Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (Senate - October 16, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 3277
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Vitter amendment No. 3277, which may be considered later this afternoon on this pending Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
This amendment would prohibit fiscal year 2008 COPS funds from being used in contravention of a provision in Federal law that relates to information sharing about a person's immigration status.
The Senator from Louisiana has said this amendment is targeted at ``sanctuary cities.'' He is referring to the policies that have been put in place by many cities, counties, and police departments in at least 23 States and the District of Columbia that limit enforcement of immigration laws by State or local authorities.
These cities, counties, and police departments have decided that it is a matter of public health and safety not to inquire about immigration status when people report crimes or have been the victims of domestic abuse or go to a clinic to obtain vaccinations for their children.
These State and local confidentiality policies do not stop the Federal Government from enforcing immigration laws--a traditional function of the Federal Government, not State and local governments. Rather, they reflect a decision made by State and local authorities that they do not want to have their police departments spend their time and resources enforcing a traditionally Federal responsibility relative to immigration law. Those laws are the Federal Government's responsibility to enforce.
In many cities, including several in my home State of Illinois, city and law enforcement officials have decided, reasonably, they want to focus their attention and their police resources on stopping violent crime.
Yesterday, I was in a section of Chicago known as Logan Square. There is a wonderful organization known as Christopher House that was opening a family resource center, a neighborhood center in the tradition of the settlement houses that were started in the Chicago area by Jane Addams almost a century ago. This Logan Square area is an up-and-coming part of the city of Chicago. It is a beautiful neighborhood, but it is a neighborhood that has been riddled with violence for over a decade. Literally, children are being gunned down in the street. I attended a memorial service a few weeks ago there for a young African-American girl. She was killed on a playground while playing with her friends by a drive-by shooting by gang bangers. The alderman in that 35th ward, Rey Colon, who is quite a leader in the community himself, attended the service with me. As we walked into the church, he pointed to a section on the sidewalk and said: Just a few years ago a member of my family was killed on that spot.
Violence is endemic, unfortunately, in America, and we see it in cities, great cities such as Chicago and others. Mayor Daley is making an extraordinary effort to deal with this. I am joining him in that effort. It is hard for me to imagine the Senator from Louisiana wants to cut off the COPS Program funds for the city of Chicago. That is what he suggested.
What will the COPS Program do for the city of Chicago? It will put more police on the beat. There will be more police officers out there in the neighborhoods to keep them safe. The COPS money can be used to buy bulletproof vests so when a policeman is shot, he might survive. The money is also being used for forensic analysis, DNA testing, trying to find ways that ex-offenders can be brought back in a peaceful way to the cities and towns from where they started. It is used for task forces to go after sexual predators.
The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana would cut off these funds for the city of Chicago. Why? Why in the world would the Senator from Louisiana--a State I have bent over backwards to help since Hurricane Katrina--want to cut off Federal funds to the city of Chicago, funds to make the streets safer? Why would he want to cut off Federal funds to any city in America to make the streets safer?
He wants to argue about immigration laws. Well, that is a valid debate. We had it for 3 weeks here in the Senate, and we will have to return to it because we ended up doing nothing. But in his effort today to bring this immigration issue out to the floor of the Senate, the Senator from Louisiana is threatening the Federal funds that many cities in my home State of Illinois are using to fight violent crime. Why? That makes no sense at all. Will he feel better if there are more killings on the street? Of course not. None of us would. I think he would feel better if there were more cops on the street.
But his amendment seeks to cut off COPS funding for the city of Chicago and other towns in Illinois, and that is not right. I urge my colleagues, when they consider the Vitter amendment, to consider how you would respond to the mayors of these towns when they ask you: How in the world did you disqualify my city from receiving money for bulletproof vests for my policemen? How can you, Senator or Congressman, explain to their families why that fallen policeman's life was taken because no bulletproof vest could be provided from Federal funds?
I do not understand the logic behind this. I would say that many of these cities are working hard to fight crime. They are working with many people. The former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Joseph Estey, said in relation to a proposal similar to the one offered by Senator Vitter:
Many leaders in the law enforcement community have serious concerns about the chilling effect any measure of this nature would have on legal and illegal aliens reporting criminal activity or assisting police in criminal investigations. This lack of cooperation could diminish the ability of law enforcement agencies to police effectively their communities and protect the public they serve.
It is particularly troubling that the Vitter amendment seeks to link COPS funding to the overturning of city confidentiality policies. This bill, the one Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have brought before us, currently provides for $660 million in COPS funding. That is a dramatic increase over the administration's request. The money, of course, is for new police officers, bulletproof vests, combating methamphetamine, law enforcement technology enhancements, arresting and prosecuting child predators--the Vitter amendment would cut off Federal funds for efforts to arrest and prosecute child predators--and a lot of other important programs.
This COPS money is focused on helping State and local law enforcement stop violent crime, stop crimes against children, stop sexual predators. Similarly, cities and police departments have put policies in place regarding the confidentiality of immigration status so they can focus on stopping violent crime, and so law enforcement officials can obtain information about crimes from victims and witnesses in communities where they might not otherwise be able to obtain it.
The goal of reducing violent crime is not served by telling police departments they can either have one crime reduction tool--the COPS money--or another--these confidentiality policies.
Do we want to deprive police forces in 23 States additional manpower, men and women on the beat, keeping schools and neighborhoods safe, and deny these same police men and women bulletproof vests through the COPS Program, because local officials have determined when it comes to the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, the Federal Government should assume that enforcement? That is what it comes down to.
We do have a serious immigration problem in this country. I voted--most Members, maybe all Members have voted--for some $7 billion more in enforcement at the border between the United States and Mexico. We have to stop the illegal flow into this country. I think we have put our money where our intentions are. That is a fact.
Earlier this year, we considered comprehensive immigration reform that would also have greatly improved the enforcement of our immigration laws. I supported this effort. It was controversial. We did not have enough votes. The Senator who has brought this amendment to the floor, which would cut off COPS funding, opposed any effort for a comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, he wants to force on State and local governments a responsibility we have not met at the Federal level, and he wants to threaten them with cutting off COPS funds that are critically important for them. I do not think that works.
Violent crime is a serious problem in my State and across the Nation. Violent crime rates have gone up the last 2 years. We need to give our communities the tools to address this problem.
I hope the Vitter amendment will be defeated. Let's make sure we do not make the safety of people living in 23 States a political pawn in this debate over immigration. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment.
Source