[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 39 (Friday, March 31, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2677-S2678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, so far this week, we have had good debate,
strong debate, robust debate, on strengthening our borders and crafting
a comprehensive immigration plan. Everyone agrees we need to secure our
borders, that our national security is at stake.
We are also in agreement that we need to craft a comprehensive
immigration plan that is compassionate, reasonable, and fair, that
upholds our immigrant tradition without crossing over the line of
granting amnesty. As I have said before, a nation that cannot secure
its borders cannot secure its destiny.
I am gratified by my colleagues' support for my amendment yesterday
to have the Department of Homeland Security collect data on the
terrible problem of border crossing fatalities, of deaths of people
crossing the border. The amendment also suggests policies to reduce the
number of these tragedies.
As I mentioned on the floor, over the past decade over 3,000 men,
women, and children--families--have died along our borders, in many
cases because of the brutality and indifference of criminal human
smugglers who, at the first sign of trouble, abandon their human cargo
in the desert to suffer and die.
We have an obligation to protect our borders, but we also have an
obligation to protect and preserve the life of every person who sets
foot on American soil. I am hopeful that by gathering this information
on this tragic problem, we can devise the best methods to put an end to
it.
I am also certain that as we continue with the larger debate, we will
be able to craft a comprehensive plan that deals fairly with the 11 to
12 million illegal immigrants now residing within our borders without
granting amnesty.
[[Page S2678]]
I believe the Judiciary Committee bill--the bill that came out of the
Judiciary Committee--goes too far in granting illegal immigrants with
what can fairly be described as amnesty.
We will hear a lot of debate on what is amnesty, and I hope there
will be some consensus over time coming out of this debate as to what
amnesty actually is. I believe the Judiciary bill does enter this realm
of amnesty, and, thus, I am very hopeful that over the next several
days amendments will be offered on the floor to pull back from this
amnesty provision.
I disagree with the amnesty approach. I do not think we should be
rewarding illegal behavior, not just as a matter of principle but also
because granting amnesty now will encourage people in the future to
cross the border illegally, expecting amnesty to be granted every 5
years or every 10 years or every 15 years. It undermines our securing
our borders. It gives an incentive for people to cross our borders, not
just legally but illegally, if we grant amnesty.
In the coming week, I look forward to my colleagues coming to the
floor to offer a variety of ideas and solutions to these problems,
these challenges. I hope they will have ample opportunity to do that.
I said 2 or 3 months ago, we would have 2 weeks--in essence, 2
weeks--on the floor of the Senate to provide an opportunity to come and
debate and amend whatever bill came to the floor. I am concerned a
little bit that we are entering into a delay or a postpone mode. I say
that because we did not have votes last night, after my amendment--or
late yesterday afternoon--and we are not having votes today. It does
take consent on both sides of the aisle to have these votes. I
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come forward so
we can have that debate, we can have that amendment, we can have those
votes, and define this bill in a way that will reflect the majority of
people on this floor.
An example: Last night, Senator Alexander offered his widely
supported Strengthening American Citizenship Act--a beautiful and a
very important amendment. It is reasonable. It is common sense. It is
patriotic. It would help newly arrived immigrants to learn their
responsibilities and assimilate the habits and privileges of American
citizenship. Unfortunately, however, the other side objected to
allowing a vote on the amendment.
I mention that because we cannot run the bill that way throughout. We
have to have the debate, we have to have the votes in order to define
this bill. We need a debate that is robust, that is vigorous, that is
open, that is participatory in the sense that people can come forward
and get the votes they deserve.
I have set up a process to be as fair as possible so all points of
views are heard. Many of the Senators, understandably, do want to offer
amendments. For my part, though we began with the Securing America's
Borders Act, a bill I brought to the floor, the first amendment was
Chairman Specter's amendment, and that is to offer the Judiciary
Committee bill as a substitute. I, and I think the whole body, accept
that out of deep respect for the committee process and the great work
the committee has done thus far and the right for the committee's voice
to be heard.
I am optimistic about where we are going with this bill. It is
interesting, in our caucus, and I know in the Democratic caucus as
well, there is a lot of discussion going on. You can't help but to pick
up the papers now and listen to the radio and watch television and not
see this discussion of these very real problems being put first and
foremost in the headlines and in the stories.
I think that is healthy because we have problems which we have failed
to address as a people, problems we absolutely must address, the
problems of people crossing these borders illegally, at a rate that
about 2.8 million people came across our Southwest border last year.
That number is increasing every year by about 25 percent. These are
illegal people coming across the borders. It is a problem that is
there. It is a problem that is growing. It is a problem we have to
address.
The challenge which is probably the most difficult is how to address
the 11 million people who have crossed those borders in the past,
probably 7.5 million of whom are working, many of them families. Many
of them--I guess all of them--came here with the intention of a better
life. But they broke the law and they are here illegally. How can we
treat them with compassion and understanding but not give them a leg up
among other law-abiding people who also want citizenship?
Those are challenges. I think everybody is struggling with that. I
appreciate it. And it means we are going to have passionate debate,
contentious debate. Not everybody is going to agree on even those two
issues I mentioned. It is going to be a highly charged issue. There are
deep feelings and deep and strong principles at stake.
The process will work. I am confident in this body the process will
work if we keep our debate civilized and dignified and fair to every
Member of the body. And by ``fair,'' I mean allow people to come to the
floor and offer those amendments and have them voted on.
As I said when I introduced the border security bill, I do want our
debate to reflect our commitment to the rule of law and to our proud
immigrant heritage--to both. We are a nation of immigrants, and we have
all benefited from America's uniquely inclusive character. I believe we
can honor both our history and our laws, and by working together, we
can forge a solution that does credit to this body and to the American
people.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed
as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________