Financial Regulatory Reform

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for raising this important issue pending on the floor of the Senate, this major piece of legislation, the Financial Stability Act. Of all the many amendments that will be offered, this is clearly a game changer. I am supportive of this amendment even though I know some of my friends in the banking industry won't be happy with it. They are talking about dealing with the concentration of wealth and of economic power to a level that can literally bring the economy down. That is what we went through, leading into this recession. That is what led to massive taxpayer bailout and that is what the Brown-Kaufman amendment addresses foursquare. I commend them for their leadership on the amendment.

IMMIGRATION

I want to speak to an issue that is timely in light of recent news events. Ninety-nine years ago, a boat pulled into the harbor in Baltimore, MD, which came over as a passenger ship from Germany. Down the gangplank walked three individuals--my grandmother, my uncle, my aunt, and my mother, who was 2 years old, in the arms of my grandmother. They had come from Lithuania to the United States. When they arrived, none of them spoke English. My grandmother carried a slip of paper with her, which had the words ``East St. Louis, Illinois'' written on them, because she knew that is where her husband was and that was her destination. I cannot imagine how they navigated themselves onto a train to East St. Louis to meet my grandfather, but they did it. I am sure there were people standing by that gangplank in Baltimore watching these foreigners coming in, saying: Oh, my God, not more of those people.

It has been a natural reaction in this Nation of immigrants that we look at newcomers as perhaps new problems. Those who are here and lucky enough to be in America have historically been critical of new immigration. That is nothing new in American history.

But what has happened in Arizona in the last several weeks has taken this to a different level. The passage of the law in Arizona, in my mind, is not only unjust but unconstitutional. The Arizona law requires police officers to check the immigration status of any individual if they have ``reasonable suspicion'' that he or she is an undocumented immigrant. How will police determine whether there is reasonable suspicion that someone is undocumented? The law doesn't tell them. Law enforcement experts say it is likely that they are going to look for those who appear to be Hispanic.

Under this law, any undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged with a State crime solely on the basis of their immigration status, and it is a crime for a legal immigrant to fail to carry their documents at all times. One out of three people legally living in Arizona are Hispanic. We understand the anxiety they have over a law that would at least lead to the suspicion that they may be illegal and be challenged as they go about their daily business in a perfectly legal way.

Here is what the Arizona Daily Star newspaper said about the new law:

The measure would turn legal residents into police targets, as well as those who are here illegally. It would foment racial profiling of Hispanics.

Phil Gordon, mayor of Phoenix, the largest city in the State, said this of the new Arizona law, signed by Governor Brewer:

It unconstitutionally co-opts our police force to enforce immigration laws that are the rightful jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

Here is the reality: There are 450,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona. Law enforcement clearly doesn't have the time to stop, prosecute, or remove anything near that number. Making undocumented immigrants into criminals will simply drive many of them farther into the shadows. When we look at this law, I also like to look at it from the viewpoint of those in law enforcement in Arizona. I have read their quotes. They feel this is an unnecessary, at least an indefensible, burden being placed on them. I have read that one chief of police in a small town in Arizona said: I am not going to be going out and stopping people on the streets and seeing if they are gathering on the street corner. My job is to fight crime. I thought that is why they hired me. If I want to keep this community safe, I cannot spend a lot of time checking the papers of people walking down the street.

In 2005, there was a law passed in the House of Representatives known as the Sensenbrenner amendment, which was a step in the wrong direction as well. It made it a felony for anybody to provide services or assistance to undocumented immigrants. I have some friends in Chicago who run a home for battered women. It is in the Pilsen neighborhood, which is a Hispanic neighborhood. They literally ran the risk of being charged with a Federal felony by allowing somebody to come through their door, a woman who had been beaten by her husband, perhaps carrying a child, offering them any help or protection made them unfortunately subject to being arrested under the Sensenbrenner amendment. I offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate to remove this and even in a Republican-controlled Senate, I was successful. My colleagues believed, as I did, that this went too far.

I believe the Arizona law goes too far. This is not the first time that we have gone too far and have moved back to a more moderate position. In 1982, there was a Texas law passed that said elementary schools could refuse entry to undocumented children.

In the landmark Supreme Court decision of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down that Texas law. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts was a lawyer in the Justice Department, and he criticized the Justice Department for not supporting the Texas law.

It has been 23 years since Plyler v. Doe was decided. As a result, millions of children have received an education and become citizens. They are doctors, soldiers, policemen, and others who contribute to our society every day. Imagine what would have happened if that Texas law had been allowed to stand and was the law of the land. I asked John Roberts, during his confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court, if that law that was struck down was settled law in America. He would not answer. It leaves some question on what would happen if this law comes before his Court.

Arizona faces serious law enforcement challenges. There is intolerable violence on Arizona's border with Mexico because of drug cartels. The reality is, it is the American appetite for narcotics that is fueling the drug war in Mexico. It is American money and guns flowing south of the border that has created the situation, and we need to be more honest about it as well. But it is a fact, and it is dangerous. I can understand why the people of Arizona would feel some trepidation and real concern about that.

Last month, Robert Krentz, an Arizona rancher, was murdered near the border with Mexico. To say violence is not part of the scene in Arizona is unrealistic and unfair.

In March of 2009, I held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Mexican drug cartels. I invited Terry Goddard, Arizona's attorney general, to testify about the situation in Arizona. He told me this:

Sophisticated, violent, highly organized criminals ..... are smuggling drugs, human beings, guns, and money across the border and are using unimaginable violence to protect and grow the criminal enterprise. Law enforcement officers in the State of Arizona have been on the front lines of the efforts to combat one of the most serious organized crime threats of the 21st century.

If the Arizona law is wrong, what is the right answer? I think, in the framework of the bill that we brought before Members of the Senate, considered last week, there are three elements to it. First, we have to do everything in our power to police our border, make sure we have the right technology and people, and that we are doing everything to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. Those who say ``seal the border first'' are setting an impossible standard. Imagine, if we set a standard that said seal Interstate 95 so that no vehicle passing over that interstate will be carrying illegal narcotics or guns. Well, there are tens of thousands of vehicles and people passing legally between the U.S. and Mexico every day, and amidst this legal flow is an illegal flow. We need to find a way to reduce that.

The second part of that bill, the framework, would say that the lure of America is the lure of jobs. Let us establish a Social Security card with biometric identification so that it clearly shows whether a person is legal. I think that is a step in the right direction.

Third is to deal not with amnesty but setting up a process where they would have to work their way and prove their way into legal status.

It will never be automatic. It would not be unconditional.

The trouble we have is that many of those who say the Federal laws have broken down and we do not have a good immigration law are unwilling to stand up and join us in writing a new law.

I invite all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to join with the Democrats in writing a good immigration law. Doing nothing is not an option. It invites more laws such as those in Arizona which, unfortunately, are going to have results which I do not think are consistent with our values in this country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the framework. I hope they will also consider cosponsoring the DREAM Act, a bill which I introduced many years ago--and Senator Dick Lugar is my cosponsor--which says those brought to America--undocumented, who finish school, no criminal record, who are willing to finish 2 years of college and serve in our military--will have a chance to become legal in the United States of America. It is a step in the right direction. It was not a step 99 years ago when my 2-year-old mother came to this country. Thank goodness she did. Thank goodness I am here today to tell the story.

I yield the floor.

Source