Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Might I ask the Senator from Tennessee whether he talked with one of the Senators from South Carolina about this?

Mr. KYL. I do not have any objections as long as we return to the treaty so those who have amendments to the treaty will at least have their rights protected.

Mr. KYL. I will not object. I simply note that I think we will need an understanding that we will work with our other interested colleagues on a way forward on all of these issues. Having expressed that as a matter of good faith, I suspect we can do that.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, does my colleague anticipate that it is possible there would be a third vote tonight, depending upon whether Senator LeMieux is ready to have that vote?

Mr. KYL. At some point, just for the benefit of Members, there could theoretically be a third amendment tonight if Senator LeMieux is ready to have that vote and if there is no objection by any other Member. The other point, I inform my colleague, is I have the exact numbers of the five amendments I would like to get pending. Let me make that request at this time. They are amendments Nos. 4900, McCain amendment; 4893, Kyl amendment; 4892, Kyl amendment; 4867, Kyl amendment; and No. 4860, Kyl amendment. These are all proposed amendments to the resolution of ratification. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up five amendments to the resolution of ratification; provided further that these be the only amendments in order to the resolution of ratification at this time; and I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the amendments solicited, the Senate then resume consideration of the treaty. Before my colleague responds, I will also say this: I believe there are only four other amendments pending, and one of them is mine. I will agree to waive my right to bring that up. I cannot say for the others, and I need to talk with those Members during the vote. I do not know whether they would want votes on their amendments. In any event, there are no more than three of them. So it is a locked-in number.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wonder if I might engage in a colloquy briefly with my colleague from Massachusetts and then propound a unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, there are two votes scheduled on the Thune amendment and the Inhofe amendment. Have we locked in the LeMieux amendment yet?

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I say to Senator Thune, I was not aware it would be cut in half. I was aware it would be drastically reduced. That is a huge reduction, especially if the administration is unwilling to commit that we are even going to have a nuclear-capable bomber force in the next generation of our triad. They have been willing to say we have a great triad today. That is true as far as it goes. But part of that triad on the bomber force, for example, are B-52s that were designed-- when--back in the 1950s and built in the 1960s and 1970s. We have to replace all three legs of our triad. The decision has been made on the submarine. That is a good thing. But the decisions have not yet been made on the ICBM or on the bomber force. One of our concerns about modernization is that modernization of the nuclear warheads is fine--I mean, it is necessary. But if we do not also modernize the method by which we deliver those warheads, then modernizing our warheads is of little significance. The final point to Senator Thune's question, of course, is that other countries, including Russia and China, are all modernizing both their warheads and their delivery vehicles. So the United States does not want to get caught in the position where we are down to very few workable weapons, especially the bomber force, which, as the Senator noted, can also be called back, unlike the missiles that are launched either from ground or from submarine. Once they are launched, they are launched. At least a bomber can be called back.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. At 3 o'clock, but that we would be on the treaty, and if people did not want to talk about the don't ask, don't tell, then we would be on the McCain-Barrasso amendment, and that debate would conclude before 3 o'clock, and then the vote on the McCain-Barrasso amendment would follow the vote on the don't ask, don't tell.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. Is there anyone who would like to take the 25 seconds? Senator Levin will take the remaining 25 seconds?

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on the Democratic side?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I join in this colloquy? I do not think there needs to be any reference to time for debate. If I could just make a brief statement, I think the purpose for this unanimous consent agreement was to allow Members, by unanimous consent, to speak as in morning business on the don't ask, don't tell bill prior to a vote on that at----

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Could I be advised after I have spoken for 5 minutes. Mr. President, the DREAM Act is an attempt to cure a symptom of a problem. The symptom is that some children have been brought here illegally and they are suffering the consequences of being illegal aliens under American law. The problem is illegal immigration, which causes all manner of other bad results or problems. There are huge costs to society and any number of personal tragedies as a result of illegal immigration, the DREAM Act problems being only one subset. Just a few days ago, another Border Patrol agent was killed in the State of Arizona, illustrating again another kind of personal tragedy from illegal immigration. Unfortunately, treating symptoms of the problem might make us feel better because we are doing something for a particular group of folks, but it can allow the underlying problem to metastisize. Unfortunately, that is what is happening at our border. In some respects, the problems are getting worse, not better. Our citizens have a right to be safe and secure. Right now that situation, at least in my home State, does not pertain. So the first point I make is that we have to secure the border and stop illegal immigration. When we do, there will not be more problems for people associated with education that would be solved by the DREAM Act or other problems associated with illegal immigration. We will have excluded or we will have limited the nature of the problem to simply those who are here now and then, obviously, we can deal with that problem. That is the first point. Second, this bill is brought to us with no hearings or markup in a committee. It is the sixth version of a DREAM Act. I worked with Senator Durbin on another version of the DREAM Act in connection with the comprehensive immigration law. There are problems with this bill. Those problems need to be dealt with. But the bill comes before us under a condition in which there can be no amendments. There needs to be amendments. In the remaining 3 minutes or so I have, let me simply identify 10 particular problems we need to deal with and can only be dealt with by getting together and working it out by having amendments, which we can't do in the short time we have. The bill would immediately put an estimated 1 to 2 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, a number which will only grow because there is neither a cap nor sunset in the legislation. These people would then have access to a variety of other Federal programs, Federal welfare programs, student loans, Federal work study programs, and the like. Third, the entire time such individuals are in conditional status, they are not required to attend college or join the military. That is a common misperception. Only when such individuals seek to get lawful permanent resident status do they then have to proceed to complete the requirements for education or military. Fourth, the education and military requirements can be waived altogether, including for criminal activity--in other words, people who have a serious criminal background. Five, chain migration, which is something we dealt with in the legislation in 2009, would result from this legislation because once the citizenship is obtained, the individuals would have the right to legally petition for a green card for their family members. That means the numbers could easily triple from the 2 million plus estimated right now. Sixth, the bill has no age limit for aliens in removal status. This is supposed to be for children, but there is no age limit for people who are in removal proceedings and simply file an application for status under the DREAM Act to stay their removal. That has to be fixed. Seven, the bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing any alien who has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant status regardless of age or criminal status. In other words, it provides a safe haven for illegal immigrants, some of whom we would not want to allow to stay in the United States and should be subject to removal. Eighth, the DREAM Act as written provides that applicants who are currently ineligible under current law for status of a green card could nevertheless be eligible under this act. The reason is because some of the grounds of waiver that exist in this act do not exist under current law, but they could be waived for DREAM Act aliens--things such as document fraud, alien absconders, and marriage fraud. Nine, the act does not actually require that an illegal alien finish any type of degree other than a high school GPD. To receive green card status, the bill requires only that the alien complete 2 years at an institution of higher education. There is not a requirement that they ever receive a degree of any kind. The requirement is that they needn't receive a degree of any kind. This is important. For those who want to go into the military, there is the requirement for 2 years of service in the uniformed services. When you enlist in the service today, you are enlisting for a commitment of 4 years. Finally, removal, if it can be demonstrated as resulting in a hardship either to the applicant or to a spouse, the requirements for education can be waived altogether. So a sympathetic Secretary of Homeland Security could obviously create a situation in which there is essentially just a waiver for people to come into the United States. For these reasons, I urge colleagues to vote against cloture on the DREAM Act.