Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

This is not a perfect bill. It is a compromise. I strongly support some provisions of this bill and I have serious concerns about others, but, on balance, I believe it is worthy of support.

If we want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, we must take a comprehensive approach. We must secure our border, strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws, and address the situation of approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in our country. In the final analysis, this bill does all of these things and that is why I will support it.

I want to express my gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy for their steadfast leadership of our bipartisan coalition for immigration reform. I also want to salute Senator Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for shepherding this bill to the verge of passage.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, and a supporter of the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation, I have been very involved in the debate over this bill for the past several months.

The process of drafting this bill began in the Judiciary Committee in early March. We engaged in a serious, substantive debate. There was disagreement on some points, but the discussion was always respectful. We considered dozens of amendments during several marathon committee meetings. At the end of the process, we approved a tough, fair, and comprehensive bill on a strong bipartisan vote.

We have seen a similar process on the floor of Senate. We have debated this legislation for several weeks. By my count, we have had over 30 roll call votes on amendments to this bill. It is rare for us to devote this much time and energy to a single piece of legislation. It demonstrates that the Senate takes the subject of immigration very seriously. And it is reflected in the quality of the final product.

As I said earlier, this bill includes provisions that I oppose and those that I support. Let me first mention some of the provisions of this bill that concern me most.

This bill includes an Inhofe amendment that declares English to be the national language of the United States. Unfortunately, the amendment goes beyond that. It includes sweeping language that some fear will call into question the validity of controlling Executive Orders and regulations.

I am especially concerned that we not undermine Executive Order 13166, which requires Federal agencies to provide meaningful access to Government services for people who have limited proficiency in English. This Executive Order protects all of our safety and well-being by ensuring that limited English proficient Americans understand vital information that the Government provides, particularly in the event of a natural disaster or a threat to national security. The threat to Executive Order 13166 is one reason why dozens of national Latino and civil rights organizations oppose the Inhofe amendment.

Senator SALAZAR and I authored an amendment declaring that, ``English is the common and unifying language of the United States that helps provide unity for the people of the United States.'' In contrast to the Inhofe amendment, the amendment that Senator SALAZAR and I offered makes it explicit that nothing in our amendment ``shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States.'' The Senate approved our amendment on a strong bipartisan vote.

There is no disagreement on this principle. It is very difficult to be successful in this country if you do not speak English. Throughout American history, immigrants have come to the United States and learned English. That process continues. According to the Urban Institute, nearly 40 percent of immigrant children have limited proficiency in English, but by the second generation, only about 20 percent have limited proficiency, and by the third generation children, that number falls to .5 percent. The U.S. Census found that 92 percent of Americans ``had no difficulty speaking English;'' 82 percent of Americans speak only English at home; and most people who speak a language other than English also speak English ``very well.''

Unfortunately, many immigrants who want to learn English have few opportunities to do so. There are waiting lists of thousands of immigrants for English as a second language classes in cities around the country. We should be creating more opportunities for immigrants to learn English. The Inhofe amendment would not do that. Instead, it has the potential to marginalize immigrants and make it more difficult for them to access vital government services.

Both the Inhofe and the Salazar-Durbin amendments are in this bill. In the conference committee, we must clarify that Congress does not intend to overturn controlling Executive Orders or regulations, particularly Executive Order 13166.

I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues rejected an amendment that I offered that would have authorized the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security to grant a humanitarian waiver to an immigrant if deportation of the immigrant would create extreme hardship for an immediate family member of the immigrant who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

We need to strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws in order to restore integrity to our immigration system. As we make our laws tougher, we must ensure that we stay true to American values. I am concerned that some of the enforcement provisions in this bill are so broad that they will have unintended consequences. These provisions have the potential to sweep up long-term legal permanent residents and separate them from their immediate family members.

My amendment would have created a limited waiver that would have applied only in the most compelling cases--where deportation of an immediate family member would create extreme hardship for an American citizen or legal permanent resident.

The waiver would not be automatic. In every case, the immigrant would have to demonstrate that he meets the ``extreme hardship'' standard. In every case, the government would have ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' to deny a waiver.

This is the same strict standard that Senators KYL and CORNYN used in an amendment we approved last week by a unanimous vote. The Kyl-Cornyn waiver would apply in cases where undocumented immigrants are seeking legal status. The waiver in my amendment would apply in cases where an immigrant who was previously in legal status is subject to deportation because of a change in the law made by this bill.

It seems inconsistent to give a chance for a humanitarian waiver to an undocumented immigrant and not give the same chance to a legal immigrant. I hope that the conference committee will revisit this issue and resolve this inconsistency by extending the humanitarian waiver for undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants who face deportation because of changes in the law made in this bill.

We already give the Government broad discretion to apprehend, detain and deport immigrants. We should also give the Government some limited discretion to show mercy in the most compelling cases.

I am also very disappointed that the Senate approved a Gregg amendment that would effectively gut the Diversity Visa Program, threaten the jobs of Americans, and exacerbate the ``brain drain''--the migration of talent from the poorest countries in the world to the richest.

Congress created the Diversity Visa Program to provide immigration opportunities for people from countries with low levels of immigration to the United States. Diversity visas open the door to thousands of people from around the world who could otherwise never aspire to the American Dream. The program helps to ensure that the United States continues to be the most diverse country in the world.

The Gregg amendment would fundamentally alter the Diversity Visa Program by setting aside two-thirds of diversity visas for immigrants who hold advanced degrees in science, mathematics, technology, and engineering. These set-asides would favor immigrants from wealthier countries and reduce the diversity of future immigration to our country.

By bringing more high-skilled immigrants to the United States, the Gregg amendment will also increase competition for highly sought-after American jobs. For the same reason, I am concerned that this bill would increase the annual number of H-1B visas to 115,000 and allow that cap to increase every year if American companies use all of the available visas in a given year. Some experts argue that the H-1B program is already taking jobs away from Americans.

I am also very concerned that the Gregg amendment would exacerbate the ``brain drain.''

And unfortunately, this bill includes another provision that will increase the brain drain by lifting the annual cap on the number of nurses who can immigrate to our country every year. A story in yesterday's New York Times on this provision, headlined, ``U.S. Plan to Lure Nurses May Hurt Poor Nations,'' reports:

A little-noticed provision in [the Senate] immigration bill would throw open the gate to nurses and, some fear, drain them from the world's developing countries ..... The exodus of nurses from poor to rich countries has strained health systems in the developing world, which are already facing severe shortages of their own. ..... Public health experts in poor countries, told about the proposal in recent days, reacted with dismay and outrage, coupled with doubts that their nurses would resist the magnetic pull of the United States, which sits at the pinnacle of the global labor market for nurses.

Later I will address a provision in this bill that will take modest but important steps to begin to address this brain drain, but we must do much more.

I am also disappointed that the Senate approved an amendment requiring construction of a 370-mile wall on the Southern border. We need to secure our border, and this bill includes literally dozens of provisions to do so. Among other measures, we double the size of the border patrol and we mandate the use of new technology to create a ``virtual fence'' at the border.

A wall will not secure our border. The reality is that no wall will prevent illegal immigration. There will always be a way around, over, or under a wall. In fact, experts estimate that 40 percent of undocumented immigrants enter the country legally and then overstay their visas. No wall will stop visa overstays.

Constructing a wall will be very expensive. It will make life more difficult for innocent Americans in border communities, including noise and light pollution. It has the potential to do great harm to environmentally sensitive border areas. Most important, a wall will send the wrong message to the rest of the world about the United States.

Now I would like to focus on the positive in this bill, especially measures with which I was personally involved.

This legislation includes the DREAM Act, a narrowly-tailored, bipartisan measure that I sponsored with Senator HAGEL and Senator LUGAR. The DREAM Act would give undocumented students the chance to become permanent residents if they came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, and attend college or enlist in the military for at least 2 years.

Currently our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from pursuing their dreams and fully contributing to our Nation's future. They are honor-roll students, star athletes, talented artists, valedictorians, and aspiring teachers and doctors. These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. It is the only home they know. They are assimilated and acculturated into American society. They are American in every sense except their technical legal status.

And they have beaten the odds in their young lives. The high school dropout rate among undocumented immigrants is 50 percent, compared to 21 percent for legal immigrants and 11 percent for native-born Americans. These children have demonstrated the kind of determination and commitment that makes them successful students and points the way to the significant contributions they will make in their lives. These children are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, firefighters, soldiers, and Senators.

The DREAM Act would help these students. It is not an amnesty. It is designed to assist only a select group of young people who have done nothing wrong and who would be required to earn their way to legal status.

The DREAM Act offers no incentive for undocumented immigrants to enter the country. In fact, it requires beneficiaries to have been in the country for at least 5 years on the date of enactment.

The DREAM Act would also repeal a provision of Federal law that prevents States from granting in-State tuition rates to undocumented students. It would not create any new tuition breaks. It would not force States to offer in-State tuition to undocumented immigrants. It would simply return to States the authority to determine their own tuition policies.

The DREAM Act is not just the right thing to do, it is good for America. The DREAM Act would allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambitions to contribute more fully to our society.

The DREAM Act is supported by a broad bipartisan coalition in the Senate, and by religious leaders, immigrant advocates, and educators from across the political spectrum and around the country. Our coalition will fight to ensure that the DREAM Act is included in the conference report.

I am also very pleased that we were able to remove some of the bill's harshest provisions during the Judiciary Committee markup.

The original version of this bill would have taken the unprecedented step of criminalizing people based solely on their immigration status. That is not the way we should treat immigrants in our country. And that is not the way our criminal justice system works. We punish people for their conduct, not their status.

Criminalizing immigrants will not help us to combat illegal immigration. Our Government does not have the time or resources to prosecute and incarcerate 12 million people. Enacting yet another law that would not be enforced will not solve the problem of illegal immigration. In fact, it would make the problem worse.

If we make undocumented immigrants into criminals, we will drive them further into the shadows. This will harm our national security because we will be unable to identify who is in our country.

This is also a moral issue. We are measured by how we treat the most vulnerable among us. It is not right to make criminals of millions of people who go to work every day cooking our food, cleaning our hotel rooms, and caring for our children and our parents. It is not right to make criminals of those who worship with us in our churches, send their children to school with our own and love this great and free land as much as any of us.

During the Judiciary Committee markup, I offered an amendment to strike the provision that would have criminalized undocumented immigrants. My amendment was approved by a strong bipartisan vote, and as a result that provision is not in the bill we are considering today.

The original version of this bill also included a provision that would make it a crime for innocent Americans to provide humanitarian assistance to undocumented immigrants. This provision stated that it would constitute alien smuggling, an aggravated felony to ``encourage or induce a person to ..... remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority.''

This language is so broad and vague that it could conceivably constitute an aggravated felony for a priest to counsel an undocumented mother to stay in the United States with her U.S. citizen children, rather than abandoning them to return to her home country. And a domestic violence shelter that takes in a battered immigrant spouse without asking whether or not she has a green card could be guilty of alien smuggling.

Americans honor our heritage as a Nation of immigrants by welcoming and caring for new arrivals in our country. We should thank them for their service, not prosecute them.

The original version of the bill included an exception for humanitarian assistance, but it was far too narrow. It only would have protected individuals, not organizations, like churches, hospitals, schools, or unions. It would only have applied to ``emergency humanitarian assistance,'' not aid that is provided in non-emergency situations. It only would apply to assistance that is ``rendered without compensation or the expectation of compensation.'' And it would only cover humanitarian assistance, not other types of lawful activity like labor organizing.

Charitable organizations, like individuals, should be able to provide humanitarian assistance to immigrants without fearing prosecution. Churches, shelters, and schools should not be limited to providing only ``emergency'' assistance. A domestic violence shelter should not be forced to decide whether the Government would regard a situation as ``an emergency'' before they take in a battered woman. A non-profit hospital should not be required to provide medical care without compensation in order to avoid criminal prosecution. And labor unions should be able to organize workers without checking their green cards.

During the Judiciary Committee markup, I offered an amendment to this provision which was approved on a strong bipartisan vote. My amendment expanded the humanitarian exception to cover organizations. It made it explicit that humanitarian assistance includes, but is not limited to, housing, counseling, and victim services. It eliminated the provisions that limit the humanitarian assistance exception to emergency situations and to assistance that is rendered without compensation.

My amendment also eliminated the provision that would have made it a crime to encourage or induce an undocumented immigrant to ``remain in'' this country. As a result, the law remains the same: it is not a crime to engage in activities like labor organizing with undocumented immigrants, which could conceivably be construed by an overzealous prosecutor to constitute encouraging someone to remain in the United States.

Unfortunately, H.R. 4437, the immigration bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, still includes provisions that would criminalize hard-working immigrants and good Samaritans who provide humanitarian assistance to immigrants. This is an issue that I will monitor very closely. A conference report that criminalizes millions of undocumented immigrants and the innocent Americans who care for them will be unacceptable to me and many other Senators on both sides of the aisle.

This bill includes an amendment I offered to address a critical international problem: the dire shortage of healthcare personnel in the least developed nations of the world. Shortages of healthcare personnel are a global problem, but the brain drain of doctors, nurses, and other health workers from the poorest countries in the world to the richest is an urgent problem. According to the World Health Organization, Africa loses 20,000 health professionals a year as part of this brain drain. In Ethiopia, for example, there are now only 3 doctors and 20 nurses per 100,000 people. By comparison, there are 549 doctors and 773 nurses per 100,000 people in the United States. Experts say the shortage of health care personnel is the single biggest obstacle to fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa.

My amendment would take two measured steps to address the brain drain.

In exchange for financial support for their education or training, some foreign doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers have signed voluntary bonds or made promises to their governments to remain in their home countries or to return from their studies abroad and work in the healthcare profession.

The Durbin amendment will require people who are applying for legal permanent residency or for visas to work as health care workers in the United States to attest that they do not have an outstanding commitment to perform healthcare work in their home country that they have incurred in exchange for support for their education or training.

If an applicant has made such a commitment as part of a voluntary agreement, the applicant would be inadmissible until he or she has fulfilled this commitment. This will enable underdeveloped countries to benefit from the investments they have made in their citizens' medical education and training, and it will ensure that U.S. immigration policy respects commitments that immigrants have made. The Secretary of Homeland Security would be able to waive this requirement in certain compelling circumstances.

The amendment will also allow healthcare workers who are legal permanent residents of this country to provide healthcare assistance in developing countries for up to 36 months without prejudicing their own immigration status. During the period when the healthcare worker is providing assistance, he or she would be deemed to be physically present in the U.S. for purposes of naturalization.

Many immigrants who have come to this country would like to participate in the fight against global AIDS and other health crises. Under my amendment, they could lend their skills to developing nations without sacrificing their own American dreams.

These small but important steps will not stop the brain drain, but they will signal American leadership in the effort to help stem the migration of talent from the poorest countries in the world to the richest.

I am also pleased that this bill includes important reforms to the immigration court system that will improve the quality of judicial decision-making and help to protect due process.

Just as important, the bill does not include provisions from the original version of this bill that would have undermined judicial review of immigration appeals.

One provision would have stripped Federal appellate courts of their jurisdiction over immigration appeals and redirected these appeals to the Federal Circuit Court, a small specialized court whose caseload consists largely of patent Federal personnel, and Government contract cases.

Another would have assigned all immigration appeals to a single Federal Circuit judge, who would have acted as a gatekeeper to full appellate review. Unless this single judge issued a so-called ``certificate of reviewability,'' the appeal would be denied.

In recent years, Federal appeals courts judges around the country have been outspoken about the serious problems with our immigration court system.

Take the example of Judge Richard Posner, a highly-respected conservative who sits on the 7th Circuit in my home state of Illinois. Last year, Judge Posner issued an opinion in which he concluded, quote, ``the adjudication of [immigration] cases at the administrative level has fallen below the minimum standards of legal justice.''

After I reviewed the troubling provisions in the original version of this bill, I asked Judge Posner for his reaction to them. Judge Posner sent me a letter, which I circulated to the members of the Judiciary Committee. In his letter, Judge Posner concludes, ``Funneling all petitions for judicial review of [immigration] orders to the Federal Circuit and authorizing single judges of that court to deny petitions without further review are neither just nor effective solutions.''

In the aftermath of Judge Posner's letter, others stepped forward. The Judicial Conference, the policy-making arm of the Federal Judiciary, expressed their opposition to these provisions. John Walker, a Republican appointee who is the Chief Judge of the 2nd Circuit wrote in opposition to these provisions, concluding, ``Reassigning petitions for review to the Federal Circuit and allowing their disposal by only one judge will neither reduce the backlog more efficiently, nor protect the aliens' entitlement to adequate review. Indeed the reverse is likely.'' Dozens of other sitting and retired appellate judges, law school deans and professors expressed similar views.

In fact, as the Judicial Conference explains, the Fed. appeals courts are making progress in clearing the existing backlog of immigration appeals: ``These courts have worked diligently to establish court management procedures to assist them in effectively and efficiently handling these cases. These measures are enabling the courts to process significantly larger numbers of cases than in prior years.''

Judges and scholars have concluded that the solution to the problems in our immigration courts is to increase their capacity. As Judge Posner says, ``The only just and effective way of alleviating the burden of immigration appeals is by greatly augmenting the decisional capacity of the Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals.''

Similarly, Judge Walker concludes, ``The principal problem with the current system is that both the Immigration Judges and the BIA are impossibly overtaxed... I firmly believe the most effective and sound way of addressing this problem is by allocating sufficient resources to expand the capability of the Department of Justice, rather than altering the procedures for judicial review.''

After considering the input of Judge Posner and other judges and scholars, I decided to offer an amendment to strike the provisions that would consolidate immigration appeals to the Federal Circuit Court and give a single judge the power to deny an immigration appeal. In response, Chairman Specter decided to remove these provisions from the original bill and they are not in the bill that we are considering today.

As judges and scholars advised us, the bill does include provisions that would bolster the capacity of the immigration courts by, among other things, increasing the number of immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. I hope that the conference committee retains these improvements.

Most important, this bill takes a comprehensive approach that is tough but fair. We would improve our border security by increasing manpower and deploying new technology. We would crack down on the employers that are hiring millions of undocumented workers.

We need tougher enforcement, but in this bill we acknowledge something that the House of Representatives' bill does not: A strategy that focuses only on enforcement is doomed to failure.

In the last decade, we have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents and they have spent eight times as many hours patrolling the border. During the same period, the number of undocumented immigrants has doubled.

We need a realistic and reasonable approach to address the 12 million undocumented immigrants living here today.

As the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges, mass deportation is not an option. It is impractical and too expensive. Experts estimate that deporting all of the undocumented would cost over $200 billion--that's five times the annual budget of DHS.

Amnesty is not an option. It is not right to reward those who have broken the law with automatic citizenship.

If we are serious about reform, we need to offer a chance for immigrants who work hard and play by the rules to earn their way to citizenship over the course of many years.

Some people claim this is an amnesty. But under the Judiciary Committee bill, undocumented aliens can earn their way to citizenship only if they have a clean criminal record, have been employed since before January 2004, remain continuously employed going forward, pay a large fine, pass a security background check, pass a medical exam, learn English, learn U.S. history and government, pay all back taxes, and go to the ``back of line'' behind all applicants waiting for green cards.

This is an II-year path to earned citizenship, not an amnesty.

Frankly, if we do not give people the chance to earn their way to citizenship, we will not solve the problem of illegal immigration. People who are living here illegally will stay in the shadows instead of coming forward to register. This would hurt our national security and hurt American workers, who are being undercut by illegal labor.

And it is not the American way. It is important to remember that this is not just a national security issue and an economic issue--it is also a moral issue. Scripture teaches us to treat immigrants as we would like to be treated: ``The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.'' That is why the Catholic Church and so many other faith communities support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for hardworking immigrants who play by the rules.

Today is a historic day in the United States Senate, but there is still one more bridge to cross. We must reconcile this bill, which takes a comprehensive approach, with the harsh enforcement-only legislation passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The President says he supports comprehensive reform. Now he must exercise leadership to make it a reality.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I seek recognition, then, in reference to the bill before the Senate.

In the 200-plus year history of the Senate, there have been few moments when Senators were called to reflect on an issue of this gravity. This issue of immigration goes to the heart and soul of this Nation in which we live. It is an issue which has called forth from each side of the aisle the very best in debate, the very best in consideration, to tackle one of the most complicated issues that has ever faced our Nation.

But it is not a new debate. It is not a new issue. Almost from its outset, America has grappled with this issue of immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. We are a diverse nation. Look around your own neighborhood, at your church, at the gallery, look around at your place of business, and you will see people from all over the world who at one time or another came to this great Nation to call it home. With the exception of those Native Americans who were here when Christopher Columbus arrived, we are all newcomers to America. We are all strangers to this land. God has blessed us with this great opportunity to live in this land of opportunity.

That immigrant spirit has meant so much to what we are today and why we are different in this world, the courage of individual immigrants to leave behind everything--their home, their church, their relatives, their language, their culture, their friends--and to strike out for America, to find that opportunity which meant so much to them.

I am a product of that immigrant spirit. My mother was an immigrant to this country. She came to the United States 95 years ago as a 2-year-old infant, brought by her mother with her brother and sister. They came from Lithuania and landed in Baltimore, MD. They found their way across the United States by train to St. Louis and then by wagon across the Mississippi River on the old Eades Bridge to go to East St. Louis, IL, to join with other Lithuanian immigrants, immigrants who worked in the packinghouses, in the steel mills, in some of the hardest jobs you could find.

Our family's story is a story that has been repeated millions of times over. I am sure my mother never would have dreamed in those early times when she was struggling with her family to make an immigrant home that her son would one day represent the great State of Illinois. But that is the story of America. And it is a story we should honor.

When I consider this debate and everything that has come to it--and I understand there are serious differences of opinion--I know this great Nation cannot absorb every person who wants to come and live here. We are trying to find a reasonable way to deal with that yearning and spirit which drives so many people to our borders. I think we have a good bill. It is not perfect by any means, but it is a good bill, with enforcement at the borders, enforcement in the workplace, and a fair process for people to earn their way, over a long period of time, facing many obstacles, to legal status in America.

We would never have had that bill before the Senate were it not for the bipartisan leadership in the Senate. I especially commend Senator Ted Kennedy on our side of the aisle. What a warhorse. Whenever there is a battle in the Senate, you will find Ted Kennedy in the midst of it, bringing his special spirit, his special determination, as he has to this bill. His great ally in this cause has been Senator John McCain of Arizona of the opposite political faith but joining with him in this effort to come up with a good bill. And so many others whom I could go through the list and name, including Senator Specter, who led this effort in the Senate; Senator Leahy--without his help, we never would have brought this bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee; the four Republicans, Senators who stood up in the Senate Judiciary Committee and said they would join the Democrats, did make this a bipartisan effort. When I look at those people and what they brought to this debate, I see the best of the Senate.

It is rare--rare--that we come together, as we will see this afternoon, to face one of the most complicated and controversial issues in America and to do it in a bipartisan fashion, knowing full well that many people think our efforts are futile, that it will fall on deaf ears when we go over to conference with the House of Representatives.

I do not have that negative feeling. I really believe our friends in the House of Representatives can also rise to the occasion and can understand this special moment in history that should not be lost.

Within the pages of this bill is a special provision I have worked on for years, first with Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, and then with Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. It is known as the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is a provision which says if you were a child who came to the United States at least 5 years ago, and you graduate from high school and you are prepared to do one of two things--serve in the U.S. military or go on to work toward a college degree--we will give you a chance, a chance to become an American citizen over a long period.

We call it the DREAM Act because that is what it is. I have seen these young men and women in the city of Chicago and across the United States. They did not select the United States as a home. They were brought here by their parents. Many of them--most of them--are undocumented, but they still believe in their hearts they are Americans and can make this a better nation. The DREAM Act, which is included in this bill, will give them that chance.

When I go to visit Cristo Rey High School in the city of Chicago and see these wonderful young men and women who are defying the odds by completing their high school education, who want to go to college, who want to be our doctors and engineers and scientists and businesspeople and lawyers and elected officials, I think to myself: America cannot afford to waste this great talent and this great resource.

This bill gives them a chance. This bill gives them hope. This bill allows them to have dreams that will be fulfilled.

This is a great moment in the Senate. I look forward to this vote and the passage of this legislation. We will once again validate the American dream that, yes, we are a Nation of immigrants, and, yes, we are an accepting and welcoming Nation that understands the people who come to our shores and bring us diversity bring us strength, as Abraham Lincoln once said, to replenish the stream. These are the people who will build America's tomorrow. And these are the ones we serve with this legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/