[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8524-S8526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I have sought 
recognition to comment on two subjects on the pending immigration bill.
  First, it is my hope that my colleagues in the Senate will focus very 
closely on the extraordinary problems the United States faces today by 
the current status of our immigration laws and weigh very carefully, 
notwithstanding any objections people may have to the pending bill, the 
comparison of the bill with the status quo, what is in existence at the 
present time. The ultimate decision on whether to vote for or against 
the bill depends upon not what we would like to have, not what would be 
perfect, maybe not even what would meet the desires of the individual 
Members, but a comparison between what bill finally emerges and the 
status quo, what is happening at the present time, because what we 
really have in our immigration law is chaos and anarchy.
  We struggled through legislation in the 109th Congress. It came 
through the Judiciary Committee, which I chaired in the 109th Congress, 
passed the Senate, and a different kind of a bill passed the House of 
Representatives. We could not go to conference, we did not resolve the 
issue, and it is back again this year. As I have said on a number of 
occasions on the floor, I think it probably would have been preferable 
to work through committee. I think at this juncture, you can strike the 
``probably.'' It would have been preferable to work through committee 
in regular order. Whenever we leave regular order, we get into trouble.
  So we structured it differently. We structured it with a hard-working 
group of Senators, up to 12, sometimes a rotating group, and we came up 
with a bill. We have been struggling with it on the Senate floor. We 
have found objections on all sides. We have found objections on the 
right that it is amnesty, and we have found objections on the left that 
it does not satisfy humanitarian needs and provide for family 
reunification, but we continue to push ahead. But I think it is plain 
that if the Senate does not come up with a bill, doing the best we can 
now, the subject will be cut off for the indefinite future. Certainly 
it will not come back up this year when we have a very crowded agenda 
on appropriations bills and patent reform and many other subjects. It 
is unlikely to come up next year in a Presidential and congressional 
election year. Then we are looking at 2009, and we have no reason to 
expect that the issue will be any easier in 2009 than it is today 
except that we would have lost more time.
  We also ought to bear in mind that the Senate bill is not the final 
product. We will yet have a House bill, we will yet have conference, 
and we will yet have an opportunity to meet objections which are 
presently lodged against the bill.
  Just a word of explanation. When I tear up, it is a result of 
chemotherapy; it is not a result of sadness on the current status of 
the immigration bill.
  There is unity of judgment in both the House and the Senate, and I 
think broadly across America, that we need to reinstate the rule of 
law. We need to fix our broken borders. We need to have law enforcement 
against individuals who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. That is a 
very major part of the pending bill. The current bill provides for an 
increased Border Patrol from 12,000 to 18,000--6,000 new people.
  It provides for additional fencing, although fencing was legislated 
in the 109th Congress. It provides for drones to fly overhead. It 
provides for fencing to protect urban areas. While you can't build an 
impenetrable fence of more than 2,000 miles above the border, we do 
cover a great deal of border protection. But no matter how secure the 
border is, as long as there is a magnet so people can get jobs in the 
United States which are better than other places, immigrants will be 
attracted, illegal immigrants will be attracted. That is why we have 
structured provisions in this bill to have foolproof identification so 
employers will be able to know with certainty whether an individual is 
a legal or an illegal immigrant. That being the case, if employers hire 
illegal immigrants knowing they are illegal immigrants because they are 
in a position to make that determination, it is fair to have sanctions, 
and for repeat offenders tougher

[[Page S8525]]

sanctions, and for repeat offenders, confirmed recidivists, to have 
jail time so we will provide the incentives of law enforcement on 
white-collar crime, which is very effective as a deterrent. I have seen 
that from my own experience as a prosecuting attorney.
  In this bill we have issues which are agreed upon by everyone to 
secure our borders, to impose the rule of law, and to control illegal 
immigration. But that is not the end of the issue on comprehensive 
legislation. We have a guest worker program. In the midst of many 
objections which I am receiving about the bill, I am also hearing a 
great deal from people who say we need to have immigrant workers, that 
they are a vital part of our workforce. The landscapers have contacted 
me. The farmers have contacted me. Restauranteurs have contacted me. 
Hotel associations have contacted me. The agriculture needs in 
California have been expressed repeatedly on the floor of this body. So 
we do need the workers. The Chamber of Commerce and the other 
organizations are very forceful in articulating that need.
  We have tried to balance it so we do not take away American jobs and 
so we are sensitive to the objections which the AFL-CIO has raised. We 
reduced the number of the guest worker program from 400,000 to 200,000. 
We tried to take into consideration the H-1B workers so that we bring 
in people with advanced degrees and technical knowledge to help Silicon 
Valley and other entities which are seeking more along that line. The 
bill is structured in a very sensitive way in that direction.
  Then we have the 12 million undocumented immigrants. No one knows the 
exact number, but that is the number which we have utilized, a number 
which the Pew Foundation says is about right from their surveys. We 
have a cry that we will be giving amnesty to these 12 million 
individuals. We have done our best to structure a bill which requires 
these undocumented immigrants to earn the right to the path of 
citizenship. We have imposed fines. We have the requirement in the bill 
now, through amendment, that they have to pay back taxes. We require 
they learn English. We require the undocumented immigrants hold jobs 
for a part of our society. We have a so-called touchback provision 
which I am not enthusiastic about. I have grave reservations about 
punitive measures which do not have some substantive meaning, but that 
concession has been made to try to avoid the amnesty claim. We have 
gone about as far as we can go. Amnesty, like beauty, may be in the eye 
of the beholder.
  One thing is plain: The 12 million undocumented immigrants are going 
to stay in the United States one way or another. They are going to stay 
here unless we find a way to identify those who are criminals and who 
could and should be deported, those who may be problems on terrorism. 
It is agreed that you can't deport 12 million undocumented immigrants. 
But if we can find a way to so-called ``bring them out of the 
shadows,'' we can identify those who ought to be deported in manageable 
numbers.
  Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has accurately said 
that the current situation, with 12 million undocumented immigrants, is 
silent amnesty. So they are here, one way or another, silent amnesty or 
amnesty. But one thing we could do if we move ahead with the 
legislation is to avoid the anarchy which is here at the present time.
  I urge my colleagues, in formulating their judgment on the next 
critical cloture vote and on the issues of the point of order which 
will be raised, both of which will require 60 votes, to consider very 
carefully our best efforts at legislation which may be improved upon 
even more on the pending amendments, may be improved upon even more, 
contrasting that with the current situation, the status quo, which is 
totally objectionable.
  I want to comment about one other subject, and that is the procedures 
which we are undertaking on this bill. We have come to an approach 
which, quite frankly, I would prefer not to have seen adopted. I would 
have preferred to have proceeded as we did at the start of the 
consideration of this bill before the majority leader took it off the 
calendar, where we were entertaining amendments from all sides. When 
the majority leader moved for cloture, I joined most of my colleagues 
on this side of the aisle, on the Republican side, in voting against 
cloture so people could have an opportunity to offer their amendments 
and the minority would not be stifled. I think on some occasions in the 
past, there have been efforts to stifle the minority and not allow them 
to bring up amendments. I stood with my Republican colleagues in voting 
against cloture.
  Then we spent hours on the floor of the Senate where the objectors--
really the obstructionists; well, let's call them objectors, I withdraw 
the comment ``obstructionists''--were exercising their rights. It is 
better to use a more diplomatic language and to accord all colleagues 
the full panoply of their rights. They were exercising their rights. 
But we sat around here. As the manager of the bill, I have to sit on 
the floor because something may happen; unlikely, but something may 
happen. I sat around for hours again yesterday. I don't mind hard work, 
but I do mind no work. But we sat around for hours on Thursday 
afternoon where the objectors wouldn't offer amendments, and they 
wouldn't allow anybody else to offer amendments. That is unacceptable, 
just unacceptable.

  So I joined my colleagues, seven of us on the Republican side, and 
voted for cloture to cut off debate, and it failed. Then understandably 
the majority leader took the bill down. Now we have a very limited 
period of time, because we are about to embark on the 4th of July 
recess. When we come back there is a full agenda. As I said earlier, if 
we don't take the bill up now, it is not going to happen this year and 
probably won't happen next year. When we look at 2009, the same kind of 
problems we will face then, we face now, except they will be worse.
  So a procedure has been structured now where we have 25 amendments. 
That is going to be the full extent. Yesterday the distinguished junior 
Senator from Oklahoma said he wanted an opportunity to offer 
amendments. I don't disagree with his philosophy, but in order to have 
had that opportunity, they had to have been done when we first had the 
bill on the floor. If the bill is to be moved along, we are going to 
have to proceed as we are now.
  Our plan is to seek unanimous consent on these 25 amendments for a 
limited period of time. We have the proponents of the amendments, and 
opponents, and they are prepared to take a limited time agreement. Now 
we are equally divided. If Senators get down to business and get down 
to issues in an hour, you can debate the salient points. You probably 
aren't going to change any minds, anyway, around here, but you can have 
the debate in a pro forma way and get it done. But those time 
agreements will not proceed if there are objections to the time 
agreements, and we won't be able to have even limited debate.
  The plan has been worked out. I don't like the plan, but it is the 
best we can do. It is the least of the undesirable alternatives. As a 
manager, I am going to move to table Democratic amendments, and Senator 
Kennedy, as the manager, is going to move to table Republican 
amendments. So if there is no agreement on this limited time, there 
won't be any debate at all, and we are going to move right ahead for 
the disposition of the bill. If someone seeks recognition to speak with 
the managers controlling the floor, we will ask for unanimous consent 
that the speaker agree that no amendment will be offered and that there 
will be discussion only on the bill and for a limited period of time, a 
very limited period of time.
  That is not the way the Senate ordinarily does business. Ordinarily 
if there is a request for unanimous consent on a time agreement on a 
pending amendment, if there is an objection, then there is no time 
limit and people debate it at some length, or they may filibuster it. 
But that is not going to happen on this bill at this time, because the 
day for amendments to be offered and regular order to be followed is 
past.
  If we are to have a resolution of this issue, we are going to have to 
move ahead under this constricted and constrained procedure which, 
again, I don't like, but we are being forced to by the circumstances 
which we find ourselves in.
  Just as we respect the rights of the objectors to raise the 
objections they have, we have rights, too. The way we

[[Page S8526]]

are proceeding is fully within the rules of the Senate. It is going to 
be a rough ride. We are in trench warfare, and it is going to be tough. 
But we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another. 
I hope, as I said earlier, my colleagues will, on the merits, take a 
close look at a comparison between the legislation we will produce with 
the unacceptable, unsatisfactory anarchy we have in immigration law 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Chair report the bill, please.

                          ____________________