ILW.COM -Sen. Byrd Comments on Flaws in Legal Immigration Family Equity Act

[Congressional Record: October 27, 2000 (Senate)] [Page S11279-S11281] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr27oc00-168] THE COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE BILL Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today I voted for the conference report [[Page S11280]] on the Commerce-Justice-State bill, which was included with the D.C. appropriations bill. Both those bills were in the same conference report. I voted in favor of those measures. But the CJS measure was, in actuality, a seriously flawed piece of legislation with a number of problems attendant to it. The first problem that I had with it was that it was a conference report, and thus it was not subject to amendment. The underlying appropriations bills went straight from the Senate Appropriations Committee to the conference committee, totally bypassing the Senate floor. The full Senate was afforded no opportunity to debate or amend these two appropriations bills. These are not the first appropriations bills to be herded through Congress in this fashion this year, but that fact does not make the practice any less objectionable. It is a simple case of cutting corners in the name of political expediency, a practice in which the United States Senate should not engage. Second, the Commerce, Justice, State bill includes a controversial immigration rider, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, a scaled down spinoff of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. The Senate dealt with this issue last month during consideration of the H-1B visa bill, when it refused to consider the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. I opposed suspending the rules to allow that measure to be offered as an amendment to the H-1B visa bill because I believe that such legislation sends the wrong message to those who might consider entering this country illegally. I believed then, as I believe today, that granting amnesty to aliens who are in this country illegally simply encourages others to enter the country illegally. Although the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act would grant amnesty to a smaller group of illegal aliens, it creates the same problems as the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act by rewarding illegal aliens for breaking U.S. law. It should make no difference whether we grant amnesty to one million illegal aliens or only a handful of that number. The principle is the same. Amnesty for illegal immigration sends the wrong message, period. Worse, these bills are an affront to those immigrants who have played by the rules, often waiting many years before being allowed to settle here legally. I am opposed to the sending of these mixed signals by Congress. It is counterproductive for the United States to vigorously protect its long and porous borders from illegal aliens--at great expense to the taxpayers, I might add--while at the same time granting amnesty to selected groups of those aliens who manage to cross the border undetected or otherwise enter the country under false pretenses. The Senate should not endorse an immigration policy that rewards aliens who violate the law. I realize that my views are at odds with a number of my colleagues, and I respect their position. I respect their viewpoints, and I would be very happy to debate the merits of new immigration legislation with them at the proper time and on the proper vehicle. This was not the proper time, and this conference report was not the proper vehicle. Neither the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act nor the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act has been considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration issues. No hearings have been held. No report has been issued by the Committee so that other senators can better understand the implication of these bills. No full scale debate has been aired. The Commerce-Justice-State conference report could not be amended. It was a take-it-or-leave-it-package. Controversial immigration legislation that the Senate refused to consider once this year as an amendment to an immigration bill should not be resurrected under any guise as a legislative rider on an unamendable appropriations conference report. Finally, I am concerned with executive branch meddling on this conference report. The President has said he will veto the conference report because the immigration rider does not go far enough. He wants the broader Latino and Immigrant Fairness legislation on this appropriations bill. This is the same President who has been complaining bitterly about legislative riders on other appropriations bills. This is the same President who vetoed the Energy and Water appropriations conference report because it contained an environmental rider to which he objected. This is the same President who berated Congress for including legislative riders along with supplemental funding provisions attached to the Military Construction appropriations bill. This is a President who has made it clear time and again that he objects to legislative riders on appropriations bill, and yet he has vowed to veto this conference report because the legislative rider it contains does not go far enough to suit him. Mr. President, the Senate has a responsibility to complete its work-- not avoid its work or compromise its work, but complete its work. This conference report is an example of how not to complete the Senate's business. The Commerce-Justice-State bill funds many vitally important programs, and that is why I voted for it. It is a bill that can and should stand on its own merits. It should not be hamstrung by legislative riders or election year politics. Mr. President, the problems that I have cited with this conference report are not a reflection on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Chairman Ted Stevens has done yeoman's work this year to shield the appropriations process from both the Democratic and Republican political agendas. I can compliment equally all of the members of the Appropriations Committee in this respect--the Republicans who chaired the subcommittees and the Democrats who were the ranking members. They all worked together, as they always do. There is no partisanship when it comes to the Appropriations Committee. Republicans and Democrats work together and politics is off the table. That was the case when I was chairman of that committee, and that has been the case since when former Senator Hatfield was chairman and now Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Senator Stevens and I resisted mightily the sledgehammer approach that was used to bring this and other appropriations conference reports to the floor. Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee, labored diligently to complete work on their bill and bring it to the floor under its own steam. No, the problem with this conference report is not the fault of the Committee but is the result of a breakdown in the legislative system that has seeped--seeped-- through the appropriations process this year. The appropriations bills are the victims of this breakdown, not the cause of it. It does not have to be this way, and it should not be this way. The Senate is fully capable of doing its work in an orderly and disciplined manner, capable of drafting, debating, and passing 13 individual appropriations bills, and of completing a separate legislative agenda. Sadly, that is not to be the case this year. Congress is limping slowly toward a long overdue adjournment, leaving behind a trail of unfinished business and the wreckage of the appropriations process. Mr. President, I hope this sorry spectacle will never be repeated. I hope that the clean slate of a new Congress will bring a fresh perspective to next year's appropriations process. I hope and I pray that next year will be different. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Reid, for his never-failing attendance to the business of the Senate. The Bible says: ``Seest now a man diligent in his business? He will stand before kings.'' Senator Reid is always diligent in his business. I appreciate his arranging for me to have this time. He is thoroughly dependable and always courteous and considerate to me and to all other Senators. I commend him for it. The people of his State have every right to be proud of him as their senior Senator. And we on our side of the aisle have every right to be proud of him as the minority whip. Mr. REID. If I could say to my friend, before he leaves the floor, I just came from the studio where I did a little TV thing because we are now not going to be able to be in Nevada next week. Senator Bryan and I joined together to name a hospital for the most decorated soldier from Nevada who served in [[Page S11281]] World War II, a man by the name of Jack Streeter, who is alive. It is amazing, as I went through this American hero's record--seven Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, five Purple Hearts--now, I know that the Senator from West Virginia, his medals have not been on the field of battle in Germany like my friend Jack Streeter, but I was thinking, as the Senator was talking to me--I am the minority whip. Of course, this is one of the lesser positions the Senator from West Virginia has held. The Senator from West Virginia has been whip, majority leader, minority leader more than once, and in addition to that, the honor that most people would feel they had fulfilled their career with, of being chairman of the Appropriations Committee. So I say to my friend publicly, as I have said privately, what an honor it is to be able to serve with one of the legends, in his own time, of the Senate: Robert Byrd. There are not many Senators that you think of as being so closely connected with the Senate as Robert Byrd. We have the Calhouns and we have a few people whose names come to our mind, but Robert Byrd is someone, when the history books are written, will always be mentioned as one of the all-time leaders of the congressional process. What a great honor it is to be able to serve with the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Mark Twain said he could live for 2 weeks on a good compliment. The compliment that the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has just paid me can help me to survive for quite a long time. I shall not forget it. His words are a bit embellished, but I am deeply appreciative of what he has said. I appreciate it very much. I thank him again for his good work every day on the floor of the Senate. Having been whip, I know when we have a good one. And Senator Reid is here, looking after the Senate's business, and always very attendant upon our every need. I am ready to vote for him again any time. He does not have to look me up and find out if I am still for him. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr. REID. Just one last comment while we are throwing compliments around this late Friday afternoon. I can remember when I went and spoke to Senator Byrd, and he indicated he would support me 2 years ago for this job. And I wrote him a letter. I can very clearly remember writing it. It took a little time in thinking of what I wanted to say. In that letter I said that as far as I was concerned he was the Babe Ruth of the Senate. I don't know if you remember that letter, but that is what I said. Mr. BYRD. Yes, I remember that letter. Mr. REID. With Babe Ruth, you always think of the best baseball player. And when you think of Robert Byrd, you think of the best player in the Senate. Thank you. Mr. BYRD. Yes. I believe it was September, in 1927, when Babe Ruth beat his own former record of 59 home runs. In 1927, he swatted 60 home runs. Mr. REID. Senator Byrd, I can remember, as if it were yesterday, you asked me one weekend-- Mr. BYRD. I believe that was September 30, 1927. And I believe it was on the 22nd of September 1927 that Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney fought a fight in which--we who lived in the coalfields hoped Jack Dempsey would win back his title, but he did not win it back. That was the occasion of the ``long count.'' It was in May of that year that Lindbergh flew across the ocean in the Spirit of St. Louis. Sometimes he was 10 feet above the water; sometimes he was 10,000 feet above the water. And his plane had a load, which I remember, of about 500 pounds. He carried five sandwiches, and ate one-half of a sandwich. I remember reading in the New York Times about that historic flight. He said he flew over, I believe, what was Newfoundland, at the great speed of 100 miles per hour--at a great speed, 1927. Mr. REID. Senator Byrd, I do not want to put you on the spot here, but I can remember returning from one of my trips in Nevada, and we had a conversation. You asked me what I had done, and I said, I hadn't read a particular book in 25 years. And I picked up the book ``Robinson Crusoe'' to read about Robinson Crusoe. You said to me: I know how long he was on that island. I just read the book, and you told me. And I had to go home and check to see if you were right, and you were right, to the day. Mr. BYRD. I believe that was 28 years, 2 months, and 19 days. Mr. REID. Yes. I have not forgotten that. Mr. BYRD. I believe that is right. Mr. REID. I went home and checked, and I will do it again. I am confident you are right. Mr. BYRD. All right. I thank the Senator. Mr. REID addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. ____________________ +

FIND A LAWYER		More options
State:	Specialty:	Language:

Share this page | Bookmark this page | Print this page |

Add to del.icio.us