[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 169 (Saturday, December 18, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10665-S10666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REMOVAL CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 5281, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5281, an act to amend title 28, 
     United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions 
     relating to the removal of litigation against Federal 
     officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate No. 3 to the bill.
       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate No. 3 to the bill, with Reid 
     amendment No. 4822 (to the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment No. 3), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4823 (to amendment No. 4822), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 4824, to provide for a study.
       Reid amendment No. 4825 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 4824), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4826 (to amendment No. 4825), of a 
     perfecting nature.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXIII, the clerk will report 
the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 3 
     to H.R. 5281, the Removal Clarification Act [DREAM Act].
         Joseph I. Lieberman, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Robert Menendez, 
           Mark Begich, Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill Nelson, Michael 
           F. Bennet, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, Christopher J. Dodd, Richard J. Durbin, John 
           F. Kerry

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
5281, an act to amend title 28, United States Code, clarifying and 
improving certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation 
against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Manchin) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. 
Hatch) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bunning
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Manchin
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who wish to vote or change their vote?
  The Chair reminds the galleries that expressions of approval or 
disapproval are not permitted.
  On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 41. Three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the 
motion is rejected.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S10666]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss 
my vote today against ending debate on the Dream Act, a bill that would 
provide legal status to millions of people in this country who are 
illegally present. Before I discuss the substance of the bill, I want 
to express my frustration on the process of how this bill was brought 
to the floor for a vote. This bill has been around for nearly 10 years. 
In 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered and debated the 
bill, and voted to send it to the full Senate for consideration. It 
didn't pass at that time, and since then, not one hearing has taken 
place on the legislation.
  The bill we considered today was the sixth version of the Dream Act 
that we have seen in the last 2 months. Five of the six versions were 
introduced and immediately put on the calendar, bypassing the committee 
process. The Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, didn't have 
the opportunity to debate it or make it better. Instead, the full 
Senate was asked to consider the bill as written, without the ability 
to amend it. You see, the majority leader used his ability to block all 
amendments through a process known as ``filling the tree.'' This 
procedure means that no amendments could be in order. No improvements 
could have been made. The democratic process was effectively blocked.
  Now, allow me to express some concerns that I have had about this 
version of the bill. The Dream Act would legalize an unlimited number 
of people who are here illegally, including the relatives of the alien 
that applies. It would put millions of individuals not just young 
people on a path to citizenship. The bill also leaves the door open to 
more fraud and abuse of our immigration system. It leaves a lot of 
discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security, including authority 
to waive bars of inadmissibility. This latest version of this 
legislation provides very few assurances that criminal aliens would be 
barred from applying. The Dream Act, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office has a $5 billion price tag, and could require hard-
working Americans to foot the bill for this amnesty program. The bill 
fails to require individuals to graduate from college or to complete 
their military service, even though proponents claim that this is the 
sole mission of the bill. Finally, one of the most alarming provisions 
of the bill allows aliens who apply, no matter how frivolous their 
claim, to be granted safe harbor from enforcement officials by 
prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing an alien 
who has a pending application.
  I agree that we should take a hard look at protecting the youth who 
are forced to come here illegally, unaware of the consequences. 
However, we also need to be conscious of those people standing in line, 
all around the world, who follow the law and wait their turn to come 
here legally. This bill just wouldn't be fair to those people.
  Congress and this administration must come to terms with the 
immigration problems we have. We need true reform of our immigration 
laws, starting with border security and enforcement of the laws already 
on the books. We need to consider changes to our legal immigration 
system, including expanding or improving visa programs, to make sure 
people are incentivized to come in legally rather than illegally. These 
reforms will make the system better for future generations because a 
short term amnesty program as proposed by the Dream Act--doesn't solve 
the underlying problem.
  I voted against ending debate today because I believe this bill 
required serious deliberation. I thought we deserved to have amendments 
considered. It is unfortunate that the majority attempted to push this 
bill through at the final hour, circumventing the democratic process 
that allows for amendments and serious debate on an issue that would 
dramatically undermine our rule of law.

                          ____________________