[Senate Report 108-224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 415
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-224
======================================================================
AMENDING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 1996
_______
February 9, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1545]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the
bill (S. 1545), to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit states to
determine residency requirements for higher education purposes
and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of
status of certain alien students who are long-term United
States residents, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and need for S. 1545.....................................2
II. Legislative History..............................................3
III. Votes in the committee...........................................3
IV. Section-by-section analysis......................................4
V. Cost Estimate....................................................7
VI. Regulatory impact statement.....................................10
VII. Changes in existing law.........................................11
Additional Views of Senator Sessions............................. 12
Additional Views of Senator Cornyn............................... 15
Additional Comments of Senator Chambliss......................... 14
Appendix A: Excerpts from Committee Executive Business Meeting
Transcript, October 16, 2003................................... 17
Appendix B: Excerpts from Committee Executive Business Meeting
Transcript, October 23, 2003................................... 20
I. Purpose and Need for S. 1545
The United States should vigilantly protect its borders and
enforce its immigration laws. The consequence of illegal entry
or overstaying a visa should be deportation. Illegal immigrants
who have eluded authorities should not be rewarded with blanket
amnesty. At the same time, America's immigration policy must
also be sufficiently flexible so that our firm stance against
illegal immigration does not undermine our other national
interests. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien
Minors (DREAM) Act represents a common-sense approach to our
immigration policy.
Thousands of children of undocumented immigrants have
graduated from our high schools. Most came to America as
children, playing no part in the decision to enter the United
States, and may not even know they are here illegally. A great
many grow up to become honest and hardworking young adults who
are loyal to our country and who strive for academic and
professional excellence. It is a mistake to lump these children
together with adults who knowingly crossed our borders
illegally. Instead, the better policy is to view them as the
valuable resource that they are for our nation's future.
The DREAM Act does not guarantee any illegal immigrant the
right to remain in the United States, and does not grant
automatic or blanket amnesty to its potential beneficiaries.
However, it does give some who have been acculturated in the
United States the privilege of earning the right to remain. The
bill provides a six-year conditional residence period for those
who entered the United States prior to attaining sixteen years
of age, have been here continuously for at least five years,
stayed away from crime, and either earned at least a high
school degree or gained acceptance to college.
During that six-year period, these individuals can earn the
right to stay permanently by serving in our military, obtaining
an associate's degree or trade school diploma, or completing
two years in a bachelor's or graduate program. Because of the
residency and age requirements described in Section V of this
report, there is no incentive to enter the United States
illegally in the future, as anyone who entered the United
States after the age of sixteen or who has been in the United
States less than five years at the time of enactment will not
be able to benefit from this legislation. In other words, the
act grants absolutely no benefit to anyone who plans to
illegally enter the United States in the future. Moreover,
these rigorous standards result not in citizenship, but only in
permanent residency status that may one day result in
eligibility to apply for citizenship.
Our society benefits greatly from educating our immigrant
population. For example, in its ``policy recommendations for
the 108th Congress,'' the Cato Institute states that
``[i]mmigration gives America an economic edge in the global
economy.'' The same report also found that ``the typical
immigrant and his or her offspring will pay a net $80,000 more
in taxes during their lifetimes than they collect in government
services.'' \1\ Further, in testimony before the Senate
Immigration subcommittee, a senior economics fellow with the
Cato Institute estimated that immigrant households paid
approximately $133 billion in direct taxes to federal, state
and local governments in 1998. He further estimated that the
total net benefit (taxes paid over benefits received) to the
Social Security system from continuing current levels of
immigration is nearly $500 billion from 1998-2022 and nearly
$2.0 trillion through 2072.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cato Institute, The Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 108th Congress.
\2\ Immigration and the U.S. Economy, 107th Cong. Before the Senate
Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Immigration (2001) (statement of
Stephen Moore, Senior Fellow in Economics, Cato Institute).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the RAND Corporation published a study showing
that higher levels of education are associated with public
savings in the form of lower expenditures for public income
transfer and health programs, and higher tax contributions. The
same study also found that larger savings in public social
programs would be realized if the educational levels of the
total population, which includes both native born and immigrant
segments, were increased.\3\ As such, the DREAM Act will not
only directly improve the quality of life of its beneficiaries,
but will also benefit the overall United States economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ George Vernez, Richard A. Krop & C. Peter Rydell, Closing the
Education Gap: Benefits and Costs 30, 78 (RAND Corporation 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's national interests must shape our immigration
policy. We must protect our borders and remove those who do not
have permission to remain within them. At the same time, with
the DREAM Act, we can extend a welcoming hand, guided by
specific and rigorous standards, to those who have already been
integrated as part of our society and whose continued presence
will benefit our country.
Finally, it must be emphasized that the DREAM Act does not
require states to give undocumented alien children in-state
tuition. Quite to the contrary and consistent with the
principle of federalism, the DREAM Act returns to the states
their prerogative to determine how to allocate their own
resources.
II. Legislative History
In the 107th Congress, on August 1, 2001, Senator Hatch
introduced the DREAM Act, S. 1291. The Leahy amendment of S.
1291 (in the nature of a substitute) was reported out of the
Committee on the Judiciary on June 20, 2002. S. 1291 was placed
on Senate legislative calendar but never received a floor vote.
III. Vote by the Committee
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum
present on October 23, 2003, considered S. 1545. The Committee
approved an amended version of the bill in the nature of a
substitute. The substitute was approved by a 16-3 vote. All
members of the Committee except Senators Chambliss, Graham, and
Sessions voted in the affirmative. The Committee also accepted
an amendment offered by Senators Grassley and Feinstein (as
orally modified by members of the Committee) by a margin of 18-
1, with Senator Sessions voting in the negative.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
The Hatch-Durbin Substitute to S. 1545, as amended by the
Grassley-Feinstein Amendment, now provides as follows:
Section 1 contains the short title of the DREAM Act.
Section 2 explains that ``institution of higher education''
is defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965. 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1001.
Section 3 repeals IIRIRA Sec. 505, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1623. Each
state is free to determine whom it deems a resident for the
purpose of determining in-state tuition. The DREAM Act does not
compel states to offer in-state tuition to undocumented aliens,
nor does it prevent states from offering in-state tuition to
anyone else.
Section 4 provides that applicants may qualify for an
initial conditional period of six years during which they can
earn permanent resident status if they entered the United
States at least five years prior to enactment, were under 16
years of age at the time of entry and are not inadmissible or
deportable for specifically enumerated grounds. There is a
limited waiver only applicable for grounds of inadmissibility
under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Sec. 212(a)(6) or
deportability under INA Sec. 237(a)(1), (3), and (6). The
intent behind removing certain grounds of inadmissibility, and
providing a waiver for others, is to ensure that applicants are
not denied relief under this act based on circumstances that
result solely from their undocumented status. The applicant
must also have graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or
be admitted to an institution of higher learning as defined in
20 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. Per the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment, the
secondary and higher education institutions must be located
within the United States. It is the opinion of this Committee
that the term ``United States'' used in this Act incorporates
definitions provided in INA Sec. 1101(a)(29) (American Samoa
and Swain Islands) and Sec. 1101(a)(38) (the continental United
States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and Virgin Islands).
Persons previously ordered deported are not eligible for
adjustment of status under this Act. Exceptions are made for
those who remain within the United States with the U.S.
government's consent or who received the deportation order
while under the age of sixteen. Examples of such U.S.
government consent would be temporary protected status or a
stay of deportation. Moreover, the Act presumes that if an
alien minor receives a removal order prior to the age of
sixteen, the minor is not accountable for failure to comply
with the order.
Section 4 also contains a physical presence requirement
that the applicant must not have been out of the United States
for more than ninety days in one visit, or one hundred and
eighty days in the aggregate during the five year period. There
is a possible waiver of this requirement if the applicant shows
exceptional circumstances no less compelling than serious
illness to self, or death or serious illness to an immediate
family member. The intent of this language is to provide
examples to convey the degree of compelling circumstances that
one who seeks the waiver must demonstrate. Immigration
officials should not interpret the language as a literal
prescription of what an alien must demonstrate in order to
qualify for the waiver.
Section 5 provides the ways through which conditional
residents, after proving themselves worthy after six years, may
become permanent residents. The ways are to earn a degree from
an institution of higher education or to complete two years in
a bachelor's or higher program,\4\ or to serve honorably in the
military for at least two years. The option of performing
community service was eliminated by the Grassley-Feinstein
Amendment. The applicant may obtain a waiver for these
requirements but only at the discretion of the Secretary of
Homeland Security or the Attorney General and only if applicant
demonstrates ``exceptional and extreme unusual hardship.'' It
is the opinion of this Committee that such hardship must be
circumstances beyond the alien's control and which prevented
the alien from accomplishing the requirements. A representative
example of exceptional and extreme hardship would be a
debilitating illness or permanent injury to the applicant or an
immediate family member that results in more than
inconvenience, but that would prevent the alien from attending
school. Failure to complete the requirements because of
procrastination, poor planning, or lack of effort should not be
considered sufficient hardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As a condition for their support at the committee level,
Senators Kyl and Cornyn expressed that they would like to continue
working with the Chairman on other changes to S. 1545. Specifically,
Senator Kyl wished to impose an age limit for beneficiaries, and
Senator Cornyn circulated but did not offer an amendment that would
require graduation regardless of the type of institution that a
beneficiary attends. The members of the Committee then discussed the
need for a more specific standard that governs beneficiaries who are
enrolled in a bachelor's program (under the present language, must
complete ``at least two years, in good standing, in a program for a
bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States.''). The
Chairman pledged his good faith to work with Senators Kyl and Cornyn to
reach an agreement on an age limit, and to ``make it very clear that it
is two years toward a bachelor's degree, which means a full course of
instruction.'' See Transcript of Committee Business, October 23, 2003,
at 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the applicant must maintain a clean record,
meaning no crime or other misdeed that would render the
applicant deportable or inadmissible. The alien cannot be a
public charge during the six-year period. The applicant also
must maintain continuous residence, as defined by this act, in
the United States. If the applicant successfully completes the
enumerated requirements, the six-year conditional period also
satisfies the residency requirements for naturalization,
subject to the limitations set forth in section 316 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 6 provides that if at the time of enactment an
alien has already satisfied all requirements under sections 4
and 5 (meaning that the alien has already ``passed the test''
and has proven herself worthy of the DREAM Act benefits) then
that alien can adjust to permanent resident status without
going to school or serving in the military again. Pursuant to
the Grassley-Amendment, those who benefit from this
``grandfather'' clause must undergo the six-year conditional
period and comply with all other requirements.
Section 7 provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security
has jurisdiction to adjudicate affirmative applications for
benefits, but the jurisdiction transfers to the EOIR under the
DOJ when the applicant is in removal proceedings. The DREAM Act
benefits will be available defensively to those in proceedings.
Children 12 years of age or older who satisfy all other
requirements of this act but who are still enrolled full time
in school shall be granted a stay of proceedings by the EOIR.
To the extent permissible under existing law, a child whose
removal proceedings are stayed may obtain work authorization.
Section 7 does not preempt any existing federal or state labor
laws, including laws governing minimum age to work.
Section 8 provides for criminal penalties for falsifying
the application including fine or imprisonment or both.
Section 9 contains a confidentiality clause. The Government
is not permitted to use information gathered in processing an
application under the DREAM Act to initiate removal proceedings
against anyone. Violation of the confidentiality agreement
would result in a fine up to $10,000. However, information
sharing is permissible for the purpose of investigating a crime
or a national security breach. Information also may be
disseminated to a coroner for the purpose of identifying the
deceased.
Section 10 prohibits the collection of an application fee.
A new section 11 created by the Grassley-Feinstein
Amendment requires an institution of higher education to
register any student it enrolls who is a beneficiary under this
Act in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS).
Section 12, also created by the Grassley-Feinstein
Amendment, limits the types of federal financial assistance
that beneficiaries may receive. Members of the Committee
discussed at length on October 23, 2003 and orally modified the
Grassley-Feinstein Amendment but did not agree on the precise
modified language. Section 12 as contained in the Grassley-
Feinstein Amendment limits federal financial assistance under
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to student loans
under Parts B and D, and work study programs under Part C of
Title IV. The modification was based on an understanding that
while DREAM Act beneficiaries would not be eligible for grant
assistance under Title IV, they would not be limited to
receiving only the loans specified under the Grassley-Feinstein
Amendment. The Chairman exhorted the Senators to vote on the
Grassley-Feinstein Amendment with the understanding that they
will in good faith work out the financial assistance issue.
The members of the Committee did work out the precise
language of section 12. The premises that guided the agreement
were: (1) a DREAM Act beneficiary shall be eligible to receive
all loans under Title IV, not just loans under parts B and D;
(2) The beneficiary shall not be eligible for disbursement of
funds, such as Pell Grants or other grants or scholarships,
which do not require repayment. This is true whether the funds
are disbursed directly from the government to the beneficiary,
the funds are routed through a third party entity, such as a
school or a clearinghouse, or the funds are deposited with a
school in the beneficiary's behalf; (3) Section 12 is not
intended to bar access to services, such as tutoring, child
care, mentoring, counseling and all related assistance programs
that do not consist of the government actually giving the
beneficiary a specific sum of money; (4) Section 12 is not
intended to bar financial assistance by any non-federal entity,
whether or not such entity receives funding from the federal
government; and (5) The scope of Section 12 is limited to Title
IV only.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The above-described premises can be illustrated by the
following hypothetical situations:
Situation 1: Federal Government gives Student $100 with the
understanding that Student will repay the amount. This is a loan and is
permissible under Section 12.
Situation 2: Federal Government either directly gives Student $100,
gives $100 to Institution to pass onto Student, or gives Institution
$100 but specifically for Student's benefit. This is prohibited under
Section 12.
Situation 3: Federal Government gives Institution $100 for reasons
not specific to Student. Institution then gives B $50 dollars on its
own volition. This is permissible because it does not involve the
federal government disbursing money specifically to the beneficiary.
Situation 4: Federal Government spends $100 for programs and
services, invites a number of participants to attend these programs and
services, Student is one of the participants. This is permissible
because no money is given to the beneficiary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original Grassley-Feinstein Amendment permitted the
beneficiaries under this Act to participate in work study
programs under Title IV, Part C. Although work study was not
part of the discussion during the executive business meeting on
October 23, 2003, the members agreed that the Committee never
intended to eliminate work study eligibility from Section 12.
Section 13 requires the Government Accounting Office (GAO)
to produce a study, seven years after enactment, concerning the
number of aliens who apply for and receive benefits under this
Act.
V. Cost Estimate
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that
enacting S. 1545 would increase direct spending by an
insignificant amount from 2004 through 2008. The estimate
assumes, based upon historical data, that the cost for Medicare
and food stamps will be $90 million from 2009 through 2014 (the
CBO estimate does not specifically reference the effects higher
education and initial bar to public assistance have on future
dependency on public assistance).
The CBO further estimates that the cost of expanding SEVIS
to beneficiaries of S. 1545 could be up to $1 million.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
S. 1545--Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act
Summary: S. 1545 would authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security to adjust the status of certain undocumented alien
children to conditional legal permanent resident status if they
meet specific criteria. This change in status would make these
aliens eligible to participate in federal student loan programs
and receive certain other federal benefits. In addition, the
bill would require institutions of higher education that enroll
aliens who are beneficiaries of this legislation to register
those students in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS).
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1545 would increase direct
spending for the student loan, Food Stamp, and Medicaid
programs by an insignificant amount in 2004 and by $90 million
over the 2004-2014 period. In addition, CBO estimates that
implementing S. 1545 would cost up to $1 million in 2005 to
expand SEVIS, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
S. 1545 contains an intergovernmental and private-sector
mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
because it would increase the number of students that colleges
and universities must track in SEVIS. CBO estimates that the
cost of this mandate would be well below the annual thresholds
established in UMRA ($60 million for intergovernmental mandates
and $120 million for private-sector mandates in 2004, adjusted
annually for inflation).
In addition, as legal permanent residents, some individuals
would be eligible for Medicaid assistance as a result of the
bill. Benefits under the Medicaid program for these individuals
would cost states approximately $45 million over the 2009-2014
period. Because states have sufficient flexibility to offset
such costs if they choose, they would not be considered
mandates under UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1545 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 500
(education, training, employment, and social services), 550
(health), 600 (income security), and 750 (administration of
justice).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level...... 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.................. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Student Loans:
Estimated Budget Authority..... * * * * * * * * * * *
Estimated Outlays.............. * * * * * * * * * * *
Food Stamps:
Estimated Budget Authority..... 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5
Estimated Outlays.............. 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5
Medicaid:
Estimated Budget Authority..... 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 15
Estimated Outlays.............. 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 15
Total Changes in Direct Spending:
Estimated Budget Authority..... * * * * * 10 15 15 15 15 20
Estimated Outlays.............. * * * * * 10 15 15 15 15 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--* = Less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted by July 1, 2004, and that the necessary
amounts to implement the bill will be appropriated for 2005.
S. 1545 would make certain undocumented alien children
eligible for conditional legal permanent resident status. The
Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to
adjust the status of undocumented high school graduates and
undocumented high school students admitted to an institution of
higher education if they had lived in the United States for at
least five years prior to the bill's enactment, were less than
16 years of age at time of entry into the United States, and
meet several other criteria. After six years, individuals could
petition to have the conditional basis removed if they have
received a degree from an institution of higher education,
completed at least two years toward a bachelor's degree or
higher, or served for at least two years in the United States
military.
Aliens who convert to conditional legal permanent resident
status would become eligible for federal financial aid. These
aliens also could become eligible for other federal benefits
such as Food Stamps and Medicaid after five years--assuming
they meet other program requirements.
Spending subject to appropriation
Implementation of S. 1545 would require institutions of
higher education that enroll alien beneficiaries of the bill to
register them in SEVIS, which is administered by the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Based on information
from ICE, CBO estimates that it would cost up to $1 million in
2005 to expand and modify SEVIS to collect information on
aliens benefitting from S. 1545. CBO expects that any such
spending would come from appropriated funds.
Direct spending
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1545 would increase direct
spending by an insignificant amount in 2004 and $90 million
over the 2004-2014 period.
Student Loans. Granting conditional legal permanent
resident status would allow these students to participate in
the federal student loan programs, CBO estimates that about
13,000 undocumented alien children would enroll during the
2004-2005 academic year and meet all of the other criteria. CBO
assumes this number would remain around this level through 2008
and then decline relatively rapidly after that. CBO assumes
that these students would be less likely to participate in
federal student loan programs than other students for two main
reasons. First, these students are more likely to be enrolled
in lower-cost community colleges where the need for financial
assistance is less great. Second, they would be less willing to
submit financial aid forms for fear of exposing the presence of
other family members who remain undocumented. Assuming that 1
in 10 enrolled students borrow student loans, CBO estimates the
bill would have a negligible effect on federal spending.
Food Stamps. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would
increase costs in the Food Stamp program. By allowing certain
aliens who are in the United States illegally to adjust their
status to conditional legal permanent residents, they would
then be considered qualified aliens for Food Stamp eligibility
purposes. However, such individuals would be ineligible for
Food Stamp benefits during their first five years as qualified
aliens, so no additional costs would occur until 2009.
Based on data from the Current Population Survey on
participation by noncitizens before the changes in eligibility
that were enacted in 1996, CBO estimates that an additional
6,000 people would receive Food Stamps in 2009, declining to
about 4,000 a year by 2014. Food Stamp costs would increase by
$5 million in 2009 and a total of $30 million over the 2009-
2014 period.
Medicaid. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would
increase federal Medicaid spending by $60 million over the
2009-2014 period. CBO anticipates that the individuals affected
by the bill would qualify for Medicaid primarily through
eligibility categories for pregnant women or disabled people
with high medical expenses. Based on historical data on
Medicaid participation, CBO estimates that an additional 1,000
people would receive Medicaid in 2009 under the bill, rising to
about 3,000 by 2014. Most of these new recipients would be
pregnant women. The estimate of the per capita for the new
recipients excludes emergency services, which are already
covered under current law.
Department of Homeland Security. The Bureau of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) would charge fees
totaling several hundred dollars per case to provide
certifications of legal permanent resident status,
authorizations of employment, and cancellations of deportation.
Thus, the agency could collect several million dollars annually
over the next few years from individuals who would be affected
by the bill. The CIS is authorized to spend such fees without
further appropriation, so the net impact on that agency's
spending would be negligible. CIS fees are classified as
offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending).
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1545
contains an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act because it would
increase the number of students that colleges and universities
must track in the SEVIS system. SEVIS was created to collect
timely information on foreign students who come to the United
States for educational or student exchange purposes. Colleges
and universities are responsible for collecting and submitting
information on student registration, address, and work
activities. Currently, colleges and universities are only
required to track students who enter the country using three
specific types of visas (F, J, and M) for academic students,
vocation students, and exchange visitors. There are currently 1
million students registered in the system. Section 11 would add
a new classification of students, those that have attained the
status of conditional permanent resident under this bill.
CBO estimates that about 46,000 college students over the
2004-2014 period would be eligible to have their status changed
to conditional permanent resident. This represents an increase
of less than 5 percent in students who must be tracked in
SEVIS. CBO estimates that while universities and colleges
currently incur significant costs to comply with the
requirements of SEVIS, the incremental costs that would result
from these additional students would be small and well below
the annual thresholds established in UMRA ($60 million for
intergovernmental mandates and $120 million for private-sector
mandates in 2004, adjusted annually for inflation).
In addition, as legal permanent residents, some individuals
would be eligible for Medicaid assistance as a result of the
bill. Benefits under the Medicaid program for these individuals
would cost states approximately $45 million over the 2009-2014
period. Because states have sufficient flexibility to offset
such costs if they choose, they would not be considered
mandates under UMRA.
Furthermore, the repeal of section 505 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1623) would give states the discretion to provide
state-level educational benefits to illegal aliens if they so
choose.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Student Loans: Deborah
Kalcevic; Food Stamps: Kathleen FitzGerald; Medicaid: Jeanne De
Sa; and CIS and ICE: Mark Grabowicz. Impact on State, Local,
and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact on the Private
Sector: Cecil McPherson.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. Regulatory Impact Statement
The passage of S. 1545 will require the Departments of
Homeland Security and Justice to promulgate regulations
governing the application as well as the review process.
VII. Changes in Existing Law
In the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary in order
to expedite the business of the Senate to dispense with the
requirements of Paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate (relating to the showing of changes in existing
law made by the bill as reported by the Committee).
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS
The legislation reported by the Committee today, S. 1545,
is no DREAM. Instead, it represents a cyclical nightmare for
the rule of law in immigration policy reform. It does not
address the overall problem of illegal immigration, but instead
grants legal status to a select, carved-out group of illegally
present individuals. Regardless of the carved-out category,
absolving illegal aliens of their illegal status through
piecemeal legislation erodes the rule of law and promotes
future illegal immigration by sending a clear message to future
and current illegal aliens: ``The United States has enacted
immigration laws, but lacks the intent to meaningfully enforce
them.''
The majority alleges that the DREAM Act is a ``one-time''
fix that will not be repeated.\1\ That same claim was made by
the sponsors of 245 I--an amnesty that Congress has repeatedly
extended. If the DREAM Act passes, five years from now we will
have no principled or moral basis to deny these same benefits
to those brought here after the enactment of this legislation.
The cycle will continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In explaining the need for the DREAM Act, the majority of the
committee relies on a figure cited by CATO in its ``policy''
recommendations for the 108th Congress,'' which states that ``the
typical immigrant and his or her offspring will pay a net $80,000 more
in taxes during their lifetimes than they collect in government
services.'' Cato Institute, The Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 108th Congress. This figure is based on a
hypothetical calculation done by the National Research Council that
projected the net costs of immigrant descendants 300 years into the
future. In the report itself, the National Research Council states,
``The NPV calculations are based on projections that reach 300 years
into the future, and it would be absurd to claim that the projections
into the 23rd century are very reliable.'' National Research Council,
The New Americas: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of
Immigration, National Academy Press, 1997. P.342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. EFFECTS OF THE DREAM ACT
The DREAM Act will give amnesty, through cancellation of
removal, to approximately 500,000 illegal aliens, a number
which could easily increase because the DREAM Act contains no
numerical cap. Once the illegal alien beneficiaries of the
DREAM Act cancel their removal, they will be eligible for legal
permanent residence, which puts them on a direct path to
citizenship. After 5 years of legal status, all legal permanent
residents are eligible to apply for citizenship.
The DREAM Act will allow states to give in-state tuition
rates to illegal aliens, when those tax-payer subsidized
tuition rates are not even available to citizens of other
states. Illegal aliens that are the beneficiaries of the Act
will be eligible for all student loans under Title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, just like citizens and legal
immigrants. Although children of legal aliens, such as H1B visa
holders, are not allowed to work, the DREAM Act will allow
illegal alien children that added privilege. Most offensively,
the DREAM Act contemplates no enforcement provisions or
penalties for the people that knowingly violated our
immigration laws to bring the Act's beneficiaries illegally
into the United States. This bill will give those illegal alien
parents exactly what they broke our laws to get--legal
permission for their children to live and work permanently in
the United States and one day become citizens.
II. PROVIDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITH INCENTIVES IS BAD IMMIGRATION
POLICY
We must not provide legal incentives and rewards for
violations of our immigration laws. We cannot threaten
deportation for illegal entry, while we simultaneously tell
illegal aliens that if they manage to stay in the United States
for just a few years illegally working or going to school, we
will pass legislation that gives them permission to stay
forever, and gives them a guaranteed route to citizenship. It
is a confusing and contradictory message, a message that cannot
be the basis for the sound immigration policy of a mature
nation.
III. RETROACTIVE BENEFITS AND AMNESTIES ENCOURAGE FUTURE ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION
The conclusion by the majority that retroactive benefits
are not an incentive for future illegal immigration is not
correct. If the DREAM Act becomes law, we will openly state to
the world that it is the policy of the United States to
continue our cycle of rewarding people who break our
immigration laws with eventual legal status and even
citizenship. People will rightly conclude that they can come
here illegally and wait for the next amnesty.
IV. IT IS TIME FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM, NOT PIECEMEAL
LEGISLATION
One thing we all can agree on is that our immigration
system is broken. The time has come to take an honest look at
the broad problem of illegal immigration in America and to
enact comprehensive reform that addresses the lack of interior
enforcement resources and promotes homeland security. The
President has put comprehensive immigration reform on the table
by announcing his plan for a large-scale guest worker program.
From what I have heard, I cannot agree to all parts of the
proposal. Still, discussing the problem as a whole is the right
approach. We have no choice but to focus our efforts on a
comprehensive reform package that rewards those who follow
proper immigration procedures. We must reject piecemeal
legislation that only addresses part of the problem while we
study comprehensive reform. Secondly, no sensible reform plan
can provide financial benefits to aliens who are here
illegally. Likewise, comprehensive reform cannot result in
rewarding illegal activity with permanent residence and
citizenship.
Jeff Sessions.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHAMBLISS
At the markup on October 16, 2003, the Committee took up
the DREAM Act, S. 1545. Senator Chambliss filed and spoke on an
amendment that addressed financial assistance for beneficiaries
of S. 1545. This amendment was ultimately included, word-for-
word, as part of the Grassley amendment, which the Committee
considered and accepted on October 23, 2003.
To provide legislative history for Section 12 of S. 1545 as
reported with the Grassley amendment, attached is Senator
Chambliss' statement as the original author of that Section's
financial assistance language. This statement is taken directly
from pages 41-46 of the Committee's October 16 transcript
(Appendix A).
In particular, Senator Chambliss, as addressed beginning on
page 43 of the October 16 transcript, intended the financial
assistance amendment to continue to make DREAM Act
beneficiaries ineligible for HOPE scholarships as illegal
aliens are ineligible under the current law. This amendment
ensures that DREAM Act beneficiaries will not be considered
eligible for HOPE scholarships under the definition of
eligibility in Title IV of the Higher Education Act.
Saxby Chambliss.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN CORNYN
Supporters of the Dream Act cite the goal of education, and
specifically the benefits of having an educated workforce, as
one of the most basic reasons to support this legislation. I
believe it is in our best interest to have an educated
workforce that can contribute to this great nation in a
productive way. The Dream Act as introduced in 2001 required
undocumented students to graduate from a qualified four or two
year institution in order to obtain legal permanent residency
under the Act. If we are serious that the intent of the Dream
Act is about education, then I think we should require these
students to graduate from a qualified institution of higher
learning in order to receive legal permanent residency under
the Act. As I said during the committee markup on this bill, I
think we need to ``make clear that what we are seeking is
people that actually receive a degree which will provide them
the opportunity that I think this bill is determined to
provide.'' See Transcript of Committee Business, October 23,
2003, at 67 (Appendix B).
John Cornyn.
APPENDIX A
----------
Excerpts From Committee Executive Business Meeting Transcript From
October 16, 2003
* * * immigrant voices urging us to close our borders and
jealously guard our citizenship privileges. If these voices had
completely won out, America today would be weaker, its
democracy less cohesive and dynamic, and its place in the world
much diminished.
Much work remains to be done to make our immigration system
more responsive to the needs of the American economy and the
need of the immigrants on whom our economy depends. But I think
this legislation is an important first step.
And, again, I do sincerely commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
taking such a leadership role, along with Senator Durbin, on
this bill.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you so much.
Senator Chambliss is next.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make
a very brief comment about this bill.
First of all, I would just like to say to the Chairman that
I am extremely appreciative of this bill being brought forward
because this, I think, is the first in probably a series of
bills that is going to bring an issue to the forefront that the
American people are well aware of and that Congress has been
giving a wink and a nod to for so many years, and that is, how
do we deal with the huge number of illegal aliens that we know
are in this country? And what sort of status should they be put
in? There are too many economic sectors of our country that are
dependent on illegal aliens, and we know it. But we have been
giving that wink and nod, and I think this helps raise the
profile of that issue.
By the same token, as I listened to my colleagues on both
sides talk about the effect of this Act and the background of
this Act, what you are talking about primarily is the legal
aliens who have come to this country, either in legal status or
have become legal once they got here. And that is a whole
different category of individuals than what we are going to be
dealing with here.
We have in my home State, as an example, a large population
of illegal aliens. We have a large population of legal aliens.
We have a large population of folks who are here illegally
whose children are U.S. citizens because they were born here.
So there are different categories of aliens. Here we are
dealing with folks who truly are illegal.
Now, the fact of the matter is they didn't cause that to
happen. Their parents did. And the issue is whether or not they
are to be penalized because of--the issue is not whether they
are to be penalized because of that, but the issue is whether
or not they are to be treated the same as children who are born
to legal U.S. citizens, whether they were born in the United
States or not, or whether you are going to put them in the same
category as those individuals who are hard-working, tax-paying
Americans when it comes to the education of the children of
those folks who came into this country illegally and are here
illegally.
In my home State, we do have that large population, and we
also have a provision in the Georgia law that allows for
children who graduated from Georgia high schools with a B
average to go free tuition to our State-sponsored schools, to
our State institutions. It is called the HOPE Scholarship. It
was enacted, conceived as an idea by my senior Senator, then-
Governor Zell Miller, and it has been a terrific program. The
same program has been adopted in may other States around the
country.
Under current law, because of the definition of the
eligibility under Higher Education Act, children of illegal
aliens who are illegally here are not eligible for that HOPE
scholarship. If this bill passes, all of a sudden those
children who are here illegally will be eligible for the HOPE
Scholarship. The HOPE Scholarship is under extreme financial
pressure right now. It is funded by our State lottery. It is
projected that over the next 5 years we are going to have to go
into general revenues to keep up the standards that we are now
using to determine whether or not children who graduated from
Georgia high schools are eligible for those scholarships.
This bill will put more individuals in the pool and really
will dictate that children who are here illegally are put in
the same category as the children of hard-working, tax-paying
Americans when it comes to divvying up the pool of available
money for the HOPE Scholarship in my State and many other
States.
Now, every State in America today, for the most part, is in
a financial crisis. You talk about a bill that will increase
the pressure on each and every one of our governors and our
State legislatures. This bill will cause more people to have
the availability of in-state tuition access. It is going to
increase the funding, the entitlement funding of Pell grants.
We are looking at a hugh financial increase on our State and
our Federal Government as a result of the passage of this.
Now, the Chairman had a bill last year that truly was
narrowly drawn and is a bill that I think with some
modification I would have been inclined to support. This bill
is not the same bill that the chairman introduced last year,
and I am afraid this bill expands the availability of the DREAM
Act so broadly that it is going to cause a financial burden and
it is going to put a reward on people who really are violating
the law by being here illegally. It is not the intention to
penalize the children of those folks, but the fact of the
matter is they are what they are. And I think we have to
recognize that, realize that, and, again, I commend the
chairman for bringing it forward. In my subcommittee, we are
going to have some hearings on broadening the availability for
access to our legal immigration status for a number of these
folks who are here illegally. Senator Craig, Senator Cornyn,
Senator Kyl, and I know others have expressed interest, and our
bill is on H2-A, which is our agricultural working program. We
are working now on an expansion of that H2-A program to broaden
it so that people who are here illegally that are not just
working in agriculture but are in our carpet mills and our
construction industry and other aspects of my State, and
certainly your States, will have easier access to come into
legal status. And I think that puts them in an entirely
different category than what this bill is going to put them in.
So in the present form, I am not going to be able to
support the bill, and I am going to have an amendment that I
think will make it a little more palatable, and as we move
forward through this, I look forward to continuing to discuss
it with all of our colleagues.
Senator Durbin. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Senator Chambliss. Sure.
Senator Durbin. Just a comment. Section 3 of the bill
leaves to each State the authority to make the decision as to
whether any of these students will be eligible for in-state
tuition or for any State scholarship. And if your State of
Georgia did not want to extend HOPE Scholarships to these
students, that is that State's right to do. We just give the
States the option to make that decision. Today the Federal law
mandates how the decision must be made.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Senator Grassley was next, and then Senator
Sessions, and then I will come to Senator Feinstein.
Senator Grassley. I thank Senator Durbin for the statement
that he just made because that is the thought that went through
my mind as I heard Senator Chambliss make his statement, and it
is my understanding of the legislation as well.
As a cosponsor of this bill, I commend Senator Hatch and
Senator Durbin for working together on it and producing a
pretty good compromise. I have heard from many Iowans about
this bill, and I have heard from both sides of the fence,
people very opposed to it and people supportive of the
legislation. I know that some members have fears that we are
rewarding illegal immigration and that the more reward that we
offer, somehow more people want to come to the United States.
Coming to the United States is something that we ought to be
proud of because it speaks well for our * * *
APPENDIX B
----------
Excerpts From Committee Executive Business Meeting Transcript From
October 23, 2003
* * * three other places, but I am perfectly willing to
stay if we can keep some here.
Senator Feinstein. I do have to leave in ten minutes, just
so you know.
Chairman Hatch. Well, let's give it ten more minutes. If
you could, Senator Sessions, I would appreciate it. I know you
are an active member of the Armed Services Committee.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, if there are other amendments,
perhaps we can at least conduct some business before--just a
constructive suggestion.
Chairman Hatch. Well, let me just say this. We will stack
amendments. Are there any further amendments?
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I, in
the interest of trying to be constructive and working
together--I hope the process will not end once this bill is
passed, but that we will continue to work together to try to
strengthen this bill even further.
I had an amendment that, true to the original purpose of
this bill, which was to promote education and educational
opportunity, would provide that the immigrant student must
graduate from a qualified four- or two-year institution in
order to be eligible to become a legal permanent resident under
the bill, which I believe would actually strengthen this,
rather than just merely attending but not being sincere about
the educational goal that we are all seeking to advance.
I think that would actually help improve the bill even
further above and beyond what has been done now with the
Grassley-Feinstein amendment. But rather than offer it at this
time, what I would like to do is to continue to work with
everyone here to see if we might be able to improve the bill
even further by making sure that the goal that we are all
trying to achieve, and that is education, is advanced and not
provide an opportunity for those who perhaps were trying to use
this Act in a way that does not serve that purpose.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Senator Cornyn or
you a question on this?
Chairman Hatch. Well, let me just say that I appreciate the
Senator's willingness to withhold and work with us to see if
there is some way we can accommodate.
Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl. I thought there were some kind of minimal
requirements, not just to take one class for two years. I mean,
there is some kind of minimal requirement, is there not?
Senator Cornyn. If I may respond to that----
Chairman Hatch. They have to take two full years of
classes.
Senator Cornyn. The provisions of the Act, which is
5(d)(1)(D)(i) of the Act, says the alien has acquired a degree
from an institution of higher education or has completed at
least two years in good standing in a program for a bachelor's
degree or a higher degree, or served in the armed forces.
Chairman Hatch. In other words, they are going to have to
take a regular course toward a bachelor's degree.
Senator Cornyn. I am not sure what that means exactly.
Senator Kyl. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Cornyn
raises a very good point--``completed two years.''
Unfortunately, at some of our universities now, it takes you
six years to get through, and I am not sure how many credits.
``Completed two years'' would be--I mean, we clearly have to
get a little bit more precise about that.
Senator Cornyn. I think I understand where the authors and
the sponsors are heading, and I just think we may need to firm
that up and make that clear.
Chairman Hatch. Let's see if we can work that out between
now and the floor.
Senator Feinstein. May I ask a question of Senator Cornyn?
Senator Cornyn. And also make clear that what we are
seeking is people that actually receive a degree which will
provide them the opportunity that I think this bill is
determined to provide.
Chairman Hatch. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. I think the thrust of the amendment is a
good one. The question I would have about it is does this then
subject the youngster to deportation during those two years?
Senator Cornyn. That certainly would not be my intent, not
at all.
Senator Feinstein. That would be my question.
Senator Cornyn. As far as I am concerned, we could make
that even plain.
Chairman Hatch. Let's work in good faith to accommodate
language that will make it very clear that it is two years
toward a bachelor's degree, which means a full course of
instruction. We might have to put in a certain amount of
credits they have to go for.
Are there any other amendments to this bill at this time
that we can stack?
If there are no other amendments to this bill, it is
apparent we are not going to get a quorum. So what I think we
will do is recess until after the first vote, and then as far
as I can see it will be a vote up and down on final passage. I
would prefer to do that right now if we could * * *