[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 140 (Thursday, September 20, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11778-S11779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DREAM ACT AMENDMENT

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly oppose the Durbin 
amendment to the Defense appropriations bill. That amendment would pass 
the so-called DREAM Act into law.
  In standing up in opposition, let me suggest this should not be 
called the DREAM Act. It should be called the ``Amnesty Reality Act'' 
because this is yet another attempt, another version of amnesty for a 
significant number of illegal aliens.
  Let me say at the outset I am not standing here to criticize or to 
lambaste the individuals involved, undoubtedly, who came to this 
country with their parents to try to find a better life because of very 
difficult conditions in Mexico or otherwise.
  The point of my opposition is not directed at them. It is directed at 
what is very bad and destructive policy in terms of U.S. immigration 
policy, repeating the mistakes of the past, making a very real problem 
worse and not better through a significant amnesty program.
  Why is this an amnesty? Well, purely and simply, this so-called DREAM 
Act, which I think should be called the ``Amnesty Reality Act,'' 
embodied in this Durbin amendment to the Defense appropriations bill 
would provide a pathway to citizenship to who knows how many folks who 
entered this country, and remain in this country, illegally. 
Specifically, it targets folks who came into this country illegally as 
minors, presumably with their families, with their parents. It also 
gives them benefits in this country that most U.S. citizens do not 
enjoy, specifically, instate college tuition that U.S. citizens outside 
that State do not enjoy.
  This is very frustrating to me. Just a few months ago, we had a major 
debate on the floor of this body about immigration policy. A large so-
called comprehensive immigration bill was on the floor of the Senate. 
It received a lot of attention and a lot of focus. That was a good 
thing because the American people got engaged; they focused on what was 
going on. They understood what was being proposed, and they wrote and 
e-mailed and called us in record numbers.
  I do not think anyone can deny the message came through loudly and 
clearly. The message was: We do not support an amnesty program because 
that will make the problem far worse and not better. The second part of 
the message was: Let's start with real enforcement. Let's finally get 
serious with border security, workplace security, to begin to address 
this very real illegal immigration problem in this country.
  That message came through in such volume that it literally shut down 
the Senate phone system on the morning of that pivotal vote which 
defeated that so-called comprehensive immigration bill proposed by 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, the author of this DREAM Act 
amendment, and others.
  What is so frustrating to me is that very loud, very clear message 
seems to have fallen on deaf ears in terms of some Members of this 
body. Unfortunately, this DREAM Act amendment is proof of that. Again, 
it is, clearly beyond argument, another version of amnesty. It would 
provide a pathway to citizenship for a significant class of people, 
folks who came into this country illegally as minors. We do not know 
how many people that would be, and we have very little way of enforcing 
even the provisions of this amendment to keep it to the folks to whom 
it is supposed to be targeted.
  What do I mean by that? Well, the folks are supposed to have come 
into this country in the last 5 years. Yet at the same time the 
amendment says it can apply to people up to age 30. What sort of proof 
do these folks have to offer with regard to when they came into this 
country? There is no proof requirement. It could simply be an 
affirmative statement by themselves, no other required proof. So this 
is open ended, this is unenforceable, and it is a significant amnesty.
  In addition, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, it provides 
substantial benefits to these folks illegally in our country, benefits 
that the huge majority of American citizens do not enjoy. What is that? 
Well, the biggest is instate college tuition that would come to folks 
who sign up for the DREAM Act. As soon as they sign up, they would be 
treated as instate residents of that State. They would get instate 
tuition, and--guess what--all other U.S. citizens, the children of all 
other U.S. citizens outside that particular State who would love the 
benefit of instate tuition would not enjoy that same benefit.
  That does not match the commonsense test that the American people 
want us to use. It certainly has nothing to do with the message the 
American people sent to us loudly and clearly during the debate on the 
so-called comprehensive immigration bill with its massive amnesty 
program. Again, that message came through loudly and clearly: No 
amnesty; real enforcement.
  The American people are saying that not because they are mean-
spirited, not because they hold anything against these individuals who 
are seeking a better life in this country, but because they know, 
because common sense tells them, this is going to make the problem 
worse and not better. Inadequate enforcement, with amnesty, acts as a 
magnet to magnify the problem, to encourage more illegals to cross the 
border into our country. If that does not ring true just because of 
common sense, history proves it.
  The last time the Congress acted in this area of the law was in 1986, 
again

[[Page S11779]]

with significant immigration reform. The promise was exactly the same: 
We are going to get serious. We are going to get real with enforcement. 
We just need this amnesty one time--never again--to help solve the 
problem.
  Well, what happened? That bill passed into law. The real enforcement 
never happened to an adequate extent, but, of course, the amnesty 
provision went into effect immediately. What happens when you combine 
inadequate enforcement with real amnesty? What you do is make the 
problem worse and not better, encourage more illegals to come into the 
country.
  The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case it is in the 
numbers. What was then, in 1986, a problem of 3 million illegal aliens 
in this country, is now a problem of 12 or 13 million or more. So what 
did that one-time solution do? It quadrupled the problem. It proved not 
to be a solution at all.

  I suggest we do something that some might consider novel around here. 
Let's listen to the common sense and wisdom of the American people. 
Let's say no to amnesty, as we did in June by defeating the immigration 
bill sponsored by Senator Kennedy and others. Let's say yes to real 
enforcement both at the border and in the workplace. And let's offer 
that message again by defeating this very ill-conceived Durbin 
amendment.
  To help defeat this amendment, I will be offering a second-degree 
amendment to the Durbin amendment. My second-degree amendment is very 
simple. It simply says nothing in the Durbin amendment goes into 
effect, goes into law, until the US-VISIT Program is fully operational. 
The US-VISIT Program is something that was first proposed in 1996, an 
entry/exit system so we know who is coming into the country, who is 
leaving the country--something very basic, very necessary in terms of 
enforcement.
  Although it was proposed in 1996, it has never come close to being 
fully operational because Congress, folks in Washington, this 
administration and previous administrations, have never had the 
political will to get it done.
  So, again, my second-degree amendment to the Durbin DREAM Act 
amendment is very simple. That cannot go into effect until the US-VISIT 
system is fully operational at our borders. I will be proposing that 
amendment assuming the Durbin amendment is, in fact, called up for 
consideration on the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield back my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________