[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5835-S5837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Immigration

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now intend to take some of the time 
allocated for the judicial issue to talk very briefly about the 
immigration question which is front and center in the Congress today. 
It is second only to the concerns about the Iraq war and the current 
funding impasse which we have in the constitutional confrontation 
between the Congress and the President, and the sustaining of a veto 
and our efforts to try to work that out.
  I believe there is a universal agreement that the immigration 
situation in the United States today is an unmitigated disaster. Strong 
language, but not strong enough for what is going on with immigration. 
We have a porous border and undocumented immigrants are coming into the 
United States. They pose a security risk. Terrorists are free to wander 
across our borders and come into our country and pose potentially grave 
threats to our national security.

[[Page S5836]]

  We find a significant number of incidents of crime among undocumented 
immigrants. Crime does not have a sole source, but it is a problem. We 
definitely need to get a handle on immigration.
  We worked very hard in the 109th Congress in the Senate. I give my 
colleagues in the House of Representatives credit for working very hard 
too. We produced a bill out of the Judiciary Committee. It was reported 
to the floor, and it passed the Senate. It was comprehensive reform, 
which is what was called for by the President, a bill which would deal 
with the 11 million undocumented immigrants, would provide for a Guest 
Worker Program, and would, as a preliminary to secure our borders, 
provide for employer sanctions if employers hired illegal immigrants.
  The House of Representatives chose a different course to provide only 
for border security, and it was embarrassing, in my judgment, that we 
were unable to have a conference and pass an immigration bill last year 
with both Houses--the Senate and House of Representatives--controlled 
by the Republicans and President Bush, a Republican in the White House. 
But we find ourselves this year with the unmitigated disaster of 
immigration, worse now than ever.
  There have been major efforts to try to find consensus legislation to 
present to the Senate for consideration. The first meeting was held on 
February 13 of this year, and the meetings have been held continuously 
right up to the present time, almost 3 laborious months. These were not 
abbreviated meetings. These meetings were held every Tuesday, 
Wednesday, and Thursday from 4 to 6 o'clock. They were attended by an 
average of 8 to 10 to 12 Senators. They were attended also by the 
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
signifying the President's deep concern and deep interest in the issue.
  They started off with Republicans meeting separately, and then we 
moved into bipartisan meetings. Last week, illustratively, we had 12 
Senators meeting off the Senate floor for 2\1/2\ hours. It is pretty 
hard to keep 12 Senators in one room for 2\1/2\ hours, but we did.
  We have come to what has been categorized as a ``grand bargain.'' 
That is a term one of our most active participants, Senator Lindsey 
Graham, gave to it because we had the overall structure of an 
immigration bill. We did not have all the aspects of it worked out, but 
we were proceeding to provide for real border security--border security 
which would increase the number of border guards from 12,000 to 18,000 
and border security which would encompass a fence. We cannot have one 
across the entire border, but we can have a fence to secure our major 
metropolitan areas, illustratively San Diego and southern Arizona.
  We have worked laboriously to craft identification so an employer 
would know whether an applicant for a job was legal or illegal. When an 
employer has the opportunity to be certain of the legal status of those 
he hires, then the stage is set for tough sanctions on employers so 
that we can reduce the magnet to bring people to the United States for 
jobs when they are not legally in the United States.
  We have provided the mechanism for dealing with the 11 million 
undocumented immigrants. We have structured a program so it would not 
be fairly or accurately characterized as amnesty. The requirements of 
that program are that immigrants learn English, that the immigrants 
have roots in the United States, that they have held a job for a 
protracted period of time, that they pay a fine, and that there be a 
so-called touchback provision. It is still not decided as to the issue 
of back taxes, but that is a consideration which is on the table. We 
have provided for a Guest Worker Program which is what it says; that 
is, people come to the United States for the purpose of filling jobs 
and then will return to their native homes.
  We provided that if there are people living in the United States 
legally, citizens or legal immigrants, they would have the first 
opportunity at these jobs.
  We have held some 23 meetings over the course of the past 3 months. 
So I was a little surprised to see the statement by the majority leader 
at a press conference yesterday. Perhaps it was said partially in jest, 
but Senator Reid pointed out that there had been notice for some 2 
months that the immigration bill would be taken up in the last 2 weeks 
before the Memorial Day recess. Then he said:

       And anyone who thinks that 2 months is not enough time to 
     get ready should get another occupation.

  Maybe he said it in humor, but certainly I would fit into that 
category of looking for another occupation. The distinguished chairman 
of the committee has elected to have the matter go through the 
negotiating process which I have just described, so he doesn't have to 
seek another occupation. But there are many people on both sides of the 
aisle, under the Reid dictum, who now must seek another occupation.
  I think it is a fair representation to say we have worked 
tenaciously. The problem we face now is that the so-called stakeholders 
all want more than can be divided from what is available. There are 
stakeholders who want more green cards and who want the advantages of 
family admission on a widespread basis, and if it were left up to me 
alone I would be in favor of the broadest reach of family unification. 
But if we are to find the realism of enough green cards to accommodate 
the undocumented immigrants who are going to come through the process 
at the end of the line, there has to be some give somewhere.
  The critics of the immigration bill are descending on us from all 
sides before we even have an immigration bill. The Hill publication 
reports today of opposition from Members of the House of 
Representatives for Senate legislation when we don't even have 
legislation in existence. One Member of the House is quoted as saying:

       It is important that the Senate knows there will be strong 
     bipartisan opposition to amnesty.

  Well, we don't even have a bill that could be accused of having 
included amnesty, and the outline which we are considering and 
contemplating is certainly not amnesty by any fair interpretation.
  The majority leader has said he intends to file under rule XIV today 
and go to the legislation on Monday. As I said yesterday, there is 
strong opposition to such a practice, at least on this side of the 
aisle. It is my hope that we will not face a contested motion to 
proceed. It is my hope we will not face the threat of a filibuster 
against the motion to proceed, which would doom immigration reform.
  We have encapsulated our views in a letter, following the majority 
leader's news conference of today, where a number of us are asking that 
we rethink the schedule we have. If we bring last year's Senate-passed 
bill to the floor, it is going to have substantial opposition. That has 
already been announced on both sides of the aisle. Both Democrats and 
Republicans who supported it last year are opposed to it. If we start 
there, the floor action is likely to be a free-for-all.
  I understand the problems of Senate scheduling, but I also understand 
the vicissitudes, problems, and pitfalls of proceeding where you don't 
have the structure of a bill which can be reasonably and realistically 
debated, with amendments, and then decided upon. We don't even have 2 
weeks. We have to act on the supplemental before the Memorial Day 
recess if we are to provide the troops with the funding they need.
  So it is my hope the current process can be allowed to continue. 
There has been a massive good-faith effort by Republicans and Democrats 
meeting for very protracted periods of time to come to agreement on a 
bill and to reduce it to written form. I will concede that there has 
been a lot of wheel spinning in the process which we have undertaken. 
Perhaps it was an error to abandon the traditional committee process. 
But that is where we are, and we need more time to flesh out the grand 
compromise, the grand bargain which we have structured so far.
  If we are not able to legislate, we are not going to be able to 
provide for people who are interested in bringing 11 million 
undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, which is the main benefit 
that comes from those who want to proceed in the traditional American 
way to welcome the immigrants under a systemized plan. If we don't have 
comprehensive reform, we are not going to provide the border controls 
and the employer sanctions to stop illegal immigration.

[[Page S5837]]

  It may be this is our last best chance. I would urge all sides to 
take a deep breath and to rethink positions on all sides and try to 
find a rational, bipartisan way to proceed.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 58 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Fifty-eight minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont has 49\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has 
the floor, but the Senator from New York wants to speak briefly, and I 
have also been advised there are a number of Republicans who want to go 
to a burial service. So just so people can plan, as soon as the Senator 
from New York has finished his speech, which will be very brief, I am 
prepared to yield back our time to accommodate those who wish to go to 
the burial service.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, do I understand the Senator from Vermont, 
the distinguished chairman, is proposing a grand bargain?
  Mr. LEAHY. No, sir.
  Mr. SPECTER. A grand bargain which would allocate 1 minute to Senator 
Schumer, and then all time yielded back?
  Mr. LEAHY. I am told the Senator wishes 2 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Sounds excessive to me, but I will go along. When he 
finishes his speech, if we are prepared to yield back time, I will 
consider the proposal for the grand bargain.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont yields 
time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the grand marshal.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and Raskolnikof as 
well, since he made the grand bargain once before. It didn't work out 
so well, so I would say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I hope his 
grand bargain works out better than Raskolnikof's grand bargain.
  Anyway, I rise to speak on our nominee, the confirmation of Debra 
Livingston. She is a legal superstar from my home State of New York, 
and she is nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Let me just say we in New York have a system in place for nominating 
Federal judges that works. The President and I work together to name 
highly qualified consensus candidates to the Federal bench. There is 
often rancor when it comes to judges from other parts of the country, 
but there has been very little when it comes to New York. It shows that 
when both sides wish to compromise, we can probably get there. That is 
because in New York we have an effective and bipartisan way to select 
qualified and, almost without exception, moderate candidates for the 
bench.
  Ms. Livingston is squarely in that mold. Her career so far has 
spanned private practice, criminal prosecution, and academia, so she 
has a deep understanding of the law gained from many perspectives, from 
the courtroom to the classroom. Ms. Livingston is a graduate of 
Princeton University, received her J.D. from Harvard Law School--also 
my alma mater--where she served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
  From 1986 to 1991, Ms. Livingston was an assistant U.S. attorney in 
the Southern District, where she prosecuted public corruption cases and 
served as deputy chief of appeals. Before and after her time as a 
prosecutor, Ms. Livingston was an associate at one of the very 
prestigious law firms in New York, Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton, and 
Garrison. She is currently the vice dean and Paul J. Kellner professor 
of law at Columbia University, where she focuses on criminal procedure, 
evidence, and national security.
  I think it is great that we will have an appellate judge who has both 
a scholarly mind and practical courtroom experience. It is a perfect 
combination, in my view, for an appeals court judge. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in voting for her confirmation.
  In keeping with the prelude to the grand bargain, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Sealing the grand bargain, I, too, yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time having been yielded, the 
question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of 
Debra Ann Livingston, of New York, to be U.S. circuit judge for the 
Second Circuit? On this question the yeas and nays were previously 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 158 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brownback
     Crapo
     Dole
     Johnson
     Levin
     McCain
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table.
  The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________