[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4037-4039]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  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

[[Page 4038]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to follow the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and make brief comments about the immigration bill 
that came out of our committee with a strong, bipartisan vote.
  It is a big issue. It is a tough issue. It is a tough issue that is 
confronting America. I believe that is what this body should be about--
dealing with big, tough issues confronting America. That is what the 
committee came through and did.
  The bill that came out of the committee today is not the final 
product. I think it needs substantial adjustment. Hopefully, during the 
2-week period we are going to be discussing this bill on the floor, we 
will have a lot of discussion and we will get a final product that we 
can agree on that strengthens the immigration system.
  Currently, our system is not working. It has not worked for some 
period of time. It has not worked for the country. It has not worked 
for the people wanting to come into the country. It needs to be 
changed. There is no question about it.
  One specific item I wish to talk about is the need for comprehensive 
reform. The reason we need it is because of our past experience, when 
we have had just pieces of comprehensive reform.
  A quick bit of history: In 1986, we had 3 million undocumented 
individuals in the United States, and Ronald Reagan put forward an 
amnesty program. In 1996--we seem to do this in 10-year increments--
people were upset we had 7 million undocumented immigrants in the 
United States--3 million in 1986; 7 million in 1996--and we put forward 
an enforcement program and passed it into law and toughened up 
enforcement because that was seen as the need and the answer.
  So we had an amnesty program in 1986, without enforcement; we had an 
enforcement program in 1996, without some sort of legalized system for 
people to get into the country. We had 3 million undocumented; we had 7 
million undocumented. We are at 2006, and we have 11 million 
undocumented, and people are saying what we need is tougher 
enforcement. We did do that in 1996, and we increased the number of 
those undocumented whom we have in the country.
  Now we have to increase enforcement. I think we have to do more than 
just border enforcement, though. We have to do interior enforcement and 
integrating our tax system and Social Security system along with the 
immigration system so we can catch people at the workplace, we can 
catch people in a place where they will be interior in the country and 
strengthen our enforcement that way. We have to get that done. So we 
have to strengthen enforcement.
  But, at the same time, you have to have some way to bring people into 
a legalized system. President Bush has talked about a guest worker 
program. Others have talked about a circular program where you can come 
in, work for a period of time, and leave. Others have talked about a 
system where you can earn your citizenship by working here. That is 
what was basically passed in the committee bill, with much tougher 
enforcement and a way of being able to get the 11 million into a system 
where they can get into a legalized status and out of the shadows. That 
is what we want to take place.
  We also have in the bill more interior enforcement. We have 
provisions that have yet to be worked out on Social Security and 
immigration enforcement that are being talked about with the chairman 
of the Finance Committee.
  My reason for outlining that is that this is a big step we have taken 
today out of the Judiciary Committee. I serve on that committee. But it 
is not the final step. The President needs to engage in these 
discussions and negotiations, hopefully, as well as the House 
leadership, as we debate on the Senate floor one of the biggest issues 
facing this country today and its future. And make no mistake about it, 
this will affect the future makeup of the United States. It is a major 
issue.
  I think it is one we can be proud of, that this is a nation of 
immigrants. We can be humbled by all of our humble beginnings that each 
of us came from and have grown in this country. Once given freedom and 
liberty, people can do amazing things. We have seen that time and 
again, the story of people who have come to the United States.
  The final point I want to make is a philosophical one. One of the key 
measures in any society is what you do for the so-called least of 
these. It is what you do for those who are not in the Chair presiding 
in the Senate, even with the humble roots that he came from, or other 
individuals, it is what you do for the least of these, what you do for 
the huddled masses. That really is a key hallmark and a key measure for 
society. Those huddled masses that we enshrined in the Statue of 
Liberty are a key indicator of what we have stood for so much in the 
past.
  Categories of people who are in the least of these status generally 
are referred to as widows and orphans and the foreigner amongst you. 
They are considered the least of these. People who have difficulty with 
status, difficulty having laws applied to them, have difficulty 
accessing the system are considered the least of these.
  And what do we do. Today we took a step in dealing with the 11 
million population, we believe, of undocumenteds in this country, 
trying to deal with them as beautiful, unique individuals. And then we 
have to, as well, deal with these as a nation of laws. We have to be a 
nation of laws. We can't just say: Well, the winds are this way or that 
way, and we have decided we are going to do this. We have to be a 
nation of laws. We have to get to a system that we can have people 
believe in and say this is a system of laws that will work, and yet 
still deal with our aspiration as a society to deal with people in 
difficult circumstances, the so-called least of these.
  I think we have struck that balance today as a start. We have a long 
way to go to finish. We are heading toward the higher aspirations of 
what this country is about. It will be a very difficult and visceral 
debate, as people's passions are strong. It does amaze me that passions

[[Page 4039]]

frequently change from the macro to the micro on an immigration debate. 
In a macro debate, people say: We need to be a nation of laws. On a 
micro basis, if it is their neighbor next door that is working and 
doing construction work, they say: Look, leave him alone. But on a 
macro basis, I want to deal with this on a tough situation. I have seen 
that so much, of individuals who will say on a macro basis: We need to 
have a tough set of laws, but don't pick on this individual I know 
personally and I really care for. They should have a chance to 
experience the American dream.
  We are off to a good start of having a wholesome, full debate that is 
dignified, that is important, that deals with the highest aspirations 
of this country and yet maintains and tries to get us back through the 
immigration system into a nation of laws and not situations where they 
are just thrown to the side.
  Our current system is such, with the complexity and the time waits in 
it that a person may come here legally but their spouse can't be here 
legally for 7 to 10 years. So frequently the spouses decide, let's get 
there any way we can. Or you will find an agricultural worker in a 
system saying that it is just so complicated that we are going to go 
around the system to the point that half to three-fourths of our 
agricultural workers, foreign-born agricultural workers, are 
undocumented illegals. Yet without them you don't run the agricultural 
system. You could say that is a bad place to be in, and it is. But I 
think it also tells us the path to change that we have to get to be 
able to make a legal system that does work and that can get most people 
into it. We need to do so to be compassionate and a nation of laws.
  It will be a tremendous debate. It is an important one for the 
country. It is an important one for the Republican Party, for us to 
have a good, full debate about this topic and how we move forward with 
it. I think we are going to have it, and it is going to be one of the 
most dignified and important moments in debates for this Senate during 
this term of Congress.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________