Negro Leagues Baseball Museum

NEGRO LEAGUES BASEBALL MUSEUM

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his good work in producing a bill that has become the subject of debate in the Senate dealing with a very important issue to our Nation, something that people are extremely engaged in, one that has generated a lot of debate and a lot of controversy around the country but clearly one that needs to be addressed.

I have listened and observed as the debate has gone forward and listened to the content of that debate over the past several days and come to somewhat of an objective point of view because I come from a State that is not a border State. We do not have to deal with the issues on a daily basis affecting many of our States on the northern or southern border.

Having said that, it is an issue which has captured the discussion being held across this country even in States such as mine, the State of South Dakota. The reason for that is very simple: People see day in and day out some of the images broadcast across the television screen and the people who come to the United States illegally. They deal with the burden and cost associated with some of the public services associated with illegal immigration in this country. So they view it very much as taxpayers. They view it as an issue that, frankly, needs to be addressed. They want to see the Senate act in an appropriate and a timely way.

I have to say, too, I have heard a lot of people in the Senate reference their ancestry. Various Members of the Senate have described in detail how their ancestors came to this country, the personal perspective they have on the issue, and the experiences that have helped shed light and inform their opinions about it. I, too, am not the exception to that. I have roots that go back, with a grandfather that came here from Norway, back in 1906, along with my great-uncle Matt, when they came through Ellis Island. The name that I now have, the Thune name, was not their name. Their name was Gjelsvik. They came through Ellis Island and the immigration officials asked them to change their name because they thought it would be difficult for people in these United States both to spell and pronounce. They did not speak a word of English. I should say, almost no English. My understanding is that when they boarded the train that took them to South Dakota, the only English they knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee.'' So they had a lot of apple pie and coffee between Ellis Island and South Dakota.

They came to this country for the same reason that people all over the world come to this country. I am very sympathetic to those who want to come to the United States for everything that we stand for: for opportunity, for freedom, to live the American dream.

My grandfather and my great-uncle came here and worked on the railroads when they were building the Transcontinental Railroad into South Dakota. They put their money together to start a merchandising company that later became Thune Hardware. So they were small business people in this country, something that so many people aspire to all over the world. They want to come to the United States for the miracle and for the dream that is America.

I am sympathetic to the history and the culture and the tradition we have as a nation of being a welcoming country, a country that says to bring your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I approach the debate on immigration from that perspective, that context of having a grandfather, one generation removed from me, who came to this country for all the various reasons that people today continue to want to flock to America.

As I have listened to the debate, I have tried to give consideration to all the different perspectives that are presented. It seems to me, at least as I try to make decisions about this, formed by my constituents in South Dakota and formed by my experience, background, and my history, to come to conclusions in the best interests of our Nation, in the best interests of continuing that tradition of treating those who come here fairly, but also the importance of American principles.

One of those American principles is the rule of law. We are a nation of laws, and that entails that we have to be able to enforce those laws. If we cannot enforce those laws, if we are not going to apply and adhere to those laws, those laws end up being pretty meaningless and irrelevant in the long run. I come to this debate with some principles in mind, not having drawn any hard conclusions on any specific piece of legislation but wanting to see the Senate do its work, wanting to see the Senate do what the people in this country expect us to do, and that is to confront the big issues, to deal with the challenging issues, to vote on the big issues, to bring resolution and clarity to the problems and the challenges that face this country.

What is perplexing about what is happening in the Senate right now is we have a base bill that has been reported out by the Judiciary Committee. Granted, it may not be the perfect bill. Frankly, there are many who would like to see that particular piece of legislation amended. Many of us would like to vote on some of those types of amendments that could be offered. Regrettably, the minority has decided they are not going to allow votes on amendments, allegedly because they are votes they do not want to put their Members in precarious political situations, having to make votes on amendments they would rather not vote on.

As a consequence, we are not having votes on amendments. We are just basically blocking the whole substance of this debate from going forward and the Senate from doing the work that the American people expect us to do and, frankly, what the tradition and history of the Senate would suggest that we ought to be doing; that is, amending this base bill, having this debate, this discussion, allowing people with different ideas and different perspectives and different points of view to come in and offer their amendments, to have those amendments debated, to have people listen to that debate, and then come and vote on those amendments so that eventually we can produce a product that is the composite view of the Senate, reflective of a majority of the Senators.

What has happened in the Senate is the minority has decided, one, we are not going to vote on amendments. If we do have any votes on amendments, they will dictate what those amendments are that we will vote on. So far as tomorrow, insisting on a cloture vote on the underlying bill without having allowed any of the debate on any of the amendments so that we have an opportunity for people to be heard, people to offer their amendments, and people to improve, in their view, in their particular point of view, the legislation before it is ultimately passed out of the Senate and goes to conference with the House and enacted into law.

The fundamental problem with the way the Senate is functioning in this debate is that if we fail to allow individual Members to follow what is the protocol of the Senate, what is the tradition of the Senate, and that is the institution that allows for open debate, the institution that allows for amendments to be offered to legislation, for individual Senators to come over and to have their point of view heard in that debate and offer amendments that are more reflective of their particular idea about how this problem ought to be addressed or this challenge ought to be met, we are undermining the basic foundation of what this Senate and this institution is all about. But, more importantly, we are keeping the people's business from being done.

We are, if we have this cloture vote tomorrow--and I suspect the minority will insist on this cloture vote because they want to have a vote on this bill without having any debate on any of the amendments that our side wants to have votes on and report a bill out. You have the minority of the Senate dictating the terms and conditions under which we will have this debate, the amendments that will be voted on, and, ultimately, the shape of the bill that will come out of here.

This side of the aisle, the majority, 55 Members of the Senate, want to be heard on this issue, as well. What we need to understand is, yes, there are rules that allow the Senate to slow things down, to allow for extended debate on subjects, but ultimately we need to move the process forward. That means voting on legislation.

We had a big debate in the last couple of years about inaction in the Senate due to obstruction, due to blockage, due to dilatory tactics employed by the minority. People have rejected that. People in this country want action. They want action on this specific issue. This is an issue that generates strong emotions all across the country.

Frankly, I believe the American people expect and they deserve better than what they are getting from the minority in the Senate who have insisted, again, that we not vote on amendments that the majority wants to offer. Basically, we report the bill out, they dictate the bill that passes the Senate.

That is not right. We have heard people get up on both sides today, both Democrats and Republicans, and speak to this issue. We heard earlier today the Democrats get up and say: We are not really trying to block this. We are willing to vote on amendments--our amendments, just not your amendments, not amendments that are offered by the majority side in the Senate.

That is not to say they do not have some good ideas, but the truth is, there is not a monopoly on good ideas on either the Republican or Democrat side, and this Senate ought to be allowed to work in the way it was intended to work. Republicans and Democrats can both offer their amendments and they can both be voted on and we can shape the legislation in a way that is reflective of the majority view in the Senate.

Tomorrow we will have a cloture vote. It will fail because the minority is going to insist we have a cloture vote. But no one on this side is going to allow the minority to dictate the terms of this debate or the amendments that ought to be considered or to block having votes on amendments that the Republicans in the Senate would like to have votes on.

As I said before, I tried to approach this debate in a very objective way and, frankly, as I look at it, there are some very critical components that need to be in a bill. First and foremost, border security. As I said earlier, one of the reasons that America stands unique in all the world is we are a nation of laws. We respect the rule of law. It means something in America.

There are other places in the world where the rule of law does not mean much, and tyrants and dictators come up with their own version of what the laws are. Here in the United States, we have a Constitution. We are a constitutional Republic. We have laws. We abide by those laws. We need to enforce those laws.

We have not been doing the job we need to be doing of enforcing our laws with respect to the borders, controlling the borders in this country. That has all kinds of implications. This should not be lost on the American people. One of the reasons people in South Dakota care about this issue, even though we are not a border State is, they understand, as I do, that controlling and protecting and securing our borders is a matter of national security. Irrespective of where you come from in the world, if you come to the United States--as I said earlier, I have Norwegian ancestry, but if you have Hispanic ancestry, European ancestry, Asian ancestry, whatever--when the terrorists come across the border like they did on September 11 to destroy and kill Americans, they do not discriminate about where that individual comes from in the world. They want to kill Americans, pure and simple. I don't care what your race or national origin, ethnicity is, flatly, very simply, this is a matter of national security. And securing our borders has to be the fundamental component around which we build this debate.

That is one of the principles I come to the debate with. Again, I have no previous position as we enter this debate about individual pieces of legislation. I am listening to it. I will have the opportunity, I hope, at some point, if the Democrats will allow us to, to vote on amendments. But the reality is right now we are not having that opportunity. Again, I simply say that as a matter of principle, ultimately we need to report a bill out of here that does secure the borders of the United States so that people in this country can know with confidence and can trust that we are serious about keeping our borders secure if for no other reason than as a matter of national security.

Secondly, I would say, as a fundamental principle, we have to enforce our laws. There has been a big debate about: What do you do about people who are already here illegally? I think that is a very important question in this debate. There are somewhere between 11 and 12 million people, we are told, who have come to this country who are now here illegally, and we have to figure out, from the standpoint of status, how we deal with those people in this country.

But, again, a fundamental underlying principle ought to be that we cannot reward illegal behavior. We want to reward legal behavior. We want to reward people who came here and who followed the rules. I heard lots of people get up and talk on the floor about their ancestry and how they came to this country, but I suspect most of them, like my grandfather and great-uncle, came here by the rules that were put in place. They followed the law.

We want to encourage and provide incentives for that kind of behavior. For people who want to come to America, we have a process by which they can come here, but it is consistent with a set of rules and laws we have in place. We have to make sure we are encouraging legal behavior, that we are discouraging illegal behavior, that we are not putting incentives in place for illegal behavior and, furthermore, condoning or conferring benefits on people who systematically decide to break the law.

So I happen to be of a view that I believe in a guest, temporary worker program, perhaps some form of permanent resident status. But I think, again, when you start talking about conferring the benefits of citizenship on people in this country who are here illegally without some sort of penalty for that--in other words, if we just wave our magic wand and say anybody who is here can stay, and so be it, we have done a disservice to our history and our traditions as a nation of laws.

I think it is important we understand there needs to be consequences to illegal behavior. We have talked about amnesty. It has been thrown around a lot here. Essentially, what that means is there is no consequence to behavior that is illegal. I think it is important we make it fundamentally clear to people who do want to come to this country that we are a nation, yes, of immigrants, we welcome people, but we want people to come here according to the laws.

I would say that at the end of day, when this is all said and done, again, we need to have votes because this is an issue that around the country is generating tremendous heat, tremendous emotion, and has been percolating for some time. As people look at the images on their television of people who come here illegally, they are worried about national security, they are worried about the economic consequences, the consequences to the taxpayer of providing services to people who are here illegally.

People want action. They want action by the U.S. Senate. I think we have a responsibility, in this body, after everything is said and done--and usually what happens in the Senate is more gets said than done--but when everything is said and done, to come together on legislation that would accomplish the goal; that is, to address the issue of immigration in a way that is fair and in a way that is consistent with our culture and our history and our tradition as a welcoming country but is also consistent with our tradition as a nation of laws. I believe we can come to that kind of a resolution here in the Senate if--if--our colleagues on the other side will allow us to vote on amendments.

Now, the Senator from Georgia, who is currently the Presiding Officer in the Senate, has an amendment I would like to vote on. It is called the trigger amendment. Basically, it says that until it is certified that the borders are secure, then all these other issues we are talking about with respect to this debate are just conversation; that, first and foremost, we have to secure the borders, and it has to be certified we have made the efforts, that we are serious about doing that. I think it is a good approach. At least it ought to be an approach that is voted on.

Now, our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, do not want a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Georgia because they do not think that would be a good political vote for them. What it suggests to me is we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are a lot more concerned about having an issue, a political issue, than they are about having a solution to this problem. What we need in the Senate are more people on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, who will confront this issue for what it is.

That is probably the most difficult, challenging issue that is facing the country, on a domestic level at least, currently or for some time. We are fighting a war on terror in Iraq. It has demanded a lot of attention and a tremendous amount of resources. But when it comes to domestic issues--and there are many. I am very interested in this body working on issues. As we move forward throughout the year, we have votes scheduled on health care reform because health care costs are critical. We have to get that under control in this country.

We are going to have votes on extending some of the tax relief that will allow the economy to continue to grow and to create jobs and to make sure the economic engines are keeping this country moving forward. We are going to have votes on those types of issues as we go forward. And, of course, we are going to deal with the annual appropriations and budget process, and a whole range of other issues before the year is out.

They are important issues. They are all important to the American public. But I would submit to you that right now there is no more urgent issue, no issue that demands an answer, that demands a solution, that demands action by the Senate than the issue of immigration.

And what is the Senate going to do? Are we going to move forward? Are we going to, consistent with the tradition and the history of the Senate, allow for debate and allow for votes on amendments or are the Democrats, the minority in the Senate, going to continue to insist on blocking amendments, votes on amendments, simply because they do not want to vote on certain amendments because those amendments might be tough political votes for them?

Well, we all make tough political votes. There are amendments they are going to offer that I will not want to vote on. In fact, there may be some amendments offered by colleagues on my side of the aisle that I really do not want to vote on. But we are here to vote. That is what people send us here to do. It is to do the people's business.

It is important we have the opportunity to deal with what is the most important singular issue I think the American public is focused on today and that they want us to deal with. It is the responsibility of the Senate to debate--allow for extended debate--to consider amendments, but ultimately to vote. That means voting on amendments that are offered both by my colleagues on the Democratic side as well as my colleagues on the Republican side, even if they are amendments that I may not want to vote on.

I have to say again, there are amendments I probably would rather not vote on, if I was thinking purely about the political consequences of some of these votes. But the fact is, we are here to vote. We are here to do the people's business. It is high time we did it.

I encourage and I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to join with my colleagues on the Republican side in putting aside the politics, putting aside the delaying tactics, putting aside the obstruction and the blocking of the agenda, and allow us to move forward to vote on amendments and to report out of the Senate a bill--and it may not be everything we want but allow this institution to act in the manner in which the people of this country expect us to act, and, frankly, in a way the American people deserve.

So I hope tomorrow will be the day we will break the logjam, that we will be able to get a bill we can report that the Senate can take a final vote on but that is reflective of the majority views in the Senate, including an opportunity to vote on individual amendments and to move this debate and this process forward so we can get into conference with the House and shape a bill we can put on the President's desk that will send a loud, clear message to the American people we are serious about border security, we are serious about our Nation's history as a nation, a welcoming culture, a nation of immigrants, but we are serious about enforcing the rule of law in America.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

http://thomas.loc.gov/