The Senate on Thursday evening passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill by a vote of 62-36.  Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported the bill.  Below is Leahy’s Statement.  

Closing Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On Passage Of S.2611, Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Senate Floor
May 25, 2006

When the Senate resumed its consideration of comprehensive immigration reform last week I began by expressing my hope that we would finish the job the Judiciary Committee started in March and the Senate began in April.  We need to fix the broken immigration system with tough reforms that secure our borders and with reforms that will bring millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.  I have said all along that Democratic Senators cannot pass a fair and comprehensive bill alone.  Over the last two weeks we finally got some help. I would like to especially thank Senators Kennedy and McCain, as well as Chairman Specter and the Democratic Leader, for their tireless work on this bill.

We got some words of encouragement from President Bush last week when he began speaking out more forcefully and in more specific terms about all of the components needed for comprehensive legislation.  For the first time, he expressly endorsed a pathway to earned citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers now here.  I thank him for joining in this effort.  But his work is far from done.  We will need his influence with the recalcitrant members of his party here in the House if we are ultimately to be successful in our legislative effort.  Without effective intervention of the President, this effort is unlikely to be successful and the prospects for securing our borders and dealing with the hopes of millions who now live in the shadows of our society will be destroyed.  Those who have peacefully demonstrated their dedication to justice and comprehensive immigration reform should not be relegated back into the shadows. 

Yesterday we were able to begin to draw to a close the Republican filibuster against comprehensive immigration reform.  When Republicans filibustered two cloture votes last month, including one on a motion by the Republican Leader, I was disappointed.  I had hoped we would recognize the lawful, heartfelt protests of millions against the harsh House-passed criminalization measures.  While they waved American flags, some of those fueling anti-immigrant feelings burned flags of other countries.  I am encouraged that through the course of this debate we have been able to convince enough Senate Republicans to join us in our efforts and to appreciate the contributions of immigrants to our economy and our nation. 
 

This bill is not all that it should be in my view.  By incorporating the Hagel-Martinez formulation we have compromised from the initial compromise.  I have made no secret that I preferred the better outline of the Judiciary Committee bill.  The bill the Senate is now considering is a further compromise.  Debate and amendments have added some improvements as well as some significant steps in the wrong direction.  I thank Senators Bingaman, Kerry, Obama, Salazar and others for their important and constructive amendments.  I was delighted that after some initial opposition, working with Senator Stevens and others we were able to add flexibility to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative by extending its deadline another year and one-half through our amendment. 

The Senate unwisely rejected efforts by some of us to make it more flexible for those persecuted around the world.  This country has had a history of being welcoming to refugees and those seeking asylum from persecution.  The Senate turned its back on that history by refusing to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility needed after restrictive language was added to our laws by the REAL ID Act.  I remain hopeful that Senators will reconsider these issues with more open minds and hearts and a fully understanding of the lives being affected.  Sadly, too many were spooked by false arguments. 

Besides the Senate’s failure to readjust asylum provisions to take into account the realities of oppressive forces in many parts of the world, I was most disappointed that the Senate appeared to be so anti-Hispanic in its adoption of the Inhofe English language amendment.  Senator Salazar and I wrote to the President following up on this provision and the comments of the Attorney General last week and weekend.  We asked whether the President will continue to implement the language outreach policies of President Clinton's Executive Order 13166.  A prompt and straightforward affirmative answer can go a long way toward rendering the Inhofe English amendment a symbolic stain rather than a serious impediment to immigrants and Americans for whom English at this moment in their lives is a second language. 

I deeply regret that the Senate took such a divisive act.  Over my strong objection and that of the Democratic Leader, Senator Salazar and others, a modified version of the Inhofe amendment was adopted.  I understand why this amendment provoked a reaction from the Latino community as exemplified by the May 19 letter from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza and the National Puerto Rican Coalition and from a larger coalition of interested parties from 96 national and local organizations. 

Until this week, in our previous 230 years we have not found it necessary or wise to adopt English as our official or national language.  I believe it was in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the state legislature shortly after the Revolutionary War authorized official publication of Pennsylvania’s laws in German as well as English to serve the German-speaking population of that state.  We have been a confident nation unafraid to hear expressions in a variety of languages and willing to reach out to all within our borders.  That tradition is reflected in President Clinton’s Executive Order 13166. 

We demean our history and our welcoming tradition when we disparage Spanish and those who come to us speaking Spanish.  I have spoken about our including Latin phrases on our official seal and the many States that include mottos and phrases in Latin, French and Spanish on their State flags.  We need not fear other languages.  We would do better to do more to encourage and assist those who wish to be citizens to learn English, but we should recognize English, as Senator Salazar’s amendment suggested, as our common and unifying language.  

Yesterday, once we had overcome the previous Republican filibuster we were faced with a budget point of order supported by some Senators who oppose the bill and who added significantly to the costs of the bill through their amendments.  Rather than continue their efforts to delay or derail Senate action on comprehensive immigration reform, I had hoped that they would join with us in a constructive way to enact comprehensive immigration reform.  We do not need more divisiveness, derision and obstruction. 

This bill is not the bill I would have designed.  It includes many features I do not support and fails to include many that I do.  The bill that won the bipartisan support of a majority of the Judiciary Committee was a compromise that contained the essential components that are required for comprehensive immigration reform.  Before the last recess I was willing to support a further compromise that incorporated the principles of the Hagel-Martinez bill because it was proposed by the majority leader as a “breakthrough” that would allow us to pass immigration reform.

I want to express my appreciation to the Democratic Leader, Senator Reid.  He was right to insist that the original version of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment and the Isakson amendment not be rushed through the Senate to score political points.  As the significantly revised version of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment attests, the Democratic Leader was right. With a little time, and thanks to a lot of hard work, the amendment has been significantly changed, narrowed and accepted.  With a little time and bipartisan commitment the Isakson amendment was defeated.   

We have proceeded to consider dozens of amendments.  Most have been offered by Republican Senators.  Some have been approved; some have been tabled or rejected.  The Senate has worked its will. 

Immigration reform must be comprehensive if it is to lead to real security and real reform.  Enforcement-only measures may sound tough but they are insufficient.  The Senate has a responsibility to pass a bill that addresses our broken system with comprehensive reform and puts the pieces in place to secure the nation. 

Just a few weeks ago I went to the White House with a bipartisan delegation of Senators to speak with the President.  The need for a fair and comprehensive immigration bill was the consensus at that meeting, and I believe the President was sincere when he told us that we had his support.  I trust that he will urge comprehensive immigration reform on the Republican House leadership who has yet to endorse our bipartisan comprehensive approach.  Without the President following through on his words with actions, the effort for comprehensive immigration reform is unlikely to be successful.

Last week the Senate made progress.  We made progress because Democratic and Republican Senators working together rejected the most strident attacks on the comprehensive bill.  We joined together in a bipartisan coalition in the Judiciary Committee when we reported the Judiciary Committee bill.  Democratic Senators were ready to join together in April and supported the Republican Leader's motion that would have resulted in incorporating features from the Hagel-Martinez bill, but Republicans balked at that time and continued to filibuster action.  Last week, Republicans joined with us to defend the core provisions of that bill, and we defeated efforts by Senators Kyl and Cornyn to gut the guest worker provisions and to undermine the pathway to earned citizenship.  Instead, we adopted the Bingaman amendment to cap the annual guest worker program at 200,000 and the Obama amendment regarding prevailing wages in order to better protect the opportunities and wages of American workers.

I spoke last week about the need to strengthen our border security after more than 5 years of neglect and failure by the Bush-Cheney Administration.  A recent report concluded that the number of people apprehended at our borders for illegal entry fell 31 percent on President Bush’s watch, from a yearly average of 1.52 million between 1996 and 2000, to 1.05 million between 2001 and 2004.  The number of illegal immigrants apprehended while in the interior of the country declined 36 percent, from a yearly average of roughly 40,000 between 1996 and 2000, to 25,901 between 2001 and 2004.  Audits and fines against employers of illegal immigrants have also fallen significantly since President Bush took office.  Given the vast increases in the number of Border Patrol Agents, the decline in enforcement can only be explained by a failure of leadership. 

Meanwhile, once again the Administration is turning to the fine men and women of National Guard.  After our intervention turned sour in Iraq, the Pentagon turned to the Guard.  After the government-wide failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina, we turned to the Guard.  Now, the Administration's longstanding lack of focus on our porous Southern border and failure to develop a comprehensive immigration policy has prompted the Administration to turn once again to the Guard.  I remain puzzled that this Administration, which seems so ready to take advantage of the Guard, fights so vigorously against providing this essential force with adequate equipment, a seat at the table in policy debates, or even adequate health insurance for the men and women of the Guard.

I have cautioned that any Guard units should operate under the authority of State governors.  In addition, the Federal Government should pick up the full costs of such a deployment.  Those costs should not be foisted onto the States and their already overtaxed Guard units.

Controlling our borders is a national responsibility, and it is regrettable that so much of this duty has been punted to the States and now to the Guard.  The Guard is pitching in above and beyond, balancing its already demanding responsibilities to the States, while sending troops who have been deployed to Iraq.  The Guard served admirably in response to Hurricane Katrina when the Federal Government failed to prepare or respond in a timely or sufficient manner.  The Vermont Guard and others have been contributing to our national security since the immediate aftermath of 9/11.  After 5 years of failing to utilize the authority and funding Congress has provided to strengthen the Border Patrol and our border security, the Administration is, once again, turning to the National Guard.

It was instructive that last week President Bush and congressional Republicans staged a bill-signing for legislation that continues billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthy.  Instead of a budget with robust and complete funding for our Border Patrol and border security, the President has focused on providing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Congress has had to step in time and again to create new Border Agent positions and direct that they be filled.  Instead of urging his party to take early and decisive action to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as he signaled he would in February 2001, the President began his second term campaigning to undercut the protections of our Social Security system, and the American people signaled their opposition to those undermining steps.  While the President talks about the importance of our first responders, he has proposed 67 percent cuts in the grant program that supplies bulletproof vests to police officers. 

Five years of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s inaction and misplaced priorities have done nothing to improve our immigration situation.  The Senate just passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that allocated nearly $2 billion from military accounts to border security.  The Democratic Leader had proposed that the funds not be taken from the troops.  But last week the President sent a request for diverting a like amount of funding, intended for capital improvements for border security, into operations and deployment of the National Guard.  The Republican Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security came to the Senate Floor last week to give an extraordinary speech in this regard. 

Border security alone is not enough to solve our immigration problems.  We must pass a bill – and enact a law -- that will not only strengthen the security along our borders, but that will also encourage millions of people to come out of the shadows.  When this is accomplished we will be more secure because we will know who is living and working in the United States.  We must encourage the undocumented to come forward, undergo background checks, and pay taxes to earn a place on the path to citizenship. 

In addition, last week the Senate adopted a billion-dollar amendment to build fencing along the Southern border without saying how it would be funded.  We also adopted amendments by Senators Bingaman, Kerry and Nelson of Florida to strengthen our enforcement efforts. 

Last week we defeated an Ensign amendment to deny persons in legal status the Social Security benefits to which they are fairly entitled.  I believe that most Americans will agree with that decision as fair and just.  It maintains the trust of the Social Security Trust fund for those workers who contribute to the fund.  This week we defeated a Sessions amendment that would have unfairly stripped immigrants of Earned Income Tax Credits.  I am pleased that in both cases the Senate agreed not to unfairly withhold these benefits from hardworking immigrants who will benefit immensely from them.    

The opponents of our bipartisan bill have made a number of assaults on our comprehensive approach.  Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn opposed the Judiciary Committee bill.  Senators Vitter, Ensign, Chambliss and Inhofe have been very active in the amendment process, as well.  I hope that they recognize how fairly they have been treated and the time they have been given to argue their case against the bill and offer amendments.  We have adopted their amendments where possible.  A narrowed version of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment disqualifying some from seeking legalization was adopted.  The Sessions amendment on fencing was adopted.  The Vitter amendment on documents was adopted.  The Ensign amendment on the National Guard was adopted.  The Cornyn amendment imposing additional costs on immigrants was adopted.    

I trust that with so many of their amendments having been fairly considered and some having been adopted, those in the opposition to this measure will reevaluate their previous filibuster.  It may be too much to think that they will support the bill as amended.    

# # # # #