[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18600-18601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               DREAM ACT

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I was truly disappointed to learn that 
Senator Reid intends to bring up a new version of the sweeping amnesty 
proposal, known as the DREAM Act. Disguised as an educational 
initiative, the DREAM Act will provide a powerful incentive for more 
illegal immigration by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
  The bill, which is unaffordable for taxpayers in many different ways, 
is a bad idea and comes at the worst possible time. As of recently, 
there are now plenty different versions of the DREAM Act on the 
legislative calendar, with different moving parts and revisions, but at 
the end of the day, it doesn't matter which one you focus on; they all 
have the same core, which is amnesty for a significant number of 
illegal aliens.
  Also with that amnesty would come very significant taxpayer-funded 
benefits for these folks, including instate college tuition. In these 
difficult economic times, it is an insult to legal, tax-paying citizens 
that President Obama and his allies in the Senate want to use their 
hard-earned money to pay for educational benefits for illegal aliens.
  The struggling economy has increased the demand for enrollment in 
public universities, as a growing number of families are unable to 
afford other education. At a time when many Americans cannot afford to 
send their own children to college, this bill would clearly allow the 
government to provide Federal student loans to illegal aliens who will 
displace legal residents competing for taxpayer subsidies. I am opposed 
to this proposal because it would unfairly place American citizens in 
direct competition with illegal aliens for scarce slots in classes at 
State colleges. The number of those coveted seats is absolutely fixed. 
So every illegal alien who would be admitted as a result of the DREAM 
Act would take the place of an American citizen or someone who is 
legally in our country. It makes no sense to authorize Federal and 
State subsidies for the education of illegal aliens when our State 
schools are suffering, as higher education budgets are being slashed, 
admissions curtailed, tuitions increased.
  Enactment of the DREAM Act would be bad policy under any 
circumstances, but in the current economic climate, it would be a 
catastrophe for States facing already strained budgets. The DREAM Act 
will continue amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who entered the 
United States as minors and meet loosely defined ``educational 
requirements.'' Specifically, the bill grants immediate legal status to 
illegal aliens who have merely enrolled in institutions of higher 
education or received a high school degree or diploma.
  The sponsors say several things to try to mitigate this basic fact, 
but it doesn't.
  First of all, they have described the beneficiaries in this 
legislation as kids, boys and girls. In reality, the DREAM Act allows 
illegal aliens up to the age of 30 to be eligible to receive amnesty 
and qualify for Federal student loans.
  Second, Harry Reid and the bill's proponents argue that this new 
version of the DREAM Act has been narrowly tailored. I don't believe 
the American public would be convinced that dropping the age of 
eligibility from 35 to 30 transforms the core of this legislation or 
changes anything at its core.
  Third, the new and improved DREAM Act also requires that illegal 
aliens seeking relief undergo a background check and submit biometric 
and biographic data. Again, that doesn't change the core of the bill, 
which is about amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thereby putting 
them in a position to compete for important taxpayer-funded benefits 
with U.S. citizens.
  Furthermore, the new version of the DREAM Act expands the waiver 
authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security, thereby negating any 
additional requirements for eligibility. The bar for eligibility is 
already extremely low, but even what little is required can be waived 
whenever that Secretary decides to do so.
  The American people have made it very clear--crystal clear--that they 
want to see the government fulfill its responsibility to enforce the 
laws and to take steps to control illegal immigration, not to reward 
bad behavior with amnesty and taxpayer-funded benefits.
  Amnesty and economic incentives only encourage more illegal 
immigration. This is certainly not the answer to our current, ongoing 
immigration crisis. It will only worsen our economic crisis. I am 
really outraged that any elected lawmaker would consider this proposal, 
particularly now, particularly when our States and fellow citizens are 
struggling to deal with economic hardship and budget cuts.
  The DREAM Act also includes no cap on the number of those who will be 
eligible to receive this amnesty. The economic ramifications would be 
profound and are simply unacceptable.
  Finally, there is absolutely no pay-for in this legislation, while it 
is beyond argument that the act will increase costs on the Federal 
taxpayer.
  So, bottom line, this bill is absolutely increasing the Federal 
deficit and the Federal debt--we don't know by exactly how much. To 
help answer that question, I am writing the Congressional Budget Office 
today and asking for an immediate score of the newest version of the 
DREAM Act. Whatever the number is--and it is important that we get that 
number--let me underscore that it is beyond debate that there is 
significant cost to this bill, without any pay-fors. That means the 
DREAM Act will also increase the Federal deficit and the Federal debt.
  As chairman of the Border Security Caucus, I will be fighting this 
measure every step of the way, doing everything I can to stop what is 
clearly, at its core, an amnesty proposal. I invite all Members of the 
Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to listen to the American people who 
have been speaking about this loud and clear and to heed their call and 
say no to amnesty and turn to what should be our clear priority, which 
is enforcing the laws on the books, enforcing the clear laws against 
illegal immigration.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam 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. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I see my distinguished friend, the

[[Page 18601]]

Senator from Wyoming, on the floor, and I would like to make a few 
remarks about the Social Security COLA.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no time remaining with the 
majority at this moment.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________