Change of Vote

Floor Speech

CHANGE OF VOTE -- (Senate - October 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for yielding me time. Can I get a sense of how much time that is?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Chair.

Madam President, as I listened to our colleague describe his amendment, one might say: Why shouldn't I support this amendment? The problem is, the very issues he described, including the one in my own home State of New Jersey, would not be resolved by his amendment. That is a breakdown of the system that had nothing to do with communities making a decision not to go ahead and assist and inform, when they actually have someone who has committed a crime, of, in fact, the status of that individual.

What this amendment will do--what this amendment will do--is it will undercut the ability of communities to actually prosecute the crime--to prosecute the crime. Why? Because a crime is committed against an individual, and if that individual happens to be a victim who is undocumented in this country, that community wants--and communities across the country want--the victim to come forth and say: Hey, I had this crime committed against me. I had this robbery committed against me. I was assaulted. I was raped. We want the victim to come forward and talk about the crime and testify against the perpetrator because society, the community, is best served by having the criminal--the criminal--put away in jail. If you don't have people coming forth to testify about the crimes committed against them--you might have had a sexual predator, you might have had someone who was involved in a whole host of things--the bottom line is, if you don't have the person who was the victim coming forth, you don't get to the person committing the crime, and that person is allowed to stay out there committing more crimes.

What if you are a witness to a crime. As a witness to the crime--you saw it, you are an eyewitness--you can help the police, you can help the prosecutor, you can help the sheriff put that person away. But, no, you are not going to come forth because, in fact, your status in this country isn't clear, and ultimately why should you come forth and put yourself in jeopardy?

Communities across the landscape of the country have said: We want to get to the criminal element. We want that witness to come forth. We want them to come and testify. What the Vitter amendment does is it cuts the legs out from under law enforcement, who say they prefer to get the perpetrator of the crime and that is much more important than ultimately going to the question as to whether that person has a legal status in this country.

That is why a large number of people whom we trust every day, who put their lives on the line for us in terms of protecting us as citizens, have said they oppose the Vitter amendment, including the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major City Police Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs Association, and those who, as the chief executive officers of their municipalities, are actually responsible for making sure that their citizens are protected, the U.S. Conference of Mayors--they have all come out in opposition to this amendment because they understand it goes to the very heart of being able to keep their communities safe.

This amendment would deny funding to over 70 law enforcement jurisdictions in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin; jurisdictions that have made it their decision to have laws and policies and practices that put the enforcement against the crime, that puts the perpetrator away in jail, as their primary goal.

There are plenty of things that can be done to pursue people who are undocumented in this country if that is the right policy. But denying municipalities the funding, the Federal moneys for police officers, because they want to get the perpetrator versus get the undocumented immigrant is, in my mind, the wrong policy. That is why all these major law enforcement entities, the people on whom we depend, consistently are in opposition.

Last, it seems to me when the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in testimony over in the House, said nothing that these communities do stops ICE, which is ultimately responsible for prosecuting individuals, for detaining them and deporting them--that nothing by any of these jurisdictions is stopping them from being able to do that--as is being suggested, that that is why this amendment is necessary--I think it makes a very compelling argument.

Let's make sure the victims of crime come forth. Let's make sure the witnesses of crimes come forth. Let's listen to the law enforcement entities that say they oppose the Vitter amendment. Let's make sure we have the community policing opportunities that take place to reduce crime, which has risen 2 years in a row in the country, and ultimately let's listen to the Secretary of Homeland Security who says nothing these jurisdictions have done has stopped them from being able to have ICE pursue their duty to proceed against an individual who is undocumented in this country.

I would rather get the perpetrators, those who are committing a rape, who are committing a robbery, who are sexual predators, who are doing those things--who are breaking the law. The rule of law is very important and there are a lot of elements to that. We want to make sure the rule of law is preserved by ensuring those who can help us put criminals away have the wherewithal to do so and are not ultimately afraid to come forth. That helps all the citizens in the community and that is why I believe we should defeat the Vitter amendment.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source