a ``Rule of Construction'' stating: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not specifically authorized by this section.'' (6) Defines ``human embryo'' by reference to the latest definition contained in the appropriations act for the Department of Health and Human Services. (7) Authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' for fiscal years 2007 through 2009. Knowing that scientists never know exactly which research will lead to the next great cure, I have always supported opening as many avenues of research as possible. Based on that line of reasoning, I have always supported human embryonic, adult, and cord blood stem cell research. My goal is to see cures for the various afflictions that lower the quality of life--or end the lives--of Americans. The Santorum/Specter bill focuses attention on one of those avenues of research. I must emphasize that this bill is not a substitute for support of human embryonic stem cell research or support for H.R. 810. The two bills are complementary in their scope and together will advance our understanding of biomedical science and bring us another step closer to the cures and treatment that we all desire.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I endorse the nomination of Brian Mark Cogan for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Mr. Cogan graduated from the University of Illinois in 1976, and received a law degree from Cornell in 1979. He is admitted to the bar in both New York and Florida. From 1979 to 1980, he was a law clerk for Judge Aronovitz in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and he was an associate and later a partner and general counsel for the law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Mr. Cogan possesses the qualifications to be an outstanding Federal judge. He had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, and we voted him out unanimously. Based on his record, I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to recommend to my colleagues the confirmation of Thomas M. Golden to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Golden graduated from Penn State University in 1969, and received a law degree from Dickinson School of Law in 1972. Thereafter, he has been in the practice of law with Stevens & Lee, first as an associate and then as a partner. And from 1979 to the present, he has owned his own firm, Golden Masano Bradley and serves as managing partner in that capacity. Mr. Golden enjoys an excellent reputation for academic achievement, for lawyerly skills, for integrity, and for community service. Alvernia College awarded Mr. Golden a doctorate of human letters for service to the community and legal profession in 2003. He is past president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Berks County Bar Association. Holding those positions is demonstrative of active community service, taking on responsibilities to promote the public welfare beyond his work as a private practicing attorney. The American Bar Association gave Mr. Golden a unanimous ``well- qualified'' rating. In my years on the Judiciary Committee and now as chairman of the committee, I have seen many nominees, and I believe Tom Golden has outstanding potential for the Federal district court. I urge my colleagues to support him.