[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22562-22574]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

TREATY WITH RUSSIA ON MEASURES FOR FURTHER REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF 
                  STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS--Continued

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would now inquire--I think Senator 
Sessions is going to be the last speaker; am I correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see Senator Barrasso is here and he may want to speak 
also. I assume he does.
  Mr. KERRY. I don't think we have any more speakers on our side. I 
think Senator McCain informed me he did not want to speak further, so I 
think perhaps we are reaching the end of business, although I think 
Senator Durbin wanted to speak as in morning business when we have 
completed everything, as he requested earlier.
  So I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be recognized to wrap 
up.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see Senator Barrasso is here. Does the Senator want 
to follow me?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator 
Sessions concludes, Senator Barrasso be recognized for 10 minutes; that 
after Senator Barrasso, Senator Durbin be recognized in morning 
business.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object. I would ask Senator 
Sessions how long he expects to speak.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In 10 or 12 minutes I will try to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it has been a very fine discussion 
between Senator Kerry and Senator Kyl, two of our most able Members. 
Senator Kerry is an able advocate for the treaty, but I do agree with 
Senator Kyl's view that there is more than a misunderstanding 
concerning missile defense in this treaty. There is a conflict of views 
about it. It is not an ambiguity, it is more of a misunderstanding or a 
conflict of views, and a serious agreement, contract, treaty that has a 
misunderstanding among the parties about a serious matter shouldn't go 
forward until it is clarified. That would be my view of that.
  If it goes back to the Duma and they say: Well, we don't think your 
missile defense system that you say you might want to build by 2020 
will conflict with our treaty reading, so go ahead, then that will be 
one thing. If they say: No, we firmly disagree; we don't think you 
should be able to build a missile defense shield in Europe, then we 
know we have a problem. So that would be how I would feel about it 
fundamentally at this point.
  I just don't feel that if the Russians are serious about a treaty, 
they would be, in any way, trembling or afraid or upset if we sent the 
treaty back to them and told them we have a disagreement. This is 
particularly true when Mr. Putin, on Larry King, just made the 
statement he did; that if countermissiles will be deployed in the year 
2012 or 2015 on our border, they will work against our mutual nuclear 
potential and we are obligated to take action in response. Mr. 
Medvedev, in his December statement to the Duma, makes a similar threat 
about it. So I think we have a serious problem.
  The missile defense issue is very important. I know the Presiding 
Officer, from Colorado, is knowledgeable about these issues. It is a 
key issue. It has been going on for years--decades--in the Congress of 
the United States. There has always been a hard group on the left who 
have opposed missile defense. They called it Star Wars and mocked it 
and denigrated it. But the truth is, those treaties, those proposals, 
have worked, and we now have deployed in Alaska and California missile 
defense systems capable of knocking down North Korean missiles and 
probably Iranian missiles, although Iranian missiles coming from the 
other side of the globe, there is some need to have some redundancy 
there and that is why the missile defense site was selected in Europe.
  President Bush and his team spent some years, invested a lot of time 
working with the Czechs and the Poles. The Czechs agreed to sign an 
agreement that they would have a radar site and the Poles signed the 
agreement that they would accept the missile site and the Russians, as 
well, objected. They have objected to our missile defense system for 
years, for reasons that strike me as utterly inexplicable. I cannot see 
how it is possible that the Russians would see 10 missiles in Poland as 
somehow being a destabilizing event that would neutralize their 
thousands of nuclear warheads that they can launch at the United 
States. It is unthinkable. They have hundreds of missiles they can 
launch and other ways to deliver nuclear weapons. But they have always 
opposed it, and they particularly opposed the European site. So this 
has been a contentious issue.
  As chairman and ranking member and member of the Armed Services 
Strategic Subcommittee--and I believe the Presiding Officer is a member 
of that subcommittee--we have wrestled with this. But I thought, in 
2006, when my Democratic colleagues took the majority in the Senate and 
fully funded the move forward with our missile defense system, we had 
reached a bipartisan accord on that, and I made a speech in London to 
that effect and said we had reached that accord.
  But in the course of this negotiation over this treaty and in the 
course of their relationship with Russia, the Obama administration has 
made very serious errors. I am convinced of it. I know President Obama 
was only in the Senate a few years, he was a State Senator, a community 
activist, and he hasn't been used to dealing with the Russians. Maybe 
he didn't understand the significance of it, but a series of events has 
transpired since his election that has resulted in great embarrassment 
to our allies--the Czechs and the Poles--and has greatly and 
significantly delayed the deployment of an

[[Page 22563]]

effective missile defense system in Europe and has been replaced by 
some pie-in-the-sky promise that by 2020 we are going to develop a 
completely new missile system to deploy 5 years later, when the 
intelligence estimate of the National Intelligence Agency is that the 
Iranians will have the ability to hit the United States with an ICBM by 
2015.
  Actually, we could have had our missile site in Europe sooner than 
2016. We could have had it there by 2013, experts told us. But because 
of delays and other things--we were on track to do it by 2016, which 
would have been a pretty good safety valve to neutralize this growing 
threat from Iran, which is determined to have nuclear weapons. Iran is 
a rogue state. They reject United Nations resolutions, inspectors, and 
any decent importuning by the world community to constrict their 
dangerous activities.
  My friend and colleague, as was cited before, Senator Levin, came 
down after I spoke earlier and made some reference to my remarks, and 
he quoted General Chilton, who I know the Presiding Officer remembers 
testifying before our committee and subcommittee. He is the strategic 
commander who has been there a while.
  Senator Levin said that this is what General Chilton said: ``I can 
say with confidence that this treaty does not contain any current or 
future missile defense plans.''
  It didn't strike me quite right, so I had my staff pull the testimony 
of the witness. This is the quote he gave at the committee. I think 
Senator Levin missed it or his staff didn't produce it in the correct 
fashion. He said this: ``This treaty does not constrain any current 
defense plans''--not ``future,'' ``current defense plans,'' because it 
does provide a basis for legal objections in the future, and there is 
an ambiguity about the Russian understanding of whether we are going to 
go forward with missile defense systems in the future. There just is. 
It is not a little bitty matter; it is an absolute fact. There is a 
confusion and really a misunderstanding. The Russians are saying one 
thing, and we are saying another. I think that is very significant.
  Why did I make a difference between future and current? At the time 
General Chilton gave this testimony, on June 16, 2010, President Obama 
had already canceled the GBI two-stage site in Europe, so that is off 
the table. The GBI site, the one we planned to do, is not there. The 
only thing that is left is a promise that we are going to develop from 
scratch an SM-3 Block 2B.
  You say we have an SM-3 missile. It would be hard to develop a new 
block missile. It is an entirely new missile. It is bigger around; it 
is taller; it goes longer; it is really an entirely new development 
process to develop this SM-3 Block 2. The guidance systems that were 
used on the Block 3s that were used on ships have been proven very 
capable, as are our GBI guidance systems. That is where we went.
  How did it come about that the President of the United States 
unilaterally reneged on the U.S. policy to deploy in Poland and the 
Czech Republic? Essentially, this happened. The day after his election, 
the Russians announced they were moving missiles near the Polish 
border. Cables and other documents and testimony indicate that very 
early in the Presidency of President Obama, the Russians were pushing 
back hard, again, about missile defense.
  The Bush administration refused to be taken in. They knew what they 
were doing in Europe didn't threaten the Russians, and they were not 
going to give in to their bluster and did not give in to their bluster. 
When they stood up in 2002 on the SORT treaty, the Russians eventually 
signed it without any of this language that constrained our missile 
defense.
  By March of 2009, we were undergoing discussions on the New START 
treaty--by March. Even before that, the Russians had made clear they 
were firm this time on missile defense. As the negotiations for the 
treaty went on, in September President Obama dropped the bombshell, 
told the Russians that he was going to stop building the third site in 
Poland as had been planned and then told the Poles later, after it made 
news. It was quite an embarrassing scene because our allies--sovereign, 
independent nations on the border of the Russian power who committed to 
us, stood firm with us to work with us to develop a national missile 
defense system--had been greatly embarrassed.
  We canceled that. That was the plan we were going forward with. It 
was on plan to be deployed by 2015 or 2016, and it took the missile 
system that we were using in Alaska and converted it from a three-stage 
to a two-stage system. That took a little work, but the guidance system 
and the concept of it were really simpler than the one we had already 
deployed in Alaska. The generals told us it was not in any way a 
complex problem to convert their system to a two-stage. So we were on 
track to deploy a proven system that would work and protect the United 
States and virtually all of Europe from an Iranian missile attack.
  This is all a big mistake, and the Russians kept pushing. One expert 
said that it is odd that the Obama administration is being criticized 
for going soft on missile defense when they took great care to make 
sure it was not a part of the treaty.
  Now, you know, I am a former lawyer. I tried cases and prosecuted. 
What did that mean? Senator Kerry is too. What did that mean? That 
meant to me exactly what they did. They wanted to come into this Senate 
and to say this treaty had very little to do with missile defense. But 
at the same time, they didn't really believe much in missile defense 
anyway--that had not been President Obama's strongest belief about how 
to defend America--and they wanted to placate the Russians, who were 
giving them a hard time. He, politically, was getting the Nobel Peace 
Prize. He was wanting to have a signature treaty with the Russians to 
show how much harmony there could be in the world and reset our 
relationship. I can understand that. It is a noble goal. But when you 
go eyeball to eyeball with our Russian friends--they are tough 
negotiators--you have to defend your interests or they will take you to 
the cleaners.
  I do not believe the President legitimately defended our interests. I 
believe the weakness in the negotiating situation arose from the fact 
that they wanted a treaty too badly. They wanted this treaty really 
badly, and the Russians sensed it and they held out, and they got a 
number of things that a good, tough negotiating authority would not 
have given them.
  I think it is transparent that, while there is not a lot of language 
in the treaty that directly constricts missile defense, I believe it is 
transparent that the cancellation of the two-stage site in Europe, in 
Poland, was to gain the support of the Russians for this treaty. The 
Russians are now in a position where they stopped it, and they had a 
big political win. It reinforced the view that Russia is a powerful 
nation, that they backed down the United States, and those nations, 
those former Soviet States that are now independent sovereign nations, 
those guys better watch out because when the chips are down, the United 
States is going to choose to be with the big boy--Russia--and they are 
not going to defend you.
  So this was a psychological, political, strategic error of major 
proportions. It is why--it is part of the concern that this 
administration is weak on defense. Actually, it is one of the larger 
errors that I think they have made--maybe the largest. I feel very 
strongly about it.
  So I am just not happy and do not think it is correct to argue that 
this treaty has nothing to do with national missile defense. It was all 
about it. It was in the center of the negotiations. It was quite 
obvious from the very beginning.
  They worked hard to put as little as possible in the treaty because 
they didn't want to come to Congress and say they sold out national 
missile defense to get this treaty. But they sold it out when they 
canceled the two-stage site, in my opinion. Maybe they thought--I am 
sure they thought that was the right thing for America. I am sure they 
did not think it was so important. But it was important. They

[[Page 22564]]

made a mistake, and now ratifying this treaty without getting a clear 
understanding about the missile defense question places our security at 
more jeopardy rather than less.
  I know the argument is that signing this treaty will make us more 
secure. But signing documents do not make you more secure. Talk does 
not make you more secure. It is really actions that count and motives 
that count, and the Russians are just implacable, and they will push 
and push until you say no, and then they will make a decision whether 
they can accept your position.
  They will never stop pushing until you say no with clarity and 
firmness, as Doug Feith testified he did in 2002 dealing with these 
very same issues. They said we had to agree to this kind of action to 
limit our missile defense system--you have to agree to it or we will 
not sign the treaty. Mr. Feith said the truth, which I have always 
believed. He just wrote this recently, but I raised it with our 
negotiators when they seemed so anxious for the treaty.
  He said: You don't have to have a treaty with Russia. We don't have a 
treaty with China, we don't have a treaty with India, Pakistan, 
England, or France--nuclear powers. It would be nice, but if we do not 
have an agreement--he told the Russians: Look, President Bush has 
decided we don't need this many nuclear weapons. We are going to reduce 
our nuclear weapons whether you reduce them or not. We think you are 
silly not to reduce them because you have more than you need and you 
are just wasting money on them. So we won't have a treaty; we are just 
going to reduce our weapons.
  Mr. Feith said that the Russians said: OK, we will take missile 
defense off the table.
  They wanted a treaty for other reasons. They wanted to have the 
prestige of signing a major treaty with the premier military power in 
the world--the United States at the time--and they signed the treaty. 
But as soon as they saw a new President, they came right back at it, 
and the President blinked.
  So now we have a difficult decision. I don't want to be negative 
about rejecting every treaty. I, frankly, don't think the numbers in 
the treaty are that dangerous to us. I think we can reduce it to the 
1,550 nuclear weapons. That is probably an acceptable number--although 
the President has a goal, repeatedly stated, to eliminate all nuclear 
weapons. So presumably this is the beginning of his long march, as he 
would see it, to eliminate all nuclear weapons, which is not only 
fantastical, it is dangerous. The world is not going to eliminate 
nuclear weapons if we eliminate ours and set an example next week. That 
is beyond the looking glass thought. It is not a good idea.
  I am worried about this whole process and whether the administration 
gets the nuclear strategic issues. We have had nuclear weapons for a 
long time, and everybody has been careful about it. They have been very 
careful about it. We have been very concerned about dangers--wars and 
accidental launches and that sort of thing--but we have not used them. 
It has provided a certain degree of stability. The American nuclear 
umbrella, it is undisputed, provides comfort and security to a host of 
free, progressive, independent nations all over the world.
  Let's take Asia--South Korea, the Philippines, Japan, Singapore. 
These are nations that believe that if they are unjustly attacked, the 
U.S. umbrella will be there to help them. So do European nations and 
other nations around the world with which we are allied. If they think 
we are bringing our numbers down too much, if they think we have a goal 
to go to zero, if they think we are not committed to utilizing the 
power we have, what will they do? I suggest that they will develop 
their own program. Do you think Japan or South Korea cannot develop a 
nuclear weapon if Iran can? They could do it in short order. They are 
worried right now, I suggest, as are other nations in the world. So if 
we do this improperly, if we do this reduction with Russia improperly, 
we could actually cause proliferation to occur.
  If we do as Mr. Hogan said in the Washington Post just a few days 
ago--that we should go to 500 nuclear weapons or lower--a lot of 
nations around the world could see their way to develop 200, 300, 400, 
500 nuclear weapons and actually be in a position to be a peer 
competitor of the United States.
  So we could actually be encouraging other nations to think they could 
be on a par with us as nuclear powers. That is a dangerous logic. So I 
just say we need to be careful about all of that. I do not have 
confidence that this administration understands these issues. I think 
this treaty constricts our missile defense and places it at risk.
  That is one of my biggest concerns about this treaty.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
concern with the bilateral Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty--known as 
New START--that was signed by Presidents Obama and Medvedev on April 8, 
2010.
  Before I begin, I would like to recognize, first and foremost, the 
leadership of Senators Lugar, Kerry and Kyl. I've observed their 
efforts over the past several months to address the concerns of the 
Senate and, I must say, it has been pretty inspiring.
  Senators Kyl and Lugar, in particular, have been especially helpful 
in providing me and my colleagues with all the information we needed to 
make an informed decision.
  I have also listened to the persuasive remarks made by the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts on the importance of this treaty, so I thank 
him as well.
  Over the past several months, I have participated in multiple Senate 
hearings, met with professional organizations based in my State and 
Washington, DC, military experts in and outside the beltway, former 
national security advisers to Presidents, current and former 
Secretaries of State, expert negotiators of past nuclear arms treaties, 
and a host of foreign policy and nuclear proliferation professionals.
  While the information I have received has helped improve my 
understanding of the treaty and its importance in some areas, it has 
not improved my confidence in the treaty's ability to address Russia's 
submissive attitude toward Iran. I will be clear.
  The New START treaty is very important, particularly as it relates to 
enhancing our overall relationship with Russia. At the same time, 
however, the United States neglected a very real opportunity to secure 
better Russian assistance in imposing real, crippling sanctions on Iran 
as a prerequisite to moving the treaty forward.
  It is no secret that Iran continues to defy the international 
community by developing a nuclear program. Iran asserts, of course, 
that its nuclear program is peaceful. Meanwhile, the United Nations 
Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the entire 
international community have repeatedly found Iran to be in direct 
violation of its obligations.
  Everyone is familiar with the response Iran has provided to the 
international criticism it has been given.
  To no surprise, Iran continues to hide their nuclear plants, deny 
IAEA access to its facilities and refuse to answer questions about 
evidence that it is working on a warhead.
  Recent intelligence estimates corroborate those findings. Those 
estimates find that Iran may also be developing advanced missiles--
based on Russian designs, no less--that could, for the first time allow 
Iran to target Western Europe.
  While Iran's advancements in missile defense are extremely 
disturbing, these concerns are enhanced by the fact that it could use 
them to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which experts say 
could reach the United States by 2015.
  I have to ask: Is there a larger threat than a nuclear-armed Iran 
with a long-range ballistic missile capability?
  We need to get serious here.
  My point is that while this treaty is extremely important and has 
many favorable aspects--let's not fool ourselves into thinking that 
this treaty does anything to keep Russia's feet to the fire on Iran.
  The notion that bilateral disarmament will lead directly to greater 
progress in stemming Iran's nuclear proliferation is without merit. We 
need Russia's cooperation. Did we get it in this treaty? I am not so 
sure.

[[Page 22565]]

  Iran will not be inspired, in some miracle fashion, to all-of-a-
sudden dispose of their nuclear aspirations merely because we agree 
with Russia to limit our warheads, missiles and delivery vehicles in a 
bilateral way.
  Proliferation in Iran would be a game-changer in the Middle East and 
would threaten the stability of the entire region. Other states would 
likely seek to build their own nuclear infrastructure as a hedge, 
creating further volatility.
  In the State Department's report on ``Adherence to and Compliance 
with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and 
Commitments,'' it found:

       Iran continues to be in violation of Article III of the Non 
     Proliferation Treaty. The United States assesses that Iran 
     has not resolved questions regarding its nuclear program, nor 
     provided the IAEA with requested information to enable it to 
     provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared 
     nuclear material and activities in Iran. Iran continues to 
     engage in enrichment activity in violation of UN Security 
     Council Resolutions. Despite United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions, Iran refused to cooperate with the IAEA's 
     ongoing investigation into Iran's past nuclear weapons 
     development activities during the reporting period.

  Earlier this year, in a Senate Armed Services hearing on the New 
START treaty, Secretary of State Clinton asserted that ``our close 
cooperation with Russia on negotiating this New START treaty added 
significantly to our ability to work with them regarding Iran.''
  Can someone tell me what particular aspect of this treaty compels 
Russia to change its conduct with respect to Iran's nuclear program?
  The New START treaty makes an attempt to reduce U.S. and Russian 
nuclear arsenals but fails to address directly the urgent concerns 
centered in rogue proliferators such as Iran and North Korea.
  So while I continue to observe the ongoing debate and am hopeful that 
we can complete action on New START soon, I remain extremely concerned 
about the treaty's capacity to curtail the development of Iran's 
nuclear program.
  Anyone who says this treaty demonstrates an improvement to that end 
is kidding themselves.
  Tough, meaningful sanctions against Iran is the only solution. 
Russia's cooperation to that end is very important, but let's not 
pretend that agreeing with Russia to limit the number of our warheads 
will convince Iran to stop their nuclear development.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow, we are going to have two 
important votes. I would go so far as to say they are historic. In the 
history of the United States of America, I do not know how many people 
have lived in this great Nation. Today there are more than 300 million.
  But if you added up all of those who lived in this great Nation since 
we became a nation, the number would probably be in the billions. In 
that period of time, only 2,000 men and women have had the honor of 
being U.S. Senators. It is a humbling statistic, for you, for me, for 
all of us, to think that we join with so few of our own fellow citizens 
who have this great opportunity and responsibility.
  In the desk drawers around the Senate are the names of the Senators 
who have served. Some of them are amazing: Daniel Webster, John 
Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Mike Mansfield--the list goes on. 
But there are also many names that have faded into obscurity. You pull 
open the desk drawer and say: I do not recognize that name. I wonder 
who that was? One of two thousand I am going to presume served their 
State and Nation well but left no indelible mark on history. They did 
their job. That says something for each and every one of them who 
served here.
  But precious few of those 2,000 had a moment in history to do 
something historic. When we look back in the course of our history, 
there were opportunities to vote on whether to go to war, to vote on a 
constitutional amendment, to approve a Supreme Court Justice. All of 
these things rank in the highest order of the business of the Senate.
  But I would say at that top level is the opportunity to vote to 
extend civil rights and human rights in our Nation, the opportunity to 
vote for justice. Those are the stories that are told and retold.
  The civil rights battles of the 1960s that you and I can vaguely 
remember from our youth; the giants of the Senate who, when it looked 
hopeless on the issue of civil rights, found a way. I worked for a man 
named Paul Douglas who was an extraordinary man and dedicated his life 
to civil rights. It turned out that his stalwart support made a 
difference. But what made the real difference was the other Senator 
from Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen, a conservative Republican, who 
decided he was finally going to pitch in and help to pass civil rights 
legislation. He is remembered for that. He once said something which 
may be politically incorrect now. But describing his transition on the 
issue of civil rights, he said: There is nothing more pregnant than an 
idea whose time has come.
  In his mind, the idea of civil rights had come. When we look back at 
the Senate of those days and the votes that were cast, for many of the 
Senators casting those votes, they were painful, difficult votes. The 
idea of integrating America beyond the Armed Forces, beyond schools, 
into every aspect of our life was controversial in many parts of our 
Nation.
  It was controversial in the Land of Lincoln, my Home State of 
Illinois. But the Congressmen and Senators of that day mustered the 
courage to do it, and they are remembered for that courage. Some of 
them are exalted for that courage because they did it in the face of 
opposition, vocal opposition to what they were about. We will have an 
opportunity tomorrow to vote on what looks like two pedestrian 
procedural motions, but they are much more. One of them is to eliminate 
a discriminatory policy in our Armed Services known as don't ask, don't 
tell. It will be a chance for Members of the Senate to go on record 
about whether they believe we should move beyond the practices of the 
past; whether they believe we should acknowledge that people of 
different sexual orientation can play a valuable role in protecting 
America. It is a historic vote. I am glad we are going to have it.
  Before that vote is another. It is called the DREAM Act. This is a 
piece of legislation which I have been working on for 10 years. 
Whenever I am discouraged about how long it has taken, I think of how 
long these other battles have taken; how many decades it took to bring 
us to the civil rights vote; how long it took for women to get a right 
to vote in America; how long it took for the disabled to finally be 
recognized in America, thanks to the amazing bipartisan leadership of 
Bob Dole and Tom Harkin in the Senate.
  Whenever I feel discouraged that I have been at this for 10 years and 
still do not have it, I think of those battles, and say to myself: 
Durbin, as a student of history, even an amateur student of history, be 
patient because some of these things take a long time, but they are 
worth the effort and worth the wait.
  The good news is that the House of Representatives did something 
historic last week. They passed the DREAM Act. I cannot thank Speaker 
Nancy Pelosi, majority leader Steny Hoyer, Howard Berman, Chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee, and my colleague, Luis Gutierrez of 
Chicago, enough. What an extraordinary job they did in passing that 
legislation. It was not easy. The President of the United States, 
Barrack Obama, who had cosponsored the DREAM Act as a Senator, was on 
the phone asking Democrats and Republicans to join in this effort to 
move toward justice.
  They passed it by a vote of 216 to 198. It was bipartisan 
legislation, and it

[[Page 22566]]

would give a select group of immigrant students who grew up in this 
country the chance to become legal. I will tell you it would not be 
easy if this becomes law for them to make that journey from where they 
are today to legal status.
  But last week, the Senate decided that we would accept this challenge 
as well. After the House passed this bill, our majority leader, Harry 
Reid, who has been just an amazing ally and friend in this effort, came 
to the floor and said: We were pursuing another version of this bill to 
make the point of our commitment to it, but we are pulling that version 
from the calendar. We are going to vote on the bill that passed the 
House of Representatives. This will not be a symbolic debate. This 
debate is for real. If we can pass the bill passed by the House of 
Representatives, we can send it to the President and make it the law of 
the land. It will be a real act, not a symbolic, political act.
  I thank my colleague for saying that and doing that. The DREAM Act 
has enjoyed bipartisan and majority support in the Senate virtually 
every time it has been called. The last time the Senate considered the 
DREAM Act, it received 52 votes, including 12 Republican votes.
  When Republicans last controlled the Senate, the DREAM Act was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 3. This has been 
a strong, bipartisan issue. If some of the Republicans are willing to 
join us in the Senate, as eight Republicans did in the House, we can 
make the DREAM Act the law of the land.
  This is simply a matter of justice. Let me tell you the story behind 
the DREAM Act. I have said it before, but I think it is an indication 
of why it is worth it to pick up the phone and call your Senator or 
your Congressman, or to send that e-mail or letter, or to perhaps draw 
them to the side at a public event and tell them your story or your 
concern.
  The story of the DREAM Act goes back more than 10 years ago, when a 
woman, a Korean woman in Chicago, called our office. She was a single 
mom with three kids. She ran a dry cleaning establishment. She had just 
an amazing young daughter. Her daughter was an accomplished concert 
pianist at the age of 18. Her daughter had been accepted at the 
Julliard School of Music in New York. Her mom was beaming with pride as 
her daughter started to fill out the application form.
  At a point where it said: Nationality or citizenship, the daughter 
turned to the mom and said: What should I put here?
  Her mom said: I do not know. You see, we brought you to the United 
States when you were 2 years old and we never filed any papers for you. 
So I do not know what to put there.
  The girl said: What are we going to do?
  The mom said: We are going to call Durbin.
  They called my office. And one of my staffers responded and looked 
into the law. The law was clear. This 18-year-old girl who had lived in 
the United States for 16 years, under the law of the United States, was 
not a citizen and had no legal status in this country whatsoever, and 
the law said she had to go back to Korea, a place she could never 
remember, with a language she could barely speak, to live her life.
  I thought that was fundamentally unjust. If you want to penalize the 
mother failing to file papers, that is one thing. But to penalize a 
girl, who at the age of 2, had no voice in this decision for the rest 
of her life strikes me as unfair and unjust. So I wrote up the DREAM 
Act. I went to the Senate Judiciary Committee and found an ally in 
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.
  In fact, it was interesting--I am sure the Presiding Officer will 
appreciate this--we had a little tussle about who was going to put 
their name first on this. The first version was Hatch-Durbin. That was 
OK. I was not as interested in having my name first as getting this 
passed.
  Well, over the years, there have been versions of this bill that have 
been introduced and considered over the last 10 years. But, sadly, it 
has not been enacted into law.
  The DREAM Act is the right thing to do. It will make America a 
stronger country. It would strengthen our national security by saying 
to thousands of young people like that young Korean girl, thousands of 
highly qualified young people, that they can have a chance to enlist in 
our Armed Forces and work their way to legal status.
  The Defense Department Strategic Plan says the Dream Act would help 
``shape and maintain a mission-ready All-Volunteer Force.''
  That is why the DREAM Act has the support of national security 
leaders such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and GEN Colin Powell. 
Here is what Secretary Gates says:

       There is a rich precedent supporting the service of 
     noncitizens in the U.S. military. The DREAM Act represents an 
     opportunity to expand this pool to the advantage of military 
     recruiting and readiness.

  The DREAM Act also would stimulate our economy. It gives these 
talented young immigrants the chance to become tomorrow's engineers and 
doctors and lawyers and teachers and entrepreneurs.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said: Make no mistake. 
Engaging these young people and challenging them to serve in the 
military or to finish at least 2 years of college is going to make them 
productive citizens and add to the bounty of the United States as they 
take on big jobs and earn their paychecks and build their homes and 
families. They concluded the DREAM Act would produce $2.2 billion in 
net revenues over 10 years.
  A recent UCLA study found the DREAM Act students would contribute 
between $1.4 and $3.6 trillion to the U.S. economy during their working 
lives. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a person I admire from New York City. 
He supports the DREAM Act. He stated succinctly:

       These are just the kind of immigrants we need to help solve 
     our problems. Some of them will go on to create new small 
     businesses and hire people. It is senseless for us to chase 
     out the home-grown talent that has the potential to 
     contribute so significantly to our country.

  Senator Sessions of Alabama has left the floor. He did not speak this 
evening on the DREAM Act, but he has been to the floor many times. He 
opposes it. Jeff Sessions and I are friends. We are on the Judiciary 
Committee. We do agree from time to time, and we have had some pretty 
important legislation cosponsored by the two of us.
  On this issue we disagree. I have carefully followed his complaints 
or items that he has brought up on the floor that he thinks are weak in 
this bill. Last week he said on the floor that the DREAM Act is ``a 
nearly unrestricted amnesty, a guaranteed path to citizenship.''
  I appreciate Senator Sessions's passion. He has been a strong 
opponent of the DREAM Act since it was first introduced. With all due 
respect, that is not what the bill says. Only a select group of 
students would be able to earn legal status under this legislation.
  In fact, according to a recent study by the nonpartisan Migration 
Policy Institute, only 38 percent of those who were potentially 
eligible for the DREAM Act would ultimately become legal.
  Think about this. About 40 to 50 percent of Hispanic students today 
drop out of high school.
  Fewer than 5 percent of undocumented students go on to college. You 
can't make it under the DREAM Act unless you graduate from high school, 
so already about 50 percent of those who are Hispanic are unlikely to 
qualify. Then only 1 out of 20 enroll in college. And that number may 
increase. But look at the number it starts with, a small fraction of 
the Hispanic population. So to argue this is going to introduce 
opportunities for millions of others doesn't work with the numbers.
  The DREAM Act would initially give qualified students a chance to 
earn what we call conditional nonimmigrant status, not legal permanent 
residence or citizenship. They can only qualify for conditional 
immigrant status if they prove in a court of law by a preponderance of 
the evidence the following: They came to the United

[[Page 22567]]

States under the age of 15; they are under the age of 30 on the date 
the bill is signed into law; they have lived in the United States 
continuously for at least 5 years before the bill becomes law; they 
have good moral character as determined by the Department of Homeland 
Security since the date they first came to the United States; they 
graduated from high school or obtained a GED; and they have registered 
for selective service.
  So the day the DREAM Act is signed into law, to be eligible you must 
have been in the United States for 5 years. Assume for a moment the 
President would sign it in a week--not likely, but possible, an answer 
to my prayers, but possible. That would mean that anyone who came to 
the United States after 2005 would be ineligible for the DREAM Act. So 
it is a select group.
  Then we say to that select group, you have to meet the following 
requirements: You have to apply within 1 year of when the bill becomes 
law or when they obtain a high school degree or GED; they have to pay a 
$525 fee; they must submit biometrics information, undergo security and 
law enforcement background checks and medical examinations. These are 
all requirements to even be eligible for DREAM Act status.
  They would be specifically excluded from becoming a conditional 
nonimmigrant under this bill if: They have a criminal background; they 
present a national security or terrorist threat; they have ever 
committed a felony or more than two misdemeanors; they are likely to 
become a public charge; they have engaged in voter fraud or unlawful 
voting; they have committed marriage fraud; abused a student visa; or 
pose a public health risk.
  That long list of things I read is an obstacle course which many of 
these young people will never be able to clear. But we set it up this 
way intentionally.
  During the course of preparing for this, one Senator received a 
notice that said that the DREAM Act allows the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to waive all grounds of inadmissibility for illegal aliens 
including criminals, terrorists, and certain gang members. We had my 
staff call the Senator's office who put this out and ask: Where did you 
get that? That is not what it says. They couldn't point to any source.
  We then called the Department of Homeland Security and said: All 
right, give us an answer. Under the DREAM Act, could you waive all 
these things, would terrorists and criminals have a right? Of course 
not. The Department of Homeland Security came back and said: No, that 
isn't what the law says at all.
  So we are battling not only passing a bill but a lot of 
misinformation. That is troublesome.
  It is interesting, when I call my Senate colleagues, even those who 
are nominally against the bill, it is interesting how many of them say 
the following to me: Man, Durbin, why are you doing this to us? I am 
rolling around in my bed at night wide awake worrying about this vote 
and thinking about it all the time. I was walking over to the Capitol 
and a couple of these young kids came up to see me. I talked to them. 
They were very impressive.
  I say to these young people, who would be eligible under the DREAM 
Act or hope they would be: You are the very best messengers for what we 
are trying to do. When people meet you and know who you are and what 
your dreams are, it is hard to believe that you are a threat to the 
United States. You look like the hope of the United States and what you 
could bring to us.
  Let me tell you the stories of a few of them. These stories tell you 
why I feel so strongly, as Senator Menendez does, about this issue and 
why this bill is so important.
  Meet Gaby Pacheco. Gaby was brought to the United States from Ecuador 
at the age of 7 so she certainly had little or no voice in her parents' 
decision to come here. Here she is pictured in her junior ROTC class 
which I think is the next chart, her drill team class. She is in the 
back row on the far right. She was the highest ranking junior ROTC 
student in her high school in Miami and she received the highest score 
in the military aptitude test. The Air Force tried to recruit her, but 
she was unable to enlist because she has no legal status in the United 
States. Let me tell you what she has done since she couldn't enlist in 
the Air Force. She has earned two associate degrees in education and is 
currently working on her BA in special education. She has served as the 
president of her student government and president of Florida's Junior 
Community College Student Government Association. Her dream in life is 
to teach autistic children.
  Do we need more teachers of autistic children in America? We 
certainly do. But she can't do that because she is undocumented.
  Gaby was one of four students who walked all the way from Miami, FL 
to Washington, DC, 1500 miles. This wasn't a little day hike. They came 
here because they believe in the DREAM Act, and they wanted to let the 
people in Washington know how much they believed in it. Along the way 
these four students were joined by hundreds of supporters who came out 
of villages and towns and walked with them for miles to show their 
solidarity in this effort.
  Meet Benita Veliz. Benita was brought to the United States by her 
parents in 1993 at the age of 8. She graduated as valedictorian of her 
high school class at the age of 16. She received a full scholarship to 
St. Mary's University in Texas. She graduated from the honors program 
with a double major in biology and sociology. She wrote her honors 
thesis about the DREAM Act. Benita sent me a letter recently, and I 
want to read what she said:

       I can't wait to be able to give back to the community that 
     has given me so much. I was recently asked to sing the 
     national anthem for both the United States and Mexico at 
     Cinco de Mayo community assembly. Without missing a beat, I 
     quickly belted out the Star Spangled Banner. I then realized 
     that I had no idea how to sing the Mexican national anthem. I 
     am American. My dream is American. It is time to make our 
     dreams a reality. It is time to pass the DREAM Act.

  Benita, how can we say no?
  Now meet this young man. His name is Minchul Suk. He was brought to 
the United States from South Korea by his parents in 1991 when he was 9 
years old. He graduated from high school with a 4.2 GPA. He graduated 
from UCLA with a degree in microbiology, immunology, and molecular 
genetics. With support from the Korean-American community, he was able 
to graduate from dental school. He has passed the national boards and 
licensing exam to become a dentist, but he can't obtain a license 
because he is not legal. Despite coming here at the age of 9, he is not 
legal.
  He sent me a letter recently. Here is what he wrote:

       After spending the majority of my life here, with all my 
     friends and family here, I could not simply pack my things 
     and go to a country I barely remember. I am willing to accept 
     whatever punishment is deemed fitting for that crime; let me 
     just stay and pay for it. . . . I am begging for a chance to 
     prove to everyone that I am not a waste of a human being, 
     that I am not a criminal set on leeching off taxpayers' 
     money. Please give me the chance to serve my community as a 
     dentist.

  In Rock Island, IL, my wonderful home State, we have a great clinic 
for poor people. I went and visited a couple months ago. I said: What 
do you need? They said: We need a dentist. These poor people don't have 
a dentist. Do we need dentists in America? You bet we do. We need 
Minchul Suk. To think when you think he says: ``I am willing to accept 
whatever punishment is deemed fitting for [my] crime.'' What was his 
crime? Being brought to the United States at the age of 9? Graduating 
from UCLA with a degree in microbiology, immunology, and molecular 
genetics? Taking the boards when he knew he couldn't become a dentist? 
Is that a crime? I don't think so. Most Americans wouldn't see it that 
way.
  This is Mayra Garcia. This wonderful young woman was brought to the 
United States at the age of 2. She is 18 now. She is president of the 
Cottonwood Youth Advisory Commission in her hometown of Cottonwood, AR. 
She is a member of the National Honor Society, and she graduated from 
high school last spring with a 3.98 GPA. I am sure the Presiding 
Officer had a better GPA, but I didn't. Mayra just started

[[Page 22568]]

her freshman year at a prestigious university in California.
  In an essay about the DREAM Act, she wrote:

       From the time I was capable of understanding its 
     significance, my dream was to be the first college graduate 
     in my immediate and extended family. . . . College means more 
     to me than just a four-year degree. It means the breaking of 
     a family cycle. It means progression and fulfillment of an 
     obligation.

  Here is what she told me about growing up in the United States:

       According to my mom, I cried every day in preschool because 
     of the language barrier. By kindergarten, though, I was 
     fluent in English. . . . English became my way of 
     understanding the world and myself.

  Mayra Garcia, like all DREAM Act students, grew up in America. 
America is her home. English is her language. She dreams in English 
about a future in this country that she won't have without the DREAM 
Act.
  I want you to meet Eric Balderas. Eric's mom brought him to the 
United States from Mexico when he was 4 years old. He was valedictorian 
and student council president at his high school in San Antonio, TX. 
Eric just began his sophomore year at Harvard University. I met this 
young man. He came to my office. He is majoring in molecular and 
cellular biology. He wants to become a cancer researcher. He couldn't 
do it without the DREAM Act. Do we need more cancer researchers in 
America? You bet we do. Is there a family in America that hasn't been 
touched by cancer? We want his talent. We need his talent. Why would we 
send him away? That is what the DREAM Act is all about.
  Here is another great story. These are all good, but they keep 
getting better. This is Cesar Vargas. This young man is amazing. He was 
brought to the United States by his parents when he was 5 years old. 
When he was in college, Cesar tried to enlist in the military after 9/
11. He went into the recruiter angry that people were attacking the 
United States and said: Sign me up. I want to go in the Marines. They 
said: What is your status?
  Well, I am undocumented, but I have been here since I was a little 
kid, and I am willing to leave college to join the Marine Corps.
  They turned him away. Today he is a student at the City University of 
New York School of Law where he has a 3.8 GPA. He founded the 
Prosecutor Law Students Association at his school and did an internship 
with the Brooklyn District Attorney's office. He is fluent in Spanish, 
Italian, French, and English, and he is close to mastering Cantonese 
and Russian. He is a talented man. He has received lucrative offers to 
go to work for corporate law firms outside the United States where his 
citizenship status will not be an issue. But his dream is to stay in 
the United States and still enlist in the military as a member of the 
Judge Advocate General's Corps. Without the DREAM Act, Cesar has no 
chance to live his dream of enlisting in the United States military 
serving our Nation.
  This is David Cho. David's parents brought him to the United States 
from South Korea 10 years ago, when he was 9. Since then, David has 
been a model American. He had a 3.9 GPA in high school and is now a 
senior at UCLA where he is majoring in international finance. As you 
can see, he is the leader of the UCLA marching band. You might see him 
on television at half time. David wants to serve in the Air Force. If 
the DREAM Act doesn't pass, he will not get that chance.
  Here is another great story: Oscar Vazquez. Oscar was brought to 
Phoenix, AR by his parents when he was a child. He spent his high 
school years in junior ROTC and dreamed of enlisting in the military. 
Here he is in his uniform. But at the end of his junior year, a 
recruiting officer told Oscar that he was ineligible for military 
service because he was undocumented. He entered a robot competition 
sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Oscar 
and three other DREAM Act students worked for months at a storage room 
in their high school to try to win this contest. They were competing 
against students from MIT and other top universities. Oscar's team took 
first place. Here is Oscar today.
  Last year he graduated from Arizona State University with a degree in 
mechanical engineering.
  Oscar was one of only three ASU students who were honored during 
President Obama's commencement address.
  Do we need a mechanical engineer who won a national robot competition 
to be part of the future of America? You bet we do. Oscar needs his 
chance.
  The last person I will refer to here is Tam Tran. As shown in this 
picture, this is a lovely young woman, but a sad story. Tam was born in 
Germany and was brought to the United States by her parents when she 
was only 6 years old. Her parents are refugees who fled Vietnam as boat 
people at the end of the Vietnam war. They moved to Germany, and then 
they came to the United States to join relatives.
  An immigration court ruled that Tam and her family could not be 
deported to Vietnam because they would be persecuted by the Communist 
government. And the German Government refused to accept them.
  Tam literally had no place to go, no country. So she grew up here. 
She graduated with honors from UCLA, with a degree in American 
literature and culture. She was studying for a Ph.D. in American 
civilization at Brown University when earlier this year she was 
tragically killed in an automobile accident.
  Three years ago, Tam was one of the first Dreamers to speak out and 
testify before the House Judiciary Committee. This is what she said:

       I was born in Germany, my parents are Vietnamese, but I 
     have been American raised and educated for the past 18 years. 
     . . .Without the DREAM Act, I have no prospect of overcoming 
     my state of immigration limbo; I'll forever be a perpetual 
     foreigner in a country where I've always considered myself an 
     American.

  In 2007, the last time the Senate voted on the DREAM Act, Tam was 
sitting right up there in that gallery. That day, the DREAM Act 
received 52 votes, a majority of the Senate. But under our rules, you 
need 60.
  After the vote, I met with her and other students. Tears were in her 
eyes because her chances just basically had not been fulfilled. She was 
hopeful. She talked about the need to pass the DREAM Act so she would 
have a chance to contribute more fully to this country, the home she 
loved so much.
  She will not be here for the vote tomorrow because we lost her in 
that car accident. But I remember her, and I remember others who are 
here tonight who understand the importance of this bill. It is not just 
another exercise in the Senate of legislative authority. It really is 
an opportunity to give young people like those I have just introduced 
to you a chance.
  Mr. President, it is going to be hard tomorrow. I have been on the 
phone. I cannot tell you how many of my colleagues have said: I know it 
is the right thing to do, but it is so hard politically. We know we are 
going to be accused of supporting amnesty. We know our opponents will 
use it against us.
  I understand that. I have not always taken a courageous path in my 
own votes, so I am not going to hold myself out as any paragon of 
Senate virtue. But I just ask each and every one of my Senate 
colleagues to think about this for a moment. How many chances will you 
get in your public life to do something like this--to right a wrong, to 
address an injustice, to give people a chance to be part of this great 
Nation?
  I am a lucky person. My mom was an immigrant to this country. She was 
brought over here when she was 2 years old. In her time, she might have 
been a DREAM Act student. She got to be a citizen of the United States. 
She was naturalized at the age of 23, after she was married and had two 
kids.
  Before she died, I asked her once if I could see her naturalization 
certificate. She went in the other room, and a minute later came out 
with it in a big, brown envelope. I pulled it out, and there was a 
picture of my mom 60 years before. A little piece of paper fluttered to 
the floor. I picked it up and said: What's this, mom? She said: Look at 
it. It was a receipt that said: $2.50. She said: That is the receipt 
for my filing fee that I had to file to become a citizen. And I 
thought, if the

[[Page 22569]]

government ever came and challenged me, I would have proof that I paid 
my filing fee. That was my mom. That immigrant woman came to this 
country and made a life and made a family and brought a son to the 
Senate.
  These stories are the same. The opportunities are there with these 
young lives to make this a better nation. The opportunity is there if 
Members of the Senate can summon the courage tomorrow to vote for the 
DREAM Act and to make these dreams come true.
  I would like at this point to yield to my colleague and friend, 
Senator Bob Menendez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first of all, I want to send a heartfelt 
thanks to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, who has been 
spending nearly a decade trying to make the dreams of tens of thousands 
of students a reality. This is really an American dream. This is 
American as anything else. If there is a person who has fought 
incredibly hard to make that dream a reality, it is Dick Durbin. So I 
am thrilled that before I came to the Senate, while I was arguing for 
this very same passage in the House of Representatives, there was a 
Dick Durbin here in the U.S. Senate raising the voice of all of those 
who have no voice, trying to call upon the conscience of the Senate to 
do what is morally right--morally right.
  So I salute him, regardless of the vote tomorrow. I hope it is a 
measure that passes and makes a dream a reality, but he really deserves 
an enormous amount of credit.
  Mr. President, I rise in what will probably be the last opportunity 
before the vote tomorrow--I do not know who is watching. I do not know 
how many of our colleagues are tuned in. I hope they are. I am not even 
speaking to a broader audience. In my mind, this is about 100 Members 
of the U.S. Senate who have an opportunity to cast a vote that 
ultimately can transform the lives of tens of thousands of young people 
who call America their home.
  For years, as young people--so many of them who Senator Durbin showed 
pictures of; and those are only a fraction of the stories we could 
tell--they have stood in classrooms in America and pledged allegiance 
to the flag of the United States proudly. The only national anthem they 
know is the ``Star-Spangled Banner,'' which they sing proudly. The only 
way of life they have known is an American way of life. They have 
understood what the rules are, and they have lived by those rules in an 
exemplary fashion. I would be proud to call any one of those young 
people my son or daughter.
  This is an opportunity for the Senate to do what is right with the 
vote that takes place tomorrow. The House of Representatives has done 
what is right. It has passed this legislation. It is time for us to do 
the same. The time has really come to harness and develop the talent 
that all of these young people have to offer our country. And they 
possess some enormous skills and intellect.
  We have seen it. It is intellect that could be put for America, at a 
time in which we are more globally challenged than ever before, where 
the boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of 
human capital for the delivery of a service or the production of a 
product. We are globally challenged, so we need to be at the apex of 
the curve of intellect--the most highly educated generation of 
Americans the Nation has ever known.
  These young people--valedictorians, salutatorians, engineers, 
scientists, doctors--all have the opportunity to help America achieve 
even greater greatness. That is what their dream is all about. That is 
what an American dream is all about.
  The time has come to allow thousands of young men and women, who 
often are kept from enrolling in colleges, even though they are 
accepted--this is not about giving anyone anything they cannot achieve. 
They have to, obviously, on their own merit, be able to gain acceptance 
to a college or university or on their own merit and desire be able to 
serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.
  That passion is there. The first soldier of an American uniform to 
die in the war in Iraq was LCpl Jose Gutierrez, a Guatemalan who, at 
the time of his death, wearing the uniform of the United States, was 
not even a U.S. citizen at the time. He was a permanent resident. He 
was willing to serve his country and die for it.
  It is an opportunity for these young people, who, in many ways, have 
lived in the darkness, and, who, through no choice of their own--if we 
said these young people came to this country of their own volition, of 
their own choice, of their own determination, maybe--maybe--we might 
look at it differently. They were brought here by parents at ages in 
which they had no knowledge and no choice of what their path would be. 
They were brought here by parents fleeing dictatorships, fleeing 
oppression, sometimes fleeing dire economic circumstances. But, above 
all, they made no choice in that. They did not know they were violating 
any rules, regulations, or laws. They came because their parents 
brought them.
  How many times have I heard in this Chamber that the wrong of a 
parent should not be subscribed to a child? Yet that is what all those 
who oppose the DREAM Act are saying: The child must pay for the choices 
their parents made. Is that an American value? I think not. I think 
not.
  We have an opportunity to have them make full contributions to the 
American economy through their ingenuity, through their skills, through 
their hard work. That is what the DREAM Act has always been about.
  I will tell you one story of many that are here. It is of a young 
man, 20-year-old Piash Ahamed, who, as a child, emigrated with his 
family from Bangladesh to New Jersey.
  After his parents lost their bid for asylum, through no fault of his 
own, he became an undocumented immigrant. He has been lobbying for 
passage of the DREAM Act ever since. He said to me:

       New Jersey--

  And this is so true. It is beyond New Jersey. It is all of these 
students--

       New Jersey has already invested so much money in me, and 
     other undocumented students that are living here, when we 
     went to elementary, middle school and public high school. . . 
     . It doesn't really make any sense for them not to give us an 
     opportunity to finish and actually pay back to America and 
     contribute more through our talent, through our taxes, 
     through so many different ways.

  The Dream Act is for people such as Piash Ahamed. It is about helping 
him and creating the best educated American workforce possible--
creating future doctors, future teachers, future businesspeople, future 
nurses, investors, and entrepreneurs. They are an economic resource we 
cannot afford to waste.
  I bristle when I listen to some of my colleagues who have come to the 
floor and, right away, whenever we are talking about anything that 
relates to immigration, slap the name ``amnesty'' on it, and it becomes 
something that cannot be touched.
  It is not amnesty. Amnesty is when you do something wrong and you get 
something for nothing. These young people are not going to get 
something for nothing. They are going to have to serve the Nation. They 
are going to have to serve the Nation through their intellect, their 
ingenuity, their ability to produce for America or they are going to 
serve the Nation in the Armed Forces of the United States, willing to 
risk their lives--their lives--like LCpl Gutierrez did in Iraq, when he 
lost his life for the country they call home, for the country they 
believe in.
  They are going to have to qualify. They are going to have to pay 
tuition. They are going to have to pay taxes. They are going to have to 
pay fees. As a matter of fact, I am sure the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois knows that the House version we are voting on is ultimately 
saying: You have to pay a fee.
  As a matter of fact, not only is it not a cost to the government, it 
is a surplus to the government, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. It is going to produce revenue, already, just by the mere act 
of giving them the possibility of realizing their dream. In essence, 
they are going to have to pay for their dream. But they are willing to 
do that, and it is going to create a revenue stream for the Nation.

[[Page 22570]]

  That is not amnesty. It is not amnesty to wear the uniform of the 
United States, risk your life. It is not amnesty to give your 
intellect. And even then, there are those who say: Well, you are going 
to give them a pathway. Well, that pathway has been elongated. It is 
incredibly long.
  I know some of my colleagues like to come here and say, well, you are 
going to permit something that they call chain migration. I used this 
during the last time we had immigration debates. Chain migration. You 
know when you want to dehumanize something, you don't talk about 
people. You don't talk about children. You create a sense of something 
that people can say: Oh, it is chain migration. We don't feel too 
compassionate about this if we can make it into a dehumanized sense 
because if this person gets status, then they will be able to claim 
their relative, and that relative will be able to claim their relative, 
and so there is this sphere.
  These students are not going to be able to do that, certainly not 
under the bill we are considering a vote for tomorrow. So there is none 
of that. Let's dispel that too.
  At the end of the day, the DREAM Act is a true test of what America 
is all about: an opportunity to earn your way toward status, to move 
from being undocumented through no fault of your own to have a 
temporary status that I think will last a decade before you can do 
anything else. You have to have a lot of proof of your mettle during 
that period of time; that you are worthy of becoming a permanent 
resident of the United States--after a decade. You have to be of good 
moral character. You have to go and prove yourself even more by 
successfully attending college or completing honorable military 
service, even in order to appease those who have raised every bar so 
this would not be considered--calling the legislation amnesty, which it 
is not because amnesty is something for nothing.
  I have said before, there are even further restrictions that have 
lowered the age cap as to who can qualify. It keeps intact the ban on 
instate tuition. I don't like that. I think if you can ultimately be 
accepted to a college or university and you are living in that State--
but all right, for those who said that was a problem, well, now there 
is a ban on instate tuition. You are going to have to pay out-of-State 
tuition. It prohibits these students from obtaining Pell or other 
Federal grants and creates a conditional nonimmigrant status that 
doesn't grant legal permanent residency for at least a decade.
  At the end of the day, the DREAM Act is an ultimate test of American 
values as a nation of immigrants. I often think about people who serve 
in this Chamber. The only people who can actually make a claim of being 
not the descendant of immigrants are Native Americans. After that, 
everybody at some point in their history was an immigrant.
  There has been expansive support for the DREAM Act, and it has been 
bipartisan support. Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff of the United States, former Secretary of State, he supports 
the DREAM Act.
  Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is the Defense Secretary now in 
this administration, but a Republican held over by President Obama and 
asked to serve because of his great leadership, he has recommended in 
the 2010 and 2012 strategy plan for the Defense Department's Office of 
the Under Secretary for Defense and Personnel Readiness to help the 
military shape and maintain a mission-ready, All-Volunteer Force, he 
wants to see the DREAM Act passed.
  David Chu, the Under Secretary of Personnel and Readiness at the 
Department of Defense during the Bush administration said:

       Many of these young people who may wish to join the 
     military have the attributes needed--education, aptitude, 
     fitness, moral qualifications. In fact, many are fluent in 
     both English and their native languages.

  We have seen the challenges that we have globally from far off 
countries where our enemies are not simply armies of a country but of 
individuals. The languages that could be brought to bear to help us in 
our national security and in our defense intelligence, in our abilities 
to understand those entities, all from an American perspective, though, 
all of these students have that opportunity to do that for America.
  Moreover, university presidents, respected education associations, 
leading Fortune 500 businesses such as Microsoft support this 
legislation and have called upon the Senate to pass the DREAM Act. In 
fact, in my home State of New Jersey, the presidents of 11 of New 
Jersey's community colleges, in consultation with their board of 
trustees, sent a letter to the New Jersey Congressional Delegation 
saying help pass the DREAM Act. The letter was signed by the presidents 
of community colleges in Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Essex, 
Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Passaic, Sussex, and Union Counties.
  One of the vice chairmen of the board of trustees at one of the 
community colleges said in an article:

       Although the DREAM Act is Federal legislation, many of us 
     felt it was important the State's community colleges take a 
     stand as the system is often the first stop for many of these 
     students whose ineligibility for State or Federal aid limits 
     their higher education choices. Our role is to educate our 
     students. Our role is not to engage in overall immigration 
     policy.

  They want to see the DREAM Act become a reality.
  I received a letter from Rutgers University's president, a State 
university, Richard McCormick. He said:

       Young people who have grown up in New Jersey, earned good 
     grades in our high schools, and taken an active part in civic 
     life; however, because of their undocumented status, cannot 
     take the next steps towards a rewarding future.

  It is a future that would help my State and, as those stories 
represented, help States across the country.
  In fact, to my Republican colleagues, I would remind them that former 
Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee explained 
the economic sense of allowing undocumented children to earn their 
citizenship. He said:

       When a kid comes to this country and he's 4 years old and 
     he had no choice in it----

  His parent made that choice----

     he still, because he is in this State, it is the State's 
     responsibility--in fact, it is the State's legal mandate--to 
     make sure that child is in school. So let's say that child 
     goes to school. He is in school from kindergarten through the 
     12th grade. He graduates as valedictorian because he is a 
     smart kid. He works his rear end off and he becomes the 
     valedictorian of the school. The question is: Is he better 
     off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker 
     or whatever he might become, and become a taxpayer, and in 
     the process having to apply for and achieve citizenship, or 
     should we have him pick tomatoes? I think it is better if he 
     goes to college and becomes a citizen.

  That is Mike Huckabee.
  So I will say this to my friends and many of my colleagues. Not every 
State is like New Jersey where we have a rich history of immigrant 
populations that have contributed enormously. Some of the people we 
have serving our country today came from those backgrounds. As a matter 
of fact, some of them, their lineage comes through people who came into 
this country undocumented. Yet they have risen to prominence and helped 
contribute to America. Some of them are some of our outstanding 
military leaders.
  So this is not about amnesty. You have to earn it. This is not about 
chain migration. You would not be able to claim anyone at all. In my 
mind, this is all about family values. I hear a lot about that on the 
Senate floor. This is about an opportunity to take these children who 
are part of the American family and give them their opportunity to help 
America succeed.
  We wouldn't be in this challenge we are in if our Republican 
colleagues weren't insisting on a supermajority via the filibuster. 
There are enough votes in the Senate. A majority of the Senate is 
willing to vote to make this dream come true. But since our Republican 
colleagues have used the rules of the Senate to require not a simple 
majority of 51 of 100 Senators but to require a supermajority of 60, we 
are in this predicament; otherwise, this bill would pass tomorrow, be 
sent to the President, and I know the President would sign it, and the 
dreams and the aspirations, but most importantly the

[[Page 22571]]

intellect, the service to country, the service to the Armed Forces 
would begin to become a reality, all to the Nation's benefit.
  So we are here in this set of circumstances because our Republican 
colleagues have insisted on a supermajority instead of a simple 
majority that would clearly pass.
  Now, for some who don't have immigrant communities such as Illinois 
or New Jersey, maybe their populous doesn't quite understand the value. 
Maybe they don't have an understanding of the great vitality and the 
heartfelt sense of these young people being as American as anyone else. 
I understand that. We come here by virtue of being elected from a 
State, and we certainly advocate for the interests of our States. But 
we are collectively called upon to serve the interests of the Nation. 
This is an opportunity to serve the interests of the Nation.
  The final point I will make is, those are all policy arguments. I 
hope there will be some profiles in courage tomorrow, individuals who 
may see this as a political risk. Every vote can be ultimately 
determined as a political risk. As a matter of fact, for those who 
believe this is a political risk and voted for the Defense 
authorization bill to move forward, the majority leader made it very 
clear when we had that vote in which nearly every Democrat of the 
Senate voted in favor, he made it very clear there were going to be two 
amendments that were going to be offered in that bill: don't ask, don't 
tell and the DREAM Act.
  So the 30-second commercial is there already. It is there. Anyone who 
thinks that somehow voting against the DREAM Act tomorrow is going to 
save them from that 30-second commercial, they are wrong. It is there. 
I have to be honest with my colleagues.
  As the only Hispanic in the Senate at this point--although this is 
not uniquely a Hispanic issue. As we can see, these children come from 
all over the world. The young man I mentioned from New Jersey is from 
Bangladesh. But the Hispanic community is looking at this vote--40 
million. They are the ones who are already U.S. citizens. You may say: 
Well, what do they care? They understand what this vote is all about. 
It is not just about these children, which should be enough. They 
understand this vote is about them, how they are viewed in this 
country, how they are perceived in this country, whether everything 
they have done--you know, I bristled when I listened--which is why I 
wrote my book, ``Growing American Roots,'' because I was tired of 
seeing all these pundits on the shows who suddenly think that all 
Hispanics just came here yesterday. We all just crossed the border in 
an undocumented fashion, and we are all takers instead of givers to the 
society.
  Well, the oldest city in America, St. Augustine, FL, was founded by a 
person named Pedro Menendez. I am looking at a title search to see if I 
have any relationship for property in St. Augustine, FL. But it is the 
oldest city in America, Pedro Menendez, the Governor of Louisiana 
before Louisiana was a State, who led an all-Mexican division to help 
stop the British advance on George Washington during the Revolutionary 
War.
  Admiral David Farragut, if you come with me to Farragut Square, I 
think most Americans wouldn't know that Farragut Square is actually 
named after ADM David Farragut, a Spaniard who, during the 
Revolutionary War, led the naval forces on behalf of the Union and 
coined the famous American phrase: ``Damn the torpedoes, full speed 
ahead,'' a Spaniard.
  The wall of the Vietnam Memorial is loaded with names of Hispanics 
who gave their lives for this country.
  The first soldier to fall in Iraq was LCpl Jose Gutierrez, a 
Guatemalan who wasn't even a U.S. citizen. The all-Puerto Rican 
division during the Korean War was one of the most highly decorated in 
the history of the United States.
  You can't find a Major League baseball team without a good part of 
its roster being Latino. You can't turn on the TV without watching Eva 
Longoria in ``Desperate Housewives.''
  You can't go to the movies and not see someone such as Jennifer Lopez 
in one of its leading roles. You can't turn on music--and the list goes 
on and on.
  This community understands what this vote is all about. I don't know 
how any party can aspire to be the majority party with the largest 
minority in the country growing exponentially, as we will see by the 
next census, and continuously take votes and cast aspersions upon a 
community and think that it can achieve political success.
  This DREAM Act is about as much motherhood and apple pie as you can 
get in the immigration debate. It is about children who didn't have a 
choice but have made the most of the life they were presented. They 
have done incredible things in the country they call home--the one they 
sing the ``Star Spangled Banner'' about, pledge allegiance to, and the 
one they are giving it all to.
  So this community is going to be watching tomorrow's vote. I 
certainly hope that when they watch that vote, they are going to see 
one of the finest moments of the Senate doing what is right--not just 
by these children but doing what is right by this country--fulfilling 
our creed. That is what tomorrow's vote is all about. That is what I 
hope each and every Senator will think about as they cast it. That is 
the opportunity we have.
  This is not just about the dreams of these young people. This is 
about the dreams that have gone from generation to generation and have 
made America the greatest experiment and enterprise in the world. That 
is what tomorrow's vote is all about, Mr. President. I hope we will 
cast a vote that will make that dream come true.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend, Senator 
Menendez, for that great speech. I know it was heartfelt. I thank him 
for waiting late this evening to come and those who have joined us 
because they understand that though the hour is late, our time is short 
before we cast this historic vote.
  As I mentioned earlier, as I called my colleagues today, some of whom 
are on the fence, not sure, they said: I toss and turn thinking about 
this. I hope they toss and turn all night tonight and wake up tomorrow 
with a smile and determination on their face to do something right for 
America, to make sure they will have a good night's sleep Saturday 
night because they have been able to fulfill the dreams of so many 
young people who are counting on them tomorrow to rise above their 
political fears and to really join ranks with so many in this Chamber 
who, through its history, have shown uncommon political courage in 
moving this Nation forward in the name of freedom and justice.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. If my colleague will yield, I am sure the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois knows from his long political history that when 
you toss and turn, you know what is right. You don't toss and turn if 
you have a commitment and conviction of the choice you are going to 
make. You toss and turn when you know what the right choice is, but for 
other reasons you may not be willing to make that choice.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator is correct.
  Mr. President, I don't know what the most effective way is in 
Washington to lobby a bill, but I will tell you that there are no more 
effective spokesmen and spokeswomen for the DREAM Act than the young 
men and women who have been walking the Halls of the Senate over the 
last several weeks, months, and years. They wear caps and gowns, as if 
they are headed for a graduation, which is what they want to do. They 
have made the case in a way that I could not on the floor of the Senate 
because of their determination and the dignity they have brought to us.
  Stick with us, I say to each one of them. Don't give up. Tomorrow, we 
are going to try our very best to rally the votes we need because our 
cause is right and our time is now.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on whether we 
should debate the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors 
Act, or the DREAM Act. I have been a cosponsor of this important 
legislation since it was first introduced in the Senate in

[[Page 22572]]

2001, and I commend Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar for their hard 
work in advancing the DREAM Act this year. At the very least, we should 
have a debate about this important legislation.
  Enacting the DREAM Act will serve important priorities for our 
country and for our military. Under current law, when undocumented 
students graduate from high school, they typically have no opportunity 
to gain lawful immigration status, a circumstance that often prevents 
them from pursuing higher education or making other meaningful 
contributions to our Nation. The bill recognizes the accomplishments of 
successful students who want to serve our Nation through military 
service or by obtaining degrees in higher education.
  The DREAM Act offers a path to lawful immigration status to 
individuals who are currently undocumented, but who were brought to the 
United States at a young age by their parents. The bill is specifically 
drafted to assist those students who did not act on their own volition 
to enter the United States unlawfully. In landmark Supreme Court cases 
like Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that we should not punish 
children for the actions of their parents. Yet to deny these students a 
path to lawful status and eventual citizenship does just that.
  In December 2009, the Department of Defense cited passage of the 
DREAM Act as an important strategic goal for 2010-2012. The Pentagon 
believes that the DREAM Act has potential to expand our all-volunteer 
military without decreasing the quality of recruits. It is supported by 
General Colin Powell and many others.
  Despite numerous good faith gestures from Democrats in the Senate to 
work with Republicans on immigration issues, we have been met with 
silence at best, and obstructionism at worst. Nonetheless, the version 
of the DREAM Act that we consider today has been modified to address 
concerns raised by those who have falsely labeled the DREAM Act as a 
form of amnesty. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
H.R.6497 will reduce deficits by approximately $2.2 billion over the 
years from 2011-2020.
  While the cost saving in the new version of the DREAM Act is welcome 
news, I regret that the students and soldiers who benefit from this 
bill will now have to wait for 10 years to become eligible to apply for 
lawful permanent residence. They will have to apply for conditional 
status twice during that 10 year period and pay more than $2,500 in 
fees. I believe that American values call for more generous treatment 
of individuals who serve our Nation, especially those who are willing 
to fight on behalf of our Nation overseas. At various points in the 
past 10 years, several Republican Senators voted in favor of much more 
generous versions of this bill. I regret that so few Republicans will 
support this pared down version of the DREAM Act today.
  I wish that we could have achieved bipartisan support in the 111th 
Congress to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Even without 
that bipartisan commitment, we should do all we can. The AgJOBS bill, 
the Uniting American Families Act, the Refugee Protection Act, and the 
improvement of our immigrant investor program are all reforms that will 
make our immigration system stronger and more effective. I will 
continue to work with Senate leadership and Senators from both sides of 
the aisle to accomplish our shared goals for the broader reform of our 
Nation's immigration system.
  The DREAM Act is a critical step to reforming our immigration system 
and enables a well-deserving group of young people to better serve our 
country. I am glad to pledge my full support, and I encourage Senators 
on both sides of the aisle to do the same.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support 
of the DREAM Act.
  The DREAM Act provides individuals who were brought to the United 
States as young children, at the age of 15 or younger, with the 
opportunity to legalize their status if they work hard, stay out of 
trouble, graduate high school, and eventually go to college or enlist 
in the Armed Forces.
  Passage of the DREAM Act is the right course of action for a variety 
of economic and humanitarian reasons. But it also makes sense in terms 
of strengthening our military's ability to attract talented recruits.
  For almost a decade now our Nation's military forces have been 
deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We rely on the courage, commitment, 
and dedication of an all volunteer force to fill the ranks of the 
military services. With the stress and hardship of repeated deployments 
and wartime service, the military has often struggled to maintain 
appropriate recruitment levels and standards.
  According to the Department of Defense, enacting the DREAM Act would 
help address this issue. The fiscal year 2010-2020 Strategic Plan for 
the Defense Department provides that passage of the DREAM Act would 
help ensure we maintain a mission-ready all volunteer force. As 
explained by then Under Secretary of Defense David Chu in testimony 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

     many of these young people may wish to join the military, and 
     have the attributes needed--education, aptitude, fitness, and 
     moral qualifications. . . . the DREAM Act would provide these 
     young people the opportunity of serving the United States in 
     uniform.

  We need to face the reality that we have individuals living in this 
country who were brought here unlawfully, but at no fault of their own, 
who have the skills and desire to make significant contributions. 
Frankly, I fail to see how our Nation benefits from denying hard-
working young people who have grown up in our country from becoming 
productive members of our society. What is the benefit of telling a 
high school valedictorian who has lived in the United States since the 
age of five that he or she can't work, pursue higher education, or 
serve in the military?
  As a border State Senator, I understand the concerns about illegal 
immigration. Over the last several years we have made tremendous 
strides in enhancing border security, but I recognize that there is 
still more work to be done.
  However, penalizing individuals who came to the U.S. as children at 
no fault of their own is not the answer. Keeping these young people 
from bettering their lives through education or preventing them from 
serving our country by enlisting in the military doesn't make our 
Nation stronger, more secure, or more economically competitive.
  It simply deprives the Armed Forces of the ability to reach out to 
the many undocumented students who graduate from high school each year, 
and reinforces a permanent class of less-educated workers who are 
forced to live in the shadows and who are deprived of the chance to 
obtain their full potential.
  Over the years I have had the opportunity to meet with some of the 
young people who would benefit from this legislation. Their request is 
quite simple--that they be given the chance to serve the country where 
they have grown up, to make a difference in their communities, and to 
better their lives. These are the values, spirit, and dedication that 
have made America great, and I urge my colleagues to let them earn this 
opportunity.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter and proud co-
sponsor of the DREAM Act. This narrowly tailored, bipartisan 
legislation, introduced in the Senate by my colleague, Senator Durbin, 
and supported by 40 other Senators, would allow young, undocumented 
immigrants who grew up in the United States to earn legal residency by 
obtaining a higher education or joining the military. I have 
cosponsored the DREAM Act for one simple reason: It will enable these 
young people--who find themselves undocumented in America not due to 
their own actions, but due to actions of their parents--to reach their 
potential and contribute to a stronger, more prosperous America.
  This legislation has been endorsed by the Secretaries of Defense, 
Homeland Security, Education, Labor, and Interior. It has been endorsed 
by numerous former Republican officials, including

[[Page 22573]]

many from the Bush administration, and has been cosponsored by many of 
our current and former Republican colleagues here in the Senate. It is 
supported by colleges and universities in Iowa and across the United 
States, as well as religious leaders from a wide range of 
denominations.
  The young people who would qualify under the DREAM Act came here as 
children. Some came here so early in their lives that they have no 
memory of living anywhere other than in the United States. Despite the 
actions of their parents, they are just as American as you and I. Their 
stories in letters to my office are heartbreaking. If it weren't for 
the actions of their parents, they would be citizens no different from 
our own sons and daughters.
  These children graduate from high school with honors. They play on 
our school soccer, football, and basketball teams. They are in the 
Junior ROTC. They spend time with their friends--friends who may be our 
own sons and daughters. They want to work afterschool jobs, if they 
were only allowed to work legally. They want to attend college, if they 
were only allowed to get the student loans necessary to afford it. They 
want to serve our country, if only they were allowed to enlist.
  Yet there are still some who wish to punish these children for the 
actions of their parents. They say that children who have no control 
over the decisions of their families must pay the same price as the 
adults. I am frankly at a loss as to whether there is any other crime 
that could be committed where an innocent child would be treated as an 
accessory to an adult, or where the penalty for a child with no ill 
intent is the same as for an informed adult.
  The young men and women who would benefit from this legislation are 
some of the finest, most upstanding people living in the United States. 
With an education, they can contribute their great talents to our 
economy, driving innovation and creating jobs. They are committed to 
the country they consider home, willing to serve under the American 
flag, willing to fight and die for our country at a time when our 
military is stretched perilously thin. I want to encourage these 
energetic, motivated and dedicated young men and women, not maintain 
the status quo which casts a dark shadow over them.
  I would also like to address some common misunderstandings about who 
would qualify to obtain legal residency under the DREAM Act. These 
young people would have had to come to the U.S. by the age of 15, 
display good moral character, pass thorough criminal and security 
clearances, and have lived in the United States for at least 5 years. 
Only those currently under 30 years of age would be eligible. Legal 
permanent status would not be conferred until after 10 years. They 
could only sponsor parents or siblings, and only do so after 12 years 
have passed, and only after any member of their family who has entered 
the United States illegally has left the United States for 10 years. 
Every precaution has been taken to prevent the opportunities afforded 
by the DREAM Act from being abused.
  Those who qualify under the DREAM Act would not receive any benefits 
that naturally born citizens receive. They would only be eligible to 
apply for Federal student loans that would have to be repaid in full; 
they would not be eligible for in-state tuition rates or Federal 
education grants, such as Pell grants. They would receive no 
preferential treatment.
  I remain committed to working with my colleagues for a comprehensive 
solution to our Nation's broken immigration system. We must strengthen 
our borders, holding employers accountable if they hire illegal 
workers, and craft policies that are fair to American workers and 
taxpayers. But in the meantime, it does not make sense to prevent this 
small group of young people, already present in the U.S. through no 
fault of their own, from contributing to our Nation's security and 
economy.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the DREAM 
Act. This legislation is critically important. Not only is this a 
humanitarian issue, but also an economic and security issue. In order 
to compete in a 21st century world, we must provide education 
opportunities to all of our students.
  Our current laws unfairly penalize thousands of young adults, many of 
whom know only the United States as home, denying them the opportunity 
to achieve the American dream. Current law paralyzes the lives of these 
young people, effectively banning them from college and the military.
  Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has publically advocated in 
support of the DREAM Act, calling it crucial to our national security 
and our ability to compete in the global marketplace in the coming 
generations. In a time when our military is strained because of demands 
in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places of concern around the world, we 
should be allowing all of our best and our brightest to serve.
  The DREAM Act allows young people with good moral character who 
attend college or provide significant service to our military with an 
earned path to citizenship. These are young people who received all 
their education in the United States and know only the United States as 
home. We need comprehensive immigration reform, but this is an instance 
where current law is unfairly penalizing thousands of young adults who 
did nothing wrong.
  I want to take this opportunity to highlight the story of a young New 
Yorker who exemplifies the DREAM Act. Cesar Vargas was brought by his 
parents to the United States when he was only 5 years old. It was not 
his decision to come here, but he grew up in New York, graduated from 
high school, completed college, and is now in his final year of school 
at City University of New York School of Law, with a 3.8 GPA. He dreams 
of becoming a military lawyer after he graduates. But, he cannot 
fulfill his dream of serving in our military because he is 
undocumented. Our country would benefit from the dedication of young 
men and women like Cesar, who grew up as our neighbors and our 
children's class mates and friends--young men and women who want to 
serve this great nation of immigrants and give back to the country they 
call home.
  This legislation creates opportunities for young people who did not 
come here on their own choosing, and ensures that they will become 
productive members of our society. For these reasons, I support this 
measure and I implore my colleagues in the Senate to vote in support of 
this measure, as well.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wish to reiterate what I have 
long believed to be the right step to take in addressing a longstanding 
issue that affects young people in my State of Colorado and across this 
country. That step is to pass legislation known as the DREAM Act that 
will ensure that upstanding young adults who were brought into this 
country illegally by no fault of their own have the opportunity to 
attend college and contribute to our economy or join the military and 
serve our country.
  Just over 3 years ago there was a large bipartisan group of Senators 
that understood that children who were brought to this country by no 
fault of their own should not be blamed for the sins of their parents. 
It is mind-boggling to me that we now have to struggle to get those 
same Members who are still in the Senate today to support that 
commonsense notion, which underlies the DREAM Act. I respect the 
decisions of my colleagues and I want to give my colleagues who have 
had a change of heart the benefit of the doubt, but my guess is that 
partisanship is what has prevailed here. I believe this because the 
bipartisan-approved legislation that the House of Representatives has 
sent us is more stringent than previous versions of this legislation 
that was once sponsored and supported by both Republicans and 
Democrats.
  When you run down the list of fees, restrictions, requirements, 
waiting periods, and other criteria for eligibility in the DREAM Act, 
you begin to see that this is a robust plan to give high-achieving 
young people an opportunity to contribute positively to our country. 
Not only will individuals who were brought to this country before the 
age

[[Page 22574]]

of 16 have to prove they have been in the United States for at least 5 
years before applying, they will also have to show that they are in 
good health, pass a background check, provide biometric data, and pay 
fees and taxes. Only then will they be allowed to enter a ``conditional 
non-immigrant'' status that would allow them to pursue their education 
or enter the military.
  During the 10 years of their conditional status, they would be 
ineligible for entitlement programs such as welfare, Federal education 
grants and would be unable to sponsor family members for immigration 
purposes. They would also have to remain in good standing with the law 
and prove that they have command of the English language and American 
civics. If they meet those and other requirements after 10 years, they 
will then have to get in at the back of the line to wait their turn for 
a minimum of 3 more years--for an opportunity to naturalize as U.S. 
citizens. That seems more than fair to me.
  The DREAM Act provides a robust and fair-minded plan to help America 
attract bright and talented individuals to contribute to our economy 
and strengthen our military. As military leaders who have served under 
Presidents of both parties have said, this bill will strengthen our 
readiness by giving these young men and women the chance to join our 
armed services. Furthermore, studies have shown that students who can 
realize their full earning potential can ultimately help pump billions 
of dollars back into our economy. These individuals are future 
businessmen, scientists, and innovators that could help our economy 
grow. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this 
legislation would even help to reduce our deficit.
  The DREAM Act has been debated for several years. It is finally time 
for us to do what is right in this situation, put aside partisanship 
and support this legislation.

                          ____________________