Speech #1100020748

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I have also offered amendment No. 311. which is one that is not unfamiliar to Members of this body. I offered this amendment during our immigration debates last year. It is one supported by the Department of Homeland Security because this amendment. which received bipartisan support last year. will remove current litigation barriers impeding the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to do his job. that is. enforce the immigration laws. especially as they are related to apprehension. detention. and expedited removals of illegal aliens. We know one of the most obvious symbols of the Federal Governments failure to deal with our immigration problem and our broken borders is the now repudiated catchandrelease program where. because of lack of adequate facilities to detain individuals. particularly coming from countries other than Mexico. they were often caught and then simply released on their own recognizance and asked to return for a deportation hearing at a later time. Unsurprisingly. the vast majority of these individuals did not appear for their deportation hearing but merely melted into the landscape. In this particular instance. this amendment is designed to address a particular courtordered permanent injunction issued in an immigration case 19 years ago. This is the Orantes case. This Orantes injunction has hindered the Department of Homeland Security to promptly remove. immediately after apprehension. Salvadoran illegal aliens. While Secretary Chertoff has made great strides in increasing the number of illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico detained for removal along the southwest border and recently ended catchandrelease at the border. the limitations contained in this injunction still impede the enforcement efforts of the Department of Homeland Security. Similarly. other longstanding injunctions have not only impeded the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to enforce our immigration laws but have also consumed vast amounts of resources and. in some cases. are now inconsistent with intervening changes in the law. This amendment does not eliminate injunctive relief but only requires that injunctions be drawn narrowly and not unnecessarily impede the enforcement of our immigration laws. Congress enacted comparable legislation narrowing the basis for injunctive relief in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. and that legislation has been upheld by the Supreme Court. This amendment would simply require that courts narrowly tailor injunctive relief orders against the Government in immigration cases. Courts must limit relief to the minimum necessary to remedy the violation. adopt the least intrusive means to remedy violations. minimize the adverse impact on national security. border security. immigration administration and enforcement. and public safety. and finally. provide an expiration date for injunctive relief. This amendment would provide that preliminary injunctive relief would expire in 90 days from issuance of an order unless the court makes findings that permanent relief is required or makes the order final before the 90day period. This amendment would also require courts to rule promptly on all Government motions to eliminate injunctions in immigration cases. If we are serious about creating an immigration law that will actually work. then we have to eliminate 19yearold impediments. such as the Orantes injunction. to our ability to end once and for all the failed policy of catchandrelease when it comes to illegal immigration. I hope my colleagues will vote favorably for amendment No. 311. which will end this particular impediment. now 19 years old in the Orantes case. The last amendment I have is amendment No. 310. known as the Zadvydas amendment because this amendment will strengthen the Governments ability to detain criminal aliens. including murderers. rapists. and child molesters. until they can actually be removed.