[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 148 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6887-S6890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE DREAM ACT

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my 
distinguished colleague from Alabama, as well as a number of my other 
colleagues who I think have disproved, at least for this afternoon, one 
of the remarks made by the Senator from Illinois, which is that the 
cable viewers who subscribe to C-SPAN may not be getting their money's 
worth. I think the very spirited remarks made by my colleague from 
Alabama, even as I disagree with them, are a very well-stated point of 
view that deserves to be considered.
  I am honored also to follow the majority leader and the Senator from 
Illinois and the Senator from Virginia in the remarks they made about 
the need to change the filibuster rules, and I wish to associate myself 
strongly with them. From the very first days I have been a Member of 
this body, I have strongly believed the filibuster needs to be ended or 
at least greatly modified so as to permit the business of this great 
Chamber to go forward. I believe the new Members who have come here 
have heard that message loud and clear from the American people and 
that they will vote--a majority of them--to change those rules. Because 
all of us know, having been home for a while, the American people 
believe strongly that we need to do better, we need to do more, we need 
to address the problems of this country through majority rule, not by 
60-vote rule but majority rule, at least at the beginning of the 
process, as the majority leader has suggested, not by violating the 
rules but by following the rules to change and improve those rules. So 
I will vote to support the majority leader's proposals in that regard.
  One of the measures that has been stymied, as the Senator from 
Illinois very eloquently said, is the DREAM Act. I have been a strong 
supporter and thank him for his leadership on the DREAM Act over many 
years. A number of times I have come to the floor to share stories, 
specific personal stories about those DREAMers whose lives would be 
changed and who would so greatly enhance the life of this Nation if the 
DREAM Act were passed. I am here again to share the story of another 
DREAMer from Connecticut and to urge my colleagues to act on this 
measure.
  Of course, this measure should be part of comprehensive immigration 
reform. I have believed since I arrived 2 years ago that immigration 
reform ought to be a priority. I am gratified and grateful that the 
President seems now to be moving in that direction and that many in 
this body share that view. In fact, I asked to be assigned to the 
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration so I could be a part 
of this debate, and I hope I will join leaders in this effort, such as 
Senator Schumer and Senator Menendez, in proposals to repair a broken 
system. Clearly, our immigration system is in dire need of reform, 
comprehensive reform that will include the DREAM Act.
  I have met and I have seen and experienced firsthand the stories of 
these DREAMers that make the case so compellingly for the DREAM Act to 
enable them to earn their citizenship and continue contributing to the 
greatest Nation in the history of the world, America.
  As we return from Thanksgiving, having expressed our gratitude for 
our families, for our communities, for our country, what better time to 
address this measure for people who appreciate, maybe more than most of 
us, the importance and value of citizenship.
  For more than a decade, Senator Durbin has championed this measure, 
and I am honored to work with him in this effort. As attorney general, 
I advocated it at the State level. But, obviously, only the Federal 
Government can change the laws relating to citizenship.
  The DREAM Act would give young, undocumented immigrants, brought to 
this country as infants or young children, through no choice of their 
own, a chance to earn their citizenship through education or military 
service. The young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act identify 
as Americans. This Nation is the only one they have ever known. English 
is often the only language they know. Their friends here are the only 
friends they have. It would give them a clear path to immigration 
status, as well as citizenship.
  The DREAM Act would give these young people a chance to earn 
citizenship but only if they meet several requirements. First, they 
must have come here as children. They have to demonstrate good moral 
character. They have to have graduated from high school. They must have 
completed 2 years of college or military service. Then, having met 
those requirements, they can apply for legal permanent residency and 
pursue a path to citizenship.
  The DREAM Act would enable thousands of young people in Connecticut--
about 2 million across the country--to leave the shadows, to leave the 
shadows of fear, of deportation from their homes and their communities, 
a fear that haunts them and forces them to put their careers and their 
education on hold, to the detriment of them and our Nation because they 
have so much to contribute and to give back to their communities and 
our country.
  They are well educated and ambitious, and they could enhance and 
expand our society, our economy, our democracy if they are given the 
chance to fulfill their potential. All they want, all they ask is the 
opportunity to stay in this country and to earn citizenship in the 
place they call home, proudly.
  Two million immigrants nationwide would benefit from this act. Mr. 
President, 11,000 to 20,000 DREAMers are living in Connecticut, and one 
of them is Solanlly Canas.
  She was born in Colombia and she is here with us in this photograph. 
She was brought to America when she was 12 years old, living now in 
East Haven where she has attended school. She is in her senior year of 
high school where she has thrived as a member of the Honor Society, the 
Executive Board of the Student Council, and president of the Interact 
Club, the National Honor Society.
  She has dreams and goals for the future. She is proud of being a 
great student contributing to the life of her school, and she hopes to 
study psychology some day. She wants to go to college. But her life is 
in danger of being on hold because of her undocumented status. On June 
15 of this year, Solanlly encountered the great hope that maybe all of 
her hard work would be worth it, because on that date, the Obama 
administration announced a new policy that deferred action for 
childhood arrivals that gave her a temporary reprieve for relief from 
deportation. It extended for 2 years that relief. She would qualify, 
because those who

[[Page S6888]]

have been in this country, continuously residing here for 5 years, 
brought here as children, not convicted of a felony or significant 
misdemeanor, currently in school or graduating from high school or 
honorably discharged as a veteran, all would be eligible to apply.
  But eligibility is all they receive. All they would gain if granted 
this status is a temporary reprieve, forcing them again to risk, at the 
end of that reprieve, the potential for deportation and aggravating the 
possible fear by their having to declare their undocumented status. Her 
fate, far from being unusual, I have shown to be common to a number of 
individuals whom I have specifically mentioned on the floor.
  Miller Gomes, for example--I am going to have his picture be shown 
here--brought to this country from Brazil at 5 years old. He attended 
Bridgeport public schools and Fairfield University where he graduated 
summa cum laude, and then the University of California-Berkeley where 
he is now enrolled in a Ph.D. program, a Ph.D. program in chemistry. 
What does this country need if not more scientists? We say so every day 
on this floor. Here is a scientist who could contribute greatly, now in 
fear of deportation simply because he was brought here at 5 years old 
and he is undocumented to this day.
  Zuly Molina, who came here from Mexico, brought here at 6 years old. 
By the way, she had to walk across desert-like, barren country for 15 
days. She was then put in the trunk of a car--6 years old. Living in 
New Britain. She was so fearful of her status that she declined to go 
to college in Connecticut. Instead she went to Massachusetts at Bay 
Path College where right now she is pursuing a master's in occupational 
therapy, a health care worker. At a time when we on this floor talk 
about the need for health care skilled training, we have here someone 
who could provide exactly that kind of contribution.
  Finally, I have talked about Yusmerith Caguao, brought here from 
Venezuela when she was 11 years old. She went to Norwalk schools, and 
graduated from Norwalk Community College. She worked her way through 
Norwalk Community College as a waitress, as a babysitter, as an 
employee at a pet store. Now she is at Western Connecticut State 
University pursuing a combined degree in finance and accounting.
  For these DREAMers, a path to citizenship, beginning with legal 
status, is essential to their peace of mind but also to their 
continuing to accomplish academically and professionally what is their 
great potential, to give to their country the promise and fulfillment 
of that potential that this country so dearly needs. We have the 
opportunity to provide them with a pathway to citizenship. Hopefully it 
would be part of comprehensive reform. But even as a stand-alone 
measure it merits approval. And as the Senator from Illinois said so 
well, it was blocked by the requirement for a 60-vote threshold. A 
majority voted in favor of it during this Congress. I ask my colleagues 
to give it the 60-vote threshold that it needs to pass for the sake of 
these DREAMers and for the sake of our country.
  (The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3636 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          The Sportsmen's Act

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill that is going 
to be dealt with here at the bottom of the hour, S. 3525, the 
sportsmen's package. This is a landmark bill. It includes ideas from 
members of both parties and from both Chambers. Over 50 national sports 
and conservation organizations support this bill, ranging from the 
Nature Conservancy to the NRA. Some 20 provisions included in this bill 
will help expand access to public lands, support additional habitat 
conservation, and preserve the hunting and fishing rights millions of 
Americans cherish. There has been much discussion about this bill, with 
many people weighing in. The fact is that this is a responsible 
bipartisan bill that will reduce the deficit by $5 million while 
expanding hunting and fishing opportunities for millions of Americans.
  I appreciate the perspective of the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee on the issue of whether to raise a point of order. I know he 
has to defend the Budget Act. However, the reality is this: This bill 
reduces the debt by $5 million over 10 years. Those aren't my figures; 
those are the figures of the Congressional Budget Office. 
Unfortunately, a vote to sustain the point of order made by Senator 
Sessions is a vote to kill this important bipartisan legislation. We 
have had plenty of partisanship already here today on the Senate floor. 
I think it is time to do something in a bipartisan fashion and do 
something that is good for some 90 million Americans who consider 
themselves hunters and anglers.
  I urge my colleagues to waive the budget point of order and then 
approve this important bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Tester's leadership 
in putting together legislation, S. 3525, to address the priorities of 
sportsmen across the country.
  This bill has many important provisions that I support, including 
reauthorization of highly successful conservation programs in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee's jurisdiction, which I chair. 
These programs restore critical wetlands, support partnerships to 
conserve wildlife habitat, and promote outdoor recreation.
  While I appreciate Senator Tester's efforts to move this legislation 
forward, I remain deeply concerned about two provisions included in 
this package, which I will discuss today. S. 3525 broadens an exemption 
that prohibits the use of the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act to 
address public health and environmental threats from dangerous 
chemicals, including lead, in ammunition and fishing tackle.
  Some ammunition and fishing tackle contain lead that can be harmful 
to people who consume meat contaminated with lead shot. In 2008, 
Minnesota examined packages of venison and found that 22 percent 
contained lead fragments. North Dakota has also found lead fragments in 
venison being distributed for food.
  The latest science shows that there is no known safe level of lead in 
children's blood. Because lead can damage the nervous system, including 
the brain, children and pregnant women are especially at risk.
  Animals can also be poisoned or die after eating ammunition that is 
shot into lakes, rivers and upland areas, or when they consume the 
carcass of another animal that contains spent ammunition. In 2008, an 
expert at the U.S. Geological Survey stated:

       Science is replete with evidence that ingestion of spent 
     ammunition and fishing tackle can kill birds. The magnitude 
     of poisoning in some species such as waterfowl, eagles, 
     California condors, swans and loons, is daunting.

  There are safe and effective alternatives, such as steel, to the use 
of lead in shot and fishing tackle. According to the State of 
Wisconsin:

       Steel shot actually arrives on target in a tighter pattern 
     . . . (and) penetrates game better than lead . . . Extensive 
     research, testing steel and other non-toxic shot, shows it to 
     be both safe and effective.

  The Federal Government must be able to use all of the tools at its 
disposal to protect American families from consuming contaminated food. 
Therefore, we should not create unneeded exemptions that apply to lead 
and an unknown number of other contaminants.
  I also oppose the provision in S. 3525 that would allow sport-hunted 
polar bear trophies to be imported from Canada. This misguided 
provision could jeopardize recovery efforts for a species that is 
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, ESA, and 
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA.
  Before polar bears received their protected status under the ESA and 
MMPA, there were extensive warnings for over a year that this 
protection was imminent. Nevertheless, a small group of trophy hunters 
ignored these warnings and went forward scheduling new

[[Page S6889]]

hunts, and they are now seeking an exception to allow their polar bear 
trophies to be imported into the United States.
  The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that 
approximately 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears remain in the wild. Their 
survival is severely jeopardized by many factors, and we should not 
provide a loophole that encourages hunting of this vulnerable species. 
Maintaining full, consistent protections for polar bears is critical to 
the health of the Arctic ecosystem, the Native communities who legally 
harvest these bears for subsistence purposes, and for the public at 
large that is working to save this iconic animal.
  I believe this bill has many good provisions that will help preserve 
America's treasured natural resources, protect fish and wildlife, and 
provide recreational opportunities for our families. Unfortunately, the 
bill also includes two provisions that threaten public health and could 
set back wildlife conservation efforts. I filed amendments to S. 3525 
that would address these concerns, but if the amendments are not 
adopted and the bill remains unchanged, I will oppose S. 3525 in its 
current form.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be raising a budget point of 
order against this legislation. But I do want to thank my colleague, 
Senator Tester, for his hard work and the efforts of a lot of people to 
put this legislation together. I would hope my colleagues would listen 
to why I think it is important this bill--with a lot of good points in 
it, which I favor strongly--needs to be sent back and fixed.
  The reason is this: The bill violates the Budget Control Act that we 
passed August a year ago. That has been certified by Senator Conrad, 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, and his staff. It plainly, as 
often is the problem, spends more than the Budget Control Act allows to 
be spent. Chairman Conrad, as I said, has agreed with that assessment.
  No. 2, now this is the fourth bill brought before this Senate by the 
majority leader in the last 15 months that violates the budget. It is 
the fourth time. This is a time in which our country has never faced a 
more serious systemic budget crisis. We are on an unsustainable course. 
We know that. One of the things we need to do is figure out a way to 
constrain ourselves, and the Budget Control Act was a step in that 
direction.
  To raise the debt limit in August 2011--we had borrowed all the money 
we could borrow, and to raise the debt ceiling, the debt limit, the 
Budget Control Act was passed. It limited spending, and that was all 
part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling.
  These violations of the Budget Control Act lower respect for the 
Senate by the American people. It hurts our Nation because it impacts 
our debt situation and our spending, and it cannot be justified. It 
should not happen. We can avoid this.
  I disagree with Senator Tester on this point. Of course, sustaining 
the budget point of order will not kill this bill unless in some manner 
of pique Senator Reid were to say: I am not going to bring it up if you 
do not pass it just like I said it ought to be passed and you will not 
waive the budget and just violate the budget and do it like I said. I 
do not think Senator Reid will do that. Surely, he will not do that.
  So what would happen is it would go back to committee, and Senator 
Reid would review it and see what we could do to fix it, which will be 
easy compared to some of the difficult problems we have around here. 
The need would simply be to find $14 million a year. I have suggested a 
number of ways already, but those have not been used. If we would think 
about it this way, we are talking about finding savings somewhere in 
this monumental government of $14 million when we plan to spend 
$370,000 million this year. By Alabama standards that is a lot of 
money.
  Another problem: The bill is subject to a House blue slip. Under the 
Congressional Budget Office analysis and the President's own Office of 
Management and Budget in the White House, the duck stamp is a tax. It 
simply is a tax. People can say it is not a tax. It is a tax. They have 
defined it as a tax. We do not have the ability to redefine the meaning 
of words around here, and a tax cannot originate in the Senate. So the 
House, as it is presently written, is likely to object and will object 
to this, I am certain.
  Another easily fixed problem in the bill is this: The Environment and 
Public Works Committee brought up the legislation. The question of 
whether the duck stamp tax should be set by law, by Congress, or be 
given to a member of the President's staff to set at whatever level he 
wants was discussed. Senator Boxer agreed with those who shared the 
view that we should not be delegating to an unelected Cabinet person 
the power to set taxes in the United States of America. He can set the 
duck stamp under this bill at any level he wants to set it at. That is 
not good.
  This is a constitutional issue. I feel strongly about it. Congress 
must never cede its power to tax to a single person not even 
accountable or any other entity, the U.N. or any other entity. The 
Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and only the Congress the 
power to tax. That can easily be fixed. There is not a problem here.
  It has been argued that the point of order is only technical. Do not 
worry about this point of order. It is only technical because the new 
spending in it is paid for. How? By tax increases. So the Budget 
Control Act drafters, 15 months ago, and the budget rules of this 
Senate understand this argument. This is not a new argument. They knew 
this kind of gimmick would come up under the Budget Control Act, and 
they prohibited it. They understood it, and that is why they prohibited 
it.
  Under the Budget Control Act, a spending limit is a spending limit. I 
know Senator Reid seems to think if he raises taxes he can spend more, 
and he does not have to pay attention to the Budget Control Act he 
supported and the President signed and negotiated 15 months ago. He 
does not have to do that because he has paid for it, he thinks, by 
raising taxes. But the truth is the Budget Control Act does not deal 
with taxes. It deals with spending, and it prohibits more spending than 
the amount above the EPW allocations.
  I note my friend, Senator Tester, and my friend, Senator Warner, 
earlier--they are fine Senators--said there is no problem. OK. There is 
no problem, Sessions. It reduces the deficit by $5 million over 10 
years. We should not worry. So you say: OK, Sessions, why are you 
complaining? You are worried about the deficit. It reduces the deficit 
by $5 million. CBO says that. That may be the case. I think it is the 
case. But what is the answer to that charge? The answer to it is simply 
this: This legislation, as it is now written--and can be changed--
raises taxes $145 million and spends $140 million, and they pat 
themselves on the back and say: We pay down the deficit $5 million. 
Give me a break.
  Think about this, though: If the spending limit of the Budget Control 
Act were complied with, we would not have a $5 million reduction in the 
deficit. We would have a $145 million reduction in the deficit at 
least. We would have $145 million in deficit reduction instead of $5 
million. So let's ask: Has anyone looked around to see if there is any 
spending that can be reduced to pay for this? The Interior 
Appropriations bill spends $29 billion a year. We cannot find $14 
million?
  Well, the answer is, nobody has looked to save any money to pay for 
this bill. Nobody, really.
  Well, why not? Because it asks the Members of the House and the 
Senate--the Congress--to choose, make priority settings, and that is 
hard. We do not want to do hard things. There are over $900 million 
spent in wetlands programs like that in the bill that advance duck 
causes and hunting and so forth, according to the Congressional 
Research Service. Has anybody ever looked to see if that multiplicity 
of programs might be consolidated and save, out of $900 million, maybe 
$14 million right there? Plus, any other spending in this government 
could be utilized to keep within the spending limits and not violate 
it.
  But the fact is the Budget Control Act said we must choose. If we 
want to

[[Page S6890]]

have a new program in one of our areas of the government, fine and 
dandy, but we have to do it within the limit of spending we have agreed 
to. This bill does not do that. Under this rationale, we would have to 
assume, would we not, that the needs of this bill are so little that 
there is not a single other program in America, not a single one, that 
is less valuable. Therefore, the only way we can proceed with this bill 
is to raise taxes, raise revenue. That is just simply not correct. We 
know better than that.

  There is no reason these problems cannot be fixed. Slowing down, 
complying with the Budget Control Act, not delegating to an unelected 
Cabinet Member the power to raise taxes, not violating with a blue slip 
by commencing a revenue bill in the Senate, is not hard to deal with.
  So I say to Senator Tester: Thank you for your work. I am not sure 
the way this was done precisely was something you suggested. I believe 
we can work this out. I have made some suggestions. I am open to a lot 
of suggestions, but I will just say to my colleagues, I will continue 
to object to any bill brought before this Congress that violates the 
solemn agreement we made 15 months ago in the Budget Control Act. And 
this one does. Senator Conrad has verified that. If my colleagues will 
adhere to the limits of spending that we agreed to 15 months ago by 
supporting this budget point of order, this popular bill, with a lot of 
good values in it, will be quickly fixed and passed--there is just no 
other way to see it--and in the future, committees and Senator Reid, 
perhaps, will stop sending budget busters to the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I was going to make the budget point of order at this 
point, but I see Senator Tester. I do not know if he wants to speak. 
Let me say again how much I appreciate the hard work Senator Tester has 
put into this. He is a friend. I know he has worked hard, and I hate to 
cause him heartburn at this point in time, but I really would say I 
have raised this budget point of order on other bills and it is not 
that I am complaining particularly about his. His, in fact, will be a 
lot easier to fix than some of them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee for his comments.
  Look, folks, this is a bill about habitat. It is a bill about access. 
It is a bill about opportunity for people who enjoy our outdoors in 
this country. The outdoor economy is some $600 billion a year.
  I have heard many times spoken on the Senate floor, if we are going 
to get the deficit and the debt under control, we have to grow our 
economy. This is about growing our economy. How? By allowing hunters, 
fishermen, outdoor activists the opportunity to go out and utilize the 
great outdoors this country has to offer in Montana and throughout this 
country.
  We are losing habitat every day. We have lost access to habitat for 
hunting and fishing and hiking. This bill will fix that.
  I will go back to the point Senator Sessions made. When I go back 
home, folks talk to me about the debt. They talk to me about the 
deficit. They ask what we can do to fix it. Quite frankly, this is one 
of those things we can do to fix it. By increasing opportunities for 
our outdoorsmen and women in this country, we have the opportunity to 
increase our economy in a very positive way.
  Like I said, when we talk about the duck stamps, those dollars go in 
to be used for promoting opportunities in duck hunting. Those moneys 
will not be going into funding the war in Afghanistan. The money coming 
in basically goes out for a specific purpose.
  By the way, the folks who utilize the duck stamp want this money 
bumped up. That is why we give the Secretary this discretion.
  With that, I yield the floor back to the Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________