[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4923-S4924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, last week and up to our vote yesterday 
has been, I think, a very productive week for the Senate. We had 17 
rollcall votes: 11 by Republicans, 6 by Democrats. We had 8 voice votes 
evenly divided: 4 by Democrats, and 4 by Republicans. We moved through 
some very contentious issues. I think the debate was of a high caliber.
  I thank the Democratic leader, who is on the floor of the Senate, for 
his cooperation, and I thank all Senators for their cooperation and I 
am looking forward to similar activity. I think we are poised to 
complete action on this bill this week as contemplated.
  We have maintained a delicate perhaps even tenuous coalition in 
support of the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee as we have 
worked through the underlying contentious issue as to how to handle 11 
million undocumented immigrants with a view not to creating a fugitive 
class of Americans, remembering our roots as a nation, that we are a 
nation of immigrants, and recognizing the contribution which the 
undocumented immigrants, although here illegally, the contribution 
which they make to our economy.
  We have faced a significant resistance to the bill on the ground that 
it constitutes amnesty. As I have contended before, it is not amnesty. 
We can't repeat that too often to remind people that amnesty is when 
you forgive transgression or forgive a wrong or forgive a crime. The 
undocumented immigrants will have to pay a fine. They will have to pay 
back taxes. They will have to go through criminal background checks. 
They will have to learn English. They will have to hold a job for a 
protracted period of time. And the reality is that they will earn their 
citizenship.
  We have worked through some difficult amendments. Some could have 
gone either way without destroying the delicate coalition, and others 
would have perhaps been killer amendments which would have fractured 
the bill, which has not happened.
  For those who are opposed to the bill or want to limit immigrants, 
the Bingaman amendment reduced the number of future guest workers from 
350,000 to 200,000.

  We had a very spirited and contentious debate on an amendment by 
Senators Cornyn and Kyl which would have precluded H-2C guest workers 
to self-petition. Then Senator Kennedy

[[Page S4924]]

came back with a modification which opened up self-petitions which, in 
my view, is indispensable if we are not to put the immigrants at the 
mercy of the employer and provide the background for unfair treatment 
by employers to hang the sword of Damocles over the heads of the 
undocumented immigrants.
  We had a very spirited debate on what to do about English, whether it 
is the national language or the common and unifying language or how to 
categorize it.
  In my view, there was not a great deal of difference between the 
amendments offered by Senator Inhofe and Senator Salazar. We do know 
that we are looking for English to be a unifying factor. There is in 
the law today a series of procedures where other languages are printed 
for balance in a variety of contexts, but I think ultimately we will 
work that through on a satisfactory basis.
  There was an amendment by Senator Kyl to strike the provisions that 
the green card by H-2C workers would be a path to citizenship. That was 
a very important amendment not to adopt but to keep that path open 
consistent with the remainder of the bill.
  The amendment to allow undocumented immigrants to receive credit for 
Social Security even though those payments were made during the time of 
illegal status, I think, was decided properly, although a close vote, 
50 to 49. So that survived.
  Yesterday, we rejected the amendment offered by Senator Chambliss on 
a very complicated matter as to how we deal with the prevailing wage or 
adverse effect, and I think we are moving forward.
  The amendment by the distinguished Senator from California is now on 
the floor. There is a great deal to recommend in favor of it, in a 
sense, because it would open up more generously the path to 
citizenship. But I believe if it were to be adopted it would fracture 
the very tenuous and delicate coalition which we have on this bill.
  I compliment the Senator from California for her work on this bill. 
She has been a major contributor in the Judiciary Committee generally, 
and she brought forward the agriculture provisions which have been 
adopted. She is an effective fighter and, as always, the presenter of 
important and constructive ideas.
  I am constrained to oppose the amendment because I think if we were 
to allow everybody who has been in this country since January 1, we 
will destroy the coalition, and we have made a distinction for those 
here longer than 5 years from those here 2 to 5 years on a principle 
basis--that those who are here longer and who have roots ought to be 
accorded greater consideration. We have drawn a line on January 7, 
2004, because that was the date the President made a speech on 
immigration and people who came to the United States in illegal status 
after that date were on notice, you might say, maybe constructive 
notice, if they didn't know about it exactly, but they were on notice 
that they would not be accorded the same status as those who have been 
here earlier. We have used that as a cutoff date.
  My view is that we are working on legislation which is of great 
importance to our country. We face a real test as to whether we will 
retain our principle of a welcoming nation to immigrants who earned 
their status to become citizens.
  I think we have worked through the Judiciary Committee where we had a 
very difficult markup, and one marathon session to meet the timetable 
established by the majority leader.
  The bill has been vigorously debated on both sides. I think there has 
been some concession of significance from the votes to those who are 
opposed to having an expansive view of guest workers and an expansive 
view according to immigrant status to move toward citizenship.
  We have a great deal more work to do. I am confident, or optimistic 
or perhaps even hopeful that we will pass this bill in the Senate, and 
then we will look forward to the conference with the House of 
Representatives which has evidenced a very different view. But we have 
worked through with the House, with Chairman Sensenbrenner, difficult 
issues on the PATRIOT Act and other matters, and our bicameral system 
has worked for America. We will move ahead to forge legislation which 
is principled but recognizing that there are different points of view, 
and accommodating as many views as we can. Where there is a basic 
disagreement, we vote to express the will of the body.
  I have spoken a little longer than usual, but I wanted to summarize 
where we are on the bill.

                          ____________________