[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 161 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8613-S8617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2009--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3991, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 662, S. 3991, a bill to 
     provide collective bargaining rights for public safety 
     officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I allocate to myself such time as I may 
need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to S. 3991, 
the so-called Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. I have a 
number of policy and constitutional concerns about this bill, and I 
have expressed them over the years, but I have never had the 
opportunity to work with the bill's supporters to address those 
concerns. Even though this legislation falls within the HELP 
Committee's jurisdiction, the committee has never held a hearing on the 
bill and has only marked it up without amendment or written report--and 
that was years ago--and this is not the same bill we are considering 
today.
  An objective consideration of this bill reveals it is based on poorly 
reasoned policy. Over the last 7 years, the proponents of this bill 
have only brought it directly to the floor and purposefully 
circumvented the regular order of the Senate and its committee 
processes, perhaps because the scrutiny of that process would expose 
the multiple flaws in this legislation. Rather than addressing this 
bill on its merits, its proponents have decided, once again, to play 
the sound bite game. Their calculation is simple: Since this bill 
involves unions that organize among police and firefighters, they will 
continue to simply claim that anyone who opposes this bill is against 
police and firefighters.
  Let us address that calculated untruth first. There is no one I know 
of--Republican or Democrat, supporter or opponent of this bill--who 
does not respect and value the work and dedication of our police, 
firefighters, first responders, and other public safety professionals. 
Their contributions to our communities are immeasurable, and our 
support of them is unwavering. However, this bill provides no direct 
benefit to any police officer, firefighter or first responder. It 
doesn't provide a dime in Federal money to any State, city or town to 
hire, to train or to equip any additional public safety personnel. In 
fact, it simply imposes costs that will make that result less likely. 
It is arguably one of the biggest and most dangerous unfunded mandates 
the Federal Government has ever imposed.
  In fact, there are a number of law enforcement groups opposing this 
bill: the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police have all come 
out against S. 3991. I think we have to ask: If all these law 
enforcement groups oppose the bill, is it a good idea to pass it in the 
last days of a lameduck Congress?
  Plain and simple, the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation 
are labor unions. You see, while unionization in the private sector has 
been on a historical down trend, unionization in the public sector has 
been increasing. In 2009, 37.4 percent of public sector employees were 
unionized compared to 7.2 percent in the private sector. Government 
workers are now five times more likely to belong to a union. For the 
first time in our country's history, the majority of union members are 
public sector employees, not private sector employees. Public sector 
unions have been the only area of growth for unions for many years, and 
as we all know, organizations need to grow to survive.
  Let me now turn for a moment to some of the serious and fundamental 
problems with this legislation. For over 70 years, a hallmark of our 
Nation's labor policy has been the principle that employment and labor 
relations between a State, city or town, and its own employees, should 
not be a matter of Federal law, but a matter of local law. That bedrock 
principle is not only rooted in our national labor policy, it is firmly 
fixed in our Constitution and our traditions of federalism. Yet today 
the proponents of this bill seek to overturn this hallmark principle 
and to radically change decades of unbroken Federal law and policy. The 
enormity of this change is only matched by the prospect that it could 
occur as a result of total disregard for processes of the Senate and 
the complete absence of any meaningful opportunity for modification.
  You would think the Senate would consider such a bill only after 
careful examination and due deliberation. Sadly, you would be wrong. 
This legislation has not had a Senate Committee hearing or markup this 
Congress or the two Congresses before this one. The HELP Committee has 
never held a hearing on this bill. The bill grants enormous power over 
States to a virtually unknown Federal agency. Yet we have never so much 
as asked a representative sampling of State officials for their views, 
nor have we ever even been informally asked the Federal agency involved 
if it feels up to the job we would impose on it. These shortcomings 
alone show that this bill is being pushed not because it is good 
policy, but because some see it as expedient politics.
  This bill would require that every State, city and town with more 
than 5,000 residents open its police, firefighters and first responders 
to unionization. It would impose this Federal mandate not in the 
absence of any State consideration of this issue, but in direct 
opposition to the legislative will of several States. Proponents of 
this legislation have attempted to maintain the fiction that it 
actually does little to disturb State laws. That is simply not the 
case.
  This bill would expressly overturn the law in 22 States. In fact, 16 
States have specifically considered and rejected legislative proposals 
similar to the law that would be federally imposed under this bill in 
recent years. Some States, such as Wyoming, have chosen to either 
extend collective bargaining in a more limited manner than the bill 
before us would mandate, or not to extend it at all.
  In this second chart, proponents of this bill have told Senators from 
States that do have ``full'' public sector collective-bargaining laws 
that this bill would not change anything in their respective home 
States. However, labor experts have identified at least 12 of those 
States where the viability of one or more provisions of their own 
current State law would be in question if this bill were enacted. That 
is the yellow States. Supporters of the bill base their argument on a 
provision which allows the Federal Board that will be ruling over all 
these States to ignore instances where the State law is not as broad as 
the Federal mandate if ``both parties'' agree that it is sufficient. 
Make no mistake, this provision is completely hollow.
  First, there are hundreds of thousands of ``parties'' that will have 
the authority to agree or disagree about

[[Page S8614]]

the sufficiency of a State's law. Every public safety officer and his 
or her employer will have this authority. The term ``public safety 
officer'' is so broadly defined in this bill that many employee groups 
that may surprise you meet the definition, such as paramedics, 
lifeguards, security guards and more. What are the odds of all of these 
groups agreeing to look the other way? Further, anyone who has ever 
been a party to negotiation knows about leverage. The ability to place 
one phone call and have an entire State's law on a subject overturned 
and taken over by the Federal Government is some of the most powerful 
leverage I have ever heard of.
  Let's be completely clear about what this legislation would do. A 
vote for this bill is a vote to overturn the law and the democratic 
will of the citizens of many of our States, and to invalidate the 
democratic action of their voters and legislators. This is very 
important. That is why mayors of major U.S. cities that already provide 
collective bargaining rights also oppose the bill. New York City Mayor 
Bloomberg, along with the mayors of Boston, Cleveland, Denver, 
Minneapolis, San Diego, Philadelphia and Mesa, AZ, all wrote to the 
Senate yesterday asking us not to enact this poorly thought out bill. 
And it is not just the chief executives objecting. Major newspapers 
across the country such as the Denver Post, the Richmond-Times Dispatch 
and the Washington Post have editorialized against this proposal. I ask 
unanimous consent that these materials be printed in the Record at the 
end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ENZI. I formerly served as the mayor of Gillette, WY, a city of 
20,000 people. As I look around this Chamber there are too few here 
that have any experience with trying to balance a budget for a city or 
town, which may explain why this unfunded mandate proposal is being 
brought up with so little attention given to how it will increase the 
dire financial situation of States and municipalities.
  A recent report by the National League of Cities found that 
municipalities will face a shortfall between $56 billion and $83 
billion from 2010 to 2012. Headlines across the country confirm that 
city leaders are responding to deficits with layoffs, furloughs, 
payroll deductions and cutting city services, all of which will impact 
police, fire and emergency services departments. This week it was 
Camden, NJ, laying off 383 employees, including 67 firefighters and up 
to 180 police officers.
  Another survey found 87 percent of city finance officers said that 
they were less able to meet the city's fiscal needs in 2010, than a 
year before. The outlook for States is just as dire, especially 
considering that Federal stimulus dollars, which many States have used 
to partially fund budget gaps, will run out after 2012. States will 
face an estimated $300 billion budget shortfall for 2011 and 2012. And 
the extent to which States and municipalities are facing underfunded 
public employee pensions is truly staggering. A PEW Center on the 
States report out this year pegs it at a $1 trillion gap.
  During this downturn cities across America are struggling to maintain 
solvency. Unlike the Federal Government, they cannot print money--they 
have to actually balance their budgets. Here is the reality. Without 
regard to pay or benefits, just the administrative costs alone of 
collective bargaining represent a very significant line item that 
Congress now proposes to force on States, cities and towns. Towns, 
particularly small towns, that currently do not have the resources to 
negotiate and administer multiple collective-bargaining agreements 
would have to now hire and pay for these additional services. Towns and 
cities that do not devote the long hours of municipal time to the 
complicated process of bargaining, and overseeing multiple union 
contracts, and to administering contract provisions and resolving 
disputes under a collective-bargaining system will be required to spend 
that time. Nobody should be fooled. Those additional, manpower and man-
hour requirements are enormously costly and burdensome. This bill would 
impose those costs by Federal mandate, but would not provide a single 
penny of Federal money to help offset those costs.
  As a former mayor, and as the only accountant here in the Senate, I 
would remind my colleagues about the cold realities of municipal 
finance. If you increase municipal costs you have only two ways to meet 
those additional costs--either increase revenues, or decrease services. 
This bill will unquestionably place many municipalities in the 
difficult position of choosing between raising State and local taxes, 
or decreasing and eliminating local municipal services.
  Mere consideration of this bill today reveals that many in this body 
remain sadly out of touch with the real needs of our constituents and 
the real fiscal problems that their cities and towns face every day. 
With stagnant or declining property values and an endless parade of 
increasing fixed costs, don't our cities and towns already have enough 
on their plate without the Federal Government imposing more new costs 
through this mandate?
  Since the legislation before us has not gone through committee 
process, I have a number of amendments I will have to offer here on the 
floor. I always like having this type of legislation go through the 
committee, so we can discuss the bill and amendments in a smaller 
group. I always like doing it in committee. It is a smaller group, more 
understanding of what the different issues are. It also gives you the 
chance to kind of grow an idea, to get the germ of an idea and grow it 
between several people who are interested. That doesn't happen on the 
floor, it is all up or down. But I will have a number of amendments I 
will have to offer. These amendments are directed toward protecting the 
fiscal health of our communities that fall under this mandate, ensuring 
the integrity of public safety and service organizations, and 
preventing union abuse of public sector employees, among other issues.

  But these problems represent only the tip of the iceberg. If this 
body decides to take this issue up today and spend the next week 
debating it, you will hear more detail on my concerns and those that 
will be raised by other Senators opposed to this proposal who have also 
never had any chance in the process for amendments.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion on the Public Safety 
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, S. 3991.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                 December 7, 2010.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: As mayors of cities who 
     oversee large public safety agencies and who collectively 
     bargain with our public safety unions, we are concerned about 
     the lack of examination of the Public Safety Employer-
     Employee Cooperation Act of 2010 (PSEECA). We believe that 
     this bill, like other versions in previous years, could have 
     a profound impact on public sector collective bargaining 
     negotiations and on state and local taxpayers throughout the 
     country, yet there have been no Senate committee hearings on 
     PSEECA since its first introduction in 2001. The uncertainty 
     caused by the PSEECA will certainly lead to litigation at a 
     time when our cities can least afford such expenses.
       More broadly, the entire collective bargaining structure 
     under which law enforcement and emergency response personnel 
     operate in our cities could be placed in jeopardy. For 
     example, in New York City, the decision to discipline a 
     police officer involved in a shooting incident, or to 
     determine the circumstances in which drug testing must be 
     performed, resides with the Police Commissioner and is not 
     subject to the bargaining process; this ensures full 
     accountability of the head of the police force to the public. 
     It is of grave concern to all of our cities that important 
     local decisions such as these would be lost as a result of an 
     improper federal finding.
       PSEECA also undermines settled law in jurisdictions that 
     have negotiated with unions for decades. In cities like 
     Cleveland and Minneapolis, where there is a strong history of 
     public employee collective bargaining, this legislation runs 
     counter to long established principles of local control over 
     the operations of municipal government. PSEECA risks too much 
     for our cities and adds legal and fiscal strain during 
     especially difficult economic times. In light of how little 
     has been done to assess the impact of this bill nationwide, 
     we urge you not to proceed with this disappointing and 
     potentially far-reaching maneuver.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas M. Menino,
       Mayor, City of Boston.
     Frank G. Jackson,
       Mayor, City of Cleveland.

[[Page S8615]]

     John W. Hickenlooper,
       Mayor, City of Denver.
     Scott Smith,
       Mayor, City of Mesa.
     R.T. Rybak,
       Mayor, City of Minneapolis.
     Michael R. Bloomberg,
       Mayor, City of New York.
     Michael A. Nutter,
       Mayor, City of Philadelphia.
     Jerry Sanders,
       Mayor, City of San Diego.
                                  ____


                 Opposition Articles Related to PSEECA

       ``Federal Policies Should Help, Not Hurt, States' Fiscal 
     Health'', The Washington Post--Dec. 7, 2010.
       ``Trampling Local Labor Laws'', The Denver Post--Dec. 1, 
     2010.
       ``Forced Labor'', Richmond Times-Dispatch--Jun. 21, 2010.
       ``Bad Bargain: Congress Should Let States Handle Their Own 
     Labor Relations'', The Washington Post--Jun. 16, 2010.
       ``A Tale of Two Counties'', The Washington Post--May 30, 
     2010.
       ``League Ask State Officials To Oppose Bill'', Charleston 
     Daily Mail--July 16, 2010.
       ``A Sop to Big Labor'', Las Vegas Review-Journal--May 30, 
     2010.
       ``Another Union Sop: Pubic Safety Canard'', Pittsburgh 
     Tribune Review--Jul. 9, 2010.
       ``Budget Busting Union Bill'', The Post and Courier--Jun. 
     21, 2010.
       ``Safety Union Push Intrudes Too Far'', The Virginian-
     Pilot--Jun. 19, 2010.

  Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from New York.


                    9/11 Health And Compensation Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 9/
11 Health and Compensation Act. Yesterday we observed Pearl Harbor Day, 
marking the 69th anniversary of that tragic attack on American soil. 
Nine years ago our Nation was attacked once again. September 11, 2001, 
was a day of indescribable horror, not only for New York, a city I am 
proud to call home, but for the entire Nation.
  In the minutes, hours, and days after the Twin Towers collapsed, 
thousands of first responders rushed to lower Manhattan to dig through 
the rubble. First they searched for survivors. We all remember the 
horrible--this is vivid in my mind, the signs people holding: Have you 
seen this person? It is my husband, my wife, my child, my parent. 
Because no one knew where everyone was amidst the rubble. We thought--
unfortunately we were disappointed, deeply--that there were survivors 
amidst the rubble and time was of the essence to find them.
  Then, in days later, when we realized that there weren't many 
survivors, there was still a great need to, sadly, search for the 
bodies of those who perished. You can imagine the anguish of families, 
who wanted a sign, something--remains of their loved ones--and that 
search continued. Valiant men and women, not just from New York or New 
Jersey or Connecticut but from Minnesota and Colorado and all around 
the country, came--firefighters, first responders, police officers, 
ordinary citizens--to help us in our horrible hour of need--a moment, a 
day, a week, a month that I will never forget.
  I still look out my window in my home in Brooklyn, every day when I 
am home, and know that those two Twin Towers are no longer there and I 
think of the people I knew who were lost, a guy I played basketball 
with in high school, a businessman who helped me on the way up, a 
firefighter who dedicated his life to my neighborhood in Brooklyn where 
I was raised, getting people to donate blood.
  We think of all these people. They were resolute, they were brave, 
they were selfless--those who were lost and then those who came to the 
rubble. Construction workers. They didn't ask if they were going to get 
paid. They didn't ask what the danger was to them. They were brave, 
they were resolute, they were selfless as were firefighters, policemen, 
EMTs, and others.
  Amid the chaos and carnage, they said to themselves: This is what I 
am trained for, and I will do whatever it takes to help, even if it 
means risking my life.
  So the dust has settled and the ruins of the World Trade Center have 
been cleared away. The effects of the attack are still being felt, now 
more than ever, by thousands of those first responders.
  Medical experts have determined that on September 11 and the days 
after, the air around Ground Zero was filled with microscopic cement 
and glass particles. This dust has caused thousands of first responders 
to develop chronic respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases.
  Just last week, we lost 9/11 first responder Kevin Czartoryski, a 
NYPD narcotics detective. He is the third hero to pass away in the past 
month from the medical complications related to the rescue effort.
  Back in 2006, doctors from the Mount Sinai Medical Center that my 
predecessor, or my former colleague, now Secretary of State, then-
Senator Clinton, worked so hard to bring into the picture found that a 
staggering 70 percent of 9/11 rescue workers suffered from health 
problems, many of which were irreversible.
  The fact is, right now there are people who rushed to those towers 
who do not know they are ill. The symptoms of these illnesses and 
diseases, when you get these particles in your lungs and in your 
gastrointestinal system, the cancers and other illnesses that develop, 
take years and years before they can be detected. So we know that in 
the coming years there are going to be more heroes who will become ill, 
and those who are already suffering may see their conditions worsen.
  The 9/11 Health and Compensation Act will finally put these first 
responders at ease with the knowledge that they will receive treatment 
for health problems related to rescuing victims of the attack and 
helping clear the debris from Ground Zero. The bill ensures that those 
at risk of illness have access to medical monitoring and that all of 
those who get sick from exposure have a right to consistent treatment. 
The bill also ensures ongoing data collection and analysis for exposed 
populations, so we can try to cure or treat in advance people who might 
become ill.
  Critically, the legislation would ensure steady funding for those 
vital programs so that those in treatment no longer have to wonder 
whether Congress will appropriate adequate funds to allow their 
treatment to continue year to year. We have appropriated funds every 
year. Everyone in this Chamber has voted for those funds. But when it 
is yearly funds and you need an ongoing medical regime, it is very hard 
to plan, to buy that machine, to set up a team that would work for 3 or 
4 or 5 years under normal circumstances. The heroes who rushed to the 
towers deserve to be guaranteed proper treatment, not to have their 
medical needs subject to the whims of what is going on at that month, 
that time in Washington.
  In addition to addressing health needs, the bill would reopen the 
victims compensation fund, allowing those who missed the arbitrary 
deadline of December 22, 2003, to seek compensation. This deadline 
unfairly barred responders who became ill or learned of the fund after 
the date. You rushed to the tower. As of 2003, you were aware of the 
fund, but you did not apply. You did not have anything wrong with you. 
Six months later, you get cancer of the lungs or cancer of the 
esophagus or stomach, which we found so many getting. Why unfairly 
prevent them?
  So this bill is an opportunity to send a clear message to the 
thousands of first responders who risked their lives on that fateful 
day 9 years ago. We say to them: In our Nation's time of need, you gave 
us your all. Now, in your time of need, we will give you our all.
  Let's not forget, on both sides of the aisle, we have struggled 
mightily to help our veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 
2001 and 2002, we saw that veterans health care was not up to snuff. 
There was a bipartisan effort to bring it up to snuff, to make the 
health care adequate for the new needs of the veterans who risked their 
lives for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because this Nation has a 
tradition: When you volunteer--as our soldiers do today--and risk your 
life to protect our

[[Page S8616]]

freedom, particularly at a time of war, we will be there for you and 
deal with your medical problems that were caused in that conflict.
  I would argue to every one of my colleagues here today, those who 
rushed to the towers in those fateful hours and days after 9/11 are no 
different from our veterans whom we exalt. It was a time of war. Our 
Nation was attacked. They volunteered. No one compelled them to do it. 
They rushed to danger as our veterans do. So when they are injured, 
which has happened, they should be treated the same as our veterans. 
This is nothing we should play politics with, just as we do not play 
politics with veterans' needs.
  I want to make sure everybody hears us. I know there are other 
legislative concerns, whether it is tax bills or funding bills or 
whatever. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
it is not fair and it is not right to say that we will not remember 
these people who volunteered and risked their lives to protect our 
freedom in a time of war; we will not help them until X or Y or Z gets 
done. It is not fair. It is not right.
  It is also time for those who are against the bill to stop spreading 
lies about it. They say it is vulnerable to fraud. It has been very 
tight. My good colleague, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, 
has documented thoroughly and completely how the existing compensation 
has not created any fraud or other types of problems.
  We are here. We have debated this bill for years. It has been like 
running a marathon, and this is the last 100 yards. Thousands of first 
responders, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, and 
other heroes who were ordinary citizens from each of the 50 States are 
waiting for us to act. And for all too many of them, help cannot come 
soon enough. The finish line is in view. Let us, on both sides of the 
aisle, cross it together. I implore my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.
  Before I sit down, I wish to praise my colleague who has led the 
fight, Senator Gillibrand from New York. She has made it her passion. 
She works for it hours every day and has done an amazing job. I also 
thank our colleagues on this legislation, particularly my colleagues 
from across the river, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez, who have been 
our partners. I thank Peter King, Carolyn Maloney, and Jerrold Nadler 
in the House for their work and many others in New York and other 
delegations. Again, I hope those efforts will not go in vain, not 
because of the people who worked on the bill like we did but because of 
the people who need our help, those who have all kinds of illnesses 
because they volunteered to help our great Nation and preserve its 
freedom in a time of war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Colorado.


                               DREAM Act

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator 
from New York for all of his efforts over many years to make sure first 
responders from 9/11 receive the settlements they deserve.
  I rise today to speak in strong support of the DREAM Act. The DREAM 
Act will enable some of the best and brightest young people who have 
graduated from our schools to serve in the Armed Forces and to excel in 
college and their careers. The DREAM Act actually raises revenue to 
reduce our deficit. It is for these reasons that the DREAM Act has a 
history of bipartisan support and why I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill today, both Republicans and Democrats.
  I have been a strong supporter of comprehensive immigration reform 
that will secure the border, reform our broken family and employment 
visa systems, address employers who willfully break the law, and 
require the undocumented to register and become legal, pay a fine, pay 
their taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks.
  Unfortunately, Washington has been unable to get comprehensive 
immigration reform done, even as our immigration system becomes more 
and more broken. As a result, we need to look at smaller measures to 
make sure we are addressing the immigration issues that cannot wait. 
For instance, recently the Senate approved $600 million to send 1,500 
new Border Patrol agents, additional unmanned aerial drones, and 
communications equipment to our southwest border in order to stem the 
flow of undocumented immigration and prevent the further smuggling of 
weapons and money. This is an effort I supported.
  The DREAM Act is another step toward improving the overall system. It 
is a program targeted to a relatively small, defined, select group of 
immigrants who are currently in this country with few options through 
no fault of their own. These are students and graduates of our schools 
who did not choose to come here but have succeeded and begun to 
contribute to our country.
  This debate is about whether a child who has excelled in the 
classroom has the opportunity to attend college and later contribute to 
society as a tax-paying citizen. This debate is also about whether a 
child whose only home is our country can have the opportunity to serve 
America in our Armed Forces. It is about whether it makes good fiscal 
sense to have our government invest in the education of these young 
people and generate what the Congressional Budget Office estimates to 
be $1.4 billion in savings through new revenues to be generated when 
these kids enter our workforce armed with an education or valuable 
military experience.
  Each year, roughly 65,000 U.S. school students who would qualify for 
the DREAM Act benefit graduate from high school. These include honor 
roll students, star athletes, talented artists, homecoming queens, 
aspiring teachers, doctors, and U.S. solders. As a former 
superintendent of the Denver public schools, I saw firsthand the 
achievement and potential for these young people, students such as 
Kevin, who wrote my office this fall to tell his story.
  Kevin graduated from high school in Colorado with a 3.9 grade point 
average and has always dreamed of becoming an engineer. He graduated 
from the University of Denver with a 3.5 grade point average, and a 
bachelor of science in electrical engineering with a specialization in 
control and robotics and a minor in math. Unfortunately, because of his 
status and despite the fact that our country is in desperate need of 
engineers, Kevin cannot pursue his dream of becoming an engineer and is 
now working at a fast food restaurant. This is just one example of our 
failed politics, where Washington settles for rhetoric over common 
sense.
  According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, about 35,000 noncitizens 
serve and 8,000 permanent resident aliens enlist in our military every 
year. In a letter to Senator Durbin this past September, the Defense 
Secretary wrote that the DREAM Act represents an opportunity to expand 
this pool to the advantage of military recruiting and readiness.
  Passing the DREAM Act will provide the opportunity for Fanny, another 
young woman who reached out to my office, to serve in the military. She 
came to Denver at the age of 7. When she entered high school, Fanny 
joined the Air Force ROTC Program, the drill team and the Color Guard. 
Her dream was to attend the Air Force Academy and serve in the 
military. Unfortunately, Fanny is barred from service in spite of the 
fact that this is the only home she knows. Rather than opening the door 
to service in this time of war, young people like Fanny who want to 
stand proudly and serve our country are precluded from doing so.
  Taxpayers also stand to gain from the DREAM Act. We will receive a 
significant return on investment through the contribution of these 
youth to our society and the revenue generated by their newly 
legalized, tax-paying status. It has been estimated by the CBO that 
successful DREAM Act applicants will generate $2.4 billion in new tax 
revenue. This is based on the fact that these youth will be able to 
transition into higher paying jobs and will be paying their fair share 
of taxes.
  If we are going to get our fiscal house in order, we need to make 
sure we are getting a full return on our investment and not closing the 
door on new tax revenues.
  I know many of my colleagues may still be undecided on whether to 
move forward on the bill. Some have supported the DREAM Act in the 
past, only to move away from it in the face

[[Page S8617]]

of heated rhetoric around the issue of immigration. I ask that before 
any of them make a final decision, they step back and take a fresh look 
at the facts and the reality facing these youth.
  Support for the DREAM Act is not only a matter of conscience for me 
since it is the right thing to do, it is also a practical solution. 
Continued delay is an irresponsible waste.
  We owe it to the taxpayers who have invested in the education of 
these youth, the teachers who have fostered their development, and our 
military who can benefit from these new recruits to move forward on the 
DREAM Act. I plan to vote yes and strongly urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________