Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

Floor Speech

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - June 05, 2007)

Mr. DURBIN. I would like the Chair to notify me when I have spoken for 8
minutes, and I will reserve time for Senator Grassley who will also come to the floor.

AMENDMENT NO. 1231

This immigration bill is long overdue. Our immigration laws in America have failed us. Since 1986, when President Reagan issued amnesty, we thought for a long time we had laws on the books that would stop the inflow of workers from overseas. We were wrong. Up to 800,000 come into our country each year. Three-fourths of them stay. When you do the math over a 20-year period of time, you realize how we ended up with 12 million undocumented workers in America.

Our immigration system has failed. Let me salute Senators KENNEDY, SPECTER, and all those who worked on trying to rewrite these laws.

You can turn on the television any afternoon or evening and hear the screamers on the cable channels telling you how terrible it is that we are considering this law. Think for a moment. Those people screaming about this effort are endorsing what we currently have--a broken down, failed system that is unfair to the workers of America, unfair to our Nation, and unfair to those who were here working as part of our economy.

What Senators KENNEDY and SPECTER are trying to do is fashion a way through this madness to a law that will work. Are we sure it is going to succeed? Of course not. We cannot be sure. This is just the best of a human effort. But what they have tried to do is build into this concept basic principles. One of those principles that I think should be the bedrock of our discussion is this: Under this bill, we will have hundreds of thousands of new people coming into the United States each year to work. The arguments are made that we need them to pick crops that Americans don't want to pick. I think that is a fact. Also, we need them to fill jobs that many Americans don't want to take. Go to any packinghouse, whether it is a meat or poultry house in America--I know a little bit about that; that is the way I worked my way through college. Those are tough, dirty, hot jobs--and you will find many undocumented workers there because, frankly, people don't absolutely want to work in these places. We need to bring in these workers to fill jobs that Americans are not going to take.

Then there is another level of workers, those who have skills that we need in this country. When Bill Gates of Microsoft says: I need the opportunity to bring in software engineers so Microsoft can expand its production operations in America, and if you don't give me that chance to bring in foreign engineers, I am going to have to put a production facility overseas where I can find the same engineering talents, well, I want those jobs in America. I want those production facilities in America. I am willing to listen to his request for H-1B visas.

Whether we are talking about AgJOBS, jobs in these packing houses or jobs in Silicon Valley, we should have one guiding principle, and the guiding principle is this: Hire Americans first. Hire Americans first.

Under this bill we are considering, the guest workers who come in are subject to that requirement. Someone cannot ask for a guest worker to take a job if there is an American that will take that job first. But there is a glaring loophole. The loophole says: If the Secretary of the Department of Labor announces there is a labor shortage in an area, then they waive the requirement to look for American workers first. But we, in this bill, fail to define what a labor shortage is. What does it mean? It means a lot of employers will be off the hook. They will be able to bring in guest workers and never ask an American to take the job. I don't think that is right.

Senator Grassley and I have introduced this amendment. It eliminates this loophole, eliminates this labor shortage exception, and makes it the hard-and-fast rule when it comes to guest workers that we must hire Americans first. I hope my colleagues will take a look at this and consider it.

Let me say a few words about the H-1B visa. Senator Grassley and I took a look at these H-1B visas. These are special visas with specialty talents to come in because there are not enough Americans with those talents. We took a look at those H-1B visas and, unfortunately, there are some companies that are gaming the system. There have been exposes across America where these so-called H-1B brokerage houses have been created. These are not high-tech companies looking for people with H-1B visas. These are companies, by and large in India, that try to bring in Indian engineers to fill jobs in the United States.

The H-1B visa job lasts for 3 years and can be renewed for 3 years. What happens to those workers after that? Well, they could stay. It is possible. But these new companies out of India have a much better idea for making money. They send the engineers from India to America to fill spots--and get money to do it--and then after the 3 to 6 years, they bring them back to India to work for the companies that are competing with American companies. They call it their outsourcing visa. They are sending their talented engineers to learn how Americans do business and then bring them back and compete with those American companies. Is that what we have in mind here? Is that our goal, to create more opportunities for people to create businesses around the world to compete with us? I think not.

Senator Grassley and I are trying to tighten up the H-1B visa. We wish to make sure that only those who are absolutely necessary are brought in, and, first and foremost, that we fill job vacancies with Americans who are out of work and Americans who are graduating from schools and developing the skills that are needed. Our first responsibility, whether it is in guest workers or H-1B visas, is to hire Americans first.

The amendment the Senate will consider in a short period of time, No. 1231, which Senator Grassley and I have offered, applies to the guest worker program. But it comes down to this basic concept, and I hope my colleagues will support me: Shouldn't this new guest worker program include the same protections for American workers? I think they should. Otherwise, in the future, we are going to see companies advertising that no Americans need apply for these jobs. We don't want that to occur. We wish to make it perfectly clear that companies doing business in the United States must first give priority to American workers; that they are bound by law to do that.

Plain and simple, that is what the Durbin-Grassley amendment will do. This amendment is supported by the labor community, including the AFL-CIO, the Laborers' Union, the Teamsters, and the Building Trades.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the AFL-CIO supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve any time remaining for Senator Grassley, who will be coming to the floor shortly.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Hunger Awareness Day and to give voice to the difficult reality that exists for more than 35 million people in the United States--the experience of hunger.

In a society as civilized as ours, basic sustenance should be a guarantee. If children--or adults--are hungry in America, that is a problem for all of us.

Yet hunger continues to affect the lives of millions of families, including over 14 million children who live below the poverty line.

In the past few years, there have been multiple efforts to make ``hunger'' disappear--not as a troubling reality for millions, but as a term in surveys and press releases.

Every year, the USDA issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word ``hunger'' to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table.

But starting in 2006, hunger facts and figures began to disappear and were replaced by measures of ``food security,'' a more scientifically palatable term.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the proposed administration budget cuts to the Survey on Income and Program Participation--the only large-scale measure of the impact of Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, unemployment and other safety net programs for the poor.

All these efforts put forth the false notion that nobody's hungry in America.

But despite the fact that we don't use words and we don't use numbers, the presence of hunger is ever so clear.

We can see it in the faces of children at school who have not had a decent meal since yesterday's school lunch. We can see it in the families at food pantries showing up a day earlier than normal because their monthly pay is not stretching as far it once did. We can see it in the loving parent giving up their own meal to make sure their child has something to eat at night.

In a land that prides itself as the land of plenty, we cannot hide the fact that we need to do a better job at making sure everybody has at least enough to eat.

Each hungry child that we allow suffer chips away at the moral strength of our country. This land of opportunity--and the American dream--should not allow for 37 million of its people to live in poverty, to live hungry.

Our moral strength, our commitment to our community is a foundation of our country. The well-known American journalist, Bill Moyer, just last week put it best when he said:

It's right there in the Constitution--in the Preamble: ``We, the People''--that radical, magnificent, democratic, inspired and exhilarating idea that we are in this together, one for all and all for one.

And he was right, this is the ``heart of democracy'' and more importantly, it is the heart of humanity. As Bill says, the prayers we say are prayers for all of us: ``Give us this day our daily bread.'' And his is the most important message that should inspire us today: ``We're all in this together; one person's hunger is another's duty''.

Hunger is a problem for all of us. I hope that we all work together to fulfill our duty to end hunger in our Nation and the world.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1170

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is an amendment that has been filed and may be considered this evening, which I think is extremely important. I wish to speak to it. It is the McConnell amendment, offered by the Republican leader, amendment 1170, to the immigration bill.

This amendment has very little to do with this immigration bill, but it is one of the most important issues any Congress could ever consider. It is about Americans' right to vote.

The right to vote is the most fundamental right in a free and Democratic society. In fact, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court called it ``preservative of other basic civil and political rights.''

I think that is fair warning to all of us that when we consider the McConnell amendment, we should understand this is not just another amendment. This amendment goes to the heart of our franchise as Americans. It goes to the heart of our democracy. We have come a long way in our country on the issue of voting rights. Last year, we reauthorized the historic Voting Rights Act, the landmark act passed in 1965 safeguarding the right to vote for millions of Americans who had been denied that fundamental right for generations. The amendment offered by Senator McConnell to this immigration bill will undermine the Voting Rights Act. It will restrict voting rights in America. It will diminish the voting rights of our American citizens, particularly minorities, the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. That is a historic decision. This is not another commonplace amendment; it is an amendment of great moment.

I might add, the McConnell amendment is opposed by nearly every major civil rights group in America today. The McConnell amendment, simply stated, would require that all Americans bring a government-issued, current, valid photo ID with them when they vote. The idea may sound reasonable on its face until you look closely.

The fact is, many Americans don't have a photo ID. Twelve percent of Americans don't have a driver's license. Who are those 12 percent? By and large, they are minorities, the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. A 2005 University of Wisconsin study showed that over 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic adults in Milwaukee don't have a valid driver's license. The McConnell amendment will have a disproportionately negative impact on these groups. It will diminish their right to vote.

Second, the McConnell amendment may be on its face unconstitutional. The State of Georgia passed a photo ID law in 2005, and it was struck down by the courts. A Federal district court judge said it constituted a modern-day
``poll tax'' and was presumptively unconstitutional. An appellate panel of three judges, including two Republican appointees, agreed. What gave rise to the Georgia photo ID law? Was there a history of election fraud in that State? No. The Georgia secretary of state said she was unaware of a single documented case in recent years of fraud through impersonation of a voter at the polls.

Cries of voter fraud are heard over and over again. It is one of Karl Rove's inspired strategies to keep raising this issue. But these are phantom cries. Look at the numbers. Since 2002, 196 million votes have been cast in Federal elections. Do you know how many voter fraud convictions there have been from those 196 million votes? Fifty-two out of 196 million. Most of these were for vote-buying and voter registration fraud, neither of which would be stopped by a photo ID.

Sadly, and cynically, photo ID laws are being pushed by some for partisan reasons.

Seventh Circuit Judge Terrence Evans wrote, while dissenting in a recent Federal case that upheld a photo ID law in Indiana:

Let's not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic. We should subject this law to strict scrutiny ..... and strike it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.

We have recently learned about the troubling role played by partisan political appointees at Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department in clearing the Georgia photo ID law. According to press reports, the career staff at the Justice Department made a recommendation to object to the Georgia photo ID law because they believed it would have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. But the career employees at the Department of Justice were overruled by the political appointees of the President and Alberto Gonzales.

One of these political appointees, Bradley Schlozman, was rewarded by receiving a U.S. attorney appointment in Kansas City, MO--job well done for Mr. Schlozman. He went to Kansas City and decided he would continue to pursue the Karl Rove strategy of voter fraud. By any objective measure, Mr. Schlozman was unqualified to be a U.S. attorney. As he testified earlier today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Schlozman had never worked as a prosecutor and never even tried a case. But by embracing this phantom voter strategy of Karl Rove in Georgia, Mr. Schlozman earned his stripes and was promoted. In the eyes of Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson, and Monica Goodling, he was a ``loyal Bushie.''

I was proud to cosponsor a resolution in 2005 by my colleague, Senator Obama. The resolution condemned the Justice Department's approval of the Georgia photo ID law and expressed the sense of Congress that requiring a photo ID in order to vote places a discriminatory burden on voting rights. The McConnell amendment is an attempt to impose the Georgia photo ID law on America. This measure was debated and defeated in 2002 when we enacted the Help America Vote Act. It should be defeated again now.

I realize the photo ID requirement was proposed a few years ago by a bipartisan commission. But since that commission report was issued, new research conducted for the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission has shown that photo ID requirements reduced turnout in the 2004 election by 3 percent. It showed that with voter ID requirements, Hispanics were 10 percent less likely to vote and African Americans 6 percent less likely. Is that what we should do in Congress--create barriers for minorities to vote?

The McConnell amendment is unfair and unconstitutional. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I yield the floor.

Source