Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Could I ask the distinguished Democratic leader if we can establish a procedure where the distinguished ranking member and I--we are the managers of the bill--go through the list of amendments and decide a sequencing of votes on these amendments--there must be more than those identified by the Senator from Nevada--and try to get the bill rolling with the votes, as you say, starting sometime tomorrow morning?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I have been asked to make the following announcement: We are going to resume debate right now on the committee substitute to the border security bill. There are a number of amendments pending. It is anticipated that there will be two votes likely to begin at 5:30. Members will be alerted when those votes are locked in with certainty, but that is the current expectation. Senator Frist has reminded everyone that this is the final week of legislative work prior to the Easter recess. We expect busy days with late sessions in order to complete the work on the pending legislation before the end of the week. Senator Frist has made the explicit comment that Senators should plan for a full week of business with votes throughout the week. We have already had quite a number of amendments filed. We know that the tempo of the Senate is to finish legislation, such as that which is pending now, when it is backed up to a recess. I have been authorized to say that we will be holding the votes to 20 minutes--15 minutes as prescribed by the rules of the Senate and 5 minutes over. We all have seen the votes run very late and take up a great deal of floor time. We will be voting with a 20-minute cutoff. Senator Leahy has asked me to express his view as well as mine that all Senators come forward with amendments so that we can evaluate them, make a determination as to which ones can be accepted and as to which ones will have to be debated and voted upon. We will be looking for time agreements. But we have a prodigious job ahead of us to finish the bill by the end of the week. We solicit the cooperation of all Members. I will have more to say, but I yield at this point to the Democratic leader.

Mr. SPECTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that consent has been worked out so that at 5:30 today, the Senate will proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 3210, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Alexander amendment No. 3193; provided further that no second degrees be in order to either amendment prior to those votes; and further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had yielded to the Democratic leader expecting to have an opportunity to comment before the quorum call was put in order which I was unable to terminate. Now that I have the floor, I would like to report to my colleagues that we had a very productive hearing this morning on issues relating to immigration judicial review. The original draft of the chairman's mark had provided for cases to be consolidated in the Federal circuit. Since there was considerable controversy about that, it was decided that we ought to have a hearing. We had five judges in today: the chief judge of the Federal circuit, the chief judge of the Second Circuit, a judge from the Ninth Circuit, a former chief judge of the Second Circuit, and a fifth judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. We heard a number of opinions on the desirability of having consolidation but perhaps an alternative to being in the Federal circuit. We are now considering those matters. We will be discussing them with other members of the committee. It may be that we will choose to revise the chairman's mark to provide that the cases will be evened out among the various circuits. With the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit now having a disproportionate number, the suggestion was made by Judge Newman, former chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, that there be a court created, perhaps to sit in Washington, although not indispensably so, where the judges would be selected from circuit judges and selected by the chief justice to maintain that judges review these matters as generalists as opposed to specialists. We will consider that. We heard discussion about the chairman's mark on increasing the number of active judges on the Board of Immigration Appeal so that the full 23 would sit and the provision that they sit in panels so that they write opinions, not just a one-sentence decision, which is now the case and which puts a considerable burden on the courts of appeal. We also discussed the possibility of having greater independence of the immigration judges and the members of the Board of Immigration Appeal. In due course, we will be drafting a revised title and will be submitting that for consideration by the full body. That is a very brief statement of the hearing that we held today. Again, I urge our colleagues who have amendments--Senator Leahy joins me in that request--to come to the floor and debate them. We have a big job ahead of us to complete action on this bill before the end of the week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are about to vote on two amendments at 5:30. I believe both of these are good amendments. Senator Alexander has proposed an amendment which will facilitate immigrants learning English. I think that is a very sound approach. Senator Bingaman has promoted an amendment which would enhance border control and funding. I believe both are good amendments. I yield the floor for additional comment--I see Senator Bingaman rising--and give him an opportunity to speak. We are going to be voting in another 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are scheduled to vote in 3 minutes. We have a good many amendments which have been filed so far. We are going to be looking to start the debate early tomorrow morning. I urge my colleagues who have amendments and who would like to debate them early--a good time to find time to debate is on Tuesday morning, which is a lot better than Thursday afternoon. I urge our colleagues to come forward and state their willingness to debate. As I stated earlier, we are going to be holding the votes to 15 minutes plus the 5-minute grace period. We are going to be cutting them off at 20 minutes. We are going to establish that pattern on this bill, with the majority leader's authorization. We know the practice on some occasions has been to have the votes run 30 minutes or 35 minutes, a long time, which eats into the floor time. We have a big job ahead of us on this bill this week. I urge my colleagues to come within the 20- minute timeframe. I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. I urge agreement of this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3193, as Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the last vote was more than 26 minutes. This is the first vote of the week. I say again, we are going to hold the votes to 15 and 5. We are now prepared to move ahead to Senator Alexander's amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Before yielding back the remainder of the manager's 2 minutes, may I say that the majority leader has stated that we will go into session tomorrow morning at 9:45. We will be on the bill immediately. Whoever has an amendment, I suggest he contact me or my staff. We have a large staff in the Chamber ready to talk about amendments, to accept them where possible, and to set time limits to debate them where we cannot accept them. I yield back the remainder of the 2 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Frist spoke about his bill and I spoke about the committee bill. We said that today, after there had been speeches, at approximately noon, I would propose an amendment that would be the committee bill. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. I believe the thrust of the amendment is a good one. I want to take a look to see what is meant by ``voluntary departure'' under 240B. But it looks to me when you want to exclude the criminal class from being on the path for working in this country, the citizenship path, that is desirable. It is my hope we can move ahead and transact some business and hear some amendments and hopefully move to votes at the earliest possible time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as noted, this amendment will put before the Senate the bill which was passed out of the Judiciary Committee on Monday. There is one modification. There is a title which remains as to judicial review, and for procedural purposes, we have left the title in as to judicial review. But it is my intention to modify that, depending upon what the hearing discloses on Monday. As is known, we worked under considerable time pressure. The leader wanted a bill reported out on Monday. People came back from recess early, and people were in town on Sunday night so we could start Monday morning, which we did at 10 o'clock, and worked through until 1 p.m., and then from 2 p.m. until past 6 p.m. The section on judicial review was not subject to debate because the chairman's mark had a consolidation of the Federal circuit. We had considerable debate about that, so we have scheduled a hearing for Monday where we will take up those issues. Then in the course of floor debate next week, we will modify that section, depending upon what we hear and what we decide to do. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member, be listed as the original cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the schedule, as agreed to, will call for continued debate. The majority leader, Senator Frist, will have an amendment to offer involving the subject of deaths at the border. It is anticipated that there will be a 3 o'clock vote on the Frist amendment and that there will be an allocation and scheduling of time for debate until 5 o'clock. Yesterday I urged Senators to file their amendments, to make them known to the ranking member, Senator Leahy, and myself, so we could schedule debate. We have a prodigious task ahead of us. We are scheduled for a 2-week recess beginning at the close of business a week from tomorrow. It is going to be a daunting task to finish this bill on that schedule, but we have undertaken daunting tasks before and succeeded. That can be done only if we have cooperation from Members. I ask Members who have amendments to consider at the outset time agreements so we can move ahead. I give notice to my colleagues that in order to complete this business, we are going to have to hold the voting time to 15 minutes, plus the 5-minute leeway, but we are not going to allow the votes to run 25 minutes, 30 minutes, 21 minutes. We are going to move ahead under the rules of the Senate. As I say, it is a prodigious job to get finished by next Thursday night or on Friday. The temper of the Senate is to try to finish on a Thursday late before a recess, but to do that we are going to have to have a lot of cooperation to avoid a Friday session or, depending on the will of the leader, a session beyond Friday into the weekend, if necessary, to complete this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before commenting on the pending amendment, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor to the committee bill.

Mr. SPECTER. First, I thank Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn for coming to the floor to start the debate and offer an amendment. We are trying to push ahead with this bill. It is appreciated that they have come early. I am advised that the other side of the aisle would not be prepared to vote on this amendment today or tomorrow. What we are trying to do is to line up a series of votes for Monday afternoon. I am advised that Senator Bingaman wishes to offer an amendment to add resources to Border Patrol, and on the surface, without final commitment, it looks as if it is an acceptable amendment. We want to have an opportunity there. Senator Alexander has already spoken about an amendment which has a number. It has not yet been called up. We are anxious to move ahead. It is always difficult getting started on a bill, but it had been my hope that on a Thursday afternoon, when we went to this bill yesterday, had opening statements and had a full afternoon of discussion and extensive discussion today, that we would have been prepared to have amendments and have some votes. Thursday is supposed to be our late night. Maybe more accurately stated, our late night, if we ever have a late night. Well, we are not going to have a late night tonight because there is not a whole lot we are going to be able to do. I believe the thrust of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment is a good one. If I may have the attention of Senators Kyl and Cornyn while I am saying good things about them.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity to take what could be a historic stand on reforming our immigration system, where many problems exist, including border security, ports, people coming into our country whom we cannot identify, posing a potential security risk from terrorists entering the United States. There are some 11 million undocumented aliens in the United States who are unwilling to step forward because of their concern of being prosecuted and deported. We have an economy which relies very heavily on immigrant labor. We have now come to the point where legislation has been introduced which tackles these problems. The majority leader has said there will be passionate arguments. That is certainly true. Emotions run very high on these issues. Some say we are a nation defined by the rule of law and that has been flagrantly violated by the 11 million people who have come to this country without conforming to the U.S. law. Many others who have come on visas have overstayed their leave. And, at the same time, we pride ourselves on being a compassionate nation. No one can deny that the United States of America is a nation built by immigrants. No one can deny that. In my own personal situation, my own family is Exhibit A. My father came to this country in 1911 when he was 18 because the Czar wanted to send him to Siberia. He preferred Pennsylvania. So he came to the United States. My mother came at the age of 6 with her family and settled in St. Joe, MO. My brother and my two sisters and I have contributed to life in America. Our story is replicated by millions of people who have come from foreign shores and who have created a life for themselves, as the majority leader says, the American dream. And people still clamor to come to the United States because of the quality of life in this country, because of our democratic institutions, because of freedom of speech, because of educational opportunities and economic growth, and a chance to have a better livelihood and a superior way of life. When the majority leader comments about the committee bill and says it is amnesty, I disagree with him head on. It is not amnesty. It is not amnesty because the lawbreakers are not being unconditionally forgiven for their transgressions. The lawbreakers, in order to move forward and stay in the United States and move toward a citizenship path, have to pay a fine. They have to pay their back taxes. They have to undergo a rigorous background examination. They have to work for 6 years. They have to earn the right to move toward a citizenship track. If there is a better way to bring these 11 million people forward so that we can identify them, we are open to any suggestions which anyone may have. The Judiciary Committee has worked on this issue for months. We have had hearings. We have had analysis in the committee on markups. We faced the leader's requirement that the bill be finished before yesterday, before Tuesday, or the Senate would proceed on the leader's bill as opposed to the committee bill. The Judiciary Committee prides itself on getting its work done. We got our work done. It was not easy, but we did it. In an unusual session, people returned early from the recess, came back on a Sunday. It doesn't happen around here, unfortunately. It should, but it doesn't. We ought to work more Mondays. We are going to work Friday of this week on this bill. We started at 10 o'clock on Monday morning and with a short recess break we worked through until past 6 o'clock in the afternoon. People who are watching C-SPAN may not be too interested in what a quorum is, but that is when 10 Senators are present out of 18. That is hard to do, especially when some Senators are in Iraq. With the cooperation of the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, and the committee members generally, we were able to complete our task and complete and report out a bill on Monday of this week. That bill will be the replacement bill on behalf of the leader's bill. While the leader is still on the floor, I say in his presence, his bill is up about noon tomorrow. The committee bill will be a replacement bill which will form the substance of the Senate deliberation. I thank the committee members for their hard work. We have taken thoughtful, constructive legislation introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, and thoughtful, construction legislation introduced by Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn, and suggestions made by other Senators, and have molded them into what we call a chairman's mark. That is the name for the amalgamated bill that was the basis for our consideration. We have moved ahead. It was my hope that we might have structured accommodation, a compromise among the competing ideas. After debating it extensively on Monday afternoon, it was determined we could not accomplish that, but we are still working on it. We yet may be able to structure a bill which will have more of what Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn were looking for than the final committee product. But all of that remains to be seen. However, we have produced a bill and the majority leader characterized it as ``while not perfect, significant progress,'' and I would not disagree with the majority leader's characterization that it is not perfect. I have been here a while and I haven't seen a perfect bill yet. I hope to be here a while longer and I do not anticipate seeing a perfect bill. This bill, however much it is improved, is not going to be perfect, in any event. We have provided for border security. We have what we call a virtual fence. Unmanned drones will patrol the borders. There will be overhead satellite control. We have very vastly increased the number of border agents. We have provisions for employer verification, worked out with the cooperation of Senator Grassley, who is not only a member of the Committee on the Judiciary but also chairman of the Committee on Finance. That is on a title which is yet to be added and will be added on the floor. We have a little jurisdictional issue, but we have worked out employer verification. Employer verification is a very major aspect of securing our borders. We are going to have people come to the United States because of opportunity here, no matter what we do. We want to avoid the circumstance President Bush described in a Saturday address last week of having people come to the United States in 18-wheelers. What is an 18-wheeler? It is a big truck that has 18 wheels and people are stuffed into it. Many have died trying to come into this country in that way. We have the realistic prospect of having an identification card, much like a credit card, which can go through an electronic process so that prospective employers will know whether the applicant for a job is here legally. If the employer hires the applicant knowing they are illegal, there will be tough employer sanctions to try to stop that practice. As long as there is opportunity in this country, and without a guest worker program which will satisfy the needs of our economy, we are going to have people who will be determined to come here legally or illegally, any way they can get here. We had a very important amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, who had worked with Senator Craig, on agriculture. The statement was made by Senator Craig, and I believe it to be accurate, that agriculture in America would collapse--tough word--collapse without migrant labor. This committee bill includes a worker program which has been the cornerstone of what President Bush has urged. I was pleased today to hear that Speaker Dennis Hastert commented he favors a guest worker program, which would be a significant addition to what the House of Representatives has passed, an enforcement program. That is the recognition that it is necessary for the American economy to have people come into this country to help us on the farms, in the hotels, in the restaurants, in so many lines of American work. It is a good sign that when we function in conference under our bicameral system--the House has passed a bill; I am confident we will pass a bill in the Senate on immigration; and it is subject to modification and the will of the Senate--but with the recognition by the Speaker of a guest worker program, that is a very positive sign. We have improved the situation with respect to visas for highly qualified people. William Gates was in Washington, lobbying--a pretty high-priced lobbyist--to come talk about the needs of Microsoft--a marvelous company, high tech, enormous advances for America--he wants more people with Ph.D.s and wants a larger quota of visas for those people to come in. We have accommodated that. And we have created more opportunities for people to come in who are students. If we can bring more brains to the United States, we are going to be anxious to do so. I believe it is important to say, simultaneously, that we are making strenuous efforts to avoid bringing people into this country where there are Americans who can handle the jobs. If Americans can handle the jobs, we are not going to be bringing in other people. We will give those jobs to Americans first. And before employers may seek guest workers, under our legislation, there has to be a showing that the jobs could not be filled by Americans. We have tackled, in the committee bill, the 11 million undocumented aliens, candidly, as best we could. We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws, and those who are here undocumented have come into the United States in violation of our laws. And now the question is, what do we do? We do not want to have a fugitive class in America. We do not want to have an underclass in America. To contemplate, to even theorize about going out and taking 11 million people into custody is an impossibility. And if you took them into custody, they have to be detained before they have a deportation proceeding. Where will you detain them? Where are there detention facilities? Where are there beds? Where are there accommodations to keep them for deportation proceedings? So if we have a realistic expectation that these undocumented aliens will have to come forward, there is going to have to be a program which will encourage them to come forward. We are not going to go out and arrest them and find them. And they have to know there is consideration for their plight, even though they are here without complying with U.S. law. And they do have to pay a fine. They do have to pay their back taxes. They do have to work for 6 years. And they have to undergo a background check. They have to comply with U.S. laws. So it is not a free ticket. It is not amnesty. This word ``amnesty'' is a code word. It is a code word to try to smear good-faith legislation to deal with this problem. If you move away from the label, if you move away from the smear word and analyze what is going on, I think it is fairly stated that we do not have amnesty. One line which we have not yet finished is the issue of judicial reform, judicial review. We need to have more in the way of immigration judges--better trained, better qualified--to handle the tough jobs which they have. Then, we have an appellate line, the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the number has been cut from 23 to 11, and they are filing one- page opinions, which puts an enormous burden on judicial review in the circuit courts. Our bill will return that number to 23. We will call upon the Board of Immigration Appeals to write opinions so the circuit court will know what their reasons are, to take a burden from the circuit court of being required to start from ground zero to figure out what is going on in a case. The chairman's mark has a provision that will consolidate appeals in the Federal circuit. We have had a good bit of objection to that from the Judicial Conference and from very prominent judges. Before moving ahead, we did not include that in the bill which we reported out of committee. Instead, we are going to have a hearing next Monday. We may even get in the habit in the Senate of working on Mondays. Who knows what may come from this bill? We are going to bring in experts in the field. We are going to bring in the chief judge of the Federal circuit. We are going to bring in the chief judge of the Second Circuit, which has a very heavy burden. The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit is not available. We will have other representation from the Ninth Circuit to analyze that issue, to know more about the structure as to what we will be doing there. But I believe we are off to a good start. I believe that when we replace Senator Frist's bill with the committee bill, we will have a comprehensive reform package on the table. Then we will work the will of the Senate. We came close to striking a compromise, as I said, on Monday afternoon, and it was not successful. But it is going to be revisited. I think we may yet be able to take portions of the Kyl- Cornyn bill and integrate them into the committee bill, which relies very significantly on McCain-Kennedy, to present an even more balanced approach. May I say, in conclusion, that we ask Senators to file their amendments. We have a difficult job. Instead of having 2 weeks, we are going to have, starting on Thursday--and Friday is always subject to some question as to how late in the day we can go, if at all--and then we have next week. And the temper of the Senate is to try to finish on Thursday when we look toward a recess, especially the Easter recess. I am being very pragmatic here as to what we are doing, but I would not be surprised if the leader was prepared to keep us in beyond Thursday night, beyond even Friday. So I urge--and I know my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, joins me in this--Senators to come forward with their amendments and be prepared to debate them and to start to think about time limits and to be aware that we are going to hold the votes to 15 plus 5. We have many votes which are held into the 30- to 40-minute category, which cuts into the floor time to get this important work done. And now, with another pat on the back to Senator Leahy for his tireless efforts and support, and who had a lot of things he wanted to do in Vermont--it is hard to get Senator Leahy out of Vermont any earlier than absolutely necessary--he was back here on Sunday, and he was there on Monday. And with the help of the committee--and we had pretty good attendance--we reported out a bill. I accept the leader's characterization: while not perfect, significant progress. Let's make some more progress, and let's get some real immigration reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting against the Collins amendment because it is unconstitutional. Article I, section 5, provides: Each House may determine the Rules of its' Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. The Senate has determined the rules for punishing its Members which carries out the constitutional mandate. That constitutional procedure does not permit delegation of that responsibility.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee has just concluded a markup on the immigration bill. For those who may be watching on C-SPAN2, a markup means we take a bill, which was the chairman's mark in this situation, a bill which my staff and I have constructed, taking parts of legislation introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy and legislation introduced by Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn, and amalgamated it into one bill with some other provisions which had been suggested by other Senators. We had hearings on the issue. As is customary, we heard both from the administration and from outside witnesses. We had a series of markups. Then, today, in an unusual Monday session, we convened at 10 o'clock this morning, and had a working quorum present by 10:10. We concluded right at 6 p.m. this afternoon and reported the bill out. It is a very emotional issue. It is a very contentious issue. The President called for a civil debate, and we reached that objective. We had a very civil debate. It is expected that there will be considerable controversy when the bill reaches the Senate floor. That is to be expected on a matter as charged and as controversial as is this bill. It is my expectation that the Senate will work its will and will enact legislation. Then, under our bicameral system, we will go to work with the House of Representatives, which has a substantially different approach, having passed a bill that is an enforcement bill. Our legislation is comprehensive, including a temporary guest worker program and an approach to deal with the approximately 11 million undocumented workers in the United States. On the subject of the 11 million undocumented workers, it had been my hope that we would have been able to reach an accommodation between McCain-Kennedy and Kyl-Cornyn. Last week, and on Saturday and Sunday, the staff was here working full time, late every night. I was in town all of last week, Monday through Thursday, until Friday morning, trying to come up with an accommodation which would deal with the elements of Kyl-Cornyn. There is obvious concern that we not produce a bill which would be justifiably categorized as amnesty, and I believe we have a bill which is not justifiably categorized as amnesty. We have a provision that people who were among the undocumented aliens will have to pay a fine, will have a criminal background check, will have to be at work for 6 years, and will have to earn their path to citizenship. The option of having the undocumented aliens return home is a very difficult decision. There is no doubt they have violated the law of the United States by coming in without complying with our immigration procedures. They have come in because there has been a demand for the workers, because people have wanted to give them work. The employers have given them work. But to expect them to come forward and to identify themselves if they know they are going to be sent home is unrealistic. It is obviously highly undesirable to create a fugitive class in America. We do not want 11 million fugitives, which is what we have at the present time. It could be possible to make arrests and to have deportation orders. But it is unrealistic to say we are going to find the 11 million, and that we are going to have facilities to detain them. If you detain somebody, you have to have a detention facility. You have to have beds. You have to be able to house them until deportation proceedings are concluded, and that takes some time. The approach we have undertaken is to try to have them come forward, and have them come forward in a context where we are not rewarding their illegal conduct. There are people who have waited outside the country for lawful admittance; in some countries, people have been waiting since 1983. Under the provisions of the bill which we passed out of the committee, the 11 million undocumented workers go to the back of the line. They will have to pay a fine, they will have to undergo a criminal background check, they will have to earn their way by working, and if they are out of work, they are subject to arrest and deportation at that point. We are open to suggestions, as to any Senators who have ideas. We are not in concrete. If somebody has better ideas, there will be full opportunity to offer amendments on the Senate floor. Title III, which relates to worksite enforcement, requires Social Security number identification, which we did not report out because that is a matter under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, and the Finance Committee rules require any amendments to those laws to be signed by 11 members of the committee, a majority of the committee. Senator Grassley gave us a report on the status in the Finance Committee. They did not have their work finished, so the Judiciary Committee could not take it up. There is a jurisdictional issue with the Finance Committee asserting jurisdiction and perhaps preferring to offer their amendments on the floor. We did not take up title VII, which is judicial reform, because there is considerable controversy about the chairman's mark on those provisions. We have included a modification in appeals to the federal circuit courts after the immigration judge has ruled, after the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled. We have consolidated those actions in the Federal Circuit. We have heard from a number of judicial officials. We heard from the chief judge of the Federal Circuit that with increased resources, the court can handle the additional cases. But with regard to the changes we proposed in trying to provide more independence for immigration judges and in increasing the number of judges on the Board of Immigration Appeals so there are enough judges to write opinions, to try to cut down on the backlog and the number of appeals to the circuit courts, we ought to find out more. We are noticing a hearing for next Monday morning where we will have an opportunity to hear from the judges, who have already written us: the chief judge of the Second Circuit, and a judge from the Seventh Circuit. We will hear from the chief judge of the Federal Circuit, and consider further the viewpoints of the Department of Justice and others on the issue of the independence of the immigration judges on the Board of Immigration Appeals. We have operated with the knowledge that the majority leader filed a bill under rule XIV and announced that would be the bill which would be taken up if the Judiciary Committee did not report out a bill. I think we have produced a bill which is the product of serious debate. I would have preferred more time, but as reported in the press today, we are operating under considerable pressure and we responded in a major way. Senators who had amendments to offer were heard and heard fully. There was an obvious effort to make the discussion as focused and as brief as possible. But every Senator who wanted recognition was recognized. Senators were permitted to speak, which is their right under committee procedure, until they had concluded. I think it is a major bill. The full Senate will have the opportunity to work its will. I would talk longer, but the majority leader has scheduled another meeting at 6:30--a few minutes from now--to take up a number of provisions of the bill. My attendance is required there, so I shall conclude. In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I have submitted this amendment, joined by 27 cosponsors, which would add $7 billion to the fund for education, health, and workers' safety. This account has been decimated since fiscal year 2005 with a loss of some $15.7 billion when we consider the cuts and the failure to have an inflationary increase. Health and education are the two major capital assets of the country. We have gone beyond the fat, beyond the muscle, beyond the bone, and into the marrow. This funding will help us a little, not really enough. We ask our colleagues to support it. I yield to Senator Harkin.