Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me join in the remarks by the Senator from Washington. This National Labor Relations Board rule which will be voted on by the Senate tomorrow is one that was needed. The rule change was needed and the attempt on the floor, of course, is to undo this decision by the National Labor Relations Board.

If they say justice is denied, look at the current situation when it comes to a vote by workers on collective bargaining. If delayed at every potential opportunity, and sometimes it happens, workers have to wait, on average--average--198 days--that is 6 1/2 months--to have a simple vote deciding if they would be represented by the union. In some extreme cases they have been forced to wait 13 years for the right to vote on collective bargaining.

One in five workers who openly advocate for unions during an election campaign is fired. As a result of these tactics, 35 percent of workers give up and withdraw from the election before a vote is held. The proposed NLRB rule changes will remove unnecessary delays to the process, cut down on unnecessary litigation, and provide workers a meaningful vote in a reasonable period of time. The proposed rules will apply the same way to workers attempting to decertify a union as they do to workers trying to form a union. So from the business side, if they think workers no longer wish to belong to a union, there will be a timely vote on that as well. It applies the same way to unions and employers.

This rule is fundamentally fair, and that is why I encourage my colleagues to join with me and Senator Murray and many others in voting against this effort by Senator Enzi to overturn the proposed National Labor Relations Board rule.

As I said earlier, Madam President, the rule applies the same way to unions and employers. But it does not require that elections be held within a specific time period and it does not deny companies the opportunity to express their opinion about union representation. The only real impact of the rule changes will be to better protect workers' right to make a determination for themselves through a reasonable fair timely election.

The NLRB rules create a uniform process for resolving pre- and post-election disputes to provide consistency and remove unnecessary obstacles to workers' right to vote.

NLRB hearing officers will be empowered to dismiss claims that would not impact the election. At the pre-election hearing, employers and unions can raise their concerns about the petition, but they can't play games to stall the election.

The rules consolidates the pre-election and post-election appeals into a single postelection procedure, which saves the parties from having to file and brief appeals that may be costly and useless based on the outcome of the election.

The new rules make Board review of the regional directors' decisions discretionary. This change will require parties to identify compelling reason for Board review, allowing the Board to devote its limited time to cases where its review is warranted.

The new rules apply to both elections seeking to certify a union and elections seeking to decertify a union. Further, the new rules do not alter in any way an employer's ability to communicate with workers during the election period and do not require that elections be held within a certain period of time.

In the view of organized labor, these rules, even in their scaled back form, are one of few positive actions taken by Congress or the administration in the last year. Unions argue that the old rules are subject to manipulation, causing significant pre-election delay and leading to petitions being withdrawn prior to an election or avoidance of Board processes altogether. If an employer takes advantage of every opportunity for delay, the average time before workers vote is 198 days.

Business groups are opposed to the new NLRB rules arguing it will limit their ability to present their side in an election. Most of their points against the rule relate to provisions of the proposed rule that were not included in the final rule. Their position also stems from general opposition to the NLRB for the now settled Boeing issue, new worker rights posting requirements, the President's NLRB recess appointments, and other NLRB decisions.

IMMIGRATION

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Arizona's controversial immigration law. I thought about this law over the weekend in Springfield, IL. There is an annual event where a special award is given to those sons and daughters of Illinois who have given great service to our State and Nation. Admiral Ron Thunman, one of my neighbors in Springfield, was a graduate of Springfield High School and enlisted in the Navy. He worked his way up to the rank of vice admiral in the U.S. Navy and at one point commanded our submarine fleet. To think of this young man from the middle of the Midwest ending up in charge of our submarine fleet is a great testament to his ability and to the opportunity the Navy gave him to serve his country.

When Admiral Thunman got up to receive his award--this Lincoln Award--he said: I stand here humbled by the memory of my father who was an illegal immigrant to this country from Norway, who came here jumping off a ship as a sailor and lived in the United States illegally until the time he was prepared to volunteer to serve our Nation in World War II.

Admiral Thunman tells that story over and over. What a reminder it is that the sons and daughters of immigrants to this country, as well as those immigrants themselves, literally made America what it is today.

One hundred one years ago, my mother arrived on a boat from Lithuania. Her boat came to Baltimore, MD, and my grandmother took herself, her sister, and brother, to East St. Louis, IL, where I grew up many years later. That is my story. It is an American story that is repeated over and over. Immigrants are part of America. It is the diversity of America that gives us our strength.

Those who hate and loathe immigrants have always been here. Probably as soon as the Mayflower landed, they looked over their shoulder and said, We hope nobody else is coming. But the fact is people have been coming from all over the world, and they still would rather come to this country than leave it, which is quite a testament to this Nation. Senator Lieberman made that point on the floor the other day.

This week, the Supreme Court is going to take up an important question on immigration--the Arizona law. Under the Arizona law, any undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged with a State crime--an Arizona crime--solely on the basis of their immigration status. It is a crime for an illegal immigrant in Arizona to fail to carry documents proving their legal status under this law. Under our Constitution, States don't have the right to pass their own laws preempting Federal laws on immigration. That is why the Justice Department filed the case the Supreme Court will hear this week.

Let us be clear. It is wrong to criminalize people because of their immigration status. That is not the way we treat immigrants in America. It is not right to make criminals of people who go to work every day, cook our food, clean our hotel rooms, care for our aging parents in nursing homes, and care for our children as well. It is not right to make criminals of those who worship with us in our churches, synagogues, and mosques, and people who send their children to the same schools as our children.

Here is the reality. This approach that Arizona law suggests will not help combat illegal immigration. Law enforcement doesn't have the time or resources to prosecute and incarcerate millions of people. Making undocumented immigrants into criminals will simply drive them farther into the shadows. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police took a look at the new Arizona law and came out in opposition to it. They said it makes it more difficult for them to maintain order and enforce law in Arizona. Immigrants, because of this law, the chiefs of police have said, will be much less likely to cooperate, and they need their cooperation to continue to fight crime.

There is another troubling aspect of the Arizona immigration law. According to experts, the law encourages racial profiling. I chair the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Last week, at a hearing on racial profiling, we had the first hearing on the subject since 9/11/2001. One of the subjects we examined at the hearing is the state of Federal, State, and local measures in recent years under the guise of combating illegal immigration that have subjected Hispanic Americans to an increase in racial profiling. The Arizona immigration law is a prime example, and let me explain why.

Arizona's law requires police officers to check the immigration status of any individual if they have ``reasonable suspicion'' the person is undocumented. What is the basis for reasonable suspicion? Arizona's guidance on the law tells police officers to consider factors such as how someone is dressed and their ability to communicate in English.

Two former Arizona attorneys general, joined by 42 other former State attorneys general, filed a brief in the Arizona case and they said ``application of the law requires racial profiling.''

One of the witnesses in our hearing was Ron Davis, chief of police at East Palo Alto, CA. Chief Davis, along with 16 other current and former chief law enforcement officers, the Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum, filed a brief in the Arizona case. Here is what the brief filed by the chiefs of police in the Arizona case before the Supreme Court said:

The statutory standard of ``reasonable suspicion'' of unlawful presence in the United States will as a practical matter produce a focus on minorities, and specifically Latinos.

Let me be clear: I believe--and I think most Americans share this belief--the vast majority of law enforcement officers in America perform their jobs admirably and courageously. When they wake up in the morning and put that badge on, they literally put their lives on the line for you, for me, and for all of us in America. Unfortunately, the inappropriate actions of a few, who engage in racial profiling, create mistrust and suspicion, and that hurts all police officers. The evidence clearly demonstrates that racial profiling doesn't solve crimes, it doesn't work, and that is what Chief of Police Ron Davis told us as well. That is why so many law enforcement leaders strongly oppose racial profiling and the Arizona immigration law.

Instead of measures that harm law enforcement and promote racial profiling, such as the Arizona immigration law, we need to support practical solutions to fix America's broken immigration system. And if I could say one word in defense of Arizona, it is the fact that our failure--Congress's failure, Washington's failure--to deal with immigration has brought on this effort by many States and localities. We have our own responsibility.

Let me tell you where I think we should start. We should start our reform on immigration with the DREAM Act. Eleven years ago, I introduced this bill, legislation that allows a select group of immigrant students with great potential to contribute to America. The DREAM Act would give these students a chance to earn legal status, and ultimately citizenship, if they came to the United States as children or have been long-term U.S. residents with good moral character, have graduated from high school and have completed 2 years of college or military service in good standing.

Russell Pearce, the author of the Arizona immigration law, had this to say about the DREAM Act, and I quote:

The DREAM Act is one of the greatest legislative threats to America's sovereignty, national security and economic future.

Well, I see it differently, and so do people such as GEN Colin Powell and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. They support the DREAM Act because it would make America a stronger Nation, giving these talented immigrants a chance to serve our military and to improve and contribute to our economy. Tens of thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young people would enlist in the armed services if the DREAM Act becomes law. Studies have found DREAM Act participants would contribute literally trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy during their working lives.

The best way to understand the need for the DREAM Act is to meet the Dreamers. Today I want to introduce you to a Dreamer from Arizona. Here she is. Her name is Dulce Matuz. She was brought to the United States by her parents from Mexico as a young child. At Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, AZ, Dulce became a dedicated member of the school's robotics club where she found her true love--engineering.

She went on to graduate from Arizona State University, and we see her standing here with the mascot. She earned a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. As a senior, Dulce received an internship to work on the NASA space station. But after she graduated, reality set in. Because Dulce is undocumented--one of the Dreamers--she can't work as an engineer in America. She can't become licensed in any State. She has no country.

In 2008, Dulce cofounded the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition, an organization of more than 200 DREAM Act students in predicaments like hers. She continues to volunteer at the high school she attended. Today, Dulce is 27 years old. Last week, this amazing young woman was named one of the hundred most influential people in the world by Time magazine.

Time published a profile of Dulce written by the actress Eva Longoria. Here is what the profile said:

Dulce represents the finest of her generation, an undocumented Latina confronted with legal barriers to pursuing her engineering dream. She chose to fight for the right to contribute to the country she has called home since she was very young. Dulce takes on powerful opponents with grace and conviction, saying, ``We are Americans, and Americans don't give up.''

Dulce is right. Americans don't give up. We have been fighting for the DREAM Act now for 11 years. We are not going to give up until it is signed into law by a President of the United States. I am honored that this President, President Barack Obama, when he was a Senator was a cosponsor of my legislation. I know where his heart is when it comes to the DREAM Act.

Unlike the Arizona immigration law, the DREAM Act is a practical solution to a serious problem with our broken immigration system. I hope the Supreme Court will strike down the Arizona immigration law, and I again beg my colleagues to support the DREAM Act. It is the right thing to do, and it will make America a stronger nation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source